In her letter defending the right of employers to withhold certain health insurance benefits, Charlotte Ralstin (April 1) states: “The idea that any employer would be forced to pay for something that goes against his moral objections is not only reprehensible but goes against the very fiber of this country.”
Really? If this is true then a Christian Scientist employer would be able to deny employees coverage for most medical care, including blood transfusions, because these go against that religion’s beliefs. Or Mormon business owners would be able to deny coverage for tobacco or alcohol related diseases. Or Islamic and Jewish employers would deny coverage for illnesses from eating diseased pork. Or an employer who is a Jehovah’s Witness could deny coverage to veterans because they don’t believe in military service. The list goes on and on.
Ms. Ralstin obviously has not given much thought to the ramifications of her position. She apparently does not understand that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. No one’s religious beliefs should be forced on another, in any way. That is also an inherent First Amendment right.
Much insight into Ms. Ralstin is evident in her statement that, “Never under any other president have our constitutional rights been so in jeopardy.” Again, really? Has she never heard of Abraham Lincoln or George W. Bush? Apparently not.
Edward F. Murphy
Mesa
VofReason posted at 1:36 pm on Tue, Apr 10, 2012.
That is percisely what she means. And what it also means is that people can choose not to work for those companies that don't provide those things in their Health Care Coverage. Isn't that what (gulp) freedom is? To my knowledge the government doesn't yet own all companies and so have a monopoly on where people have available to work- right?
VofReason posted at 1:55 pm on Tue, Apr 10, 2012.
Or are we running with the liberal opinion that people are much too stupid to make decisions on their own. Some how that they are surprised by the notion that they work for a Catholic organization that is a little scidish over paying for someone to murder their yet unborn child.
chatmandu002 posted at 4:07 pm on Tue, Apr 10, 2012.
Edward,
Not a good argument on your part simply because no one is being forced to work for an employer. And yes we are giving up our constitutional rights when the government takes more control of our life's.
abimopectore posted at 6:56 pm on Tue, Apr 10, 2012.
"She apparently does not understand that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion."
Incorrect. There is no such thing with regards to private employment. Our constitutional founders would ridicule such an argument given the fact that society then was not as secular as today since beliefs were taken more seriously then many folks unfortunately do today. If you're a government agency employer, then you could argue that you're possibly imposing certain moral values on someone. The best way to mold private companies behaviors if you don't agree with their positions is to not work for them. If they can't find employees, then they'll either live with this or go out of business.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:55 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.
It would appear that this difference of opinion centers around what "freedom of religion" is and is not. The "employer" side says that employers ought to have freedom to not provide benefits that would assist employees in living a life style contrary to the employer's faith or system of beliefs. Would that system be expanded to include political affiliation or perhaps preferences among the races or ethinc origins? I think not. But freedom of religion on this side of the argment is freedom to not be compelled to help others promote life styles the employer believes are contrary to its belief system.
On the "employee" side, the argument says we must keep the employer's religion and belief system out of the employee-employer relationship, thus avoiding a return to Salem Massachusetts and the Witch trials. Not only can the "state" support a religion, but the employer cannot either! That seems to go a bit too far.
Try this "compromise" on for size. If the employer chooses to become an "non-corporal" entity, one we call a corporation, there being no system of faith incorporating "non-corporal" members, it cannot exercise its own system of beliefs. "It" cannot claim that 'It" has any! And where Cathlic Health Services West is a corporation, even a non-profit corporation, it may not withhold the providing of such health insurance coverages as proscription drugs for birth control.
But if a sole proprietor, partnership or limited liability partnership (of real people, not foney business entities) wishes to hire non-members, they either must state up front what they will and will not cover as a condition of employment or "forever hold their peace!" [I admitt having borrowed this phrase from a religious service.]
Furthermore, being a Mormon myself, I know that we do not excommunicate members for smoking or drinking. So church employees need not fear being uncovered for illnesses which might have been caused by those activities. In my system of beliefs, I love these people just the same!
Well, how does this shoe fit? Shouldn't we begin wearing it?
Arizona Willie posted at 7:55 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.
VofReason, people DON'T always have the choice of where to work or which employer to work for.
Many communities are lucky to have ONE large employer, many don't have ANY large employers only some small mon and pop stores. Only big city people have much luxury in choice of employers. And even then their choice is often limited if they have a specialty field of employment.
Most people can't make it even 6 months without a paycheck and if they have been out of work for more than a week or two they HAVE to take the first job they can get or they are in financial trouble. Partly their fault for living too well, perhaps, but also the fault of survival wages. Most people only make enough for a place to sleep and enough to eat to come back to work the next day. $10 / hour is pretty much a survival wage these days if you have any family responsibilities.
Very very few people have the option to interview an employer and if he says the company doesn't believe in contraception ( or blood transfusions or any other medical procedure you choose to name ) getting up and walking out.
And, why is it that only the employer's values count? In most companies the employee has to pay part of the premiums for their medical insurance. Why doesn't the employees values count? His money goes into the pot just like the employers. Why can't the employee get contraception for the part of the premium they pay?
This is just a means of forcing one persons religion / beliefs on another. Actually, the boss man of the company gets to force his religion on ALL employees. That could number in the tens of thousands if someone like the CEO of GE or General Motors decided they didn't believe in some medical procedure -- that it was against his religion -- he could prevent THOUSANDS of people from getting that procedure.
This legislation is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
chuckles3 posted at 8:39 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.
Nice letter. Well thought out...was it written in crayon?
Arizona Willie posted at 9:27 am on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.
No chuckes3, I aimed at your level so I used finger paints -- you aren't ready for crayons yet.
VofReason posted at 1:48 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.
