Should religous groups be allowed to control the health services they provide?

[shesulsa]

Clearly, you don't care about the separation of church and state nor church and health freedom, so just vote and be done. I'm not going to argue abortion with you any more.

 

[Big Don]

Clearly, you don't care about the separation of church and state nor church and health freedom, so just vote and be done. I'm not going to argue abortion with you any more.

Why should the government be able to tell any religion to violate their morals? Wouldn't that be a violation of church and state? Why should anyone's "health freedom" trump the religious freedom (Guaranteed in the First Amendment) of their doctor?
I care about the separation of church and state that Jefferson wrote about in private correspondence as much as I care about the last email you sent your mom.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The question is "Should religious groups be allowed to control the health services they provide?"

I say no.

Because there are options missing from the list.

Should a religious hospital be forced to offer abortions if abortion is against their beliefs?
Should a religious hospital be forced to treat homosexuals if they view them as an abhorrent abomination to be destroyed on site?
Should a religious group include family planning treatments in their insurance offerings if such are against their beliefs?
Should a religious group include transfusion coverage in their plans if they don't believe in those?
Should a non-religious group be forced to cover shamanic ritual, snake dances, sun dance, fugu toxin and witches brew?

and so forth.

Maybe I need a blood transfusion to save my life, but the ER doctor's a member of a faith that doesn't believe in that.
Should he be allowed to let me die to make his god happy?

I'm in the ER. I'm in bad shape. My heart stops, my brain begins to turn to mush.
Should I be brought back, against my wishes, so that I spend 10 years in a coma, a financial and emotional burden on my wife?
Should I be left to die when I insist that if there's still breath to fight?

What lines do you draw? Where do -you- define 'health services'?

I regularly goto a Catholic hospital. My family are regulars there. I've had to make life or death decisions there. I've had someone make that decision for me there a few months back. I'm well aware of where their positions are, where they contradict my own, etc. But it's the best damn hospital in the area IMO and -I- made the choices to accept their terms.
But doesn't this contradict my 'No' vote?
Nope. Because despite those terms, they are still legally, morally and ethically required to follow the law which establishes me as the ultimate decider of my fate. They must meet complex legal requirements....ie they can't decided that germs don't exist and switch to prayer instead of established medical practices.

This is a complicated topic, one with many layers.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As to abortion...I've refrained from much commenting on that in the past. I'll hit that briefly.
I am against abortion. I consider life, special. While I don't consider the unborn self sufficient, it is still life.
I would not be displeased if there was never another abortion ever.
However.
I'm not female. I can't have one. So my 'desire' is irrelevant, except in 1 case.
If it directly impacts me. Otherwise, it's not my business.
If you haven't been involved in that decision, if you haven't had to do the soul searching, the heart wrenching thinking.... I'm not sure I care about your opinion on the topic, pro or con.
I said I'm against abortion.
I'm against over turning Roe v Wade.
I'm against throwing guilt-inducing BS in peoples ways. Educate them, give them the options, and let them decide without adding your emotional issues to theirs.
I'm against going back to the days where butchers in dirty rooms mutilated and murdered women.
I'm against allowing over paid religious zealots to turn the clocks back.
I'm against abortion, against murder, against it's use as a frivolous after thought....and I will support a woman's right to have the opportunity to decide for herself that decision.
As to funding it? If the government is going to be involved in defining, mandating, managing or whatever in health care, then -all- medical procedures should be somehow addressed, so that they may be done safely, humanely and properly to minimize cost, pain, and complication.

The 10th of a cent of my tax dollars, or nickel of my premium that might go towards the cost are insignificant compared to the cost the complications would create.
Unless you would deny a woman bleeding to death treatment or coverage because of the cause of her injury.
In which case, my comment would earn me a few IC points to say the least.

To be blunt, this (abortion) isn't a topic I will involve myself in much beyond what I said above.

 

[shesulsa]

Why should the government be able to tell any religion to violate their morals? Wouldn't that be a violation of church and state? Why should anyone's "health freedom" trump the religious freedom (Guaranteed in the First Amendment) of their doctor?
I care about the separation of church and state that Jefferson wrote about in private correspondence as much as I care about the last email you sent your mom.

My mother died an email virgin having been offered a safe abortion by her doctor (before it was legal) in 1965. He was a man who knew there was something wrong with her and that she probably shouldn't have had another child to beat on. Alas, I'm here nonetheless. Perhaps YOU should send her an email thanking her. :lol2:

OH YEAH! And it would have been done in a Catholic hospital. Daniel Freeman Memorial in Inglewood, CA. I wonder if he would have gotten away with it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is a complicated topic, one with many layers.

Also, many lawyers.

And while we're at it, one with many people who have an anti-religious agenda that ties in nicely with this issue.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just to add to the mix...

