WH:No Constitutional Rights Issue in Forcing Catholics to Act Against Their Faith

[MTKM]

I friend of mine sent me this quote from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

“We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.”

This friend mentions that this should not be an issue for the Catholic Church to just refer them to some other location.

 

[JimG]

I friend of mine sent me this quote from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:

“We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.”

This friend mentions that this should not be an issue for the Catholic Church to just refer them to some other location.

It is an issue. Referral for something that the employer believes to be immoral is a violation of the First Amendment. It would be saying, "OK, we were going to force you to pay for something you believe to be evil, but instead we’ll just force you to tell people where to obtain the evil.

This is precisely the sort of thing which the First Amendment forbids. The government has no right to obstruct the free exercise of religion, and it applies to everyone.

 

[jonfawkes]

It is an issue. Referral for something that the employer believes to be immoral is a violation of the First Amendment. It would be saying, "OK, we were going to force you to pay for something you believe to be evil, but instead we’ll just force you to tell people where to obtain the evil.

This is precisely the sort of thing which the First Amendment forbids. The government has no right to obstruct the free exercise of religion, and it applies to everyone.

This is flawed logic. If I am a PETA card carrying vegan do I have the right to restrict the pay of my employees because the might spend it on meat or animal products. No one is forcing Catholics to practice birth control. Religious restriction of behavior is on the practitioner. I’m sure that some of you work for Jewish people. Do they have the right to dictate your behavior because they pay you? They do have different religious beliefs.

 

[MTKM]

It is an issue. Referral for something that the employer believes to be immoral is a violation of the First Amendment. It would be saying, "OK, we were going to force you to pay for something you believe to be evil, but instead we’ll just force you to tell people where to obtain the evil.

This is precisely the sort of thing which the First Amendment forbids. The government has no right to obstruct the free exercise of religion, and it applies to everyone.

Jim - Thanks for your response …I agree 1000%.

I read the HHS statement over and over…Isn’t this referral only during the transitional stage from Aug. 2012 to Aug 2013 and then after Aug. 2013 the Catholic insitutions must fully comply to the mandate by providing the coverage, etc… This is how I interpret the statement. Am I wrong?

 

[JimG]

This is flawed logic. If I am a PETA card carrying vegan do I have the right to restrict the pay of my employees because the might spend it on meat or animal products. No one is forcing Catholics to practice birth control. Religious restriction of behavior is on the practitioner. I’m sure that some of you work for Jewish people. Do they have the right to dictate your behavior because they pay you? They do have different religious beliefs.

No one is forcing Catholic to practice birth control, rather the government is forcing Catholic employers to violate their conscience by paying for something that they consider evil. It’s a violation of religious liberty. The employers pays the employee. Nothing prevents the employee from spending his pay on something evil. But the government cannot force the employer to pay for evil.

And if a Jewish employer wished to operate a kosher restaurant, for example, it would be a violation of his religious liberty for the government to force him to serve pork in order to accomodate non-kosher employees or customers.

 

[Nec5]

I love the White House response to this issue:

“Problem? What problem?”

Classic.

 

[MTKM]

No one is forcing Catholic to practice birth control, rather the government is forcing Catholic employers to violate their conscience by paying for something that they consider evil. It’s a violation of religious liberty. The employers pays the employee. Nothing prevents the employee from spending his pay on something evil. But the government cannot force the employer to pay for evil.

And if a Jewish employer wished to operate a kosher restaurant, for example, it would be a violation of his religious liberty for the government to force him to serve pork in order to accomodate non-kosher employees or customers.

Kudos

 

[jonfawkes]

No one is forcing Catholic to practice birth control, rather the government is forcing Catholic employers to violate their conscience by paying for something that they consider evil. It’s a violation of religious liberty. The employers pays the employee. Nothing prevents the employee from spending his pay on something evil. But the government cannot force the employer to pay for evil.

And if a Jewish employer wished to operate a kosher restaurant, for example, it would be a violation of his religious liberty for the government to force him to serve pork in order to accomodate non-kosher employees or customers.

