Six Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate

[Anonymous]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/08/421242/nations-largest-catholic-university-we-offer-a-prescription-contraceptive-benefit/?mobile=nc

DePaul University already offers prescription contraception coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/08/421242/nations-largest-catholic-university-we-offer-a-prescription-contraceptive-benefit/?mobile=nc

DePaul University already offers prescription contraception coverage.

Excellent point. As a Catholic, you can "opt-out" of using contraception. As a Catholic employee, you can refuse to use contraception. As a Catholic employer, you have *no* right to "opt" your non-Catholic employees out of contraception coverage. Sorry, there's no "there" here.

[Anonymous]

http://mynorthwest.com/813/624324/An-assault-on-religion
Dave Ross
An assault on religion

some interesting points

[Anonymous]

Excellent point. As a Catholic, you can "opt-out" of using contraception. As a Catholic employee, you can refuse to use contraception. As a Catholic employer, you have *no* right to "opt" your non-Catholic employees out of contraception coverage. Sorry, there's no "there" here.

But this is the heart of the issue and the violation of the Consitution's protections of religious freedom: why do Catholic employers have to pay their empoloyer-portion of their employees' healthcare to cover contraception when it violates their fundamental religious tenents? It's unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. This now, what's next?? Just because you agree with the specifics of contraception coverage now, the next erosion of rights under the Constitution you may not be as happy about. It's a bigger issue, folks, than just contraception.

[Anonymous]

http://mynorthwest.com/813/624324/An-assault-on-religion
Dave Ross
An assault on religion

some interesting points

Nothing really new here and no contradiction in the Bishops' historical positions versus the one they are taking now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Excellent point. As a Catholic, you can "opt-out" of using contraception. As a Catholic employee, you can refuse to use contraception. As a Catholic employer, you have *no* right to "opt" your non-Catholic employees out of contraception coverage. Sorry, there's no "there" here.

But this is the heart of the issue and the violation of the Consitution's protections of religious freedom: why do Catholic employers have to pay their empoloyer-portion of their employees' healthcare to cover contraception when it violates their fundamental religious tenents? It's unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. This now, what's next?? Just because you agree with the specifics of contraception coverage now, the next erosion of rights under the Constitution you may not be as happy about. It's a bigger issue, folks, than just contraception.

Wrong. There is no violation of "fundamental religious tenets" to deny your employee the right to follow their conscience. You're not allowed to skirt the law because you're holding your employees to your standard. As you say, where does it end? Are churches free to discriminate against black employees? Are religiously operated public buses entitled to discriminate against female customers? Are owners of used car dealerships entitled to deny health care coverage to their employees because the employer feels it's a violation of their religious tenets? How many levels down does this exemption go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Excellent point. As a Catholic, you can "opt-out" of using contraception. As a Catholic employee, you can refuse to use contraception. As a Catholic employer, you have *no* right to "opt" your non-Catholic employees out of contraception coverage. Sorry, there's no "there" here.

But this is the heart of the issue and the violation of the Consitution's protections of religious freedom: why do Catholic employers have to pay their empoloyer-portion of their employees' healthcare to cover contraception when it violates their fundamental religious tenents? It's unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. This now, what's next?? Just because you agree with the specifics of contraception coverage now, the next erosion of rights under the Constitution you may not be as happy about. It's a bigger issue, folks, than just contraception.

What if ingesting hallucinogenic drugs was an integral part of your religion? That was exactly the case the Supreme court considered, and concluded that American society can choose to work around your religious issues (to a degree) but the constitution doesn't guarantee you the ability to ignore laws of general applicability, except where they are interfering in the inner workings of the church (for example, of course they can't force Catholic congregations to hire women to service as priests).

You can't stand up and say "I'm a Quaker and paying $10,000 a year in taxes to support the Defense Department violates my deeply held religious beliefs, so I going to donate that money to a soup kitchen." Lots of people's moral beliefs get stepped on in lots of ways by the government, but that doesn't mean the constitution guarantees you the ability to opt out of those rules.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

Excellent point. As a Catholic, you can "opt-out" of using contraception. As a Catholic employee, you can refuse to use contraception. As a Catholic employer, you have *no* right to "opt" your non-Catholic employees out of contraception coverage. Sorry, there's no "there" here.