The term... 'Women's Reproductive Health.' Let's talk about that.

To me, 'reproductive health' refers to the organs and the issues surrounding reproduction. For example, male infertility or female uterine cysts. These are reproductive 'health' issues.

Condoms are not reproductive 'health' issues. Birth control pills are not reproductive 'health' issues (unless they are for the above types of ailments, not to block pregnancy).

Condoms are 'health' issues in that they can help block the spread of diseases. Abortions are 'health' issues when they involve the life or health of the mother.

But except as noted above, condoms and birth control pills and even abortions are choices. They are voluntary. They are not necessities of life.

So we have college students attending college on loans and grants, who demand 'reproductive health' coverage, but what they appear to actually be demanding is coverage for their lifestyle choices.

By redefining birth control qua birth control as 'reproductive health', it seems much more horrible that some awful religious institution should forbid it.

After all, it's not like having sex is optional. People have to have sex. They're going to have sex. And since there is no way to stop them from having sex, the taxpayer, the insurers, and the religious groups who oppose things like pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortion, should have to provide it and pay for it too.

I dunno. Sounds like a spoiled kid stamping their feet and demanding candy.

Yeah, people cannot stop themselves from having sex. And they can pay for it, too. Or, you know, not have it. Oh dear, personal responsibility. I'm such a meanie.

 

[Cryozombie]

Elsewhere as in where, Cryo? Another location they own? Seems your question is biased as well.

I guess I assumed the fine people of MartialTalk are intelligent enough to interpret the question and answer it according to their personal loyalty. Was I wrong?

It's funny how you have asked this question twice, once here, and once to me on FB, and I countered with the exact same argument which is in a nutshell Hospitals Choose which services they will provide all the time, not just on the basis of religion, but on the basis of profitability as well, why is that ok? And you've chosen to ignore that point.

That aside, please clarify your statement for me "Elsewhere as in where, Cryo? Another location they own?" It seems to me you are implying every doctor, clinic and hospital is run by the Church and women have no place to go. That hasn't been my experience, AND I would remind you about all of the arguments that have gone on about Planned Parenthood. If the hospital won't do it, what about going to PP... after all IIRC we were told it is VITAL we fund PP because women need them to provide free/low cost BC and Abortions.

So THAT is my first "Elsewhere" Geo, based specifically on arguments the left themselves have already forwarded. I'm trying to decide which it is, do we NEED planned parenthood to provide these services, or do we NEED to deny Religions their Constitutionally protected rights?

 

[elder999]

To me, 'reproductive health' refers to the organs and the issues surrounding reproduction. For example, male infertility or female uterine cysts. These are reproductive 'health' issues.

Oddly,this neglects the health of the product of reproduction. Fer instance:

Condoms are not reproductive 'health' issues. Birth control pills are not reproductive 'health' issues (unless they are for the above types of ailments, not to block pregnancy).
Condoms are 'health' issues in that they can help block the spread of diseases.

i

And, in fact, can protect the "reproductive health" as in, the ability to have healthy reproduction products-that is to say, babies-you know, that can be born with STDs like syphillis or HIV from their mother's placenta

Abortions are 'health' issues when they involve the life or health of the mother.

Of course, the mother won't be reproducing, ever again, if she's dead. :lol

But except as noted above, condoms and birth control pills and even abortions are choices. They are voluntary. They are not necessities of life.

I was suddenly single in 1993-I'd been married since I was 22, in 1982-before that, as I've posted elsewhere, I was a slut, (pretty much after that, too, after the appropriate amount of time, and figuring things out again...:lol:..)-but, in 1994, the word "condom" became a necessary part of my vocabulary, and a "necessity of life." I mean, my son and daughter had given me "permission" to date (and imagine, two very serious looking kids, 11 and 8, telling their dad to get a girlfriend already) and I owed it to them, if and when "the moment" came, to protect myself-not to mention that it had simply become part of sexual etiquette at the time.

I mean, I certainly wouldn't have gone "unwrapped" with someone who was okay with it or wanted it that way the first time-see "game theory," again.....:lol:

So we have college students attending college on loans and grants, who demand 'reproductive health' coverage, but what they appear to actually be demanding is coverage for their lifestyle choices.

But their actually "demanding" "reproductive health" coverage.

By redefining birth control qua birth control as 'reproductive health', it seems much more horrible that some awful religious institution should forbid it.[
al

After all, it's not like having sex is optional. People have to have sex. They're going to have sex.

If it's part of their human imperative, no, it's not like having sex is anything like optional at all-since losing my virginity, I've gone as long as 14 months without sex-at a ridiculously young, premarital
age-and nearly as long after losing my kid's mom-just about voluntarily, I mean, I didn't even take my wedding ring off, so yeah, we're all capable of going without it, but, let's face it, we'd rather not.....:lol:

And since there is no way to stop them from having sex, the taxpayer, the insurers, and the religious groups who oppose things like pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortion, should have to provide it and pay for it too.

