Above, Senator John F. Kennedy as he was running for president spoke to Texas ministers on our tradition of a "Wall of Separation" between Church and State. It's a theme we revisit again this week, as the Supremes announced they have issued a Writ of Certiori to hear another judicial challenge to the Affordable Health Care Act on the grounds it violates the religious freedoms of for-profit secular companies that don't want to cover birth control in their health insurance offerings.
From the NY Times:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a pair of cases on whether corporations may refuse to provide insurance coverage for contraception to their workers based on the religious beliefs of the corporations’ owners.
The cases present a new challenge to President Obama’s health care law. The Supreme Court in 2012 upheld another part of the law, one that requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
The Obama administration has exempted many religious groups from the law’s requirements for contraception coverage. But it said that commercial corporations could not rely on religious objections to opt out of compliance with the law.
“Our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. “The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women.”
__________________________
Blog here, your thoughts on the "Wall of Separation" in American Society. BTW, I am thankful when students post on Political Warrior. You will be thankful, too with 10 points of EC at the end of the semester.
31 comments:
This makes an interesting point, but the quote" The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women” is ridiculous. I agree that government and for-profit corporations should not be able to dictate a woman's decision, but it is her decision, and it is not their role to provide them with birth control in the first place.
Birth control is not just used as a contraceptive; it is used for a variety of reasons. I'm sure many of our classmates use it to regulate their menstrual cycles and hormones as well as control their acne. It also helps prevent cancers and cysts. In her speech before Congress about insurance covered birth control, Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law student, talked about her friend who had polycystic ovarian syndrome. This can be treated with birth control, but because she was unable to afford it, her friend ended up losing one of her ovaries. Women are suffering from serious medical conditions because they cannot afford this medication. Also, insurance covered birth control has led to lower abortion and teen pregnancy rates. I think these reasons prove the importance and essentialness of birth control. And if men can get Viagra covered under their insurance plan, then there should be no argument as to covering birth control. It is definitely a double standard when men are able to get medicine to improve their performances, but as soon as women want to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies and STDs, we say no. I don't think these corporations understand how truly important birth control is.
Personally, I don't really understand why this is even a question. As I see it a company has two responsibilities; to make profit and to protect its workers. I believe that in order for them to successfully fulfill the latter, the company has to provide their employees with the medications and services that they need, whatever these may be. Birth control is just another medication that is used to relieve women's pain and treat them for various conditions. Women should have available to them whatever medication they may need, including birth control. Often times the only way for women to get the pill is if it is covered by their company. They should not be deprived of a needed medication just because the company that they work for does not support the pill. Women should be able to use their own discretion to decide what they put into their body. Its not the company's body so they don't get to decide what goes in it.
Personally I say make Birth Control part of Obamacare only if it's neccessary. I mean sure there are benefits like controlled acne (totally super important) but it shouldn't be included unless it's for legitimate medical purposes. I'd also like to say that I personally don't think Viagra should be covered either, take care of that on your own.
Even though some corporations do not want contraceptives in their insurance coverage plans because of religious reasons, their employees may not hold the same religious values, especially in large for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. It would not be fair to women to be denied coverage just because she works for a Christian institution. The corporation can still make a disclaimer about how they do not support contraceptives in any way, but they should still provide coverage in order to have healthy employees.
Firstly I'd like to say that for-profit secular corporations have a history of having corrupt leadership. I'm not accusing any one company in particular but it seems that these "Christian" corporations live immorally and then when it is convenient and allows them to cut corners and get cheaper healthcare suddenly it is for moral and religious reasons.
Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the same point several of my peers made that certain types of birth control have applications outside of reproduction. In many cases, the use of contraceptives to treat certain ailments can actually save a woman's ability to conceive. By mandating birth control is covered in the company's plan, the ACA doesn't say that all women have to use birth control. it simply allows that to be an option in the woman's care plan.