But this is the heart of the issue and the violation of the Consitution's protections of religious freedom: why do Catholic employers have to pay their empoloyer-portion of their employees' healthcare to cover contraception when it violates their fundamental religious tenents? It's unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. This now, what's next?? Just because you agree with the specifics of contraception coverage now, the next erosion of rights under the Constitution you may not be as happy about. It's a bigger issue, folks, than just contraception.

How many threads are you going to take up by making the same grand statements and never responding to counterarguments? Can we just start them all up right now to get them out of the way?

It's obvious you wannabe martyrs aren't going to hear anything challenging your biases, inconsistencies, and hypocrisy. If you want to enjoy an echo chamber, go find yourself a nice, cozy, conservative Catholic board.

[Anonymous]

The fundamental issue here is that in the US we have a system where the employer sponsors healthcare. If the Catholic Church has a problem with that, they should be fighting with all their might for universal single-payer healthcare in the US. Either that or get out of the business of employing people.

It's the exact same thing with churches and marriage. If you have a problem with gays getting married, your problem is with the entanglement between church and state that arises from religious institutions performing civil marriages, signing licenses, etc...

If churches don't like the idea of gay marriage, they should be fighting tooth and nail for universal civil unions (for hetero- and homosexual couples). Couples would get a civil union from the state, and any church that wanted could bless that union with a "marriage".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Excellent point. As a Catholic, you can "opt-out" of using contraception. As a Catholic employee, you can refuse to use contraception. As a Catholic employer, you have *no* right to "opt" your non-Catholic employees out of contraception coverage. Sorry, there's no "there" here.

But this is the heart of the issue and the violation of the Consitution's protections of religious freedom: why do Catholic employers have to pay their empoloyer-portion of their employees' healthcare to cover contraception when it violates their fundamental religious tenents? It's unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. This now, what's next?? Just because you agree with the specifics of contraception coverage now, the next erosion of rights under the Constitution you may not be as happy about. It's a bigger issue, folks, than just contraception.

What if ingesting hallucinogenic drugs was an integral part of your religion? That was exactly the case the Supreme court considered, and concluded that American society can choose to work around your religious issues (to a degree) but the constitution doesn't guarantee you the ability to ignore laws of general applicability, except where they are interfering in the inner workings of the church (for example, of course they can't force Catholic congregations to hire women to service as priests).

You can't stand up and say "I'm a Quaker and paying $10,000 a year in taxes to support the Defense Department violates my deeply held religious beliefs, so I going to donate that money to a soup kitchen." Lots of people's moral beliefs get stepped on in lots of ways by the government, but that doesn't mean the constitution guarantees you the ability to opt out of those rules.

This is the argument that really needs to be addressed. And I don't see any compelling answer to it.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:What if ingesting hallucinogenic drugs was an integral part of your religion? That was exactly the case the Supreme court considered, and concluded that American society can choose to work around your religious issues (to a degree) but the constitution doesn't guarantee you the ability to ignore laws of general applicability, except where they are interfering in the inner workings of the church (for example, of course they can't force Catholic congregations to hire women to service as priests).

You can't stand up and say "I'm a Quaker and paying $10,000 a year in taxes to support the Defense Department violates my deeply held religious beliefs, so I going to donate that money to a soup kitchen." Lots of people's moral beliefs get stepped on in lots of ways by the government, but that doesn't mean the constitution guarantees you the ability to opt out of those rules.

I raised this days ago in the other thread, and again since. Others have raised similar things. They've never responded; they just keep making the same statements. They* are persecuted, bleeding on the cross - why do we deny their suffering?!.