I dunno. Sounds like a spoiled kid stamping their feet and demanding candy.

Nope. Just a demand for equally. Things were different before, when insurance wasn't "government mandated." Now it is, and religious institutions will have to comply with government guidelines as to what is required coverage for their employees. And, it's as I said: my coverage includes abortions, but that provision has never been used.....

Yeah, people cannot stop themselves from having sex.

Nope, we pretty much can't-some of us are better at it than others, but-once we've had sex-yeah, we're pretty much "screwed" when it comes to sopping ourselves.....

Oh dear, personal responsibility. I'm such a meanie.

Nah. You have an agenda and a viewpoint, and you stick to it-I may disagree, but I respect that you have one.

So should you.

 

[oftheherd1]

Oddly,this neglects the health of the product of reproduction. Fer instance:

That is another discussion, and a worthy one. But since engaging is sex (other than rape or maybe incest) is optional, why must I pay for someone to do so.

And, in fact, can protect the "reproductive health" as in, the ability to have healthy reproduction products-that is to say, babies-you know, that can be born with STDs like syphillis or HIV from their mother's placenta

Again, these will normally be the result of choices, and why shouldn't we just stop these things by placing them in quarintine where they don't have access to the public?

Of course, the mother won't be reproducing, ever again, if she's dead. :lol

What kind of argument is that sir, on stating abortion is a health issue if it affects the health of the mother? That was put forth as a statement of fact or premise, not an argument for or against. At least as I read it.


...

But their actually "demanding" "reproductive health" coverage.

I think they are demanding reproductive prevention coverage. Bill's argument, and I agree, that choosing to have sex is just that, a choice, and demanding the government pay to remove the person's responsibility is not a health issue.

If it's part of their human imperative, no, it's not like having sex is anything like optional at all-since losing my virginity, I've gone as long as 14 months without sex-at a ridiculously young, premarital
age-and nearly as long after losing my kid's mom-just about voluntarily, I mean, I didn't even take my wedding ring off, so yeah, we're all capable of going without it, but, let's face it, we'd rather not.....:lol:

Possible solution: Every 14 months, let's have the government pay for hormone treatments so you can go another 14 months.



Nope. Just a demand for equally. Things were different before, when insurance wasn't "government mandated." Now it is, and religious institutions will have to comply with government guidelines as to what is required coverage for their employees. And, it's as I said: my coverage includes abortions, but that provision has never been used.....

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Even the most liberal courts are going to have a hard time with that.

Nope, we pretty much can't-some of us are better at it than others, but-once we've had sex-yeah, we're pretty much "screwed" when it comes to sopping ourselves.....

Again, possible so called castration drugs?

Nah. You have an agenda and a viewpoint, and you stick to it-I may disagree, but I respect that you have one.

So should you.

Good advice for all of us. And I think generally here at MT, we do.

As always, just my thoughts. I trust that if I have mis-stated Bill's intentions, he will correct me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nope. Just a demand for equally. Things were different before, when insurance wasn't "government mandated." Now it is, and religious institutions will have to comply with government guidelines as to what is required coverage for their employees.

I agree with you that government mandates and intervention in the national health insurance realm changes a lot of things. On the one hand, we have people now demanding that they be provided what they have come to expect from private non-religious employers (birth control coverage, I am just having trouble calling it 'reproductive health' coverage). On the other hand, we have employers who legally demand that employees not do certain things (like here in Michigan, it's perfectly legal for private employers to require that employees not smoke on or off the job). I suppose that *could* be interpreted to mean that employers are required to cover birth control, but can require employees not to engage in risky or unprotected sex, or be fired.

I mean, if employers HAVE to cover lung cancer, but are allowed to fire employees who smoke, and they HAVE to cover birth control, then they should logically be allowed to fire people who have risky or unprotected sex. Smoking is a choice; so is having sex. If employers MUST bear the cost, then they have some say in controlling costs. Michigan (and other states) say that employers can fire smokers...

 

[oftheherd1]

I agree with you that government mandates and intervention in the national health insurance realm changes a lot of things. On the one hand, we have people now demanding that they be provided what they have come to expect from private non-religious employers (birth control coverage, I am just having trouble calling it 'reproductive health' coverage). On the other hand, we have employers who legally demand that employees not do certain things (like here in Michigan, it's perfectly legal for private employers to require that employees not smoke on or off the job). I suppose that *could* be interpreted to mean that employers are required to cover birth control, but can require employees not to engage in risky or unprotected sex, or be fired.