But Catholic employers aren’t providing the health care. They are providing heath care as part of the compensation for the job. Part of the payment is healthcare.

If your Jewish employer is paying for healthcare and you get an illness from eating pork and get it treated, is he paying for evil? You violated kosher law.

You are saying that the employer has the right to dictate the behavior of the employee based on religious belief based on the fact nature of the employer / employee relationship. I.E. “If I’m paying you I can tell you how to live your life outside the workplace.” I highly doubt you would subject yourself to shaira law just because you worked for a Islamic employer.

 

[LisaA]

This is flawed logic. If I am a PETA card carrying vegan do I have the right to restrict the pay of my employees because the might spend it on meat or animal products. No one is forcing Catholics to practice birth control. Religious restriction of behavior is on the practitioner. I’m sure that some of you work for Jewish people. Do they have the right to dictate your behavior because they pay you? They do have different religious beliefs.

You’ve gotten this mixed up. The employer is not dictating the behavior of the employee in this case. Rather the GOVERNMENT is dictating a behavior to the employer.

Your example is more in line of the employer requiring his employees be nonsmokers and thus dictating their behavior outside the workplace. That is not the argument and whether or not employees would even use the contraceptive services is irrelevant. The government is telling the employer they must provide a medical service that is in conflict with that employer’s religious faith. A better example would be the government requiring a Jewish employer to serve pork in its cafeteria or a Mormon employer having to provide alcohol at all company events. The government cannot tell anyone to violate their religious faith or be fined.

Lisa

 

[jonfawkes]

You’ve gotten this mixed up. The employer is not dictating the behavior of the employee in this case. Rather the GOVERNMENT is dictating a behavior to the employer.

Your example is more in line of the employer requiring his employees be nonsmokers and thus dictating their behavior outside the workplace. That is not the argument and whether or not employees would even use the contraceptive services is irrelevant. The government is telling the employer they must provide a medical service that is in conflict with that employer’s religious faith. A better example would be the government requiring a Jewish employer to serve pork in its cafeteria or a Mormon employer having to provide alcohol at all company events. The government cannot tell anyone to violate their religious faith or be fined.

Lisa

No,

The heath care service isn’t being provided at work. It has little to do with the work environment other than being compensation for the work provided. No one is practicing contraception at work. Employers have a right to dictate the behavior of their employees at work. You can’t drink alcohol at work but you can at home (or at Mass) what prevents a Muslim saying “I don’t want to pay Catholics because they are going to spend it on alcohol. It’s part of their religious practice. As a Muslim I think alcohol is haram and evil.”

It doesn’t have anything to do with the workplace. No one is going to have to have bowl full of condoms at the receptionist’s desk.

 

[LisaA]

No,

The heath care service isn’t being provided at work. It has little to do with the work environment other than being compensation for the work provided. No one is practicing contraception at work. Employers have a right to dictate the behavior of their employees at work. You can’t drink alcohol at work but you can at home (or at Mass) what prevents a Muslim saying “I don’t want to pay Catholics because they are going to spend it on alcohol. It’s part of their religious practice. As a Muslim I think alcohol is haram and evil.”

It doesn’t have anything to do with the workplace. No one is going to have to have bowl full of condoms at the receptionist’s desk.

No you are not understanding the issue at all. This has nothing to do with behavior of the EMPLOYEES but rather forcing the employer to provide at no cost a product that violates their religious teaching. It is irrelevant whether or not the employees want the birth control products or choose to use them. Their behavior and their choices are not relevant to the discussion. It is not about an employer telling their employees what to do or what not to do.

The issue is about the government forcing an employer to provide a product that violates their religious faith. The employees are irrelevant. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict between employers and the HHS. .

Lisa

 

[jonfawkes]

No you are not understanding the issue at all. This has nothing to do with behavior of the EMPLOYEES but rather forcing the employer to provide at no cost a product that violates their religious teaching. It is irrelevant whether or not the employees want the birth control products or choose to use them. Their behavior and their choices are not relevant to the discussion. It is not about an employer telling their employees what to do or what not to do.