I would like to maybe ruffle a few feathers by saying it shouldn't be up to a male-led legislation. These issues are things that men cannot possibly fathom let alone restrict for the purposes of scoring political points.
No corporation has a right to claim it belongs to a religion. I think that is a fundamental piece of information we all need to accept. Religion is something private between you and your belief system. you cannot claim a non-living thing has a certain religion, especially if not all the people involved are of the same religion.
On a slightly related note, I would like to share my thoughts on Christmas. For me, as a Catholic that goes to mass every weekend and volunteers at my parish regularly, Christmas is a two part holiday.
The religious component is very real for me and for many other people. I go to an extra mass and we have special services during advent leading up to the celebration of my Christ's birth.
However, there is a different completely secular version of Christmas. Me eating a big dinner with my family has nothing to do with my religious component to Christmas. My receiving of presents has nothing to do with religion, nor does putting up a tree or decorating my house with lights. Not everything related to Christmas is related to religion. It is like Chinese New Year. There is a spiritual and religious component but it also simply is a time for people to celebrate in a secular manner.
All in all, I think people are too easily offended by things when it comes to religion. Everyone assumes that the world hates their personal belief system. Take a deep breath, and assume nobody was trying to be closed-minded. Because in the grand scheme of things, the world doesn't care what you believe.
Stating that "it is her decision, and it not their role to provide them with birth control" is ridiculous. Birth control has many uses, some of which that save the lives of women. B.C is used to help regulate women's menstrual cycles, regulate hormones, clear acne, helps prevent pregnancy, etc. For example birth control is proscribed to many women with server anemia, the birth control causes the woman's body to have less periods throughout the year. If these women with anemia cannot get birth control they will end up in the hospital much more than if they are on B.C which will end up causing insurance companies much more money and possibly causing harm to the woman. Stating that insurance should not pay for this is the exact same as saying that someone who has diabites should not be covered for their insulin.
Also birth control is a contraceptive, many women on birth control also feel that they are not ready to have children, which is a SMART AND INTELLIGENT thought. The world needs more women who think this way instead of women who have children that they cannot and will not support. By a insurance providing birth control this will not only help the women but also save the children that they should not be having because they are not ready.
Finally the first amendment of the constitution and article IV state that there should be a division of church and state!!! By companies wanting to amend the afordable health care act so that they do not have to have insurance that provides birth control to their employees BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS is against the constitution! This entire argument should not even be an argument!! If a woman has religious beliefs that is against the use of birth control then she should just not take the birth control!! Just because an insurance company offers to pay for birth control does not mean that you HAVE to go on birth control!
Large corporations have the right to decide how their beliefs dictate their activities -for example Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A are closed on Sundays- however their beliefs should not umbrella their entire workforce. Employers/companies are just the middle-man between government health coverage and citizens, therefore the medications covered and not covered are up to the state. The state is assisting companies to protect their workers, so the companies should not be nit-picky! Some religious beliefs do prohibit the use of birth control, but women, not their employers, decide if it is right for them. Birth control in particular is used for a variety of reasons beyond contraception, and should be covered for those benefits. And who is complaining about less teen pregnancies and abortions??
I feel that it is ridiculous for Hobby Lobby to deny coverage of only certain types of birth control, claiming some times to be forms of abortion. Hobby Lobby is a Christian owned business yet as states in the article, not everyone employed is a Christian. They have over 15,000 employees of varying religions and so it makes no sense for them to feel the need to limit all female employees only certain types of birth control for insurance coverage. Birth control is birth control regardless the of the form, it prevents a pregnancy. They might as well go one step further and limit all employees from getting abortions. As a company serving a multitude of people, it is wrong to impose religious beliefs of the corporation onto lowly cashiers and salesmen. As the lawyer for the Affordable Care Act stated, These for-profit companies,” she said, corporations “are no more entitled to deny women insurance coverage for essential health care than they are to dictate how any of us can and cannot spend our paychecks.” She is SO RIGHT. Women should have the right to do whatever they want when it comes to their health and body. That's in the constitution and has been fought for one hundred times over. The Hobby Lobby Corporation is clearly caught up in some backwards ways. This is the 21st century, birth control arguments should be over by now.
