California Ordering Churches To Pay For All Surgical Abortions

[Darren10]

More and more, in the name of equality, equality for marriage, equality in healthcare, the government is more and more stepping in and telling religion what it can and cannot do. Here's a case where the state of California is ordering churches to pay for surgical abortions.

The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.

At the insistence of the American Civil Liberties Union, the DMHC concluded that a 40-year-old state law requiring health plans to cover “basic health services” had been misinterpreted all these decades. Every plan in the state was immediately ordered, effective August 22, to cover elective abortion. California had not even applied this test to its own state employee health plans (which covered only “medically necessary” abortions). But this novel reading was nevertheless quietly imposed on every plan in the state by fiat.

I cannot begin to express how disturbing a trend we are seeing where government is regulating churches. Our number one freedom is Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion is pivotal. If it goes, so do all our individual freedoms. The more power We the People give government the more individual liberty gets pushed aside. The two cannot coexist. Never has. Never will until a perfect person rules government but no one knows when that will happen.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/

[Storm Rider]

The radical Left will do almost anything to promote their agenda when a weakness is observed. It is not surprising to see this as well as the Houston mayor demanding copies of all sermons that address homosexuality.  I expect we will see a number of similar kinds of actions as time progresses.  The pendulum is swinging in the other direction and will be brought back in time.  Hopefully, the SC will quickly involve themselves and stop this type of abusive action.

[KevinG]

This can't be true. I was just assured on the gay marriage and priesthood thread that suspecting the government will dictate to people against their religious beliefs is silly and paranoid.

[ERayR]

This can't be true. I was just assured on the gay marriage and priesthood thread that suspecting the government will dictate to people against their religious beliefs is silly and paranoid.

 

The right hand giveth, the left taketh away.

[Darren10]

This can't be true. I was just assured on the gay marriage and priesthood thread that suspecting the government will dictate to people against their religious beliefs is silly and paranoid.

And as the article pointed out in the Hobby Lobby case, the government went after them on insurance because they were a for profit business and not a church. I wonder what the LDS Church's position is. Probably to comply wit the law but California law is breaking federal law as well as being highly questionable on its constitutionality.

[Buzzard]

I loved living in CA, except for the traffic.  But stuff like this makes me glad I moved away.

[thesometimesaint]

And as the article pointed out in the Hobby Lobby case, the government went after them on insurance because they were a for profit business and not a church. I wonder what the LDS Church's position is. Probably to comply wit the law but California law is breaking federal law as well as being highly questionable on its constitutionality.

 

It is not against Federal law for insurance companies to pay for abortions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is not against Federal law for insurance companies to pay for abortions.

Rofl. Here come back a bit from this tree. Now what do you see?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This can't be true. I was just assured on the gay marriage and priesthood thread that suspecting the government will dictate to people against their religious beliefs is silly and paranoid.

You should trust them. I mean, I do, whole heartedly They will never ever force churches to perform SSM. And if they do, what is the big deal?

[Storm Rider]

Nope, these charitable people have only the best intentions at heart.  It is only love they wish to share with the world and demand of others. Trust them; they are deeply aware of how sacred religious rights are in the USA and will do nothing to take those same rights away.  Trust them; they are the government which is only led by enlightened people that know what is best.

[The Nehor]

Those poor churches......who would have thought the day would come that churches running insurance plans would have to ensure such plans comply with the law? The horror!!!!!!

This is not about churches. It is about insurance having to cover certain medical procedures as prescribed by law and the reality is you cannot abuse your employees by offering less in your insurance then the government mandates on the grounds that you do not personally believe in the treatment. That would be forcing your religious beliefs onto your employees.

I personally prefer to get rid of health insurance all together and either go to a government system or a basic capitalist system without insurance companies screwing with prices and sending them upwards but we are stuck with what we have, the worst of both worlds.

[LOSTONE]

What ever happened to the separation of church and state? I doubt it ever truly was a separation between church and state or even religious freedom. I think were always mislead on these matters and the fact that abortion rights is being pushed upon a churches rights is proof of this. There is no separation of church and state.

