When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To ...

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All Health Care To Women

Posted in the West Dummerston Forum

First Prev
of 17
Next Last
Equality

Sunapee, NH

#1 Mar 24, 2014
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All Health Care To Women And Not Just Birth Control
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/23/3... #
Ian Millhiser March 23, 2014

"On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga Wood Specialties’ claims that they should be exempt from their legal obligations to provide a full range of health coverage — http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/19/34... in this case, contraceptive care for women — because they object to providing this coverage on religious grounds. Yet, for women who worked for a California private school in the 1980s, this lawsuit must feel like déjà vu. Nearly three decades ago, the Fremont Christian School claimed a similar right to deny health coverage to its female employees, citing its religious beliefs as justification for doing so. Fremont Christian’s case does bear one important difference from Hobby Lobby’s, however, they did not just want to deny birth control to their employees — they wanted to deny all health coverage to many of the women in their employ. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/rossrights/chap...

Fremont was owned by a church which claimed that “in any marriage, the husband is the head of the household and is required to provide for that household.” Because of this belief, they had a very unusual compensation package for their employees — though Fremont offered a health plan to its workers, the plan was only available to “heads of households” which Fremont interpreted to mean single people or married men. When a woman became married, she was to rely on her husband for health care.

(In what Fremont described as an “act of Christian charity,” there was an exemption to this rule. A married woman could receive health benefits if “the husband is incapable of providing for his family, by virtue of non-working student status, or illness” though the school also emphasized that “the husband is still scripturally the head of the household.”)

Offering one set of employee benefits to men and a different, inferior package to women is a blatant violation of federal civil rights law, http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cf... which prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” While Fremont claimed that their religious liberty gave them a trump card, a federal appeals court disagreed. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/rossrights/chap... “Congress’ purpose to end discrimination,” the court explained,“is equally if not more compelling than other interests that have been held to justify legislation that burdened the exercise of religious convictions.”

So could a victory for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cause the courts to rethink Fremont Christian? Probably not. Society’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination against women is widely accepted, even by conservative judges, and Fremont Christian is an extreme case. Nevertheless there is reason to be concerned about what happens with religious employers who push the envelope only slightly less than Fremont Christian School did."...

read the rest: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/23/3... #

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#2 Mar 25, 2014
Pretty sad, isn't it? And then there is the infiltration from the born agains into the military to be "preachers" and forcing others to convert.

http://www.alternet.org/story/50696/birth_of_...

Their abuses against those who refuse to join their churches is well known.
Equality

Sunapee, NH

#3 Mar 29, 2014
Jon Stewart Reveals the Absurdity of Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court Case
http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/03/...
Ben Cosman Mar 27, 2014

"Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the case in which a craft store chain is claiming the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate violates its religious beliefs. You may be thinking that a private corporation suing over its religious beliefs sounds asinine. Jon Stewart explained last night that, well, indeed it is.

Not only is it the silliest sounding Supreme Court case, as Stewart said, "since 1950's Brown v. Board of Titty Farts," but Hobby Lobby's lawsuit is a thinly veiled attack on Obama's healthcare law as a whole, disguised as an assertion of religious rights. See, the craft store claims it is a corporation founded on biblical principles. You know, like that one time Jesus took up knitting:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts...

Hobby Lobby believes that as a private company, it deserves the same religious freedom as a church or individual, and that the ACA's demand it provide contraception coverage to its employees violates that freedom. Because Hobby Lobby is an exceptionally pious corporation. "There would never be a case emanating from that other craft store, Michaels," Stewart said. "For god's sake, that place is a godless fuck palace with yarn."

The kicker about this whole case is that the government must accept Hobby Lobby's views on birth control at face-value, with no mind for accuracy. Stewart explained: "So let me get this straight, corporations aren't just people, they're ill-informed people, whose factually incorrect beliefs must be upheld because they sincerely believe them."

"What would a biblically-based insurance plan even cover?" Stewart asked.

