religious freedom vs human rights

[MormonVideoGame]

Quote

“The lawsuit challenges a mandate, recently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, that dramatically redefines religious ministry.  Under the mandate, which requires employers to provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, no organization may qualify for exemption as a ’religious employer’ unless its purpose is the inculcation of religious beliefs and it primarily serves and hires people of its own faith.  But here at Catholic Charities, our purpose is to fulfill our faith’s calling to serve all of our community’s poor and needy, regardless of their faith.  The service that defines our religious mission should not disqualify us from being recognized as a religious organization. 

https://www.catholiccharitiesdc.org/religiousfreedom

VS 

Quote

"No country in the last 50 years has emerged from poverty without expanding access to contraceptives" - Gates Foundation 

Can't "provide coverage" be seen like a tax because it's a mandate? Many religious people think the Affordable Care Act is a tax. 

Jesus had no problem with taxes, see Mark 12:17

Note: Not an attack on a religious organization 

[Kenngo1969]

So, you're comparing the Obama Administration to the Lord of the Universe?   Oooh-kay.  And "Can't 'provide coverage' be seen like a tax because it's a mandate?" quite frankly is lazy logic.  It's the near-equivalent of saying, "Government is telling us to do this, and government wouldn't tell us to do anything bad, so ..."  Very Orwellian.  (The majority's logic in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius wasn't much better, so you're in good company.)  Even when government objectives are benevolent or benign, how it accomplishes those objectives still matters.  

The definition of "religious employer" favored by the Obama Administration is entirely too narrow.  It opens the door to all manner of heretofore unforeseen infringements on religious liberty which the Constitution's Free Exercise clause along with its Framers has and had never contemplated.  And "access to contraceptives" =/= necessarily, that government should pay for them.  I don't want to be forced to pay for your and your girlfriend's/boyfriend's/husband's/wife's reproductive choices, and "access to contraceptives" hasn't been an issue in this country since Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).  If you can't be bothered to make a five-minute trip to Walmart before you get busy with someone (or to have a sufficient stock of the relevant product(s) on hand beforehand), that's not anyone else's problem.  And you can't very well remain consistent if you believe "government should stay out of people's bedrooms," on the one hand (my phrase), while, on the other hand, adding the caveat, "except when I want it to pay for contraception for me/her/us."

[Darren10]

""No country in the last 50 years has emerged from poverty without expanding access to contraceptives" - Gates Foundation  "

 

I would also venture to say that no country in the last 50 years has emerged from poverty without expanding drinking water and access to food. Neither of which require a violation of freedom of religion, neither should the government force a religious institution to violate a sacred tenet of its faith. Not in the United States at least.

 

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

""No country in the last 50 years has emerged from poverty without expanding access to contraceptives" - Gates Foundation  "

 

I would also venture to say that no country in the last 50 years has emerged from poverty without expanding drinking water and access to food. Neither of which require a violation of freedom of religion, neither should the government force a religious institution to violate a sacred tenet of its faith. Not in the United States at least.

 

Your comment would only make sense if there was a faith group who was opposed to people having access to clean water and food. Since there's not such a group .... 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Your comment would only make sense if there was a faith group who was opposed to people having access to clean water and food. Since there's not such a group .... 

I have been told that Soviet atheism was a state religion and that they fluoridated our water. Bad Religion!

[thesometimesaint]

If you don't want to take contraceptives; don't. What you can't do is use the government to force others not to take them.

[Darren10]

22 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Your comment would only make sense if there was a faith group who was opposed to people having access to clean water and food. Since there's not such a group .... 

I'll form one.

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have been told that Soviet atheism was a state religion and that they fluoridated our water. Bad Religion!

To track its people by satellite no doubt.

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you don't want to take contraceptives; don't. What you can't do is use the government to force others not to take them.

???

You mean "deprive" people of their "right" to contraceptives?

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying people don't have a right to contraceptives if they want them?

[Darren10]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Are you saying people don't have a right to contraceptives if they want them?

Sure they do but they do not have a right to make others provide it for them .

[Calm]

In reference to the Gates' quote:

Coorelation is not causation.  It could be greater levels of education that bring a country out of poverty.  And people who are more educated generally then have fewer children, in part through using contraceptives.  Since the educated usually have a greater say in government operation as well as charity, medical, etc. organizations, access to contraceptives goes up.  Pointing to contraceptives as if the definite cause of lower poverty levels is inappropriate.  It may be just one of the numerous results of coming out of poverty.  Do they have examples of highly educated countries that do not have access to contraceptives or examples of other variables that have been pointed to as high contributors to poverty in countries with low access to contraceptives? 

