Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

For a while it had me quite baffled. I mean, if your organisation was specifically exempted from having to pay for contraception, then your religious freedom has been upheld. Righty-oh, let's all move on with our lives. Except that people on the religious right continue to freak the feth out that they're religious freedom to not have anything to do with contraception is being ignored, despite

It was quite the puzzler, until I came across this quote from Rick Warren, one of the major players in evangelical Christianity;
"I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/13/1064387/-Rick-Warren-please-report-to-jail

It's very odd because there's no mandate for Rick Warren or his ministry to pay under the federal law, they'll get an exemption as a religious organisation. In fact, the federal law is identical to the one that's been in place in Warren's home state of California for 13 years, that he's complied to every single year without ever even going slightly to jail, because it doesn't make him pay for anyone's birth control.

So that was my first clue as to what was really going on, but then this quote from Charles Colson made things more clear;
"We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government."
http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=12382

So he's calling for civil disobedience to resist a government that isn't making him do anything. Which is very weird, still, but a pattern begins to emerge, made finally clear by Father John Morris, who boldly declared;
“Of course I’m willing to die, of course I’m willing to go to jail, of course I’m willing to pay a fine. That is the most normal, non-radical thing I can think of,”
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/father-jonathan-morris-doubles-down-willin

It's just as odd, as with all the others, that he's willing to go so far to defend his right to refuse a law that he's been specifically exempted from, but what really stands out is his declaration that he's willing to die over the matter. Despite the fact that no-one is at all interesting in killing him, or has even thought of doing it. Just like no-one has even considered putting Warren in jail.

The pattern becomes clear - they're playing make believe. Exciting games where they are heroic martyrs battling for a noble cause, and the fact that there is no-one martyring them or forcing them to do anything hasn't stopped them for one second from playing such an exciting game. And I can't really blame them, when I was a small child I used to run around the backyard, hacking up orcs and blasting Russians, and the fact that there were no orcs and no Russians in my backyard never bothered me one bit, as long as I got to think of myself as the hero. Indeed, if I ever learnt how scary real orcs and real Russian invasions were, the game would have stopped being fun very quickly.

Warren, Colson and Morris are all running about in their parent's backyards, playing pretend games where they are heroic martyrs battling against horrible oppression. Does it matter that the oppression is entirely in their own heads? Well, it probably should, because they're grown men and there's a country to run.

In the meantime I guess the US as a whole should take pride in the level of religious freedom they maintain, so that clowns like these guys can go their whole lives without ever getting a real taste of oppression.

sebster wrote:if your organisation was specifically exempted from having to pay for contraception, then your religious freedom has been upheld.

Makes sense to me.

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

Link.

Presumably you will now agree that the original, January 20 announcement was a violation of religious freedom?

Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?

Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?

Wouldn't be surprised if that answer comes three years in the future in a Supreme Court ruling....

Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?

Your religious freedoms don't matter because you're not [insert group name here].

This whole "religious freedom" angle seems a bit absurd to me, as you can look at it from either perspective.

In addition, birth control pills have other rather significant medical uses, like in the treatment of endometriosis. IIRC the studies which supported the recommendation of universal coverage of birth control were based in part on its other uses, and in part on statistics about how children and families are healthier and better off when mothers have the capacity to space out their pregnancies by using birth control.

Prescription birth control pills help control wild hormonal swings in one's menstrual cycle as well.

This makes them quite valuable for, say, businesswomen, scientists, soldiers, students, mothers... up to and including women working in religious environments. Any woman really.

Mannahnin wrote:This whole "religious freedom" angle seems a bit absurd to me, as you can look at it from either perspective.

In addition, birth control pills have other rather significant medical uses, like in the treatment of endometriosis.

Truer words have never been spoken. If my oldest daughter hadn't had them, she would have literally bled to death.
The hormones in the BC told her body when to stop bleeding, finally.

Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?

Ultimately you can choose not to work at a private, religious institution. Can't really say that the private, religious institution can choose to ignore the requirements in the previous mandate or not hire anyone.

The scope and value of benefits packages has been a consideration in total compensation for... 80 years? 100? More? If free contraception is SUUUUUUCH a big deal, then ultimately private, religious institutions won't be able to recruit qualified candidates and be forced to raise their compensation packages to a point where individuals can use the incremental increase to go buy contraception.

Mannahnin wrote:Is it a violation of my religious freedom to choose to use contraception, for my employer's religion to determine that mine will not be covered?

Nope, because you are still free to acquire it on your own. Or you could choose a different employer if it's that important to you.

Mannahnin wrote:children and families are healthier and better off when mothers have the capacity to space out their pregnancies by using birth control.

There are other ways of spacing out pregnancies other than by use of the birth control pill or abortifacients.

sebster wrote:"I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/13/1064387/-Rick-Warren-please-report-to-jail

"We have come to the point—I say this very soberly—when if there isn’t a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government."
http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=12382

“Of course I’m willing to die, of course I’m willing to go to jail, of course I’m willing to pay a fine. That is the most normal, non-radical thing I can think of,”
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/father-jonathan-morris-doubles-down-willin

In order to stay relevant, you have to continually up the stakes.

Or you could choose a different employer

I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt. Frequently the choice is between one employer or no employer as there's nothing else out there.

Melissia wrote:I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt.

I cannot possibly believe that private religious institutions employ such a significant amount of the American workforce that there is no alternative job market.

And the things about hands you're dealt, is there's always other hands.

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt.

I cannot possibly believe that private religious institutions employ such a significant amount of the American workforce that there is no alternative job market.

And the things about hands you're dealt, is there's always other hands.

Yes, there's always unemployment.