I mean, if employers HAVE to cover lung cancer, but are allowed to fire employees who smoke, and they HAVE to cover birth control, then they should logically be allowed to fire people who have risky or unprotected sex. Smoking is a choice; so is having sex. If employers MUST bear the cost, then they have some say in controlling costs. Michigan (and other states) say that employers can fire smokers...

Interesting, except I don't think federal government intervention in health care is applies nor is constitutional if it places a prohibition on the free exercise of a person's (and corporations like insurance companies or large churches are being held to be people) exercise of religion. Now unless the Michigan constitution contains a similar right, they still have the option to do so. The first amendment only applies to The Congress, that is, the federal congress. The States were not so constrained.

But interesting to think of States allowing workers to be fired if they are found to be engaged in acts that lead to pregnancy (married or not?) or STD, because they didn't use contraceptive devices.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Interesting, except I don't think federal government intervention in health care is applies nor is constitutional if it places a prohibition on the free exercise of a person's (and corporations like insurance companies or large churches are being held to be people) exercise of religion. Now unless the Michigan constitution contains a similar right, they still have the option to do so. The first amendment only applies to The Congress, that is, the federal congress. The States were not so constrained.

Well, not originally, but the 14th Amendment applied some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_bill_of_rights

But interesting to think of States allowing workers to be fired if they are found to be engaged in acts that lead to pregnancy (married or not?) or STD, because they didn't use contraceptive devices.

Well, banning smoking on or off the job was found to be legal in Michigan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870458/ns/health-addictions/t/fired-smoking/#.T1pgch3Eh8I

LANSING, Mich. — Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. “I don’t want to pay for the results of smoking,” he said.

So what's to stop a company forced to pay for birth control insurance coverage from requiring employees not engage in risky or unprotected or premarital sex? No one is forced to smoke; and no one is forced to have sex (except victims of crimes as previously noted).

 

[oftheherd1]

Well, not originally, but the 14th Amendment applied some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.

True, but there is still that pesky "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause.
...

So what's to stop a company forced to pay for birth control insurance coverage from requiring employees not engage in risky or unprotected or premarital sex? No one is forced to smoke; and no one is forced to have sex (except victims of crimes as previously noted).

It may come to that. Some insurance companies probably have lawyers working on that already.

1

 

[Cryozombie]

So, let me ask... The Hospital I work at will not give you an abortion if you come in and ask for it. They will send you back to your PCP or direct you to a clinic. This is not out of any religious conviction; we simply don't keep staff on hand or have the facilities to provide this service. Why aren't you protesting against hospitals who won't do it for economic reasons? The only realistic reason I can see is because it has nothing to do with "Reproductive Rights" but everything to do with attacking established Religion... or is there another reason hospitals who don't have the facilities to do it get a pass that I am not seeing?

 

[granfire]

So, let me ask... The Hospital I work at will not give you an abortion if you come in and ask for it. They will send you back to your PCP or direct you to a clinic. This is not out of any religious conviction; we simply don't keep staff on hand or have the facilities to provide this service. Why aren't you protesting against hospitals who won't do it for economic reasons? The only realistic reason I can see is because it has nothing to do with "Reproductive Rights" but everything to do with attacking established Religion... or is there another reason hospitals who don't have the facilities to do it get a pass that I am not seeing?

Well, trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
It does not do any good to complain about lack of funds. Which is basically what you are aiming at. If it was that easy, I'd be protesting my own poverty a lot more.

If there is no $$, what can you protest?
On the other hand the $$ is there, the staff is there, but you are told you can't have it, because the person holding the purse strings does not like you to have it....

Do replace abortion and birth control with a number of different medical innovations:
Insulin injections
Blood Transfusions
Inoculations
Appendectomies...

don't be hung up on the one thing, just because you happen to agree with this one item!

 

[Big Don]

None of the stores in my town sell hollandaise sauce. Shouldn't the government force at least one to sell it?

 

[granfire]

None of the stores in my town sell hollandaise sauce. Shouldn't the government force at least one to sell it?

Do they do it on religious grounds?

Besides...don't be a shmuck...make it yourself!

 

[Big Don]

Why do the patient's rights trump the doctors? I asked before but, no one bothered to answer.

 

[Cryozombie]

Do replace abortion and birth control with a number of different medical innovations:
Insulin injections
Blood Transfusions
Inoculations
Appendectomies...

don't be hung up on the one thing, just because you happen to agree with this one item!

But this is exactly what I asked before: Hospitals choose all the time what services they are willing to provide, I made the example of the local hospitals here which have closed their birthing centers. We generally don't treat major head trauma, we pack them off to other hospitals. We have no plastic surgery center, we would send you elsewhere if you came in for that. We don't really do much Transplant work either, those tend to get sent to the University hospitals... so why this one issue? Because it was raised as a moral objection rather than a financial one? Is one more reasonable than the other, and if so, why? Especially since one is supposedly protected by the Constitution, and the other is not...