Why do you get to impose your beliefs on me?
US Supreme Court likely split on contraception case
Further, they want to exert their beliefs into an economically prudent (and capitalist) decision by the health insurance companies. Health insurance companies know that contraception is a cheaper alternative than birth. They also know that it is a necessary medical options for some health issues. That is another thing that I find galling: by denying access to contraception, this group interferes with medically recommended treatment. They are also infringing on a women's right to privacy: specifically, the medical decisions best left to a woman and her doctor and her family.
Accommodations have been made for their beliefs. But enough is enough. Denying health care is immoral. Where's the morality in that?
Here's the problem with these statements:
"They think that complicity is sinful," Chief Justice John Roberts said of plaintiffs.
House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan tweeted his support for the religious groups, saying that "We should do everything we can to let people live out their faith".
"They think that complicity is sinful," Chief Justice John Roberts said of plaintiffs.
House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan tweeted his support for the religious groups, saying that "We should do everything we can to let people live out their faith".
These two men assume that this group has a corner on morality. As a married mother of two, my husband and I decided it would be WRONG to have more than two children. It was a moral choice for us. Many factors came into play but it all boiled down to what was right, correct, the moral choice. We chose contraception until my health declined and I was forced to undergo a sterilization, which these people would also deny. I know this because I had to leave a Catholic hospital and undergo an additional, separate surgery because they wouldn't permit a sterilization. This surgery came at a time that I had to undergo no less than SIX operations in a three year period. It was IMMORAL that I was forced to undergo an additional surgery due to another group's "morals".
This group is opposed to a work-around that allows them to not pay for birth control:
"Anyone who has a religious objection ... doesn't have to pay for, refer, doesn't have to organize, doesn't have to accommodate that contraception coverage for his or her employees," says former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "What they are required to do is provide notification to the government or their insurer that they are opting out. That's it."
From NPR: "The government then steps in to fill the gap, and along with the insurer — for example, Blue Cross Blue Shield or a third-party administrator — makes birth control available, without charge, to employees, dependents or students who want birth control coverage."
"Anyone who has a religious objection ... doesn't have to pay for, refer, doesn't have to organize, doesn't have to accommodate that contraception coverage for his or her employees," says former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "What they are required to do is provide notification to the government or their insurer that they are opting out. That's it."
From NPR: "The government then steps in to fill the gap, and along with the insurer — for example, Blue Cross Blue Shield or a third-party administrator — makes birth control available, without charge, to employees, dependents or students who want birth control coverage."
This group is NOT paying for the birth control: This group wants to impose their beliefs on others.
Let me pause and say that this work -around is a much more generous allowance than others holding equally strong, moral positions receive when federal funding contravenes their religious beliefs. For example: Those opposed to execution, opposed to a war or any war, opposed to giving military surplus to local police, opposed to arming other countries, opposed to corporate subsidies, opposed to federal parks held in trust for the nation, opposed to the IRS or Department of Education. YET people with EQUALLY strong moral beliefs do not have a say in exactly how their tax dollars are used or directed. Yet this religious group wants to exert their beliefs over how tax dollars are spent. They are not being forced to spend THEIR money on contraception. From NPR (2016/03/23/471003272):
"The government instructs the insurer to deliver the contraception, instructs the insurer to deliver it with its own funds that are kept segregated from any premiums paid by the employers... the insurer can't even put birth control coverage information in the same envelope with other information."
Let me pause and say that this work -around is a much more generous allowance than others holding equally strong, moral positions receive when federal funding contravenes their religious beliefs. For example: Those opposed to execution, opposed to a war or any war, opposed to giving military surplus to local police, opposed to arming other countries, opposed to corporate subsidies, opposed to federal parks held in trust for the nation, opposed to the IRS or Department of Education. YET people with EQUALLY strong moral beliefs do not have a say in exactly how their tax dollars are used or directed. Yet this religious group wants to exert their beliefs over how tax dollars are spent. They are not being forced to spend THEIR money on contraception. From NPR (2016/03/23/471003272):
"The government instructs the insurer to deliver the contraception, instructs the insurer to deliver it with its own funds that are kept segregated from any premiums paid by the employers... the insurer can't even put birth control coverage information in the same envelope with other information."
Further, they want to exert their beliefs into an economically prudent (and capitalist) decision by the health insurance companies. Health insurance companies know that contraception is a cheaper alternative than birth. They also know that it is a necessary medical options for some health issues. That is another thing that I find galling: by denying access to contraception, this group interferes with medically recommended treatment. They are also infringing on a women's right to privacy: specifically, the medical decisions best left to a woman and her doctor and her family.
Accommodations have been made for their beliefs. But enough is enough. Denying health care is immoral. Where's the morality in that?
