Every claim made here is wrong, and the logic is really bad.
1. You wouldn’t force an atheist to buy you a bible.
Actually, you might. The Bible is fair game in public schools as long as it is used for secular teaching purposes. If a public school purchases bibles for a history class, for example, atheist taxpayers are being forced to buy bibles.
2. You wouldn’t force a vegetarian to buy a hamburger.
Wrong again. Ever hear of food stamps? Vegetarian taxpayers’ money will help provide for food stamps, which can then be used to purchase ground beef and any other meat products.
3. Why then would you force a Catholic to buy your birth control/abortion/sterilization?
For the same reasons that taxpayer money may be used to buy bibles for public schools and burgers for the poor: Public welfare programs do not have to adjust according to the beliefs of individual taxpayers. If they did, then everybody would just dodge taxes by saying that they are morally opposed to individual spending items.
I must disagree with you sir.
1) The bible is a book, so the fact that a public school or library purchased it for a reference item for any one’s choice is really unsubstantial.
2) What anyone does with welfare like food stamps is there own business. This is the equivalent of handing someone a $5 bill and letting them decide what they’re going to do with it. You are not being forced to buy anything; you merely paid for someone else to make their own decision.
3) This is different because new plans FORCE religious organization to directly pay for contraceptives. This would be like an atheist walking with a Christian into a school and buying him a bible; this would be like a vegetarian walking into a hamburger joint and buying someone a hamburger. That is the difference. What you were describing was someone paying someone cash and telling them they can’t spend it on what they want or paying into a cash-run fund like taxes or welfare.
Employers today pay you a wage and you spend that money anyway you want…on birth control, on hamburgers and on bibles. The employer has no say in it. However, if a hamburger truck pulled up to that place of employment and told the owner she had to buy all her employees hamburgers, even though she was vegan, then you’d have the same scenario we have today with Obamacare.
But then here is the question: If we live in a land of “religious freedom”, who’s religion gets the power?If a company said they don’t want to give me birth control because religion, could I not counteract by saying that they are imposing religious standards on me, interfering with my religious freedom? It’s a point worth discussing.
I have PMDD. My PMS symptoms were so severe that I could not function. My periods were never on time, sometimes skipped months, and would last for sometimes 2 weeks. I had bouts of bad stomach sickness, depression, and suicidal thoughts. If my workplace said no to my pills, then I would tell them that they can take care of me when I’m in too much pain or too depressed to work. My health, physical and mental, would be tossed away because “religion”. And I don’t think that’s right.
I’m thankful that my insurance is AWESOME and my birth control is completely covered.
You’re making a great argument why insurance plans shouldn’t be employer paid. I honestly have no problem with insurance plans covering contraceptives, although I can understand that some employers wouldn’t want to directly pay for it. The solution would be for insurance plans to be purchased outside your job. Your employer is not responsible for your medical problems, so don’t try to make that argument…because that is slightly ridiculous.
We could alleviate this entire issue by letting your employer pay you cash to let you buy the insurance plan of your choice directly in a more robust market; unfortunately, Obamacare forces employers to provide employees a plan and thus perpetuating the problem. To be honest, I would actually prefer healthcare to be privatized completely in which you could use tax-free healthcare savings accounts to purchase things like birth control directly. Insurance has become bastardized today where individuals believe it should cover everything under the sun healthcare related.
There is a point being missed here. In the case with Hobby Lobby, they are not refusing ALL birth control. They just don’t want to be forced to pay for birth control that is considered POST CONCEPTION CONTRACEPTIVE. Meaning, IUD’s that prevent the attachment of a fertilized egg, or the “morning after” meds that cause the body to reject (Abort) the fertilized egg. Because of their faith, they believe life begins at conception. Therefore, they see those methods of birth control as murder, just as they view abortion as murder.
They have no problem with providing anti-contraceptive birth control (IE: “The Pill”).
As for the need for birth control in treatment of medical conditions like the PMDD mentioned, or my ex-wife’s PCOS (And many other conditions) where “the pill” is not used as a contraceptive, but as medical treatment for the regulation of the woman’s cycle, even the Catholic Church is fine for that. Many insurance companies that would not cover birth control as a contraceptive, will pay for that same pill for medical purposes. So, I argue that are insurance is not AWESOME for paying for her birth control, it’s just paying for it because it’s not being prescribed for birth control. It’s paying for it because it’s being prescribed for treatment of her PMDD. This is the case with many meds that have multiple uses. The insurance plan may not pay for it for one use, but will for another.