Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Elok]

Grib's been on a trolling kick lately. I imagine it's deliberate obtuseness.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Deliberate obtuseness in reality showing stupidity.

[giblets]

Are you stupid? The uproar is due to the requirement they religious organization/employers pay for them.7

So the uproar is about religious organizations losing a small amount of money? I wonder how shocked and horrified people would be if churches started having to pay taxes

[rah]

The small amount of money is not the issue.

[giblets]

The small amount of money is not the issue.

The policy only has two effects: religious organizations lose a small amount of money and people become slightly more likely to use contraception. Apparently neither of these things is a big deal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Opposite Kidicious, is that you?

[giblets]

I'm the opposite of an idiot? Thanks. Christians are so nice sometimes.

[rah]

The policy only has two effects: religious organizations lose a small amount of money and people become slightly more likely to use contraception. Apparently neither of these things is a big deal.

It's a big deal to the religious groups that think using contraceptives is a sin. DUH

[Elok]

Like I said, don't feed the troll.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I kind of have to agree with Ogie in that it is showing his own stupidity.

[giblets]

It's a big deal to the religious groups that think using contraceptives is a sin. DUH

But if contraceptives are dirt-cheap then this policy won't have much effect on how frequently they're actually used. Unless it actually causes people to sin more why should they care?

[rah]

Unless it actually causes people to sin more

Yes, that is their belief. They also don't want to support said sin by paying for it.

And while I usually believe the Church is unreasonable on things like this, I have to admit that I find their objection reasonable on this one.

[Dinner]

It's a big deal to the religious groups that think using contraceptives is a sin. DUH

My understanding is that religious groups themselves have an exemption in the legislation. That is the church itself has an exemption but if the church branches out into other business areas (insurance, selling stuff at retail outlets, running a food service operation, etc...) then they are required to follow the same regulations as all other businesses in that field. So the priest preaching in the church gets an exemption, the church as a whole doesn't have to offer contraception with it's health insurance plan to actual priests in the church but if they open a hospital serving people outside the church then, yes, that hospital must follow all the standard practices and regulations of other hospitals.

I see nothing wrong with this and nearly a dozen states already have laws such as this which have already made it through the courts. For example, California requires all pharmacies to carry birth control and the morning after pill and tons of religious groups sued but lost in court. IMO if you're going to be a pharmacist then you have to do the job of a pharmicist, all of the job, not just the parts you like. The same goes to running a hospital. The courts have agreed this does not violate the 1st amendment because the churches themselves are exempt but it does effect their secondary businesses ventures not related to the actual saving of souls.

[Jon Miller]

I disagree with their beliefs (on contraceptives), but think that the application of their beliefs (not paying for them) to be reasonable.

It has nothing to do with causing people to sin more.

JM

[Jon Miller]

My understanding is that religious groups themselves have an exemption in the legislation. That is the church itself has an exemption but if the church branches out into other business areas (insurance, selling stuff at retail outlets, running a food service operation, etc...) then they are required to follow the same regulations as all other businesses in that field. So the priest preaching in the church gets an exemption, the church as a whole doesn't have to offer contraception with it's health insurance plan to actual priests in the church but if they open a hospital serving people outside the church then, yes, that hospital must follow all the standard practices and regulations of other hospitals.

I see nothing wrong with this and nearly a dozen states already have laws such as this which have already made it through the courts. For example, California requires all pharmacies to carry birth control and the morning after pill and tons of religious groups sued but lost in court. IMO if you're going to be a pharmacist then you have to do the job of a pharmicist, all of the job, not just the parts you like. The same goes to running a hospital. The courts have agreed this does not violate the 1st amendment because the churches themselves are exempt but it does effect their secondary businesses ventures not related to the actual saving of souls.

This isn't about hospital services, but rather about what benefits the hospital offers to it's employees.

I would expect a JW hospital to have blood transfusions on hand (for the nonJW patients).

I would not force a JW hospital to organize blood drives.

JM