Let Me Speak Bluntly…
My gentle reader is hopefully aware of the recent discussion in our government as to whether or not any and all employers, particularly those with religious affiliations, should be required in their health plans to offer comprehensive coverage for contraception. Freedom of Religion, one side cries, and of course, when the very foundations of our Constitution are questioned, we do need to listen.
Obama came up with a politically practical settlement to the brouhaha a week or so ago, basically offering institutions, specifically religious ones, an option of putting the costs of a particular type of coverage, applying only to women, onto the insurance provider. So the government says it’s okay for a business to lower costs for religious reasons. What eligible business wouldn’t take advantage of that?
Okay, so Notre Dame University, Catholic Charities and the St Vincent DePaul folks, can penalize their insurance carriers for whatever many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Umm… Guess what’s coming up if you’re an employee of one of these Catholic institutions? Rate hikes!! All government regulations which increases the costs of corporate America immediate translate to higher prices to be put on the shoulders of the American consumer.
So, per the Obama compromise, if you’re a Protestant, Atheist or Moslem janitor for Notre Dame, Gonzaga or one of dozens of Catholic hospitals, your insurance premiums are going up to pay for the birth control pills of your so-workers.
This is wrong on so many levels.
Here’s the bigger problem. Tomorrow, our senate is going to vote on the Blunt Amendment. This law will extend this corporate loophole Obama made available to overtly religious (read: Catholic) organizations to any and all companies that have religious or MORAL objections to aspects of a medical plan. Moral objections?
I don’t remember there being a “Freedom of Morals” element to the First Amendment.
This is not only an invitation for big corporations to cut their employee health costs by claiming some moral resistance. Neither General Motors, General Electic nor General Dynamics can claim to be religious institutions, but if more than half of their board of directors would be willing to say they’re opposed to birth control for MORAL reasons (read: profit), than their millions of American female employees could be denied coverage of birth control.
I don’t think the Blunt Amendment will pass tomorrow, but if it does, what an attack it would be on the working class by corporate America, disguised under the veil of religious freedom.
Furthermore, this proposed amendment is a violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under that law, it is illegal for employers to practice “disparate treatment” on the basis of race, gender or religion. In America today, you cannot overtly say that men can will make $25/hr at a particular job, whilst women will only make $20/hr. Or vice versa. Or that blacks and whites will be compensated differently. Just to note, it‘s still okay under federal law to discriminate based upon sexual orientation, most states have passed laws that ban that too. In any case, paying women less than men is illegal.
How many men shell out $100/mo for birth control pills?
Mind you, my health insurance doesn’t cover Viagra without a whole bevy of tests to prove that it’s medically necessary, so if I chose to take those pills, I gotta pay for them myself, but that’s beside the point. Being sexually potent and being sexually vulnerable are two very different places.
Point being, if you exclude a necessary coverage that only effects women, if you make women pay for things that men don’t have to, you are discriminating against someone purely on the basis of their gender, and in my America, that is illegal.
What do you think?
I can’t help to notice that without the contributions of folks like Moosehammer, John Sawyer and yes, even Vic, the political discussion here on FriendBurst has gotten a little slow… Hey, many kudos to Freebird, D Lemur and Mango for keeping it going on occasion, but what can we do to make it once again the Gang of Ten instead of the Gang of four or five?
I was thinking about a political Blogtalkradio show… whose with me?
You speak as bluntly as you wish J…just remember to get the NCAA Tournament up and running…. :groovy:
The possibility of having damn near a handful of players has increased dramatically with Roscoe now agreeing to jump on in to the fracas….only 2 more.
😉
What lame sophistry is this?!?
The First Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Interfering with the free exercise of the moral precepts of a religious institution is about as contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment as any human action can possibly be! And you’re obviously intelligent enough to understand that. The fact you offer up such a weak and easily dismissed argument suggests rather strongly that you have very little confidence in the Constitutionality of your position. I mean, seriously, “freedom of morals,” as if morality can somehow be readily divorced from religious practice? That’s just embarrassing, man.
First off, birth control pills and other forms of contraception are widely utilized in this society, but they are hardly “necessary.” Refrain from sexual relations during the 4-5 days the woman is ovulating (approximately), and there won’t be any children conceived.
Secondly, the fact that only women use birth control pills does not, in and of itself, make it sexually discriminatory not to offer birth control pills as part of a health insurance plan. You would first have to prove that the pills are not being offered precisely BECAUSE women are the ones who use them. It is not illegal sexual discrimination merely to have any sort of policy that tends towards being inconvenient to women. And I’m pretty sure health insurance plans don’t offer coverage for testicular cancer treatments in women…which is theoretically just as discriminatory.
Thirdly, you do recall that the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified, correct? Doesn’t that fact imply that treatment of the two sexes that isn’t absolutely uniform is not innately unlawful? And if it doesn’t, then I guess it must be illegal for the Selective Service not to register young women for the draft? But of course, it is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982 expired and so it was not adopted.
