Something I found on the net...

[Beorning]

I was doing some research today and, on the website of one order of Catholic nuns, I found this:

http://www.sistersoflife.org/response-to-hhs-mandate

If I understand correctly, the problem works this way:

1. This new (at least in 2012) policy by US government requires every US citizen to get health insurance.
2. At the same time, every health insurance provider is required to provide abortion, contraception and sterilization.
3. So, by getting health insurance, these sisters would actually pay for abortions etc...
4. ... which goes directly against their faith and even their specific religious vows.

So... what do you think of it? How to solve this kind of conundrum?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

This train of thought would also allow people who are objectors to war, pollution or any manner of government run programs or activities to also refuse mandatory taxation or programs based on their conscience.  The simple fact is that the government and society these groups operate within uphold these activities and the government provides for this treatment.  Such groups are certainly allowed to preach against such activities and to spread awareness of their belief as much as they like.  Yet to be allowed to defy government mandate due to religious reasons is crossing a line of government and religion.  They are allowing their religious views and beliefs to affect government policy.  If they find the mandate so objectionable that their immortal souls are threatened, then I would advise an alternative country for their presence.

[Ephiral]

I was doing some research today and, on the website of one order of Catholic nuns, I found this:

http://www.sistersoflife.org/response-to-hhs-mandate

If I understand correctly, the problem works this way:

1. This new (at least in 2012) policy by US government requires every US citizen to get health insurance.
2. At the same time, every health insurance provider is required to provide abortion, contraception and sterilization.
3. So, by getting health insurance, these sisters would actually pay for abortions etc...
4. ... which goes directly against their faith and even their specific religious vows.

So... what do you think of it? How to solve this kind of conundrum?

You don't get to opt out of the responsibilities of living in a modern society and claim all the perks. It's really that simple.

[Beorning]

But why not allow for the existence of insurance providers who do not provide abortions etc.? That way, the people who oppose abortions would not be forced to finance them...

I don't know, this kind of situation is a bit saddening to me. I can perfectly imagine that someone might be deeply religious, take these vows related to the sanctity of life... and then, blam! That person is forced to pay for abortions. I can imagine this could be very heartbreaking...

[Avis habilis]

I don't like a portion of my income taxes being spent on CIA torture chambers. I pay my taxes anyway.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yes, but the belief the nuns are upholding is shared by a large part of the population or at least a large part of the population can claim those beliefs.  So if the Catholic Church is allowed that exemption then that sets legal precedent for other companies claiming religious belief to refuse to partake in those programs.  Therefore women are once more denied access to medical coverage and care particular to them and this more frighteningly would be on a federal scale.  Religious belief and practice does not dictate or modify government practice.  There is a reason for that separation.

[Ephiral]

But why not allow for the existence of insurance providers who do not provide abortions etc.? That way, the people who oppose abortions would not be forced to finance them...

I don't know, this kind of situation is a bit saddening to me. I can perfectly imagine that someone might be deeply religious, take these vows related to the sanctity of life... and then, blam! That person is forced to pay for abortions. I can imagine this could be very heartbreaking...

Because if you allow insurance carriers to opt out of providing a service, they will. They are strongly incentivized to provide as little coverage as possible, which is exactly why health care reform was necessary in the first place. If you let them opt out, women's health will go back to being completely uncovered - and women will continue to suffer injury, illness, and death as a result. Which brings me to another point: You don't get to call yourself "pro-life" if you explicitly don't give a shit about (and push policies that actually harm) anybody whose age is a positive number.

[Beorning]

Yes, but the belief the nuns are upholding is shared by a large part of the population or at least a large part of the population can claim those beliefs.  So if the Catholic Church is allowed that exemption then that sets legal precedent for other companies claiming religious belief to refuse to partake in those programs.

Why would that happen? There still would be a market for insurers who do provide these services... So, Catholics could go to those that don't do it and the atheists could go to those that do. Freedom of choice!

Therefore women are once more denied access to medical coverage and care particular to them and this more frighteningly would be on a federal scale.

Meanwhile, a group of other women gets their basic civil rights trampled upon...

Religious belief and practice does not dictate or modify government practice.  There is a reason for that separation.

I personally believe that government practice should accomodate all ethical viewpoints, including religious ones.

[Ephiral]

Meanwhile, a group of other women gets their basic civil rights trampled upon...

Denying other people access to health care is not a civil right, no matter how much religiosity you dress it up in.

[Beorning]

Denying other people access to health care is not a civil right, no matter how much religiosity you dress it up in.