The issue is about the government forcing an employer to provide a product that violates their religious faith. The employees are irrelevant. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict between employers and the HHS. .

Lisa

Again, No. You are not providing birth control. You are providing health care.

If none of your employees are using birth control then you aren’t paying for it. So you are trying to dictate their behavior. If I don’t pay for it they can’t use it.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Health care is part of the compensation for work provided. Just like you have to pay for taxes for your employees. Taxes that maybe used for evil things like unjust war.

Should a Christian Scientist as an employer be allowed to prevent your kids from having vaccinations? They don’t believe in them on religious grounds.

 

[DeoSalvatoreMeo]

Again, No. You are not providing birth control. You are providing health care.

If none of your employees are using birth control then you aren’t paying for it. So you are trying to dictate their behavior. If I don’t pay for it they can’t use it.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Health care is part of the compensation for work provided. Just like you have to pay for taxes for your employees. Taxes that maybe used for evil things like unjust war.

Should a Christian Scientist as an employer be allowed to prevent your kids from having vaccinations? They don’t believe in them on religious grounds.

No one is preventing employees from using contraception. No employees are under threat of being fired if they use contraception that they are paying for. You are not understanding this issue at all. I’ve seen several people try to re-phrase it for you. Catholic employers are not telling their employees that they may not use contraception, they are saying that they, as a Catholic employer, are not going to be forced to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients because it’s against Catholic morals. This is not a contraception issue, it’s a freedom of conscience issue. I’m not sure how else this can be re-phrased to help you. Please remember, also, that all Americans are free to choose to be employed by a Catholic hospital or college and all of the benefits and restrictions that that implies. If they don’t like it, then don’t work for a Catholic employer.

 

[jonfawkes]

No one is preventing employees from using contraception. No employees are under threat of being fired if they use contraception that they are paying for. You are not understanding this issue at all. I’ve seen several people try to re-phrase it for you. Catholic employers are not telling their employees that they may not use contraception, they are saying that they, as a Catholic employer, are not going to be forced to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients because it’s against Catholic morals. This is not a contraception issue, it’s a freedom of conscience issue. I’m not sure how else this can be re-phrased to help you. Please remember, also, that all Americans are free to choose to be employed by a Catholic hospital or college and all of the benefits and restrictions that that implies. If they don’t like it, then don’t work for a Catholic employer.

I understand but disagree.

You are trying to define what health care is for non Catholics. The thrust of your argument is “I don’t agree with it so I don’t want to pay for it” I have given other examples of other religious groups whose Religious prohibitions are different from Catholics. You wouldn’t want them to define what health care is for Catholics.

The fact is the secular world has defined contraception as part of health care. OBGYNs are the ones that prescribe birth control for women. Doctors are the ones that preform abortions. We may not like it, but it all happens under the umbrella of health professionals. No one is forcing Catholics to practice birth control. We can be self prohibitive and regulate our own behavior as the Catholic Church instructs us.

Healthcare is part of the employees pay. You are paying an employee with healthcare.

I agree it is a freedom of conscience issue - each to choose and follow their own conscience. Moral decisions shouldn’t be forced on us by our employers. Each should be able to practice their religion (or lack of it) as they see fit not how their employer see that they should.

 

[LisaA]

Again, No. You are not providing birth control. You are providing health care.

If none of your employees are using birth control then you aren’t paying for it. So you are trying to dictate their behavior. If I don’t pay for it they can’t use it.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Health care is part of the compensation for work provided. Just like you have to pay for taxes for your employees. Taxes that maybe used for evil things like unjust war.

Should a Christian Scientist as an employer be allowed to prevent your kids from having vaccinations? They don’t believe in them on religious grounds.

No you are not providing healthcare to the employees, you are providing a benefit (this is specifically NOT considered compensation under the tax laws FWIW) that enables them to access certain medical treatments and services at no cost to them.