That way you can get the contraceptives on the government's dollar because theyr'e a medical need (at least, I think medicare/medicaid will do that, it probably varies by state).

Melissia wrote:

Or you could choose a different employer

I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt. Frequently the choice is between one employer or no employer as there's nothing else out there.

If the choice is between unemployment and getting a job, you're right.

However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.

biccat wrote:However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.

Yes, IF there is another job available, and IF you get a chance to switch to that other job, and IF you get accepted and hired by that other job, and IF they don't take advantage of the situation to try to reduce their health care costs.

It's a long list of IFs.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.

Yes, IF there is another job available and IF you get a chance to switch to that other job and IF you get accepted and hired by that other job.
It's a long list of IFs.

And yet millions of people annually get that choice.

biccat wrote:And yet millions of people annually get that choice.

Millions more don't.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Or you could choose a different employer

I dunno where one gets this kind of delusion that people freely choose their employers instead of simply trying to play the hand they're dealt. Frequently the choice is between one employer or no employer as there's nothing else out there.

If the choice is between unemployment and getting a job, you're right.

However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.

Right, that's why we have so many people underemployed in addition to the people that are unemployed.

http://ycharts.com/indicators/underemployment_rate

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:And yet millions of people annually get that choice.

Millions more don't.

So is the real issue you're speaking to, "Contraception should be free for poor people"?

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:And yet millions of people annually get that choice.

Millions more don't.

And to fall back to my standard response: so what?

Contraception is ~$600-700/year. While that's not exactly peanuts, it's something you can consider when accepting a job or not.

Easy E wrote:

biccat wrote:However, a number of people every year change from one job to another. When making the decision to move from company A to company B, people do consider both benefits and salary.

Right, that's why we have so many people underemployed in addition to the people that are unemployed.

http://ycharts.com/indicators/underemployment_rate

I'm sure you'll join me in hoping that President Obama doesn't get reelected so we can work our way out of this economic slump. During normal times lots of people change jobs. I recall a statistic that was bandied about recently that (something like) during normal times ~4 million/year change positions, but recently it's been down to about 2 million/year. I will try to find the information.

It appears that it is overall beneficial to people and to society if every woman has free access to contraception.

Making it more difficult and expensive for poorer women and families, and for women and families during an economic downturn (whenever free availability and choice of jobs is not a given), seems counterproductive.

So it's not about religion at all, it's 'poor people deserve free contraception'.

Mannahnin wrote:It appears that it is overall beneficial to people and to society if every woman has free access to contraception.

I agree with this.

Mannahnin wrote:It appears that it is overall beneficial to people and to society if every woman has free access to contraception paid for by someone else.

I disagree with this.

It isn't free, someone has to pay for it. The question is: who pays?

sourclams wrote:So it's not about religion at all, it's 'poor people deserve free contraception'.

Yes. And religious people are getting in the way of poor people getting their free contraception by refusing to pay for it.

sourclams wrote:So is the real issue you're speaking to, "Contraception should be free for poor people"?

lol, "real issue".

You make it sound like I've somehow lied about and hidden what I believe. But I've made my assertion clear that contraception should be available to everyone.

The debate is about what is the most proper method of doing so.

biccat wrote:And to fall back to my standard response: so what?

Just because the free market is inefficient, broken, and doesn't do a very good job of providing for the financial means of most of the population doesn't mean that the financial needs aren't there or that these people are any less deserving.

If you pay taxes, you're already paying for someone's birth control pill, or their, to use the Republicans' new favorite word, abortifacients.

Melissia wrote:Just because the free market is inefficient, broken, and doesn't do a very good job of providing for the financial means of most of the population doesn't mean that the financial needs aren't there or that these people are any less deserving.

We don't have a free market. We have a heavily regulated market.

And yes, even the current market does do a good job of providing for the financial needs of "most of the population". That's why the poverty level has remained between 10% and 20% for the last 50 years. I'd call that 'most'.

Seriously, we should be taxing these clowns. Further if you take my tax dollars then I'm sorry but you should have to play by the rules that everybody else does. Just because your kool aid is Jesus flavored shouldn't exclude you from the rules of civil society. If you don't want to hand out contraceptives then quit taking federal dollars. Unfortunately like many things in this country Christians seem to get a free pass. They are allowed to take federal dollars and discriminate, as well as refuse to hand out condoms. Three cheers for religious freedom!

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:And to fall back to my standard response: so what?

Just because the free market is inefficient, broken, and doesn't do a very good job of providing for the financial means of most of the population doesn't mean that the financial needs aren't there or that these people are any less deserving.

Well, you're wrong. The free market does do a good job providing for the financial means of most of the population. You're taking the worst off and arguing that since they aren't provided for then everyone isn't provided for.

The free market is far more efficient and effective at creating and distributing wealth than government.

Seaward wrote:If you pay taxes, you're already paying for someone's birth control pill, or their, to use the Republicans' new favorite word, abortifacients.

I'm also already paying for Egyptian arms. Does that mean the government can (or should) require me to buy an M16 and ship it to some guy in Cairo?

Birth control pills aren't abortifacients (depending on how you define the term I suppose). The original proposed regulation would require coverage of both traditional birth control and abortifacients.

My problem with the whole lot of this nonsense is two fold...

One: Most of these "Christian" Sects use the King James Version of the Bible. King James 1 of England was the second monarch after Henry the 8th and was thus head of the Church of England, a.k.a the Anglican Church.
By default these modern sects should be considered factions of the Angican Church, which has no restriction on the use of contraception.

Two: Having read both the KJV and the Catholic Bibles, I have yet to find any reference to using medicinal, herbal or other means to avoid pregnancy.