I agree with my peers in saying that companies arguing against the provision of birth control are ridiculous. Their religious affiliations do not need to apply to every single woman in their company. Clare had mentioned that birth control has many other uses beside contraception. For some a menstrual cycle can be extremely debilitating. Therefore, it is for the better that some employees receive it. People have become oversensitive on this issues. If you do not use it then why should it matter? It is a woman's personal choice whether or not she takes the pill. One's religious beliefs need to remain their own rather than become involved in business and politics. The line between church and state could definitely use some refining to become more objective.
Being Cathlic as well as working in a Cathlic community retirement home. The issue is always brought up about contraceptives such as birth control. In this senario with the new healthcare law coming into affect. We need to respect everyone decision on this issue, and also if the plan offers it you don't HAVE to accept it. You always have that option to opt out of it.
FOR 2ND PERIOD APGOVE STUDENTS:
During our in class discussion of the separation of church and state within our community, 3rd period took a look at the Elmbrook School District v Doe supreme court case dealing with public functions being held in church buildings. The court has yet to accept or reject that case for multiple reasons.
The discussion we had regarded Crossroads community church (or any church group) and their right to use public institutions such as Neuqua. My question to any that may see this post is do you see it fit that Church organizations are allowed to use schools for service, yet schools are not allowed to use churches for public functions?
Yes, many believe corporations should have the right to exercise their company in the manner they choose. But when it comes to denying birth control on the health care plan for "religious" reasons just seems a little unreasonable to me. The leadership of corporations should look after their members of their staff, and many of them can rely only on what the health care provides for them. If you're religion doesn't allow you to take birth control, then don't take it. Don't make the decision for others.
I believe its wrong for companies to oppose birth control in health care programs based on their religious beliefs. They are not truly thinking about all the benefits of birth control. It is an overall better decision to provide birth control because not only will it prevent unwanted pregnancies but it will also prevent many children from growing up in poor environments where they are surrounded by poverty and cannot get the care they need.
Firstly, I am in NO way connected the Christian faith or any particular beliefs they may or may not have, just throwing that out there.
Now, onto the matter at hand. First of all, as everyone has already stated several times, birth control has many many many different uses aside from preventing unwanted pregnencies. So I shall not reiterate the obvious.
However, I always like to point out the flaws in some of these religious "morals" that everyone seems to cling so desperately to. Like, if you are SO utterly against birth control/abortion then perhaps you would like to adopt said unwanted child which will likely be abused, neglected, or otherwise mistreated? I mean, you are a good, hard working Christian who is only defending their beliefs, right? Okay, then here's what we'll do. I'll have the baby, you can take care of it, pay for it, and show it affection. I like that idea.
No? What? You mean, you don't want this child? This child that is a gift from God and came upon you at a most inconvient time? You do not have the money? You have work? No time? Hmmmm....TOO BAD! HERE'S A CRYING, POOPING, SCREAMING, EXPENSIVE GIFT FROM GOD!!!!
I suppose this whole mess could have been avoided if you would have just provided women with their birth control. Or is your next suggestion going to be that everyone should remain celubate until they want children?
Birth control is a decision for women to make for themselves. While certain religions do not approve of the use of contraceptives, birth control is more than that. It is mainly for women's health. I am glad to hear Jar Carney's statement that “Our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor,” because it should never be the government that decides what is right for a woman's health. That matter is truly between her and a medical professional.
This should not even be a question. People have become so caught up in the politics of this issue that it is going to hinder any real solution from being passed. Keep any religious beliefs out of this argument. Women need birth control for a variety of reasons so it is completely ignorant to argue that it is only a form of contraception.