PS:  I think access to contraceptives is a very good idea.  It may indeed have an effect on poverty.  It does, I believe, have a significant effect on women's health and the health of their families.  (see link below about IOM report, can't find an active link for the report itself). Contraceptives are highly preferable in my view to abortion as well.  I just don't think people should use sloppy statistics.  Why can't women's health be a strong enough reason to promote contraceptive use?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/746676

Edited February 16, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24988652

 

Quote

J Policy **** Manage. 2014 Summer;33(3):602-22.

The effects of contraception on female poverty.

Browne SP1, LaLumia S.

Author information

Abstract

Poverty rates are particularly high among households headed by single women, and childbirth is often the event preceding these households' poverty spells. This paper examines the relationship between legal access to the birth control pill and female poverty. We rely on exogenous cross-state variation in the year in which oral contraception became legally available to young, single women. Using census data from 1960 to 1990, we find that having legal access to the birth control pill by age 20 significantly reduces the probability that a woman is subsequently in poverty. We estimate that early legal access to oral contraception reduces female poverty by 0.5 percentage points, even when controlling for completed education, employment status, and household composition.

 

[Calm]

While I do not believe anyone has a right to expect the government or anyone else to foot the bill so they can have either sex or children, it may be cost effective for the government to do so.  Given the increase in the health of women and their families who have access to contraception, it may be cheaper in the long run to provide free contraception rather than pay for increased health care needs as well as lost productivity due to poorer health.  Standing on the principle of "no right to contraception" seems foolish to me, especially if it could also help lower abortion rates.  This is assuming that health care and lost productivity costs are higher than contraceptive costs.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24988652

 

 

Lol, I should have checked the research first.  Actually I should have checked the quote.  What bugged me was the absolute statement without any evidence provided to back up the conclusion.  Perhaps it is there in the actual text.  Here I am condemning the Gates Foundation for laziness and I am a prime example of it myself.  I withdraw that aspect of my complaint.  I do think the OP should have provided stats rather than just the quote to support his position.

Just to be clear, I do believe healthy women are needed to have strong, financially independent families overall.  I am an exception where my own disability has not impaired our financial status because my husband makes more than enough to cover all costs.  But otoh, I am not an exception because this is in part due to limiting the family to two kids since pregnancies caused my disorder to ramp up significantly.  In fact, if I had known the actual disorder, there is a good chance we would have had only one, so I am glad I didn't find out until later.

Plus the two quotes don't really work, imo, as counters.  One is about a religious position, the other is an economic position. 

Forcing a company to provide contraceptives over longterm established relgious teachings when there is the option of the government or a charity providing the benefit is wrong, imo.  Even if poverty can be decreased through contraceptive access, it doesn't automatically follow that companies should be required to provide them for their employees.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

While I do not believe anyone has a right to expect the government or anyone else to foot the bill so they can have either sex or children, it may be cost effective for the government to do so.  Given the increase in the health of women and their families who have access to contraception, it may be cheaper in the long run to provide free contraception rather than pay for increased health care needs as well as lost productivity due to poorer health.  Standing on the principle of "no right to contraception" seems foolish to me, especially if it could also help lower abortion rates.  This is assuming that health care and lost productivity costs are higher than contraceptive costs.

I have to disagree with you to some extent. I believe in the use of contraceptives, and we use them. I also agree that to some extent it is a woman's health issue - but traditionally, that places it outside the realms of federal powers and into the realm of state powers. Traditionally, states have been recognized as retaining the power to regulate general health and welfare although these powers have been greatly eroded as of late by a federal government and judiciary that seems to believe the states did not retain any powers under the constitution. 

To the extent that some contraceptives involve the need for a prescription, I think they may legitimately fall under health insurance. Otherwise, they are an over-the-counter type thing available to everyone. To the extent that non-married people want to fornicate, I see no reason I should pay for their contraceptives. They presumably have some money and can go buy o-t-c contraceptives just as easily as paying an insurance co-pay for all their other benefits anyway. Nevertheless, I see providing free contraception to be up to the states, and not the federal government.

Edited February 16, 2017 by RevTestament

[Calm]

When I said government, I am speaking generally and not to a specific process.  It could be feds, state, city government...whatever group that finds it can save money in the long run by handing out contraceptives in some way (other than forcing others to do it for them if they have a moral reason to refuse).

Anyone have stats on the poverty levels of families/kids who have unmarried parents vs. those who parents were married at time of conception, total numbers as well as percentages to see which costs the government (local, state, and feds) more?