As to abortion. To me, it’s murder. Why would you about a child not yet born? It always seems to come down to that the child is unwanted or the ability to care for the child isn’t there. That is wrong. So many people want kids that can take care of them. Put the child up for adoption not abortion. I am adopted and I was unwanted. If there is a pregnancy that effects the life of the woman than that is another story, but more often than not, that is not the driving force behind the desires for abortion. Abortion to me is murder of a child because the parents are idiots.

Keep state out of the church and let us choose for ourselves and not be dictated to by the government as if we live in a communist country, to which it seems to be more and more like.

[Calm]

I am most definitely not for abortion but every pregnancy affects a woman's life. No woman's body comes through unchanged and for many it is dramatic and life altering. Add to that the lack of assistance for many pregnant women....

[thesometimesaint]

What ever happened to the separation of church and state? I doubt it ever truly was a separation between church and state or even religious freedom. I think were always mislead on these matters and the fact that abortion rights is being pushed upon a churches rights is proof of this. There is no separation of church and state.

As to abortion. To me, it’s murder. Why would you about a child not yet born? It always seems to come down to that the child is unwanted or the ability to care for the child isn’t there. That is wrong. So many people want kids that can take care of them. Put the child up for adoption not abortion. I am adopted and I was unwanted. If there is a pregnancy that effects the life of the woman than that is another story, but more often than not, that is not the driving force behind the desires for abortion. Abortion to me is murder of a child because the parents are idiots.

Keep state out of the church and let us choose for ourselves and not be dictated to by the government as if we live in a communist country, to which it seems to be more and more like.

 

It is still there. We have laws in this country that prohibit you/state from forcing your religious beliefs onto others not of your faith. Abortion is a legal right in this country. In this country if you don't want to have an abortion the state can't force you to have one. By the same token you can't use the power of the state to preclude others from having one.

 

Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. No woman that I know of thinks abortion is not taking of a human life. What we disagree on is if it an illegal taking of a human life. The courts have repeatedly said it is not. In the church that I belong to abortion is permissible under the rare circumstances of threat to the life and health mother, rape, incest, and viability of the fetus upon birth. Given our freedom of religion, and the fact that other religions have different criteria. Which one should we(The US) have as the force of law?

 

I have no desire to live under either a communist state or religious state. I much prefer a secular state governed by a constitution.

[Storm Rider]

Those poor churches......who would have thought the day would come that churches running insurance plans would have to ensure such plans comply with the law? The horror!!!!!!

This is not about churches. It is about insurance having to cover certain medical procedures as prescribed by law and the reality is you cannot abuse your employees by offering less in your insurance then the government mandates on the grounds that you do not personally believe in the treatment. That would be forcing your religious beliefs onto your employees.

I personally prefer to get rid of health insurance all together and either go to a government system or a basic capitalist system without insurance companies screwing with prices and sending them upwards but we are stuck with what we have, the worst of both worlds.

 

Hmm, did not seem like we had a problem before.  Oh, you mean the government created new demands, new required coverage that was not required before.  Gosh, I cannot believe anyone would be upset with that.  New laws are always better; those silly people.  

[The Nehor]

Hmm, did not seem like we had a problem before.  Oh, you mean the government created new demands, new required coverage that was not required before.  Gosh, I cannot believe anyone would be upset with that.  New laws are always better; those silly people.  

 

And if this was a general complaint that something should not be mandatory under insurance coverage for whatever reason that would be a valid argument but that is not what this thread is about.

 

This thread is about the government supposedly violating religious freedom by making them treat their employees like other organizations are required to treat their employees.

 

Of course what actually happened was that two Catholic universities removed this coverage from their health plans and they were told they had to provide it under existing law. Somehow conservative websites (for example the article in the OP) spin it as new "activist" legislation....mostly because they are liars. Lying for a good cause? Maybe, but lying nonetheless.

 

This is akin to me violating zoning laws with my property, getting told to stop it by a government agency, and then whining that an organization is violating my rights by expanding the law when they are in fact just enforcing it.

