Here’s one final note about the vice presidential debate. Both Vice President Biden and Paul Ryan had their weak moments. Ryan couldn’t explain what Mitt Romney would do differently in the future to deal with the tragedy in Syria even if he was right about President Obama’s mistakes. He was also flummoxed by Biden’s comeback about his request for stimulus funds for his Wisconsin congressional district, something for which he should have been prepared. The list of Biden’s mistakes is much longer. Biden told a flat out lie when he claimed he opposed the Iraq War and the add-on of the prescription drug plan to Medicare. He voted for both of the wars and the free drugs for seniors. But as bad as that was, far more offensive was the lie about the administration’s attack on religious freedom via ObamaCare.
In response to Ryan’s accurate charge that the HHS Mandate under ObamaCare forces religious institutions to violate their consciences to pay for services their faith opposes, Biden claimed the following:
With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, one might ask Biden if Georgetown is not being compelled to pay for contraception, then what exactly was behind the ruckus about Sandra Fluke’s complaints about the university’s refusal to do so. Biden’s claim was not only an offensive falsehood, it was a stupid one since even his liberal supporters know that is what is happening.
In truth, the attempt to force both church institutions and individuals to bow to the dictates of the president’s signature health care legislation is the subject of legal challenges that are still making their way through the courts. As the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty noted today, there are currently 33 such cases representing over 100 hospitals, universities, businesses and schools that are seeking to defend their constitutional rights against the administration’s attempt to compel them to do exactly what Biden says they are not being asked to do. These plaintiffs face potential government fines of millions of dollars, but they are determined to stand up for their faith and their beliefs in spite of the government’s efforts to intimidate them.
There is a lively debate going on about the future of health care, but there may be no more insidious aspect to the ObamaCare issue than this threat to religious liberty. Both Biden and his party support the HHS Mandate, something that was made abundantly clear at the Democratic Convention at which Ms. Fluke was unveiled as a prime time liberal star. But the vice president’s willingness to lie about that support tells us that he understands just how unpopular this stand is outside of the precincts of the left. He should have had the guts and the honesty to say so.
Democrats repeating their “liar, liar” mantra about Romney and Ryan (and claiming that this justified Biden’s boorishness) need to own up to the barefaced lies Biden told at the debate.
So if I understand you correctly, when someone becomes employed they abrogate their religious liberty and are compelled by the constitution to follow the religious dictates of their employer. To take that a step further, if a Jew is employed by Jehovah's Witnesses who oppose any form of blood transfusion on religious grounds, can they explicitly deny insurance coverage for that medical procedure? Can Christian Scientists deny health insurance coverage for medical treatments other than "Affirmative Prayer"? Does the First Amendment of the Constitution imply that religious freedom is conditional and that the rights of some have a higher validity than the rights of others depending upon employment status or some other condition? n nThe "solution" was to make contraceptive coverage a guaranteed free benefit for all, which means that the Catholic Church isn't paying for it just as they are not paying for the free mammograms and other free services mandated in the ACA. Now for them to insist that it not be available to their employees as a covered benefit, even at no cost to them, begs the question of whether one group's "Religious Freedom" or beliefs can be imposed upon another. n nThere are no simple answers to this conundrum and it could have far reaching consequences upon religious groups across the nation as other religious organizations demand that they too have a right to assert their beliefs upon their employees in keeping with their religious dictates. Be careful what you ask for.