…It's almost 2014. I seriously cannot believe that this argument still exists. I don't understand. Do people think that by covering birth control and providing it causes people to choose it? Let me borrow one of JRod's famous lines. Association is not the same as causation. But covering birth control we aren't telling people to use it. The integrity of the individual's choice remains. Furthermore, as many of my peers have already mentioned this, I would like to reiterate that birth control is not only a contraceptive and is used to a spectrum of reasons. By not covering birth control, women are unprotected from many things. A peer claimed that these are not "legitimate medical purposes". I'm confused. How in the world are these not legitimate medical issues? Birth control is a vital component in the medical care for women and it most definitely should be covered.
Katyayni, you bring up many valid points there. However, I think the heart of this debate is not whether or not birth control should be used. That is a different argument. They may have many benefits, but is it the government's right to say that it must LEGALLY be required. It is not the government's right to say. If a company, or person does not want birth control in their plan because it is against their religion, then it is there right to say whether or not they can include it. That is not the government's role. It takes away the fundamental right of choice that American's treasure so dearly. Do you like being told what to do Kat? Because I don't. I prefer freedom!!!
Ryan I see your point of view, but is it really telling people what to do?? Wouldn't we be restricting their freedom by not giving the option for birth control because it's not covered? If you like freedom, then I don't see the issue! It's a person's choice to attain birth control and by covering it, no one is telling anyone to use birth control. All it does is allow the option for people who wish to attain it for their personal medical reasons. I understand it being against certain religious beliefs but I don't see how covering birth control is 'forcing' or 'making' people use it. It's a women's choice and so that choice should be available. It's for a women's health care and therefore it definitely should be covered.
Kat,
It is a different kind of choice. Lets look at this from a macroeconomics standpoint. When governments add regulations, in this case birth control, it costs more money to comply. If companies, like Hobby Lobby, have to cover birth control it infringes on their freedom of choice and their economic freedom. It costs money to give that coverage that has birth control in it. They will have to pay money for a policy they do not agree with. It is a double whammy. This is the ultimate scenario in which the government does no help. If a woman wants birth control covered, buy a plan that covers that. Leave the choice to the person.
Ryan, that's understandable but why at all should a woman be deprived of birth control by her employer even if it is Hobby Lobby? Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs are theirs but by not covering it, in a sense they are imposing their religious beliefs on someone else. I see the money issue but does money really pay a factor in a person's right to be in good health? If that's the case let's consider this hypothetical situation. Say Hobby Lobby said no and birth control wan't covered because they didn't want to pay more for insurance coverage. What happens when many women working for hobby lobby get pregnant and take paid maternity leaves? The level of productivity would decrease and the cost of resources would probably increase too because someone would need to be hired to cover those temporarily empty positions. Seeing this from a macroeconomics point of view as you brought up, I don't think that by covering birth control that the marginal cost would outweigh the marginal benefit. By covering it, we are only giving people a choice to take birth control if they need it and many people do so why deprive people of being able to have that choice?
Kat, I think the heart of this debate is about what the government's role is in life. Is an active role for government appropriate, or a limited role better. I would argue, especially in this case, the limited role fits better. When was the last time the government did anything right? It has been a while right? The government is great for many things. Setting minimum wage. Awesome. Outlawing drugs. Great. It is when the government starts controlling large projects that things get sticky. They are not suited for such a large role. No meaningful compromise can ever be reached. Only fighting and disasters like Obamacare. This is another scenario where the government is terrible at such large, personal decisions. It is not their place to make such decisions, or effectively manage such a program. The government is not the answer. It is the problem. If they just let things be, then everyone would be better off.
Ryan, I would (obviously) beg to differ. We need this involvement in the 21st century. There are so many people that aren't as fortunate as us and heavily depend of the involvement of the government to aid and provide benefits. By allowing birth control to be covered, people will be able to be covered for their decisions. If it's not their place, is the government just supposed to sit around and watch thousands and thousands of women perish because they couldn't be covered and because of affordability?
