Abortion and Politics

[DCharlton]

It seems that the more conservative members of the forum are arguing the more open minded position.  They believe that we can "agree to disagree" about contraception.  The progressive position is that we must all agree about contraception.   This is revealed in the argument that the government must mandate free contraception as a universal right. 

I consider my position to be a moderate position.  I do not want the government to prevent women from purchasing and using contraceptives.  I do not want the government to coerce employers into paying for contraception against their religious beliefs.   

[DCharlton]

A serious consequence of the thinking behind the Hobby Lobby case is where the exemptions sought could end.  The ACA is about public health, specifically contraception.  How about vaccinations?  Blood transfusions?  As Justice Kagan said:  "So one religious group could opt of this, and another group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform."

My wife of 23 years is a Type 1 Diabetic.  If she is denied diabetic drugs and supplies she will die.  If she is denied contraceptives she will not die. 

[scott8]

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is at issue in the Hobby Lobby case, stipulates that the government cannot substantially burden the free exercise of religion even in a law that is neutrally applicable (i.e., one not intentionally geared to restrict religious practice).

There is an exception if both of two conditions are met.

First, there has to be a "compelling government interest" in the law.

Second, the law must be the least restrictive way to accomplish this compelling government interest.

It is hard to see how providing free contraception is a compelling government interest in the same way that making sure that we have a vaccinated population is a compelling government interest.  Eliminating deadly diseases depends upon having a vaccinated population.  Pregnancy -- whether considered a good or a bad -- is not indiscriminately caught via a mechanism similar to that of, say, the measles.  Ahem.  Not to mention that a society needs children to survive, but it does not similarly need polio to survive.

Further, even if the government did have a compelling interest in providing free contraception (because we all know that we must have sex as much as possible and do so without "repercussions," but I digress), there is a way this can be done that is less restrictive than requiring those who have a long-standing religious objection to contraceptives (e.g., there are some that function as abortifacients) to provide them.  The government itself can buy them and provide them.

[Randy Bosch]

Well, maybe they don't choose to  micromanage the 401k programs of the Hobby Lobby employees, but it certainly appears that they would like to micromanage their sex lives.  Is this not hypocrisy?

I removed my previous post, but you beat me with your response.  You still persist in characterizing this case as a micromanagement of employees' sex lives despite, as I said in my removed post, multiple sourced clarifications and corrections by others.  Why?  I'm beginning to think that there is a larger or different underlying issue in this for you, but cannot even fathom what it might be.

Saying that refusing to pay for someone's contraception amounts to "micromanaging" their sex lives is, well, hard to take seriously.

I don't think that you statement is quite right. Hobby Lobby is refusing to allow their health benefit carrier to provide free contraception. We don't know if that coverage that includes free contraception would cost any more than coverage that does not cover it. Thus, they are not "paying" for it. They are refusing to provide it.

Just how hypocritical are you suggesting that Hobby Lobby is?  Are you suggesting that their real problem is not the morality of providing contraceptives, especially contraceptives with the potential of also acting as abortifacients but the cost?  That if it could be demonstrated that providing those contraceptives through the health plan without it costing the company anything that they would or should say, "fine, if it costs us nothing extra we're OK with providing them?"  Talk about hypocrites!  Oh wait, that is your idea of how they should think about it.

I was not saying anything about Hobby Lobby, but Randy Bosch's statement about them refusing to pay for it. He is the one who brought up the cost issue. I'm arguing that it is a providing issue. It hasn't been shown that it would cost Hobby Lobby anything more to have contraceptive coverage - and I believe that cost is not the issue for them.

Brian, Your vaunted exegetical skills have failed you once again. Please take a moment to actually read my posting that you quoted. I did not make a ..."statement about them refusing to pay for it."  I am not "the one who brought up the cost issue."   

[Michael Slusser]

.  The government itself can buy them and provide them.  Problem solved.