Senior Legal Analyst Jordan Klepper had the answer: Along with leprosy, a plan would cover "stoning-related injury, flood damage. It's a great pre-modern medicine, first-century, biblically-based health plan that covers you from birth through your elderly years, which I believe is up to 36 years on this plan.""...

watch it here:
http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/03/...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#4 Mar 29, 2014
Stewart hit the nail on the head with that one.
Moral Mama

Essex Junction, VT

#5 Mar 29, 2014
As a mother, I find it highly offensive that our government reclassified pregnancy as a disease in order to gain insurance for its prevention (like vaccinations)! I can't understand why my sisters are not outraged by this! There is nothing fundamentally defective about being a woman, I was not suffering from an illness by being pregnant and men's bodies are not a healthier version of the human race. I am not opposed to pregnancy prevention,(it is a free choice to prevent it or not), but I believe that my government has crossed a line here.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#6 Mar 30, 2014
Moral Mama wrote:
As a mother, I find it highly offensive that our government reclassified pregnancy as a disease in order to gain insurance for its prevention (like vaccinations)! I can't understand why my sisters are not outraged by this! There is nothing fundamentally defective about being a woman, I was not suffering from an illness by being pregnant and men's bodies are not a healthier version of the human race. I am not opposed to pregnancy prevention,(it is a free choice to prevent it or not), but I believe that my government has crossed a line here.
I'd like to see your proof that the government did that.
Moral Mama

Essex Junction, VT

#7 Mar 30, 2014
Cookie_Parker wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to see your proof that the government did that.
Institute of Medicine

Given the magnitude of change, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged the IOM with reviewing what preventive services are important to women’s health and well-being and then recommending which of these should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines. The IOM defined preventive health services as measures—including medications, procedures, devices, tests, education and counseling—shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition. The IOM recommends that women’s preventive services include:
improved screening for cervical cancer, counseling for sexually transmitted infections, and counseling and screening for HIV;
a fuller range of contraceptive education, counseling, methods, and services so that women can better avoid unwanted pregnancies and space their pregnancies to promote optimal birth outcomes;
services for pregnant women including screening for gestational diabetes and lactation counseling and equipment to help women who choose to breastfeed do so successfully;
at least one well-woman preventive care visit annually for women to receive comprehensive services; and
screening and counseling for all women and adolescent girls for interpersonal and domestic violence in a culturally sensitive and supportive manner.
Moral Mama

Essex Junction, VT

#8 Mar 30, 2014
- "shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition."
Moral Mama

Essex Junction, VT

#9 Mar 30, 2014
The definition of pregnancy can have a major impact on law and policy.

"According to a Consensus Report released by the IOM on July 19,“The IOM defines preventative health services as measures – including medications, procedures, devices, tests, education and counseling – shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition.” Under these conditions, insured women will have access to free birth control because pregnancy has been redefined as a “targeted disease.”"
Kristan Hawkins

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#10 Mar 30, 2014
Moral Mama wrote:
<quoted text>
Institute of Medicine
Given the magnitude of change, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged the IOM with reviewing what preventive services are important to women’s health and well-being and then recommending which of these should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines. The IOM defined preventive health services as measures—including medications, procedures, devices, tests, education and counseling—shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition. The IOM recommends that women’s preventive services include:
improved screening for cervical cancer, counseling for sexually transmitted infections, and counseling and screening for HIV;
a fuller range of contraceptive education, counseling, methods, and services so that women can better avoid unwanted pregnancies and space their pregnancies to promote optimal birth outcomes;
services for pregnant women including screening for gestational diabetes and lactation counseling and equipment to help women who choose to breastfeed do so successfully;
at least one well-woman preventive care visit annually for women to receive comprehensive services; and
screening and counseling for all women and adolescent girls for interpersonal and domestic violence in a culturally sensitive and supportive manner.
No link...sounds like a right wing blogger...let's see the link and the site you are quoting from
red herring

Sunapee, NH

#11 Mar 30, 2014
Moral Mama wrote:
The definition of pregnancy can have a major impact on law and policy.
"According to a Consensus Report released by the IOM on July 19,“The IOM defines preventative health services as measures – including medications, procedures, devices, tests, education and counseling – shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition.” Under these conditions, insured women will have access to free birth control because pregnancy has been redefined as a “targeted disease.”"
Kristan Hawkins
This report:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Prev...

released by the Institute of Medicine, which by the way is not "our government" but "is an American non-profit, non-governmental organization founded in 1970" see their wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Med...

does not "reclassify" pregnancy as a disease, it is still clearly considered a "condition".

