Taxes and Employer Birth Control Coverage

  • Thread starter Thread starter sainthumbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sainthumbert

Guest
What is the moral difference between paying federal taxes in which a miniscule portion goes to grants given to Planned Parenthood and an employer paying mandatory health care premiums which cover contraceptives under Obamacare?

I am by no means in favor of simply going along with the new requirement. However, I don’t see too much difference between the two. In both instances, the government is requiring individuals to pay for something they object to (abortions through planned parenthood and contraceptives through the health premiums). If the federal government stated that instead of paying the premiums an individual can pay a tax which is the same amount as the premium, would this all of a sudden make it morally acceptable? If not, why? Taxes are apparently morally acceptable to pay even though they are used to pay for morally objectionable things (ie funding planned parenthood).
 
Pro lifers want Planned Parenthood defunded of receiving tax dollars, so its not an either or regarding taxpayer dollars funding Planned Parenthood and taxpayer dollars funding contraception, sterilization and abortificants - they are both bad.
 
Maybe I should clarify a bit. I agree that that the Bishops should stand against the Obamacare requirement that employers must pay for health insurance premiums that include coverage of contraceptives. However, I am confused why the Bishops haven’t also made a stand against individuals having to pay federal taxes which, to a very small extent, support abortions through grants to Planned Parenthood. They may call for civil disobedience against one (Obamacare premiums) but not the other (federal taxes). How are the Bishops distinguishing the two?
 
sainthumbert said:
Maybe I should clarify a bit. I agree that that the Bishops should stand against the Obamacare requirement that employers must pay for health insurance premiums that include coverage of contraceptives. However, I am confused why the Bishops haven’t also made a stand against individuals having to pay federal taxes which, to a very small extent, support abortions through grants to Planned Parenthood. They may call for civil disobedience against one (Obamacare premiums) but not the other (federal taxes). How are the Bishops distinguishing the two?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it’s because of the religious liberty reason? If the government can dictate that a Catholic institution must provide contraception coverage what will be next?? Will the government then make churches perform same sex marriage, make the Catholic church have women priests because of discrimination?? How about government mandated euthanasia for the elderly and disabled because they are of no use to society and cost the government to much to support? This mandate goes way beyond the contraception issue and I believe the bishops of the US know that and see what is coming down the pike.
 
As I understand it, part of Obamacare will be paid for by a lower deduction allowed for medical expenses on federal taxes. Currently the floor stands at 7.5% but will be increased to 10% in 2014. This will hit those who need medical care the most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top