*"They" being the those on that side in these threads, not all Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Excellent point. As a Catholic, you can "opt-out" of using contraception. As a Catholic employee, you can refuse to use contraception. As a Catholic employer, you have *no* right to "opt" your non-Catholic employees out of contraception coverage. Sorry, there's no "there" here.

But this is the heart of the issue and the violation of the Consitution's protections of religious freedom: why do Catholic employers have to pay their empoloyer-portion of their employees' healthcare to cover contraception when it violates their fundamental religious tenents? It's unconstitutional and a very slippery slope. This now, what's next?? Just because you agree with the specifics of contraception coverage now, the next erosion of rights under the Constitution you may not be as happy about. It's a bigger issue, folks, than just contraception.

A PP below responded perfectly, but it bears repeating:

the constitution doesn't guarantee you the ability to ignore laws of general applicability, except where they are interfering in the inner workings of the church (for example, of course they can't force Catholic congregations to hire women to service as priests).

A different point, however, is screaming that "it's a slippery slope!!" is counterproductive. A slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Since you seem to have only a passing acquaintance with the concept of logic, let me explain - a logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. It dupes people into incorrect conclusions. Other examples are the red herring, the straw man, the ad hominem attack, loaded questions, quoting out of context - there are dozens. For example, if I were to say, "you're an idiot for citing the slippery slope as support for your argument," that would be a logical fallacy. By the same token, claiming something is a slippery slope just reveals that you can't articulate a true logical basis for your position. (I should also note that the slippery slope, repurposed as the Domino Theory, is responsible for decades of catastrophic U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia.)

Thank you, Dr. Ciulla.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Since it's far more interesting than what the martyrs are saying...

Aren't you mixing logical fallacies with...I guess I'd call them "rhetorical fallacies," or just fallacies? Of those you listed, only the slippery slope looks like a reasoning error as opposed to a rhetorical ploy.

I'm also interested in your assertion about slippery slopes. Are you saying that it's never a valid idea?

Along those line, the domino theory may have led to bad policy and may even have been flat-out wrong, but I don't see an inherent flaw in the reasoning.

[Anonymous]

I see a distinction in what is being required of employers here vs. taxpayer dollars going to support the general functions of government. I don't have the specific case cites, but I think the cases were individuals have sought to be exempt from general federal income tax on the basis of their pacifist beliefs have not been upheld because there is no specific dollar amount of that tax payment that can be determined to be supporting the defense department. In effect, the government can say your specific tax dollars may not be going to the defense department, but your neighbor's are. On the other hand, in this instance, specific, individual employers are required to purchase specific coverage for the specific purpose of covering contraceptive care and offering it in their health plans. I see that as the distinction between these situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a distinction in what is being required of employers here vs. taxpayer dollars going to support the general functions of government. I don't have the specific case cites, but I think the cases were individuals have sought to be exempt from general federal income tax on the basis of their pacifist beliefs have not been upheld because there is no specific dollar amount of that tax payment that can be determined to be supporting the defense department. In effect, the government can say your specific tax dollars may not be going to the defense department, but your neighbor's are. On the other hand, in this instance, specific, individual employers are required to purchase specific coverage for the specific purpose of covering contraceptive care and offering it in their health plans. I see that as the distinction between these situations.

I don't think that distinction is true (i.e., I don't think the court cases care about the "traceability" of your tax dollars to things you are morally opposed to-- you need to pay them or you will go to jail). However, even if it was true, I don't think it holds up. An employer who pay health insurance premiums to an insurance company for a set of benefits is purchasing insurance, not specific items of healthcare. It may be that they would offer contraception to all of their employees and not one of them would take them up on it. On the other hand, it may be that some of their premium dollars would be used by the insurance company to pay a pharmacy when someone insured by another employer used insurance to buy contraceptives. Which of those is morally "worse" for the bishops? Where does it ever end?

What if I am a Jehovah's Witness and morally opposed to blood transfusion-- can I refuse to offer my employees insurance that would cover procedures or emergency room care that involves (or might involve) blood transfusion? What if I am Christian Scientist? Can I refuse to cover any medical care at all, beyond prayer?