Freedom of religion is not a civil right? Come on.

[Avis habilis]

They're free to exercise the dictates of their religion. They're not free to compel anyone else to.

[Beorning]

They're free to exercise the dictates of their religion. They're not free to compel anyone else to.

I don't see anything in their statement that say that they want to ban abortions or anything like that. They just don't want to pay for them...

[Pumpkin Seeds]

There is a market for insurers that provide those services, but those services will be at an increase over ones that do not.  Also employers that wish to take a moral stance can then force their employees (who are now mandated to take insurance) to buy insurance that does not provide this coverage.  Therefore my money is going toward something I do not believe in, which is denying women access to contraception/abortion/and morning after medication.  Not only is my money being forced into these companies, I am also depriving companies that do provide these services from having my money and thus not supporting a cause I believe is beneficial to the country.

What right is being impeded by these nuns having to make use of an insurance company?  The nuns are allowed to speak their beliefs, practice their beliefs and receive medical treatment.  Their beliefs are respected as nobody is going to force unwanted medical treatments or medications on them.  Their rights are not being harmed.  Yet by allowing them to not take this insurance they will be setting a precedence that could deny other women medical care that is desperately needed.  No rights of theirs are being impeded in following this mandate, but in disobeying the mandate they are denying others the very best medicine available. 

A government should seek to accommodate the ethical and religious beliefs of its people, but should secure the welfare of its people first.  Hence the reason behind the separation of church and state.

[Ephiral]

I don't see anything in their statement that say that they want to ban abortions or anything like that. They just don't want to pay for them...

As I mentioned above, given the overwhelming incentive for insurers to provide the least services for the greatest cost, allowing insurers to opt out is effectively a ban.

Interesting side note: Every time this argument comes up, it's about abortion. Nobody ever seems to think that the Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to opt out of paying for blood transfusions, or that the Fundamentalist Mormons should be immune to marriage laws. Makes the claims that this is all about religious freedom just a little bit suspect, don't you think?

[Beorning]

Wait, I don't get this:

Also employers that wish to take a moral stance can then force their employees (who are now mandated to take insurance) to buy insurance that does not provide this coverage.  Therefore my money is going toward something I do not believe in, which is denying women access to contraception/abortion/and morning after medication.

But that's exactly the same situation the nuns are currently in, isn't it? Now it's *their* money being directed toward services they find abhorring.

A government should seek to accommodate the ethical and religious beliefs of its people, but should secure the welfare of its people first.  Hence the reason behind the separation of church and state.

It's actually a pretty risky statement. What if the government decides that the welfare of the citizens lies in, say, "stable family home" and decides to ban divorces or tries to stop women from getting jobs? Hey, welfare before freedom, right?

Interesting side note: Every time this argument comes up, it's about abortion. Nobody ever seems to think that the Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to opt out of paying for blood transfusions, or that the Fundamentalist Mormons should be immune to marriage laws. Makes the claims that this is all about religious freedom just a little bit suspect, don't you think?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Jehovah's Witnesses decided to opt out of blood transfusions, too. Would it be that wrong?

[Ephiral]

Wait, I don't get this:

But that's exactly the same situation the nuns are currently in, isn't it? Now it's *their* money being directed toward services they find abhorring.

So the solution is to let the minority oppress the majority instead?

It's actually a pretty risky statement. What if the government decides that the welfare of the citizens lies in, say, "stable family home" and decides to ban divorces or tries to stop women from getting jobs? Hey, welfare before freedom, right?

Dictating others' choices unilaterally is a funny definition of "freedom".

[Beorning]

So the solution is to let the minority oppress the majority instead?

Dictating others' choices unilaterally is a funny definition of "freedom".

Again, I don't see the nuns trying to dictate other people's choices here.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

How are the nuns in that situation?  The money of the Catholic Church is going toward a government mandate whereby everyone has equal coverage for all their medical needs and procedures.  Everyone is equal under the law with no exceptions.  Yet if an exception is made for a group and then precedence set, then everyone has to start selecting.  People are then left out of having their procedures and medical needs unaddressed.  My beliefs are not respected because their beliefs are to be respected.  My government has failed to address my beliefs (in favor of theirs) and has failed to address my physical needs (in favor of their beliefs).  Whereas the nuns are not going to lose any medical benefits, not going to lose any ability to voice or advocate their beliefs and not going to lose anything from their religious practice. 