The logic behind this comment is nonexistent. If I am employed by a company that does not wish to pay for a benefit for me, I am not compelled to do without that benefit. I have the freedom to pay for it myself or to find other employment. If a Jew wishes to have his employee pay for a blood transfusion then I suggest he not seek employment with a Jehovah's Witness entity. Pretty simple, huh? Nobody's rights are being violated when one private entity does not wish to provide a free benefit to to another private entity that desires it. n nTo address the second paragraph, it is simply not true to say that a benefit provided for under an insurance plan is not paid for by the entity paying for the insurance. Many large corporations, such as hospitals, self insure. That means that they pay directly for all benefits provided by the insurance coverage and they also pay an insurance company to administer the coverage plan. Thus if a Catholic institution self insures they are being forced by the HHS mandate to pay for contraceptives and abortificants. If they do not self insure they are paying the insurance company to insure their employees under a given plan. The insurance company charges the the Catholic institution for the estimated expenses of the coverage plus the overhead of doing this business. Transferring the contraceptives and abortificants from direct costs to the overhead charges still leaves the institution paying. n nBecause I refuse to pay for your subscription to Commentary does not mean I am imposing my values on you. It matters not whether you are my employee or not.
Actually yes, that's exactly what that means. If you CHOOSE to work for a religious organization, then you should accept what they are choosing to provide or not provide. If you don't like it, then you are free to CHOOSE to work somewhere else. Freedom of choice, my friend.
You completely miss the point. No religious institution is attempting to "deny" anyone health insurance coverage to contraception, blood transfusions, etc… They are just declining to offer insurance packages to their employees that contain those services. Those employees are completely free to get whatever (additional) insurance coverage they please outside of what their employers may be offering. No one's religious beliefs are being "imposed" on anyone. n nAs for your assertion that there are "no simple answers to this conundrum," that is also false. There is a simple answer. Repeal Obamacare.
Joe Biden last night claimed to be a practicing Catholic, I am not familiar with the faction of the Catholic chruch that sanctions abortion or birth control, both of which Biden supports. Although the way most of the Cardinals and Bishops are weak on upholding church teachings there are a few holding the torch high. suffice to say if I were Bidens Cardinal he would have been excomunicated long ago. As for Sandra Fluke is concerned, she is the quintessential example of how our education system has failed or maybe I should say succeeded in inculcating the socialist faith into her head. Namely if she wants something it should be given to her no matter who pays for it. Oh and lest I forget, a total lack of moral character is also on the curriculum.
In the debate, both Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan failed to articulate the biggest problem with the HHS mandate. n nIn the guise of its religious exemption, the HHS regulations grants the federal government the new and offensive power to sit in judgment on which churches and religious organizations count as truly religions in their eyes — a stunningly dangerous precedent. n nSpecifically, HHS defines a religious organization as one that meets a four-part test: “(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a nonprofit organization…” n nThe second and third standards seriously misunderstand the actual practice of most religions, but most particularly the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church and its affiliated organizations have a broad religious commitment to serve the poor, not only the Catholic poor or only with Catholic staff. To meet the HHS's second and third tests would require Catholic institutions to betray Catholic teaching. n nThus, this is not merely a dispute about contraceptives (as Vice President Biden and others claim), but rather a much larger dispute about who gets to define religious faith, the religious institutions or the federal government. n nBecause of the "free exercise of religion" provision of the U.S. Constitution, this offensive provision likely will fall once decisions are reached on challenges brought by Cardinal Dolan and others. n nThe debate between the Vice Presidential candidates offered an opportunity to explain to the public what actually is at stake. Unfortunately, neither candidate provided that service.
Only in a liberal, knee-jerk mind do rubbers qualify as a medical procedure.
You ask about Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses. The short and honest answer? Yes! Employers have rights too. If I seek employment with an organization, it is my responsibility to determine their beliefs and if they are compatable with my own. If not, I look elsewhere for employment, for who would I think I am to demand that they savage their consciences to accomodate me?
@Dr. Tampa is correct and @ritchie is wrong. If conservatives don't like the government telling employers what they have to offer in health insurance benefits to employees, then the solution is simple-separate health insurance from employment. Go with Single Payer. But as long as most Americans have to obtain health insurance through their employer because it is not affordable to purchase on an individual basis (or because of adverse health conditions) then no employer has a right to impose his religious beliefs on the employees by limiting their health insurance. n nHealth insurance should be based on scientific principles not religious superstition. The point about Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists is exactly right.
I think it's stupid that my tax dollars have to pay for someone birth control adults can buy their own birth control pills and condoms.