The people who want contraception covered by insurance plans are people who pay
premiums for that coverage.They should be able to receive the
healthcare coverage for which they are paying.They should not be
denied the healthcare coverage they want and for which they are paying simply
because someone else (the "boss" or the "owner" or a covey of
priests?) don't believe in it.If you do not believe in
contraception, don't use any. But stop twisting this issue around and trying to
make it into a violation of YOUR "religious freedom". Only YOU can
violate your religious beliefs. Nothing someone else does in their personal life
can ever violate YOUR religious beliefs.Capiche?
As the writer pointed out, there is no right to contraceptives or to abortion in
the Constitution, but there is a prohibition of government interference into
religion or into making laws pertaining to an establishment of religion.The ACLU should be firmly on the side of the Catholic Church. It should
be using its resources to vouchsafe the 1st Amendment rights of that Church
against intrusion by the government.OUR religious freedom will
always invalidate YOUR desire to have any person supply YOU with contraceptives,
particularly if that "person" happens to be an establishment of
religion.There is NO RIGHT delegated from the people to the
government to allow that to happen. Just in case some might not understand, the
Constitution enumerates all duties that the people have delegated to the federal
government. Supplying insurance or contraception or providing abortions is not
on that list of 17 duties.
I have very strong feelings about America, our government, and our people. I am
very distressed about the efforts of business, religion, politicians and people
like Anna Rittgers, who in my mind are trying to take us back into the dark ages
of enslavement and confusion.Anna is probably a very nice wonderful
person, but she does not have the slightest inkling of what freedom really is
and who should have it. Our Constitution is about freedom for individuals,
human beings otherwise known a people. Our Constitution is not about freedom
for business, religion or any other sort of collection of a group of people.
Freedom in American for the people of America and is simply that
people have the right to do, be and believe as each of us wishes so long as we
donÂt infringe on the right and freedoms of others, without being told by
someone else. Our Constitution does not give freedom to religion,
business or any other organization, the words are there to protect and enable
the freedoms for people against the actions of religion, businesses, and other
such. Freedom for religion is for people, not religion.
J ThompsonA church, a religion or any business does not have rights
and freedoms given them be the Constitution of the United States Of America.
The Constitution only gives rights and freedoms to people, human beings.A church, a religion or business operation is not people. Groups do not
have rights and freedoms that people have. The government does have
the right to make rules, regulate and control business activity. The may
include some rules about religion. The rule that prohibits human sacrifice in
religion would seem to some to infringe on religious freedom. However, when viewed as protecting the American right to life, liberty etc, we
see that our government does have the right to interfere with religion to
protect the rights of people. That is because people have rights, religions do
The question that needs to be asked is whose rights get to be protected? Do the
rights of the business get to be protected? Or do the rights of individuals get
to be protected?Why should the religion of my boss dictate my life?
If we decide employers and businesses get to force their beliefs onto their
employees, where does that stop? The recently defeated Blunt Amendment would
have allowed employers to decline insurance coverage for anything they objected
to based on their religious or moral beliefs.Are we really
advocating that personal rights be subservient to the beliefs of others?
The ACLU is relentless in itquest to impose an atheistiagenda on American
society. A major part of this quest is a stated goal to destroy traditional
marriage.It is absolutely absurd to suggest that a private business
must provide free products to consumers. Insurance companies are no different.
If they are forced to provide contraceptives, they will simply pass the cost on
to other consumers by raising their premiums.Unmarried persons
should not be having sex in the first place. The ACLU's quest to force others to
finance indiscriminate sex by the unmarried violates every principle the
Founding Fathers stood for.
RE: Ultra BobYOu are wrong, the constitution gives rights to
ALL.The limits are placed on congress, not the "people", be
they individuals or groups (however formed).The 1st admendment is
good example. NO distinction of who the right can be exercised by is ever given,
if they did not apply to groups then no right to assemble would be needed, no
need to mention "an establishment of religion",The rights of
the "people" belong (retained by) to the "people", both
individually and collectively.Without such protection the government
could deny right to whole groups of people.Ask how that worked out
for the japanesse and the native indians or the jews.
The ACLU works diligently to keep this nation from becoming a repressive,
authoritarian theocracy. Good for them.
Great op-ed. Well said.
This is not a 1st Amendment issue, period. The Catholic Church is exempt under
the law; however, if the Catholic Church decides, of its own volition, to move
beyond its protected sphere and enter the private market and/or receive federal
funding for endeavors it alone decides to undertake, then the Catholic Church,
in that setting, must be treated as any other business owner and must play by
the rules set forth for all business owners.Just as my Church, the
LDS Church, is protected in its exclusionary practice to only let Temple-worthy
members enter the Temple w/out fear of legal claims but it would not be
protected should it decide to only hire Temple-worthy members to work at the
DesNews, which is a private entity owned by the Church. What this
situation entails is a religious attack on our secular system of governance.
The Catholic Church is overreaching and I, for one, am upset that Obama even
offered them an olive branch. I would have preferred to see this play out in
Court and watch the Catholic Church be dealt a heavy-handed loss that
reverberated as a warning to all religious institutional encroachment.
I think the church can allow only temple worthy people to work at some places
though most for profit businesses not a requirement. Issue here is not should
they provide it as some insurance compnaies do. Should they be forced to
The ACLU never has and never will defend religious liberty for all. The ACLU is
NOT an organization dedicated to protecting individual civil liberties against
government intrusion. It has one true mission, evident in the unspoken, but all
too evident mantra: If there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, or
praiseworthy, we seek to suppress it in support of the base, the crass, the
vulgar, and the de-humanizing.A Scientist,First off, EMPLOYERS
pay the majority of health insurance premiums, not the employees, so you first
premise is FALSE.Scientist and Spring street,Tell me, which
religious organization being forced to pay the additional premiums for
contraceptives is currently invading their adherents bedrooms and forcing them
not to use contraceptives in the manner BO is FORCING the religious employers to
pay for them? There is NO parallel. UltraBob, I guess you
missed the SCOTUS decision many have derided Romney for citing.