The State owes protection and security to its citizens.  People’s freedom is at the luxury of the common good as has been set down many times.  Freedom of Speech is constrained by emergency situations and does not extend to cover unsafe practices.  Religious freedom is suspended when the welfare of a child is at stake for instance or when an emergency occurs.  (Yes for anybody reading a Jehovah’s Witness can be forced to take blood during an emergency).  For a long time the government did include restrictions on the rights of women until popular opinion and research showed that those restrictions were not for the common good.

[Ephiral]

Again, I don't see the nuns trying to dictate other people's choices here.

No, they're just doing everything in their power to reduce funding and support for an already massively underprovided vital service. Completely different.

[Oniya]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Jehovah's Witnesses decided to opt out of blood transfusions, too. Would it be that wrong?

They do opt out of blood transfusions, sometimes with fatal results.  However, it's their own transfusions they refuse and their own life that they risk.

I have never heard of a JW telling a non-JW that blood transfusions should be banned unilaterally, or not covered by insurance (theirs or anyone else's).

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Once more, precedence allows for a loophole to be found in the legislation that companies have already attempted in the past.  Several company owners have attempted to circumvent this mandate by claiming religious practice or belief.  The Catholic Church is simply another organization attempting to open that loophole to push forward an agenda.  This would then allow companies to not provide for services to women, thereby the nuns would be interfering in government policy and women's health.

[ofDelusions]

1. This new (at least in 2012) policy by US government requires every US citizen to get health insurance.
2. At the same time, every health insurance provider is required to provide abortion, contraception and sterilization.
3. So, by getting health insurance, these sisters would actually pay for abortions etc...
4. ... which goes directly against their faith and even their specific religious vows.

I really don't understand where the problem is. The nuns aren't forced to get or perform abortions. After they have paid to the insurer its no longer their business how the insurer spends that money as long as the insurer pays for their healthcare.

[Ephiral]

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Jehovah's Witnesses decided to opt out of blood transfusions, too. Would it be that wrong?

Missed this earlier. For them to opt out of blood transfusions? Not at all, as long as everybody else isn't expected to shoulder the burden of any added health-care costs as a result. For them to opt out of paying for others to get them under the law? Yes, that's a huge problem, because it results in dead people.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

By this reasoning then religious groups that do not believe in modern medicine should be exempt from participating in the program at all such as Christian Scientists. 

[Oniya]

Last time the issue of JWs and blood transfusion came up, someone sent me a journal article about the use of saline to increase fluid volume as an alternative. 

(Don't Christian Scientists make use of other potentially covered services, like the use of chiropractors? or is that out as well?)

[Beorning]

The money of the Catholic Church is going toward a government mandate whereby everyone has equal coverage for all their medical needs and procedures.  Everyone is equal under the law with no exceptions.  Yet if an exception is made for a group and then precedence set, then everyone has to start selecting.  People are then left out of having their procedures and medical needs unaddressed.  My beliefs are not respected because their beliefs are to be respected.  My government has failed to address my beliefs (in favor of theirs) and has failed to address my physical needs (in favor of their beliefs).  Whereas the nuns are not going to lose any medical benefits, not going to lose any ability to voice or advocate their beliefs and not going to lose anything from their religious practice. 

The State owes protection and security to its citizens.  People’s freedom is at the luxury of the common good as has been set down many times.  Freedom of Speech is constrained by emergency situations and does not extend to cover unsafe practices.  Religious freedom is suspended when the welfare of a child is at stake for instance or when an emergency occurs.  (Yes for anybody reading a Jehovah’s Witness can be forced to take blood during an emergency).  For a long time the government did include restrictions on the rights of women until popular opinion and research showed that those restrictions were not for the common good.

Okay, when you put it this way, it makes sense.

Hmmm. My problem is, you're a reasonable and nice individual and when you put your view this way, I'm tempted to agree with you. But then, I can read the nuns' opinion - and they are reasonable and nice individuals, too. And their point of view makes sense, too! I'm tempted to agree with it, too!

Basically, there's no good solution of this situation: in any case, someone's rights are going to get disrespected. It makes me think this whole "democracy" idea is just unworkable...

[Ephiral]

Okay, when you put it this way, it makes sense.

Hmmm. My problem is, you're a reasonable and nice individual and when you put your view this way, I'm tempted to agree with you. But then, I can read the nuns' opinion - and they are reasonable and nice individuals, too. And their point of view makes sense, too! I'm tempted to agree with it, too!

Basically, there's no good solution of this situation: in any case, someone's rights are going to get disrespected. It makes me think this whole "democracy" idea is just unworkable...

There might not be a perfect solution, but there's certainly a least-harm one. Which option here will cause the least real, tangible harm to real people?