In the case of the HHS mandate, employers are REQUIRED to provide a particular insurance plan that gives them access to abortofacients, sterilization and artificial birth control. That is the issue. Whether or not the employees access these procedures is not relevant. The HHS mandate is asking employers to be complicit in providing services that violate their faith by paying for it, by providing information and by seemingly assenting to the procedures as a part of their employer/employee relationship. They are asking employers to participate in a very grave sin. Don’t you understand this concept? Employers cannot “wash their hands” of this sin by saying they don’t control whether or not the employee uses the services. They are still participating in a grave sin by providing the insurance in full knowledge that this will give access to these procedures.

Your theory would absolve someone who paid for and drove a woman to an abortion clinic because “I didn’t make her get the abortion.” It makes no sense at all to me. Do you really think someone who is complicit in another’s sin is innocent because they didn’t directly participate?

Lisa

 

[jonfawkes]

No you are not providing healthcare to the employees, you are providing a benefit (this is specifically NOT considered compensation under the tax laws FWIW) that enables them to access certain medical treatments and services at no cost to them.

In the case of the HHS mandate, employers are REQUIRED to provide a particular insurance plan that gives them access to abortofacients, sterilization and artificial birth control. That is the issue. Whether or not the employees access these procedures is not relevant. The HHS mandate is asking employers to be complicit in providing services that violate their faith by paying for it, by providing information and by seemingly assenting to the procedures as a part of their employer/employee relationship. They are asking employers to participate in a very grave sin. Don’t you understand this concept? Employers cannot “wash their hands” of this sin by saying they don’t control whether or not the employee uses the services. They are still participating in a grave sin by providing the insurance in full knowledge that this will give access to these procedures.

Your theory would absolve someone who paid for and drove a woman to an abortion clinic because “I didn’t make her get the abortion.” It makes no sense at all to me. Do you really think someone who is complicit in another’s sin is innocent because they didn’t directly participate?

Lisa

Tax laws are a separate issue. Because it is not taxable doesn’t mean it’s not compensation. 401k contributions are pre-tax dollars as well, no one would argue that they’re not compensation. They are also considered a benefit.

Just because you are providing health care that gives access to birth control doesn’t mean that people will take advantage of it. You have know idea what they will do. They will make decisions based on their sense of moral good. You are not complicit by following the law. Render unto Caesar. Contraception is regulated by the Health Care field. It is part of secular health care.

By dictating what you will and won’t pay for is impeding the free practice of someone else’s (non Catholic) religion.

If you pay a kid to cut the grass and he buys condoms are you being complicit?

 

[Qwikness]

I keep hearing that there are 28 states where Catholic Institutions are required by law, to pay for these services in their health care plans. This statement derails conversations. I don’t know if its true or how true.
I saw Lawrence O’Donnell, a lib, on MSNBC last night say, it was untrue and there was no state that required religious institutions to pay, there were exemptions. Then where are they getting this from?
BTW his guest said that some Catholic hospitals pay for these services in their benefits package in order to attract employees that would otherwise work somewhere else. Is that true? Even if it was, to me this a rogue Catholic hospital and unrelated to the mandate.

 

[baylee]

By dictating what you will and won’t pay for is impeding the free practice of someone else’s (non Catholic) religion.

If you pay a kid to cut the grass and he buys condoms are you being complicit?

Do you not see the difference between an employee using their paycheck to pay for something independently and an employer paying for something directly? No one is forcing their Catholic views on anyone. Those non-Catholics can still buy their ABC elsewhere.

 

[gilliam]

Not true the states offer various ways for religious organizations to avoid paying for products and services that violate their conscience, which is not possible with the HHS mandate

 

[baylee]

Not true the states offer various ways for religious organizations to avoid paying for products and services that violate their conscience, which is not possible with the HHS mandate

But some have chosen to offer it…that’s the conundrum. Basically, they chose to survive which is understandable, but it hurts the current cause against the federal mandate I think. Then again, it may be proff of what will happen to Catholic institiutions across the country if they don’t comply…Comply and survive, or don’t comply and suffer/disappear.