Religious liberty entails the right not to have contraceptives as a benefit in
your health insurance package? Really?
the truth.It is quite possible that you will win out. The Supreme
Court has already given the distinction to private corporations as people. It
is only a tiny step farther to regard religions and other groups as people.Grouping people takes away the individual prerogatives and gives them to
the single person or few at the top of the group. It is sort of
like adding one more level of representation to our republic form of government.
And because that top person has the ability to direct the resources of the
entire group, his prerogative is more powerful that any other individual. And
because it is a private group the member people have not recourse. Thus equal justice before the law is void. The part about
Âthe right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievancesÂ, does apply to all people, even
Catholics. But it does not give those people as individuals or the group the
right to break the law.
Good for the ACLU, protector of religious freedom and freedom from religion.There is a war on Non-Christians in this nation, to repress there rights of
conscience.There is a war on intellect as a bad thing, and blind faith in
leaders as a admirable.Amazing how going to foreign countries to
kill others doesn't bother a religious conscience, as much as sex does, we
haven't come very far in 2,000 years.
Religious colleges can't violate child labor laws, this contraception policy
falls under labor law and thus would not fall under a violation of the first
amendment since churches are exempt.
Republicans/Conservatives love using the "money is fungible" argument
for things they don't agree with such as planned parenthood and healthcare
mandates. However, the "money is fungible" argument can
also be applied to religious organizations. For example, it could be argued
that despite a church's claim that tithing money isn't mingled with
"for-profit" church enterprises, payment of tithing enables a religious
organization to continue to grow "for-profit" enterprises instead of
using those profits to maintain church facilities, clergy stipends etc. Religious organizations enjoy wide latitude in many different ways. For
example, in the U.S. churches are not required to make public their financial
statements but are required to do so in other countries.
Why on earth did the DN publish this astoundingly silly op-ed? Religious
liberty is utterly and completely irrelevant to this dispute, which is entirely
about what health care benefits employers should cover. No one's religious
liberty is even remotely threatened.
@TruthseekerBoth sides do that fungible asset thing. Democrats went after
the Chamber of Commerce for taking in foreign money on one wing, and donating
large sums to Republicans with another. Republicans went after Planned
Parenthood in this manner.
Great article! Explains perfectly, how much of a farce the ACLU has become, and
how it is not about civil liberties as much as it is about leftist agenda
liberties. She also details perfectly what the problems are with this
administration and the unconstitutional actions they are imposing on the
country. Probably the best op-ed of the year! Love how the
"Scientist" talks in one line about persons who "pay" for
coverage, getting what they want in healthcare. Then in a later line, he
actually, accidentally swerved into the real truth of how the "boss, owner,
covey of priests" make the decisions for coverage THEY actually paid for,
not the persons he referred to. He is on the right track. The entire healthcare
issue would be resolved tomorrow, if everyone had to start paying for their own
healthcare coverage and insurance!
If you look at the origins of the ACLU, it shouldn't be supprising that they
would side with a socialist plan. See the article "The ACLU's shocking
legacy" at the Worldnet Daily. In 1931 congress found that 90% of their
activities supported communists. One of the Founders, Rodger Baldwin said
"I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the
State itself Â¦ I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition
of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism
is the goal."Their founders were socialists/communists and
athiests, and now people have been told a lie so many times that they think that
the ACLU is about protecting the little guy. Throughout their history they have
done very little outside of making government bigger and easier for socialists
A Scientist,First off, EMPLOYERS pay the majority of health insurance
premiums, not the employees, so you first premise is FALSE.Scientist
and Spring street,Tell me, which religious organization being forced to
pay the additional premiums for contraceptives is currently invading their
adherentsÂ bedrooms and forcing them not to use contraceptives in the
manner BO is FORCING the religious employers to pay for them? There is NO
Is attacking the TSA, who violates peoples rights on a daily basis, a violation
of our civil liberties? I don't agree with everything the ACLU does but they
have been getting better in my opinion.
So let me get this straight, if someone employed by the church is overweight and
needs diabetes medication, the church should deny their coverage?
@redshirt once again redshirt you site far right wing sources and take a
lot of short cuts through the facts. It is true that at one point Baldwin did
advocate for democratic socialism but soon there after seeing what stalin was
doing renounced the position calling it nothing more then a "new form of
slavery." In 1931 our country was in the grips of the red scare and the
attorney general was shredding peoples civil rights conducting searches without
warrants detaining people without charges etc etc.. and the ACLU did come to
their defense .I know it does not fit your agenda but telling the whole story
instead of just thee bits and pieces that fit our agenda may actually help with
your credibility but then again it is probably to late, I think most people on
these threads already have caught onto you.
As an employer I can tell you that you are dead wrong sorry. I pay half of my
employees insurance they pay the other half. I now of several other business
owners that have found ways to pass all the expense on to their employees and
many that have just dropped it all together. Employers really are not the
victims you make us out to be. Good businesses get the value of helping their
employees maintain good health.
Some people claim there is an attack on religion. But if often seems the other
way around.How is an employee wanting or needing contraceptives
attacking religion?If a woman wants or needs to take birth control
pills, is she then standing in front of your church and trying to block you from
entering? Does she come into your home and slap your hands down when you
attempt to pray?Yet with some, their want or need to practice
religion virtually causes them to snatch the birth control pills out of that
woman's hands. So exactly who is attacking who?