Kat, The role of government is to help people I agree, but I disagree with the way it is currently done. Yes those less fortunate people need help, but the way they are being helped now is not helping. It is merely giving them excuses. The government telling someone what to do, in the case of birth control, does not instill values of independency or self determination. It says that the government will always take care of you no matter what. That type of policy leaves the door open for misuse and corruption. People will complain every time something is wrong. A little while back, New York City tried to ban large soft drink sizes (those massive 60 oz ones). This was immediately ruled unconstitutional because it interfered with a person's right to choose. It is a fundamental right of all Americans. The individualism American's show is what distinguishes us from everyone else on earth. If the government gets so involved and just constantly gives in because it believes it is "morally right" then we are on a quick road to socialism and government dependency.
Ryan,
But the government isn't getting "so involved". All they would do is allow people to have the choice to use it under their insurance. "The government telling someone what to do, in the case of birth control" - This is a quote from your last response. The issue I see here is that I'm confused how you think the government is telling a woman to take birth control by covering it. That's like saying that because the government covers xyz drug that would help you become better if you were sick means that the government is chugging down xyz drug into your mouths. But in reality, the government isn't going to be doing any of that. By not covering birth control, you are taking away an American's individualism and right to choose.
You misunderstand me. The government is telling the companies what to do. The right to use birth control is a woman's right, but it is not the government's role to mandate by law that it must be covered. It violates the american principle of freedom of choice. It is not the government's role to tell woman they can or cannot use birth control. They have no right to that. It is not for the government to decide. Leave that to the companies and the people. But clearly we disagree. Im sure we can both agree what a disaster Obamacare is as a whole though. It is a train wreck and needs to be repealed.
Ryan, watch the video at the end of this article. It's called 12 Days of Obamacare. I think you'll thoroughly enjoy it.
Ryan,
Came across this the other day. You'll enjoy this as well! http://video.foxnews.com/v/2906831175001/huckabees-12-days-of-obamacare/
Kat, that video was pretty funny. I enjoyed it thoroughly. However I would love to elaborate on some of the best points in there. First off, the 10 promises broken. I find this point appalling. "If you like your current plan, you can keep it. Period." was the promise made. However it has been repeatedly broken. This is perhaps the biggest project the government has taken on since FDR and Obama lied to us. He knew that plans were going to be dropped when he created the law, but "conveniently" decided to ignore that fact. That is not only despicable, but it certainly changes the whole aspect of the law. Next, a four month delay. This is ridiculous to me as well. Every time I hear about this law, another delay is there. The small business mandate is delayed, the enrollment period is extended, the people with canceled plans would have more time to enroll. The list goes on and on. How can there be so much confusion with the law? I am astounded by the lack of competence in terms of rolling out obamacare and in managing it. That is just appalling. Finally, two fumbled roll outs. While Kathleen Sebelius has received much criticism for the botched rollout, Obama takes the ultimate blame in my mind. I know we talked about the Presidency in class and how the President cannot keep tabs on everything, but this was HIS signature achievement. I find it hard to believe that he had no idea what was going on. He had some form of culpability. Nonetheless, he decided to give us this half done website and terrible law for purely political reasons. Everything about this law screams fishy and bad for America.
I think the argument that hasn't come up is that Birth Control is extremely expensive, and can be priced similarly in the range of contact lenses. Most birth control pills range from $68-$112. In such way, many people COULD NOT AFFORD this. Its 2014, birth control is not taboo anymore, and we already mentioned that this has surpassed the religious debate. Birth control is also used for many MANY other reasons. In such ways, companies must provide insurance to cover the cost of these necessary medical advances. Even if a company is religiously affiliated, that does NOT mean they can deny a medical product to their employees.
Post a Comment