Can Obama require hospitals with religious ties to offer full contraception coverage?
The question of whether institutions with religious ties should be required to offer insurance plans covering birth control and the so-called morning after pill, among other things, hits a number of political hot buttons. Liberal groups have pushed for an expansive contraception coverage requirement on grounds of gender equality in health care. Conservatives generally consider it a violation of the First Amendment and an infringement on religious liberty.
It's in the constitution
Side Score: 21
|
 |
It's unconstitutional
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
The hell he can! I am forced to pay for things that are against my religious beliefs: useless wars, torture, giving aid to terrorists (Pakistani government). Does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?! And these freakin Christians can complain about their rights once they stop taking away those of woman and gays in the name of their religion. Side: It's in the constitution
1
point
Since you didn't dispute any of my arguments, I will simply repost them to give you a second chance. And two can play the down-vote game. - "I am forced to pay for things that are against my religious beliefs: useless wars, torture, giving aid to terrorists (Pakistani government). Does that mean I don't have to pay taxes?! And these freakin Christians can complain about their rights once they stop taking away those of woman and gays in the name of their religion." Side: It's in the constitution
3
points
99% of American women who have had sex have used contraceptives. 98% of American female Catholics who have had sex have used contraceptives. I see no real reason to discriminate between two people on an issue that only has a difference of support of about 1%. Such a hugely overblown issue, no one really wants it banned, it's just all about winning the 'moral war' and getting votes. Side: It's in the constitution
I'll be more charitable with all of this "religious liberty" these groups want when religion starts paying taxes like everyone else. Either way though: 1. Religious freedom means individuals can express their own religion freely, not that they are free to force in whatever way others to express a religion that may or may not be their own. 2. Contraceptive coverage saves the country, and hospitals, millions and millions in the long run, it's a smart policy to provide it for free. 3. Contraceptives are also the number one deterrent for abortions so if these religious groups had half a brain they'd be thrilled by the idea. Side: It's in the constitution
1
point
I don't see in any way that there is a conflict, because a hospital, charity, etc, that bears a religious name or has ties to a religion is not a church. These places or organizations are supposed to be for the benefit of society as a whole and not strictly for the pushing of ideas on others. If a hospital, organization only wants to aid its members and not society, this would be a different story. These places are open to the public, not just its' members. They didn't order any religion to preach the use of birth control, churches are exempt. If Catholics don't like helping those outside their religion, then their hospitals should be deemed as private hospitals and not except money from any type of insurance that doesn't fit their religion. Room for thought, does the Catholic church feed only the hungry that doesn't steal, kill, commit adultery, etc. Side: It's in the constitution
|
1
point
The article states: "President Barack Obama announced a compromise Friday in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions. Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees." He never had the power to make such an order, so..., the fact that it was recanted is NOT a compromise. That's like me telling you to fork over $100 and cop tells me that's stealing and I then say, "OK, let's compromise. You don't have to give me $100." ;) Side: It's unconstitutional
1
point
|