[Love And Submission]

Again the problem here is that you're just focused on abortion. The reason these nuns are wrong is found in the example of other religious group.
Jewish AND Muslim people  fund the FDA to check the quality of pork products despite the fact they don't eat pork.
People who get speeding tickets pay speeding tickets that fund the police  officers that gave them speeding tickets.
Hell , Why should we pay for toll boths that force us to pay tolls?  We're paying people to charge us money for using the highway that we paid for in the first place.


I'll agree with these nuns when they start fighting tollbooths and parking tickets.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Last time the issue of JWs and blood transfusion came up, someone sent me a journal article about the use of saline to increase fluid volume as an alternative. 

(Don't Christian Scientists make use of other potentially covered services, like the use of chiropractors? or is that out as well?)

Normal Saline, D5 1/2NS and Lactated Ringers can all be used to increase fluid volume.  This can be done to replenish lost blood, but when too much blood then they are at a significant deficit for hemoglobin.  Hemoglobin carries oxygen.  Without enough hemoglobin to supply oxygen to tissue the cells will die as they cannot make energy.  So while replacement fluids can be used to an extent, blood transfusions are optimal in cases of low hemoglobin.  Now what can be done if a Jehovah's Witness is awake and consent is the blood can be administered as platelettes (sp?) and plasma.  Apparently the stipulation is "whole blood."  By separating the whole blood into components there is a work around solution. 

Off topic I know, but just thought it was interesting enough to say.

[RubySlippers]

I would keep this simple the nuns have every right no to use any medical services offered they on the other hand want to force their belief on others if they opt out of paying for health coverage for say an atheist like myself who doesn't share those beliefs they are basically taking away my options.

[Beorning]

Alright, thanks for all the input. It clarified some things to me...

[meikle]

But why not allow for the existence of insurance providers who do not provide abortions etc.? That way, the people who oppose abortions would not be forced to finance them...

I don't know, this kind of situation is a bit saddening to me. I can perfectly imagine that someone might be deeply religious, take these vows related to the sanctity of life... and then, blam! That person is forced to pay for abortions. I can imagine this could be very heartbreaking...

I believe that it is wrong to treat people with broken bones or bacteria-borne disease, as all life, especially bacterial life, is sacred.  So I don't have to pay for antibiotics or casts or braces, right?

Honestly, this just reminds me of the whole, "My religion features human sacrifice, so murder laws trample my freedom of religion" thing.  Freedom of religion isn't the freedom to ignore laws you disagree with.

[Beorning]

Honestly, this just reminds me of the whole, "My religion features human sacrifice, so murder laws trample my freedom of religion" thing.  Freedom of religion isn't the freedom to ignore laws you disagree with.

This kind of argument actually swings both ways. What if *the law* demands human sacrifice and your religion forbids it? Should you be punished for not following the law?

Using a more realistic example: imagine that there's still conscription going on in your country, i.e. every man at certain age is required to take part in military service. Now, imagine you're a strict pacifist, like the quakers. Should you be punished for declining to take part in the military service?

[Oniya]

In the 1960's, when people were getting drafted for the Vietnam and Korean wars, there was a status called 'Conscientious Objector'.  Basically, if you qualified for that (Quakers did) they would give you a desk job if your draft number came up.

[Ack Arg]

You don't get to opt out of the responsibilities of living in a modern society and claim all the perks. It's really that simple.

Ah, but one of the responsibilities of living in a modern society is to follow your conscience and to things like perform acts of protest and civil disobedience.

As it happens, abortion is not distinct from murder, there's no hard rule we've got about it that isn't arbitrary. I think Doug Stanhope was the one that put it this way for rape babies: "So he's out cause his father's an asshole?" Combine that with the number performed and a hard conviction about human life and I fully expect some kind of protest.

Then again, maybe the nuns just needed a hobby. I would have recommended finger painting.

Beorning:
Ya don't have to be a pacifist to refuse military service. You might not want to be in a dangerous worksite (see depleated uranium rounds.) You might not think a particular war is just. You might say it's incompatible to take orders and be morally or legally responsible for your actions.

It may be a matter of your reasons.

And you might not be content to be paying taxes, let alone doing a deskjob. Then again, maybe you're supposed to join and change the institution or situation by being involved on the inside.

Where are them thar fingerpaints again?

[Beorning]

In the 1960's, when people were getting drafted for the Vietnam and Korean wars, there was a status called 'Conscientious Objector'.  Basically, if you qualified for that (Quakers did) they would give you a desk job if your draft number came up.