Wrong again. People always have a choice in the US. Now if you live in Cuba you don't (even though they have wonderful healthcare- supposedly). You always have a choice of where you work, whether in the town your in or another. It may not be easy, but you have a choice.
samkat posted at 6:03 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.
A simple solution is that if the employer feels compelled to deny coverage then if they should be compelled to give up their tax exempt status. I vote for loss of the tax exempt status as we need the tax dollars. They do have other alternatives such as providing vouchers the employees could use to purchase health insurance or consigning their health care to a third party who would then be the impartial health care dispenser. Now, what if Boeing or Intel decided to deny health coverage based on some top management personal convictions, there would be hell to pay.
DannyHaszard posted at 9:54 pm on Wed, Apr 11, 2012.
Religions need to adapt and accommodate.
Jehovah's Witnesses blood transfusion confusion
Jehovahs Witnesses take blood products now in 2012.
They take all fractions of blood.This includes hemoglobin, albumin, clotting factors, cryosupernatant and cryopoor too, and many, many, others.
If one adds up all the blood fractions the JWs takes, it equals a whole unit of blood. Any, many of these fractions are made from thousands upon thousands of units of donated blood.
Jehovah’s Witnesses can take Bovine *cows blood* as long as it is euphemistically called synthetic Hemopure.
Jehovah's Witnesses now accept every fraction of blood except the membrane of the red blood cell. JWs now accept blood transfusions.
The fact that the JW blood issue is so unclear is downright dangerous in the emergency room.
--
Danny Haszard http://www.ajwrb.org
JW blood reform site
Accuracy posted at 8:43 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
Charlotte Ralstin’s Letter: “Important election coming for religious freedoms” concerned moral objections?
The only way to properly answer these kind of questions is to begin the discussion with another question: Is life and moral objections sacred or are they not? If they are, then God has something to say about these things. If not, then everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter.
In any society that is governed by the rule of law, some form of morality is always imposed. It's inescapable and it’s also a complicated subject.
Many Americans disagree with the Obama administration's mandate that religious employers provide birth control for their workers. And many Americans strongly support an exemption – saying religious groups should be able to opt out of the mandate if they have religious or moral objections.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:13 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
accuracy, I don't see why religious groups should be allowed to opt out of providing the same medical insurance other groups do.
People who don't believe in paying income tax are not allowed to opt out.
People who don't believe in war aren't allowed to not pay the taxes they figure go toward war.
People who don't believe in war were not allowed to refuse the Draft back when we had it.
No one has yet explained, or even tried to, why the employees beliefs have no bearing or weight in the decision ... only the employer. The employee usually pays part of the premium for his medical insurance ...so why don't his / her beliefs count?
Arizona Willie posted at 11:25 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
Vof Reason, saying people always have a choice because they COULD choose to uproot their family and move somewhere else in the country if a potential employer didn't provide the medical insurance the employee desired is NOT a realistic choice.
Nor should an employee be forced to perhaps sell their home and take their kids out of school and move to a different city to seek employment where the employer was willing to allow the medical insurance company to provide contraception ( or whatever medical procedure the employer doesn't believe in ).
When a person is rooted in a community there is no justification in forcing that person to move because of someone else's belief.
You're not only forcing the employers religion on the employees you are causing great economic harm to the employee because of the employer.
The employee only has the choice to move or go celibate for the rest of their working life in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies .... and that defies human nature. Not gonna happen.
Saying people always have a choice is unrealistic at best.
SOMETIMES people have a choice. MANY times they don't.
It's like telling a right winger that is very unhappy having Obama as President that they don't have to live with him as President --- they can move to a country where they like the politics better.
Or telling someone who claims taxes are theft that they don't have to live here ... they can move to Somalia where there is no organized government.
There's always a choice as you claim.
Unrealistic but technically probably true.
Accuracy posted at 1:01 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
President Obama is forcing Americans to purchase pro-abortion health insurance under penalty of law, and he has ignored the Founder's framework and issued a stinging warning to an independent Supreme Court.
A new ABC-Washington Post survey (poll) shows that 53 percent of Americans now oppose President Obama's health care reform law.
Governors of 26 states have filed suit against the law and the individual mandate, which forces every American to buy health insurance, charging the reform is unconstitutional.
And last month the U.S. Supreme Court heard three days of “ObamaCare” oral arguments, but won't release its decision until June.
CSalafia posted at 2:36 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
Accuracy said: "President Obama is forcing Americans to purchase pro-abortion health insurance under penalty of law..."
Nope.
Wrong.
"Accuracy" would seem to be a misnomer.
Accuracy posted at 5:03 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.
CSalafia posted: Nope. Wrong.
But, members of the nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom and Pro-lifers are focusing on the abortion issue. And they are furious that President Obama’s pro-abortion health insurance law will force them to finance abortion, birth control, and controversial emergency contraception.
Forcing them to pay for something that they don't believe in . . . A health care plan with mandate that will require several health insurance plans to pay a monthly fee for abortion coverage, and forces every taxpayer to help pay to end the life of an unborn child.
Meanwhile, to mock the "40 Days of Life" Pro-life campaign (that has rallied some half million people to pray for the unborn) – a Planned Parenthood group in California is now launching a prayer campaign in support of abortion, called "40 Days of Prayer: Supporting Women Everywhere."
k33j88 posted at 8:35 am on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.
Over 80 thousand pages of the federal register, and now this intrusion. No thank you. I'm a rugged individualist, proud of my/our American Exceptionalism. Believer in State's Sovereignty and limited federal authority. Long live the Tea Party!
VofReason posted at 12:52 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.
Always hard to break through to liberals with logic. Please explain where in the Contitution that it states that people have a right to live where ever and everyone around them must cowtow to make sure they have a job that provides equal abortions to a Federal job. I must have missed that in civics.