Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The answer to the OPs question does not lie in a debate over whether or not birth control pills help women.
The question is why is it controversial?
I will stipulate that the Pill is in fact, beneficial to women and to women’s health. Even outside of its effect of preventing pregnancy.
HOWEVER we have competing issues. CONSITUTIONAL ISSUES.
The first Amendment guarantees the right to religious freedom. Established law, as well as SCOTUS precedent tells us that there must be a compelling interest for government to be able to create a law that infringes on an individual’s right to religious freedom.
For some (not me) the use of birth control has long been viewed as a sin. The catholic church holds this view and they represent 1 billion people world-wide.
Therefore, when government compels a religious institution to provide birth control pills as part of its medical benefit package, government infringes on that groups right to practice its faith freely.
That is WHY it is a controversy. The question becomes does the state have a compelling reason?
The answer to the OPs question does not lie in a debate over whether or not birth control pills help women.
The question is why is it controversial?
I will stipulate that the Pill is in fact, beneficial to women and to women’s health. Even outside of its effect of preventing pregnancy.
HOWEVER we have competing issues. CONSITUTIONAL ISSUES.
The first Amendment guarantees the right to religious freedom. Established law, as well as SCOTUS precedent tells us that there must be a compelling interest for government to be able to create a law that infringes on an individual’s right to religious freedom.
For some (not me) the use of birth control has long been viewed as a sin. The catholic church holds this view and they represent 1 billion people world-wide.
Therefore, when government compels a religious institution to provide birth control pills as part of its medical benefit package, government infringes on that groups right to practice its faith freely.
That is WHY it is a controversy. The question becomes does the state have a compelling reason?
The State isn't compelling women to use birth control. The fact that birth control medication isn't just used for contraceptive purposes, and that the government is only compelling it to be available in the same way that other prescriptive medications are made available via employer-provided insurance means that the answer to your question is YES.
Exceptions have been made on religious grounds, when an employer only employs persons that belong to a certain faith, because the nature of their employment is religious.
When companies employ people, of no particular faith, the employer does not have the right to impose his religious beliefs on the employees. Particularly if the employer has made his business a separate legal entity.
The employees are still free to practice their religion. If an employee agrees with the employer that contraception (or in the case of Hobby Lobby, one particular form of contraception) is immoral or against their religion, that EMPLOYEE can defer from using contraception. But the EMPLOYER can't force employees to comply with his religious beliefs.
The core of the argument. It's their FAULT, they deserve to be punished.
ah.... is it?
OR is the core of the arguemnt, that a religious insitution with at 2000 year tradition, representing 1/6th of the earths population (among others) has a right to continue its long standing religious belief...
OR is the core of the arguemnt, that a religious insitution with at 2000 year tradition, representing 1/6th of the earths population (among others) has a right to continue its long standing religious belief...
That religious institution would have to be the Catholic Church. And Catholic women in the United States have been defying the church and using contraceptives for over 50 years. Since the United States isn't a theocracy, our laws are not made with respect to religious beliefs. And employers cannot impose their religious beliefs on employees. That flies in the face of freedom of religion.
The answer to the OPs question does not lie in a debate over whether or not birth control pills help women.
The question is why is it controversial?
I will stipulate that the Pill is in fact, beneficial to women and to women’s health. Even outside of its effect of preventing pregnancy.
HOWEVER we have competing issues. CONSITUTIONAL ISSUES.
The first Amendment guarantees the right to religious freedom. Established law, as well as SCOTUS precedent tells us that there must be a compelling interest for government to be able to create a law that infringes on an individual’s right to religious freedom.
For some (not me) the use of birth control has long been viewed as a sin. The catholic church holds this view and they represent 1 billion people world-wide.
Therefore, when government compels a religious institution to provide birth control pills as part of its medical benefit package, government infringes on that groups right to practice its faith freely.
That is WHY it is a controversy. The question becomes does the state have a compelling reason?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The State isn't compelling women to use birth control. The fact that birth control medication isn't just used for contraceptive purposes, and that the government is only compelling it to be available in the same way that other prescriptive medications are made available via employer-provided insurance means that the answer to your question is YES.