 

It took me less then five minutes to find the real story. The reason groups are able to lie like this is so many swallow anything they want to believe without serious question.

[LOSTONE]

Before I became of the Christian faith ( before I believed in anything ), my wife was pregnant with our child for the first time. There was complications and a threat to my wife's life. The doctor said that my wife should abort the pregnancy for it might kill her and the baby if she didn't. Both of us always have been anti-abortion. We understood what the doctor was saying and the risk, but my wife decided to carry the pregnancy all the way and if it killed her, at least she wouldn't be a 'baby killer'. I agreed with my wife and it turned out the doctor was wrong. My wife and our new born daughter came out just fine so many years ago. The doctor turned out to be a quack and history to back it up ( that we did not know anything about. ) My point is this, even without faith, we gave risk to life, not act of death.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

More and more, in the name of equality, equality for marriage, equality in healthcare, the government is more and more stepping in and telling religion what it can and cannot do. Here's a case where the state of California is ordering churches to pay for surgical abortions.

I cannot begin to express how disturbing a trend we are seeing where government is regulating churches. Our number one freedom is Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion is pivotal. If it goes, so do all our individual freedoms. The more power We the People give government the more individual liberty gets pushed aside. The two cannot coexist. Never has. Never will until a perfect person rules government but no one knows when that will happen.http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/

Our leaders have seen this coming for decades, marriage issues, abortion issues as you note where Church owned hospitals are involved Churches and Pastors having sermons sought after because of beliefs that differ with secular laws, (I forget where) but a school or business wanting to let people enter the bathroom that the user feels right for them instead of their actual gender. Indeed, God help us all, the baby steps of the progressive movement. We can't even call all of the terror going everywhere terror. But it is not like the scriptures, our leaders and history itself that has warned of the iceberg(s) that has been headed toward our paper-boats...letting us know all along that the end is near.

[guerreiro9]

It is still there. We have laws in this country that prohibit you/state from forcing your religious beliefs onto others not of your faith. Abortion is a legal right in this country. In this country if you don't want to have an abortion the state can't force you to have one. By the same token you can't use the power of the state to preclude others from having one.

 

Murder is the illegal taking of a human life. No woman that I know of thinks abortion is not taking of a human life. What we disagree on is if it an illegal taking of a human life. The courts have repeatedly said it is not. In the church that I belong to abortion is permissible under the rare circumstances of threat to the life and health mother, rape, incest, and viability of the fetus upon birth. Given our freedom of religion, and the fact that other religions have different criteria. Which one should we(The US) have as the force of law?

 

I have no desire to live under either a communist state or religious state. I much prefer a secular state governed by a constitution.

 

The US government does not force women to obtain abortions against their will (currently), but it does force women and men to pay for abortions against their will.

 

In almost all cases this financial imposition has not been voted on, but has been imposed by judicial ruling.

 

Being forced to pay for abortions, and same-sex marriage benefits without any possible representation on my behalf makes that whole Tea Act thing of 1773 seem like a good deal.

 

-guerreiro9

[Jude2]

And as the article pointed out in the Hobby Lobby case, the government went after them on insurance because they were a for profit business and not a church. I wonder what the LDS Church's position is. Probably to comply wit the law but California law is breaking federal law as well as being highly questionable on its constitutionality.

Seems if the church is hiring card carrying members we won't have to worry about the issue, at least one would hope

[LOSTONE]

Why don’t the different faiths in the U.S just refuse to give into the government over stepping into places the U.S constitutions says they aren’t allowed? Just stand up in peaceful protest for the right of separation from church and state? What...? Too radical? Only works for race or gender issues? Refuse one and all and take it to a civilized and constant protest based on constitutional rights. Or does bending over, giving up, and taking it a better idea?

 

P.S... I am a war vet. I fought and risked my life hour by hour for what I believed was our freedom. These over stepping government laws is not what I did all I did for.