I'm not sure that is a real solution; it may be as bad as or worse than the actual proposals.

Peace,
Michael

[scott8]

.  The government itself can buy them and provide them.  Problem solved.

I'm not sure that is a real solution; it may be as bad as or worse than the actual proposals.

Peace,
Michael

Perhaps.  But it is a less restrictive requirement to an individual, privately-owned business or a group like the Little Sisters of the Poor, which is the only reason I brought it up.

[Richard Johnson]

Unbelievable.  If contraception is not a matter of public health, what is it?  Is it recreation?

Often, yes.

[Brian Stoffregen]

A serious consequence of the thinking behind the Hobby Lobby case is where the exemptions sought could end.  The ACA is about public health, specifically contraception.  How about vaccinations?  Blood transfusions?  As Justice Kagan said:  "So one religious group could opt of this, and another group could opt out of that, and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform."

What about a religious group who uses peyote in their worship services? Or if a religious group believes their god requires them to use heroin or marijuana? There could be some that require live animals to sacrifice? Or what if they require a human sacrifice? These are the types of issues that a friend dealt with when she was a chaplain at a federal prison: what constitutes an acceptable religion and religious practices that the government will allow in prison?


Or consider: If the government can stop Native Americans from their traditional practice of smoking peyote, could they stop churches from serving the wine of communion to underage youth? There were court cases about this back in 1989.


Or, we've also had court cases where Christian Science parents refused to let their sick children receive the medical treatments that would save their lives? Should the State allow that under their freedom of religion, or take the children away from the parents so that their lives might be saved?

[Brian Stoffregen]

So, would you say that reducing the number of abortions is more important than religious freedom?  That pursuing a course of action that you have decided will reduce the number of abortions should void any religious rights that may be infringed in the course of that action?  Why not mandatory contraception for all women not intending to give birth in nine months?

No religious rights of individuals are infringed upon. No one is forcing someone to get the free contraceptions against their will or religious convictions. Just like no one forces an alcoholic to drink wine at communion. I think most of us offer grape juice as an alternative - or tell them to receive Jesus in just the bread.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Well, maybe they don't choose to  micromanage the 401k programs of the Hobby Lobby employees, but it certainly appears that they would like to micromanage their sex lives.  Is this not hypocrisy?

I removed my previous post, but you beat me with your response.  You still persist in characterizing this case as a micromanagement of employees' sex lives despite, as I said in my removed post, multiple sourced clarifications and corrections by others.  Why?  I'm beginning to think that there is a larger or different underlying issue in this for you, but cannot even fathom what it might be.

Saying that refusing to pay for someone's contraception amounts to "micromanaging" their sex lives is, well, hard to take seriously.

I don't think that you statement is quite right. Hobby Lobby is refusing to allow their health benefit carrier to provide free contraception. We don't know if that coverage that includes free contraception would cost any more than coverage that does not cover it. Thus, they are not "paying" for it. They are refusing to provide it.

Just how hypocritical are you suggesting that Hobby Lobby is?  Are you suggesting that their real problem is not the morality of providing contraceptives, especially contraceptives with the potential of also acting as abortifacients but the cost?  That if it could be demonstrated that providing those contraceptives through the health plan without it costing the company anything that they would or should say, "fine, if it costs us nothing extra we're OK with providing them?"  Talk about hypocrites!  Oh wait, that is your idea of how they should think about it.

I was not saying anything about Hobby Lobby, but Randy Bosch's statement about them refusing to pay for it. He is the one who brought up the cost issue. I'm arguing that it is a providing issue. It hasn't been shown that it would cost Hobby Lobby anything more to have contraceptive coverage - and I believe that cost is not the issue for them.

Brian, Your vaunted exegetical skills have failed you once again. Please take a moment to actually read my posting that you quoted. I did not make a ..."statement about them refusing to pay for it."  I am not "the one who brought up the cost issue."   

