About this 'Religious Exclusion'

You know...the Catholics don't want to provide birth control in their health-care plans. It's going to the Supreme Court and people around here are launching lawsuits.

I was just thinking...if the Catholics get a pass on birth control, do Jehovas Witnesses get a pass on covering blood transfusions? What if your employer is one of those against childhood vaccinations? Where does it end?

@br0kenrabbit: It begins and ends at birth control. You're using disease prevention and life-saving procedures to compare it to, like apples to oranges.

Actually, I'm up a bit further in the hierarchy looking at the legal ramifications of 'RELIGIOUS exclusion'. This is what the court will be looking at, not the actual medical issue.

Naw, religious exclusion is only valid if Evangelical Christians do it. Bonus points if it's for discriminating against gays.

Will legalizing marijuana lead to the legalization of more dangerous drugs? Will legalizing gay marriage lead to legalizing marriage between an adult and a child? Even from a legal standpoint it's all still apples to oranges.

The case isn't being made that "we don't want to buy birth control", it's being made that "you're forcing us to go against our religious values". Legal arguments are quite specific.

You yourself brought up the slippery slope argument of how theoretically one thing leads to another. Medical necessity trumps religious values. Birth control is not a life-saving procedure, whereas vaccinations and blood transfusions are. So, saying it's against your religious beliefs is fine as long as nobody's life is at stake.

In all honesty I'd say it's impossible to see where it will end..if it does.

It's obviously going over your head: it's not a slippery slope if what's ruled on is general religious exclusion. That would mean anytime someone has a moral issue with whatever is provided in Health-Care they can claim a religious exclusion.

Again, they're not ruling on Birth Control but on Religious Exclusion.

Access to birth control has a direct and proven correlation to fewer abortions (duh); Catholics should be all over birth control. If they don't want to abide by the law, they can hand over their tax exempt status.

There are few things that can **** up your entire life more than an unwanted pregnancy.

Why is the government mandating anything relating to religion in the first place? Separation of church and state.

no, people against birth control just need to stfu and stop being so sexually repressed.

Why not? Religion already influences politics.

Pregnancy is 100% preventable through abstinence, which again is why contraception isn't a life-saving procedure.

The problem I see is that there are people who work for a catholic organization who do not agree with the tenants of the catholic faith. I'm not catholic, I don't agree with their practice, and therefore I choose not to work for a catholic organization. BAM! Problem solved. Same goes for any other religious group. They can't force their beliefs on you if you don't associate with them.

Wow you are so smart. Abortion and contraception are 2 separate issues. And just because you are "on the pill" doesn't mean you can't get pregnant. My wife has gotten pregnant twice while "on the pill".

But the thing is, it's not just religious organizations that don't want to provide coverage. Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain for crying out loud, is a plaintiff in the case for instance.

And expecting people to adhere to abstinence-only is a joke, which again is why contraception is so important. It doesn't need to be a life-saving procedure (though, again, few things ruin your life more than an unwanted pregnancy) to be important or covered.

If a woman never fornicates, she doesn't get pregnant. That isn't BS, that's a scientific fact. Rape is a separate issue. Sorry if logic and reason confuse you.

Yes, let's tell women not to fornicate. That'll work, just like how it's worked for the past hundred years or so.

Technically he's right...

If you have sex, regardless of if it's consensual, it sort of means you're not abstaining.

Well I hope the SC rules against the likes of Hobby Lobby and a bunch of these other 'religious' for profit companies. **** 'em, they're for profit. If they're going to be for profit they have to play by the rules like anyone else.

This is ignoring the fact that the morning after pill is NOTHING like an abortion. Its astounding that these morons can't even bother doing a quick google search to examine the mechanism of the pill.

I'm glad the religious affiliation in this country continue to shrink year after year.

Actually in the cases that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the companies are not Catholic. The owners of Hobby Lobby are Protestant (I think Evangelical) and the owners of the Conestoga Wood Specialties are Mennonites. Also the Hobby Lobby owners are not opposed to all forms of birth control, the reason they are suing is because the mandate would require them to cover some abortion-inducing drugs, not because of contraceptives per se.

On an aside, if a person needs a blood transfusion and their insurance doesn't cover that (which is probably quite a rare situation), or if they don't have insurance (maybe they lost it due to Obamacare), obviously the hospital would still do the transfusion.

The problem with the religious exclusion, is that it only cares for the leaders of certain companies and NOT the employees. Is a CEO of a company saying that birth control is immoral, and not providing it to his employees a breach of his employee's religious freedom because they may be against it? They are only required to cover birth control, but they are not forced to use it, nor are their employees.