[The Nehor]

The US government does not force women to obtain abortions against their will (currently), but it does force women and men to pay for abortions against their will.

 

Governments often force people to pay for things against their will. There are always some government boondoggles I would rather not pay for. There were conflicts my government entered into in my lifetime that I was morally opposed to and a fair number of people died. I am not going to get bent out of shape paying for abortions when my money is also being used to kill (and the Church has never called abortion murder though it is of course a serious sin if done indiscriminately).

 

Despite what many people think virtually everyone does not like abortion. The stereotype of the woman who gets pregnant all the time pre-planning abortions is so rare that she is practically mythical. The villification of abortion in general is absurdly out of proportion. While it is serious it is not the "worst thing" and is even allowable in some circumstances. It is also forgiveable. I have a friend who used to work at the front desk of an abortion clinic and she said it was often a circus. You would usually have protesters nearby. They have to escort people in and out. One woman who led the protests brought her daughter in to get an abortion and then next week was back outside protesting again. Women who have been taught abortion is the ultimate evil come in to get an abortion and have nervous breakdowns refusing to be around the debased women who are also seeking an abortion but whose reasons are not as good.

 

It is a sad spectacle.

[guerreiro9]

Governments often force people to pay for things against their will. There are always some government boondoggles I would rather not pay for.

 

It is entirely different when duly elected representatives enact laws through the legislative process to collect taxes than it is when an unelected judge imposes taxes through judicial fiat.  You know "No taxation without representation" and that whole thing.

 

I completely accept that the government is going to take money from my pocket for things that I do not agree with from time to time, but in those instances I can elect better officials or campaign to have those taxes changed.

 

In the example you gave of unsupported wars, you can elect officials who will not support wars in the future and therefore you will not be funding them.

 

In the case of same-sex marriage and abortion (in regards to this thread), it is no longer possible to enact laws to defund or repeal these taxes, because they were not enacted by the legislature.

 

-guerreiro9. 

[thesometimesaint]

Why don’t the different faiths in the U.S just refuse to give into the government over stepping into places the U.S constitutions says they aren’t allowed? Just stand up in peaceful protest for the right of separation from church and state? What...? Too radical? Only works for race or gender issues? Refuse one and all and take it to a civilized and constant protest based on constitutional rights. Or does bending over, giving up, and taking it a better idea?

 

P.S... I am a war vet. I fought and risked my life hour by hour for what I believed was our freedom. These over stepping government laws is not what I did all I did for.

 

So you are advocating nullification of government based on your religion. Believe me more than one has voiced a religious appeal to defy law.

 

You can't use your religion as a basis for denying others their constitutional rights.

SEE First Amendment

 

I'm a war vet too, the Vietnam war.

[thesometimesaint]

It is entirely different when duly elected representatives enact laws through the legislative process to collect taxes than it is when an unelected judge imposes taxes through judicial fiat.  You know "No taxation without representation" and that whole thing.

 

I completely accept that the government is going to take money from my pocket for things that I do not agree with from time to time, but in those instances I can elect better officials or campaign to have those taxes changed.

 

In the example you gave of unsupported wars, you can elect officials who will not support wars in the future and therefore you will not be funding them.

 

In the case of same-sex marriage and abortion (in regards to this thread), it is no longer possible to enact laws to defund or repeal these taxes, because they were not enacted by the legislature.

-guerreiro9. 

 

Depends on locale. Some states elect judges, and some don't. But that doesn't effect the US Constitution which gives the President the authority to appoint Federal judges with the advice and consent of Congress. The whine of "No taxation without representation" was more hyperbole than fact in the US.

SEE Shay's, and Whiskey Rebellions

 

Then elect "better" leaders who appoint "better" judges. The US Constitution gives our government not only the power to lay and collect taxes but additionally to say how, where, and when those taxes are spent. Madison v Marbury of 1803 gives the USSC, under the Law and Equity Clause of the Constitution, the authority to decide what is constitutional or not.

 

The 1st, 9th Amendments gives you the right to have an abortion and the 1st and 14th Amendments gives you the right to SSM.