I imagine that you got this from Lifenews.com ? No wonder you did not provide a link.
It is an anti-choice, right wing propaganda website, not a respected or reliable news site.
Moral Mama

Essex Junction, VT

#12 Mar 30, 2014
red herring wrote:
<quoted text>
This report:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Prev...
released by the Institute of Medicine, which by the way is not "our government" but "is an American non-profit, non-governmental organization founded in 1970" see their wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Med...
does not "reclassify" pregnancy as a disease, it is still clearly considered a "condition".
I imagine that you got this from Lifenews.com ? No wonder you did not provide a link.
It is an anti-choice, right wing propaganda website, not a respected or reliable news site.
As I noted, I copied and pasted directly from IOM documents/ recommendations.

I then (as source sited) copied and pasted in part a commentary on the IOM documents.

I am sorry you found that to be inconvenient.

I also hope that you noted that the report included precounseling for women and girls on domestic violence. In my opinion this addon is sexiest; are women and girls the sole victims of domestic violence? Why are men and boys being excluded?

I believe what we are witnessing here is the power of the very wealthy, very powerful special interest lobbiest Planned Parenthood. This is about politics.
Moral Mama

Essex Junction, VT

#13 Mar 30, 2014
I think the IOM made the recommendation, and without anticipating the blowback it was included in the healthcare law. I think what we are now witnessing are political handlers doing damage control.

"We don't know what's in the bill until we pass the bill."
Nancy Pelosi

It's what happens when we allow special interests to write legislation.
Moral Mama

Essex Junction, VT

#14 Mar 30, 2014
I am not opposed to covering contraceptives.

It's much cheaper to cover contraceptives than abortion or prenatal care.

I am opposed to including post conception termination medications as being in the same legal classification as contraceptives.

I do not believe the government should have the right to infringe on religion and force companies like Hobby Lobby to provide coverage that includes post conception medications. I hope that the court finds that contraception and post contraception needs to be addressed separately in their ruling.
Moral Mama

Essex Junction, VT

#15 Mar 30, 2014
Post conception I meant not post contraception.
truth

Sunapee, NH

#16 Mar 30, 2014
Moral Mama wrote:
<quoted text>
As I noted, I copied and pasted directly from IOM documents/ recommendations.
I then (as source sited) copied and pasted in part a commentary on the IOM documents.
I am sorry you found that to be inconvenient.
I also hope that you noted that the report included precounseling for women and girls on domestic violence. In my opinion this addon is sexiest; are women and girls the sole victims of domestic violence? Why are men and boys being excluded?
I believe what we are witnessing here is the power of the very wealthy, very powerful special interest lobbiest Planned Parenthood. This is about politics.
Still no links, not suprising....

If your quote is indeed "copied and pasted directly from IOM documents/ recommendations" as:

"shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition."

Then this only shows that according to this NON-GOVORNMENT organization, pregnancy can be considered a disease OR condition, most reasonable people consider pregnancy a condition and have for quite some time.

You have apparently found this inconvinient as this organization is neither "our government" or has it labled pregnancy a "disease" so you are attempting to throw out another red herring.

This issue is about a womens right to non discrimination and the well funded right wing lobbies attempt to unconstitutionaly impose their religious dogma on women.

Go start your own thread about your red herrings, we are discussing the Hobby Lobby case here, not anti-choice propaganda.
truth

Sunapee, NH

#17 Mar 30, 2014
Moral Mama wrote:
I am not opposed to covering contraceptives.
It's much cheaper to cover contraceptives than abortion or prenatal care.
I am opposed to including post conception termination medications as being in the same legal classification as contraceptives.
I do not believe the government should have the right to infringe on religion and force companies like Hobby Lobby to provide coverage that includes post conception medications. I hope that the court finds that contraception and post contraception needs to be addressed separately in their ruling.
Another red herring, look I will break it down for you, health insurance is part of an employees leagally guaranteed compensation just like wages. A company has no right telling their employees what to spend their wages on.