PS:  I am not progovernment providing services just because it is cost effective or pretty much any reason save a service is a necessity and it is the only one truly capable of providing it (think defense, depending on private citizens or charities to provide defense seems likely to lead to an overthrow of government).  I am just suggesting cost effectiveness should be taken into account when the government is debating what to do.  In the case of contraception, I see charities concerned with poverty and health as a much better source, but our society has done a crap job of teaching delaying sex until marriage, so I do believe there is a societal responsibility to deal with the consequences and that includes citizens who do a good job teaching sex should exist within the confines of marriage to their kids or others contributing through taxes in most cases as they will benefit from the results of a society with less poverty.  Only where there is a belief they become morally responsible in some way for what they consider an immoral act should there be consideration of exemption.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

VS 

Can't "provide coverage" be seen like a tax because it's a mandate? Many religious people think the Affordable Care Act is a tax. 

Jesus had no problem with taxes, see Mark 12:17

Note: Not an attack on a religious organization 

This thinking is the very reason I oppose your apparent suggestion. By this logic the federal government can force you to buy anything under the guise it is a tax, and they have power to tax. The recent SCOTUS decision on the subject was politically motivated and should be overturned. It was an absolute joke. It is an unconstitutional infringement on my personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution to force me to buy whatever the federal government wants. Now they can force me to buy car insurance if I want to drive on federally provided roads, but no one is forcing me to drive. This new one - the Affordable Care Act - is a "tax" for just living. There is no interstate commerce involved. No enumerated power under the constitution giving the federal government this right so it got stuffed under a power to tax. It's an absolute travesty. It can also be seen as an imposition on my religious freedom not to support things I have a religious belief against - although I have no religious belief against contraception (except possibly where it is being used for a late term abortion for example) - The Catholic institution does - and I don't believe it is right to force them to support something they have religious convictions against. It is like forcing a Catholic priest to marry homosexuals or a Catholic hospital to perform abortions. Under the First Amendment: "  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Can I freely exercise my religion if Congress is forcing me by law to do something against my religious beliefs? That seems to infringe against my First Amendment rights.  

I personally believe fornication is a sin, and I don't wish to pay so that others will be provided the contraceptives to be enabled to sin. I feel it is an affront to my religious liberties. 

You seem to be quoting this in support of a pro-insurance-provided-contraception:

Quote

"No country in the last 50 years has emerged from poverty without expanding access to contraceptives" - Gates Foundation 

Are you saying the US is poor? The obvious problem I see with your analysis is that the US expanded access to contraceptives without making them an insurance provided benefit. I go buy o-t-c contraceptives at the store without making anyone else pay for them. The US simply has a free market system which allows "expanding access" to contraceptives and everything else that is legal. Isn't that wonderful? And yet, you want to force providing them onto others? - at least if I understand the implications of your OP.

Edited February 16, 2017 by RevTestament

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Are you saying the US is poor? 

No, but the US does have a high poverty level compared to many other countries, for example compared to Austria.  See CIA stats 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html

2 hours ago, Calm said:

but our society has done a crap job of teaching delaying sex until marriage, so I do believe there is a societal responsibility to deal with the consequences and that includes citizens who do a good job teaching sex should exist within the confines of marriage contributing in most cases as they will benefit from the results.  

but some religions find sex before marriage acceptable, where is the religious freedom? 

and can you please point to some peer-reviewed evidence from a respected journal that proves sex before marriage is best for society. 

I need evidence please, because countries like Austria and Netherlands seem to contradict your view. Austria and Netherlands have a low poverty level, and I don't think most people obey the law of chastity in those countries. 

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

To the extent that non-married people want to fornicate, I see no reason I should pay for their contraceptives

some religions are against contraceptives for married couples, so what is your point? 

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

, neither should the government force a religious institution to violate a sacred tenet of its faith. Not in the United States at least.

 So religious freedom is more important than human rights? What happens during a recession when it is not easy to find a job? 

I have a question, is it okay for 7-eleven employers to force their Mormon employees to sell beer? What does a Mormon do in that situation? get another job in times of need? 

Edited February 16, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

No, but the US does have a high poverty level compared to many other countries, for example compared to Austria.  See CIA stats 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html

You are avoiding my point that the US seems to have expanded access to contraceptives just fine without making them mandatorally provided. Also we are not poor. So your logic fails. 

Quote

some religions are against contraceptives for married couples, so what is your point?  

My point is they should not be made to pay for them ie the Catholics. Now mind you, I am not a fan of Catholicism, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I believe they have the right to their religious beliefs so long as they do not inordinately impose on the rights of others.

Quote

So religious freedom is more important than human rights? What happens during a recession when it is not easy to find a job? 

I have a question, is it okay for 7-eleven employers to force their Mormon employees to sell beer? What does a Mormon do in that situation? get another job in times of need? 