Sorry Kevin, your whole line of reasoning is flawed… Secular social morals are not only possible – but the only type of morals we can legislate based upon. You might want to read that first amendment again. We can make no law based upon religious morals without endorsing one religion over others – which of course is unconstitutional. We *can* make laws that coincide with religion (thou shalt not kill, for example) but may not make them based solely on religious principle (no fish on Friday, for another example). These birth control measures in Blunt have *no* secular reasoning. We don’t let you opt out of paying taxes for military efforts based on religious objections either.
The institutions in question are *not* churches – they are businesses. They don’t get to selectively discriminate coverage for their employees based on any religious affiliation or lack there-of – and we certainly have no business legitimizing such a violation of the first amendment by making it law.
I first want to say that Roy Blunt is an idiot and sitting along side him is the other idiot here that talked about the rhythm method being a good way not to get pregnant.
My problem with this bill is that it is too far reaching. The way it’s written, anybody can object to anything to not have to pay for…whatever under the guise of moral objections. Actual life saving measures can be refused. So basically ALL of us could be screwed by this bill, not just women.
http://blunt.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/12ca4c96-d98c-4b37-920a-cdb15edb24d4/S.%201813%20Amendment.pdf
Well… I see most of the right still refuses to exchange ideas still but pick a spokesman whose comment goes gold in 5 minutes…. And they thought the lefties were a gang…. 😉
I am glad someone pointed out that morals and religion are not the same thing. I believe more firmly in following the golden rule than most of the Christians I know. And shucks, I include EVERYONE, not just my tribe.
Re the Blunt Amendment… First off, when a Church runs a business they become an employer. Under the current system employers make a contribution to the cost of employee health insurance. I think what an employee wants should be up to them and their doctor. Should a religious employer have the right to dictate to employees who do not share their conviction? I always thought my boss had plenty of power over me already… To extend this to “moral grounds will clearly be used ironically by immoral charlatans to cut costs. I think it a shame that we do not have Single Payer National Health Care. If we did we would not be having this conversation. The anti birth control are making hay with this issue…
Hi Joko…
I hope someone corrects me if I am wrong… But I thought there were Medical reasons to take the pill besides just preventing pregnancy.
I work for a Catholic Organization employer and the employees I have talked to about this gave me a List of things that the pill was necessary for. I of course slunk away and have now forgotten much of what they said.
Someone said something about ovarian cancer…
What we are talking about is employees of Hospitals such as St. Vincent’s. or St. Joseph’s,… etc. not being able to get the same insurance coverage that employees of IBM have.
Does anyone else think that employers paying for insurance seems kind of odd.
What other country works like that?
It’s not just odd, but I posit that the system of employer related heath coverage is immoral – fundamentally equating to indentured servitude.
Three principles I wish the US would take to heart:
1) health coverage is *not* healthcare
2) Health care is a mutually consumable and mutually beneficial resource, and as such should be considered part of the basic infrastructure of our federal system.
3) Health Insurance as a for-profit industry is fundamentally predatory and harmful.
Not meaning to be a clueless blonde but whatcha’ mean a political Blogtalkradio show? Because I’m in!
I tried playing around on another site but was jumped by several stalkers. Harecase wanted to be friends then next thing I know his buddies pounced. LOL..I showed them…but then got boring when they started following me to other sites even those nothing to do with politics. It got so ridiculous being constantly harassed and a waste of time I quit! Little me was so worth going after I suppose.
This is some of what I posted on Kira’s blog about Rush and his rant on BC.
The GOP candidates are very much practicing fanaticism.
What hypocrites the GOP are turning out to be…attacking women….it’s as if the “Republicans & CONSERVATIVE EXTREMISTS” are aiming for a U.S. version of “Sharia Law”.
First, they want to make condoms a form of murder. How is it murder if no egg is fertilized? Second, how dare the government try to decide what adult couples can or cannot do in private? Typical republican bullsh^t. Why try this nonsense?
Because all right-wingers are hypocrites, liars, and only wish to control everyone like the Taliban so many of them claim to despise.
And what really pisses me off, more innocent children have died because of wars started by Republicans in the last 75 years than abortion. Why are they not screaming about that?
Also contraception IS responsible. These type of republicans objections are based on religion, not fact. Maybe they should remember this is America, and no one has the right to force their religion on others. What they want to believe is fine, but do NOT try to tell others what they have to believe or what they can do or not do with their own body or who they can love. And heaven forbid if I do not want to be forced to live by law under their dogma its called an attack on religion.
All this just blows my mind…WTH !?!?!?!?!
I’m “afraid” of political words once are spoken….but part of the gang I want to be and always be, as long I’ll not be kicked out. 🙂