Exceptions have been made on religious grounds, when an employer only employs persons that belong to a certain faith, because the nature of their employment is religious.
When companies employ people, of no particular faith, the employer does not have the right to impose his religious beliefs on the employees. Particularly if the employer has made his business a separate legal entity.
The employees are still free to practice their religion. If an employee agrees with the employer that contraception (or in the case of Hobby Lobby, one particular form of contraception) is immoral or against their religion, that EMPLOYEE can defer from using contraception. But the EMPLOYER can't force employees to comply with his religious beliefs.
The State isn't compelling women to use birth control. The fact that birth control medication isn't just used for contraceptive purposes, and that the government is only compelling it to be available in the same way that other prescriptive medications are made available via employer-provided insurance means that the answer to your question is YES.
Exceptions have been made on religious grounds, when an employer only employs persons that belong to a certain faith, because the nature of their employment is religious.
When companies employ people, of no particular faith, the employer does not have the right to impose his religious beliefs on the employees. Particularly if the employer has made his business a separate legal entity.
The employees are still free to practice their religion. If an employee agrees with the employer that contraception (or in the case of Hobby Lobby, one particular form of contraception) is immoral or against their religion, that EMPLOYEE can defer from using contraception. But the EMPLOYER can't force employees to comply with his religious beliefs.
DC, I am not really aruging FOR those who oppose birth control. I am pointing out why it is controversial.
It is. and while you make a good argument, I would bet that the owner of Hobby Lobby feels the government is forcing him to do something that is against his religious values.
But lets not pretend that this is a cut and dried issue. it is not. we have one set of values at odds with another. We have one constitutional principle at odds with another.
That religious institution would have to be the Catholic Church. And Catholic women in the United States have been defying the church and using contraceptives for over 50 years. Since the United States isn't a theocracy, our laws are not made with respect to religious beliefs. And employers cannot impose their religious beliefs on employees. That flies in the face of freedom of religion.
what an individual does in relation to their own faith, or in relation to the religious institution they may gravitate toward is certainly NOT the business of the government. That is NOT the question.
However, at the same time, constitutionally those individuals CANNOT (constitutionally) petition the government to force thier chosen religious institution to conform to some standard they have now decided they want.
As much as an individual has a right to religous practice, so do the religious insitutions. Government CANNOT place undo burdens on the individuals or the institutions without indicating the compelling reason for the action. "Compelling reason" is in fact a legal term created by SCOTUS to deal with this issue itslef.
DC, I am not really aruging FOR those who oppose birth control. I am pointing out why it is controversial.
It is. and while you make a good argument, I would bet that the owner of Hobby Lobby feels the government is forcing him to do something that is against his religious values.
But lets not pretend that this is a cut and dried issue. it is not. we have one set of values at odds with another. We have one constitutional principle at odds with another.
I concur, we have one set of values at odds with another. In a free society, the freedoms of each of us are balanced against the freedoms of everyone else.
I would be more sympathetic to Mr Green if 1. He hadn't incorporated Hobby Lobby, making it a separate entity from himself, in order to avoid any liability for the actions of Hobby Lobby. He cannot say on the one hand that Hobby Lobby is separate from himself, and then say on the other hand that Hobby Lobby is an extension of himself.
2. If his position wasn't all about Mr Green and his religious beliefs. It's not about his employees. He pays his employees less than Wal-Mart pays. But he has no qualms about denying them certain benefits because that denial fits in with Mr Green's religious beliefs, regardless of what his employees' religious beliefs may be.
what an individual does in relation to their own faith, or in relation to the religious institution they may gravitate toward is certainly NOT the business of the government. That is NOT the question.
However, at the same time, constitutionally those individuals CANNOT (constitutionally) petition the government to force thier chosen religious institution to conform to some standard they have now decided they want.
As much as an individual has a right to religous practice, so do the religious insitutions. Government CANNOT place undo burdens on the individuals or the institutions without indicating the compelling reason for the action. "Compelling reason" is in fact a legal term created by SCOTUS to deal with this issue itslef.
Which is why the Catholic Church and similar institutions were granted exceptions to the law.
Hobby Lobby is not a religious institution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
