Religious Liberty - The Latest Target of Obamacare
Topics: Political News and commentaries
Let there be no doubt whatsoever, this is indeed dangerous to the very fabric of our society, and a crucial reason why the whole health law, with its centralized control over health-care decisions, must be repealed.
Grace-Marie Turner writes at NRO:
The Obama administration announced today it will wait for a year (coincidentally until after the elections) before requiring religious organizations to comply with an Obamacare mandate that they provide coverage for contraception -- including controversial drugs that can abort an early pregnancy.
This started with a decision by the Obama administration last summer listing the "preventive" services that must be covered by health plans under Obamacare without charge to patients, and the list included contraception.
This is another assault on the Constitution and the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) called the federal regulation an "unprecedented threat to individual and institutional religious freedom."
The Obamacare regulation gives faith-based institutions, like Catholic universities and hospitals, the choice of violating the fundamental tenets of their faith by covering the federally mandated coverage in their employee health plans, or of dropping health insurance for their employees -- in which case they would be fined for violating the employer mandate.
Much more about this outrage, here.
As outrageous as the Obama administration's unprecedented threat to individual and institutional religious freedom in regard to healthcare is, just as outrageous is the utterly corrupt Obama/Holder Department of (In)Justice's recent argument before the Supreme Court that "public interest' should overrule churches' freedom to choose their own ministers, and administer their own internal affairs. Both of these are examples of the Obama administration and the left's ongoing war against faith.
not sure about your source as you don't seem to ever choose unbiased sources, and that source is obviously HEAVILY biased and anti-islamic as well, but beyond that, so what? they just have to PROVIDE coverage, meaning it is available, people can still refuse contraception, it is still their choice.
not sure about your source as you don't seem to ever choose unbiased sources, and that source is obviously HEAVILY biased and anti-islamic as well, but beyond that, so what? they just have to PROVIDE coverage, meaning it is available, people can still refuse contraception, it is still their choice.
Have you ever seen, or quoted, an unbiased source?
Have you ever seen, or quoted, an unbiased source?
In this case, the text of the law would be an unbiased source, as would policy statements from religious organizations on their stance on contraceptives. In the passage you quoted, the conclusions are clearly one-sided. Ignored completely is any contrary argument; there isn't even a strawman to provide the illusion that the article is unbiased.
Why should any organization within the entertainment industry be exempted from these requirements?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Have you ever seen, or quoted, an unbiased source?
as said above, no source will ever be truly 100% unbiased, but there is a huge difference between attempting to cover both sides and just choosing a side entirely, as in your sources rarely even pretend to cover the other side.
Believe me on the topic I am being censored from discussion on here, the amount of bias in the major media is sickening, but at least they even made some small and pathetic attempt to pretend to cover both sides, your sources don't even do that.
you really thought a site with "islamofacism" on the top menu banner would be a good source? really?
as said above, no source will ever be truly 100% unbiased, but there is a huge difference between attempting to cover both sides and just choosing a side entirely, as in your sources rarely even pretend to cover the other side.
Believe me on the topic I am being censored from discussion on here, the amount of bias in the major media is sickening, but at least they even made some small and pathetic attempt to pretend to cover both sides, your sources don't even do that.
you really thought a site with "islamofacism" on the top menu banner would be a good source? really?
Even you seem more than a tad biased, and perhaps even the NSA with his "entertainment industry" comment.
Make your case. Why should religious organizations hiring employees be allowed a different standard for medical coverage than all other employers?
I don't know the answer to this, but does the law require employers healthcare insurance cover elective circumcision, a purely religious medical practice? I would wager that it does.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I don't know the answer to this, but does the law require employers healthcare insurance cover elective circumcision, a purely religious medical practice? I would wager that it does.
I think one might find that a great number of circumcised males in the US are not Jewish or any other religion that requires circumcision. My hometown for example had no Jews.
I think one might find that a great number of circumcised males in the US are not Jewish or any other religion that requires circumcision. My hometown for example had no Jews.
right, it came from the christians in the Victorian era who thought self-pleasure was bad and thus seeked to reduce what was referred to then as the "self harm" and "religious uncleanliness" of the act. It has no real place in modern society to be done to non consenting infants and at a minimum we need to remove laws protecting the doctors willing to do such a barbaric act that violates many aspects of the hippocratic oath doctors should morally abide by. Also the christian bible being an offshoot of the same religious beliefs as islam and jews does view genital mutilation positively as do jews and muslims. However because of this link I don't think americans will understand it is still pretty much a religious practice, even if people don't fully understand the religious base for the act of the genital mutilation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival
Make your case. Why should religious organizations hiring employees be allowed a different standard for medical coverage than all other employers?
Also Eddie, still waiting for your reply to why religious organizations should be exempt
I don't know the answer to this, but does the law require employers healthcare insurance cover elective circumcision, a purely religious medical practice? I would wager that it does.
It is being dropped from state medical plans as it is unnecessary, most of europe does not cover it and eventually america will wise up as well, hopefully.
Linear Mode