It doesn't matterwhat you or Hobby Lobby think of "post conception termination medications", if an employee wants to spend their compensation on them, that is their constitutional right.

Just as a company may not dictate that their employees not spend their salary on booze, or shellfish, or pork, they may not dictate that the health insurance that they are legally obligated to provide not cover contraception, blood transfusions, antibiotics, or vaccines. It is simply not their right to impose their antiquated, ignorant religious rules on other people.

Equality

Sunapee, NH

#18 Mar 30, 2014
Your Health Care, Your Choices (Amen, to That!)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03...

"The contraception mandate rightfully highlights preventative care, including a woman’s right to use her benefits as she so chooses—whether it impedes on a company like Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs or not.

Arguments start this week for Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court case that will determine the fate of the contraception mandate put forth by the Department of Health and Human Services after the Affordable Care Act was passed into law. The contraception mandate is part of a larger mandate by the ACA to classify dozens of medical services, like wellness checks and vaccinations, as “preventive” care, which would then require insurance plans to cover them without a copay. The idea is that this will both make health insurance work better for enrollees and save money overall by encouraging prevention. Contraception was included after the Institute of Medicine recommended it for its well-known effects of preventing unwanted pregnancy, and thereby preventing unplanned child-bearing and abortion.

Hobby Lobby, the arts and crafts retailer based in Oklahoma, and about 100 other companies are now suing over this specific aspect of the prevention mandate, arguing that their religious liberty is violated if women who work for them use their health care plans to cover their contraception. The argument should alarm anyone who has a boss and works for money. After all, your health care plan belongs to you, as your paycheck does. You worked for it and your boss transfers it to you, along with your other benefits and paycheck, as compensation for your work. Hobby Lobby is arguing that even though they signed the plan over to you, they feel they should control how you use your own plan or else your private choices violate their “liberty.” If Hobby Lobby wins, it could open the door to all sorts of alarming infringements on an employee’s right to privacy and religious freedom, by giving their employers a vote in how they use their compensation packages they earned by working.

Conservatives in the media would like you to believe this grotesque power grab by Hobby Lobby and other employers is about religion and accommodating people with sincere religious convictions. But this is, on its surface, a laughable claim, since Hobby Lobby is angling to deprive women of their religious liberty to use their own health care plans as they see fit. The blunt truth of the matter is the right’s motivating factor on this issue is not “religious liberty,” but hostility to contraception. Religion is just the fig leaf draped over what is really an attempt to open up the war on reproductive rights to attacks on contraception access, starting with making what used to be non-controversial—the idea that health insurance should cover common contraception medications—seem like it’s a big controversy. Once that idea is planted, the next move is to start disparaging contraception directly, building up more political support to find new and innovative ways to make it harder for women to get, just as the right made abortion harder to get."...

read the rest:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03...
Moral Mama

Salisbury, VT

#19 Mar 30, 2014
Government creates a mandate to violate The Establishment Clause and you have no problem with that?
reality

Sunapee, NH

#20 Mar 31, 2014
Moral Mama wrote:
Government creates a mandate to violate The Establishment Clause and you have no problem with that?
The affordable care act does not violate the Establishment Clause, but a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Dummerston Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Actor Says Obama Stole His Persona (Nov '13) Jul 14 TheReligionOfPeac... 13
Obama's Top Ten Lies Last Night/ Clinton's Crim... (Jan '16) Jul 14 SandersSoldOut To... 2
Melissa Barratt's family and friends... (Aug '11) Jul 2 her sister 24
News Road Pitch investors ride motorcycles into Brat... Jun '16 internet troll 1
Happy Zombie Jesus Day (Apr '15) Jun '16 SDIPN dot Net 25
Seek God And Receive Answers For Your Troubles (Apr '15) Jun '16 Light For All 4
Naulakha (Aug '14) Aug '14 Brian Harris 1

West Dummerston Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

West Dummerston Mortgages