My apologies. I was reading the names and shading in the quoted sections wrongly. Your name was in the same shade as the statement. Now I believe that it was Scott Yakimow who used the phrase "refusing to pay for someone's contraception".

[Dan Fienen]

So, would you say that reducing the number of abortions is more important than religious freedom?  That pursuing a course of action that you have decided will reduce the number of abortions should void any religious rights that may be infringed in the course of that action?  Why not mandatory contraception for all women not intending to give birth in nine months?

No religious rights of individuals are infringed upon. No one is forcing someone to get the free contraceptions against their will or religious convictions. Just like no one forces an alcoholic to drink wine at communion. I think most of us offer grape juice as an alternative - or tell them to receive Jesus in just the bread.

How efficient of you to have solved the entire Hobby Lobby case so simply.  The owners of Hobby Lobby are not being forced to obtain or take contraceptives for themselves so of course their religious convictions are not being infringed.  They just are being forced to provide them for others against their religious convictions but you have determined that doesn't count.  How could they have been so ignorant as to think that providing something for someone else that their religious beliefs consider immoral and sinful is against their religion?

[Brian Stoffregen]

So, would you say that reducing the number of abortions is more important than religious freedom?  That pursuing a course of action that you have decided will reduce the number of abortions should void any religious rights that may be infringed in the course of that action?  Why not mandatory contraception for all women not intending to give birth in nine months?

No religious rights of individuals are infringed upon. No one is forcing someone to get the free contraceptions against their will or religious convictions. Just like no one forces an alcoholic to drink wine at communion. I think most of us offer grape juice as an alternative - or tell them to receive Jesus in just the bread.

How efficient of you to have solved the entire Hobby Lobby case so simply.  The owners of Hobby Lobby are not being forced to obtain or take contraceptives for themselves so of course their religious convictions are not being infringed.  They just are being forced to provide them for others against their religious convictions but you have determined that doesn't count.  How could they have been so ignorant as to think that providing something for someone else that their religious beliefs consider immoral and sinful is against their religion?

The same way that Quakers and other passivists have to support the military and wars with their taxes even though war is contrary to their religious beliefs. Individually, they can be a conscientious objector. They can't refuse to pay taxes.

[Randy Bosch]

The same way that Quakers and other passivists have to support the military and wars with their taxes even though war is contrary to their religious beliefs. Individually, they can be a conscientious objector. They can't refuse to pay taxes.

I don't think you want to live in the "affirming the consequent" fallacy, even though the logic in many of your posts resides there.  By the same logic, Taxes support payment for all capital punishment sentence executions.  Brian pays taxes.  Therefore, Bryan supports all capital punishment executions.

[DCharlton]

Or, we've also had court cases where Christian Science parents refused to let their sick children receive the medical treatments that would save their lives? Should the State allow that under their freedom of religion, or take the children away from the parents so that their lives might be saved?

No Brian.  No one is "refusing to let" women buy or use contraceptives.   Even the were (which they are not) it would not lead to death.  Denying a Type 1 Diabetic drugs and supplies would lead to death, and yet there is no mandate that they be provided for free.

(When will those who criticize conservative Christians for using the slippery slope fallacy begin criticizing its use on the left?)

[Brian Stoffregen]

The same way that Quakers and other passivists have to support the military and wars with their taxes even though war is contrary to their religious beliefs. Individually, they can be a conscientious objector. They can't refuse to pay taxes.

I don't think you want to live in the "affirming the consequent" fallacy, even though the logic in many of your posts resides there.  By the same logic, Taxes support payment for all capital punishment sentence executions.  Brian pays taxes.  Therefore, Bryan supports all capital punishment executions.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Rather, the opposite; just because I pay taxes that goes for wars and legal executions doesn't mean that I support any of them; but I still pay my taxes. The parallel is: just because Hobby Lobby or other companies have coverages for contraceptions or even abortions doesn't mean that they support them; just that they have to carry that insurance coverage.