What "human rights?" Are you saying contraceptives are a human right? Are you one of those bleeding left liberals who believe we have a "human right" to housing so that we should slacken the housing mortgage laws so that poor people can buy housing with liar loans? Been there done that, and the Republicans were too stupid to stop it. The press seems to conveniently forget it started during the Clinton Presidency. Do you believe we are born with the right to receive contraceptives? I wonder  where that "right" was when the constitution was written? There are no human rights being violated by my refusal to pay for someone else's contraceptives so they can go fornicate except for mine in their asking me to pay for their stuff so that they can sit on their duff - that's called stealing. Last time I checked that is being deprived of personal property without due process of law.

2nd question - Yes, it is okay to force Mormon employees to sell beer. Beer is legal, and it is not a sin to drink it. I have known Mormons who sell it. If they don't like it, they are free to get a different job to answer your question. I will even sell porn magazines if I were a clerk and had to although I personally feel to engage in pornography is sinful. Just don't make me pay for their sinful magazine. If your boss asked you to do that, would you have a problem with it? and why? you can assume they say they need it to remain happily married.

Edited February 16, 2017 by RevTestament

[Calm]

"I need evidence please, because countries like Austria and Netherlands seem to contradict your view. Austria and Netherlands have a low poverty level, and I don't think most people obey the law of chastity in those countries."

There are multiple factors contributing to poverty.  I am not suggesting it is the only factor or even the most dominant one, it is just that is it being discussed in this thread due to contraceptive funding and access being discussed.  It is possible those countries would have less poverty if there was less sex before/outside of  marriage (as many are not getting married at all).

My reasoning why chastity could contribute to lower poverty levels...single parent families are more likely to live at poverty levels than married.  Do you need evidence for that or do you see that as sufficiently well known?

Getting pregnant and not getting married is more likely to result in single parent families...do you need evidence for this claim?

Studies have generally shown over the years having sex before marriage is correlated with higher levels of divorce than those who reserved sex for after marriage.  This may be simply because those who are taught chastity are also taught other behaviour that leads to longer commitment.  Or it may be because those who wait have had fewer sex partners, if any, and this may contribute to a greater emotional bond or a greater sense of security, and thus willingness to more fully commit and risk for the relationship.  Do you need these studies or are you aware of them?

[Calm]

https://borgenproject.org/poverty-austria/

"Single-parent families are predominantly at risk of poverty, especially single women without an income. 36.9 percent of single-parent households were affected by poverty in 2010. The significant amount of poverty in single-parent families is because of their resources being based on only one income."

I disagree with the last conclusion.  Having two parents allows for a sharing of responsibilities which can save resources because parents can do things themselves rather than pay others to do it or go without, so I don't see a single income as the sole reason though having two incomes can definitely help as long as the second income is not going to pay solely for costs resulting from not having a caregiver in the home.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Got to go so can't doublecheck quality of these findings:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/25/nine-facts-about-marriage-and-childbirth-in-the-united-states/?utm_term=.3fd158004e43

"Nearly 40 percent of cohabiting twentysomething parents who had a baby between 2000 and 2005 split up by the time their child was five; that’s three times higher than the rate for twentysomething parents who were married when they had a child."

"Among men in their midthirties, those who had married in their twenties had the highest level of personal income, though the precise pattern varies by education...Men who had never married had some of the lowest levels of personal income—lower even than those who married before age twenty."

"48 percent of all first births are now to unmarried women. Thus, the nation is at a tipping point, on the verge of moving into a new demographic reality where the majority of first births in the United States precede marriage"

Edited February 16, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-canada/

"According to the national report “Let’s End Child Poverty for Good,” the rate of child poverty in Canada increased from 15.8 percent in 1989 to 19 percent in 2013. Campaign 2000, a nonpartisan network of 120 organizations against child and family poverty, works with the federal government on the Canada Child Benefit, which will hopefully reduce child poverty by 50 percent in the next few years....

More than 1.5 million women live on a low income, and 21 percent of single mothers raise their children in poverty. The Canadian Women’s Foundation works to advance women’s conditions by finding ways out of poverty and helping them build a solid foundation that includes stable housing, childcare and employment skills."

[MormonVideoGame]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You are avoiding my point that the US seems to have expanded access to contraceptives just fine without making them mandatorally provided. Also we are not poor. So your logic fails. 

because I was skim-reading. You don't take into account poor communities and low wage workers.  Many low-wage employees can't afford contraceptives. 

Luxembourg, Norway, Hong Kong, Macau, Switzerland, Ireland are richer (GDP per capita) than our country, and they provide universal healthcare. I know Healthcare costs are higher in the USA, but it doesn't have to be that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Anways, the "Religious Freedom" issue is nothing more than partisan politics.