Exactly. So, it *is* possible for the government to modify the policy because of religious beliefs of a group of people...

[Oniya]

Only, if you read the article I linked to, it extended to far more than the Quakers, or even strictly religious criteria.  You could be an atheist and still be a conscientious objector.  Also, you still had to 'serve' in some capacity (the same way that the nuns still have to pay for their insurance).  Some people were assigned to work crews in the national forests, for example.

[Ephiral]

Ah, but one of the responsibilities of living in a modern society is to follow your conscience and to things like perform acts of protest and civil disobedience.

And part of civil disobedience is accepting that you are in fact in violation of the law and will suffer the consequences.

As it happens, abortion is not distinct from murder, there's no hard rule we've got about it that isn't arbitrary. I think Doug Stanhope was the one that put it this way for rape babies: "So he's out cause his father's an asshole?" Combine that with the number performed and a hard conviction about human life and I fully expect some kind of protest.

You can leave me out of your "we". Non-arbitrary rule: Every person should have bodily autonomy. You do not get to dictate what somebody else can and cannot do with their body.

[Valthazar]

No, they're just doing everything in their power to reduce funding and support for an already massively underprovided vital service. Completely different.

I don't think this is the case at all.  They are simply objecting the fact that the federal government is coercing a private insurance company to offer certain medical services.  No one is forcing any citizen in the US to purchase this particular private insurance - that is the beauty of an economy that allows choice.  Also, no one is forcing anyone to work for the Church.

There are plenty of insurance providers that offer these particular medical services if a woman wants them.  No one is forcing a woman to work for the Church, so I am confused why so many of you are getting so defensive over this.  This is the United States, where people are free to create companies and offer products that they desire.

[Beorning]

Only, if you read the article I linked to, it extended to far more than the Quakers, or even strictly religious criteria.  You could be an atheist and still be a conscientious objector.  Also, you still had to 'serve' in some capacity (the same way that the nuns still have to pay for their insurance).  Some people were assigned to work crews in the national forests, for example.

Oh, of course. But, overall, that situation shows that it is possible for government to take people's beliefs (religious or otherwise) into account. Meanwhile, the tone of our discussion in this topic seems to be "The nuns are troubled by the new law? Tough luck, they need to shut up and obey".

Non-arbitrary rule: Every person should have bodily autonomy. You do not get to dictate what somebody else can and cannot do with their body.

*resists pointing out the obvious hole in that rule to avoid creating another abortion discussion*

[Ephiral]

I don't think this is the case at all.  They are simply objecting the fact that the federal government is coercing a private insurance company to offer certain medical services.  No one is forcing any citizen in the US to purchase this particular private insurance - that is the beauty of an economy that allows choice.  Also, no one is forcing anyone to work for the Church.

Even if this were the case - again, you're ignoring the fact that any exemption sets a precedent, and insurance companies have a strong incentive not to provide services - they'd still be on the wrong side of this argument. The entire reason this reform happened is because insurance companies needed to be coerced in order to reliably provide any services at all.

There are plenty of insurance providers that offer these particular medical services if a woman wants them.  No one is forcing a woman to work for the Church, so I am confused why so many of you are getting so defensive over this.  This is the United States, where people are free to create companies and offer products that they desire.

There are plenty of companies that provide this service! Because the law requires them to. This is the United States, where we already have years of data on exactly how much service insurance companies will provide (as little as possible) for what price (as high as possible).

[RubySlippers]

In the 1960's, when people were getting drafted for the Vietnam and Korean wars, there was a status called 'Conscientious Objector'.  Basically, if you qualified for that (Quakers did) they would give you a desk job if your draft number came up.

Fine but why do the religious like a Quaker get an assumed out of such an obligation and the atheist objector would have to jump through hoops since they are not religious. And its not all the same Mohammad Ali had to serve or go to jail. I would take religion out and go on the persons wishes and beliefs.

My family had this happen my uncle was drafted during the Vietnam War and applied for CO status as an atheist, he was smart and fit and boxed as a sport and refused to fight and went to Boot and refused to touch or use a weapon and ended up in jail but he didn't want to kill anyone and ended up in the Stockade a lot over two years, They finally let him go for insubordination and with a dishonorable discharge not as a CO.

So I have little sympathy for special breaks for a religion since a frock or collar doesn't make you better than anyone else.

[ofDelusions]

There are plenty of insurance providers that offer these particular medical services if a woman wants them.  No one is forcing a woman to work for the Church, so I am confused why so many of you are getting so defensive over this.  This is the United States, where people are free to create companies and offer products that they desire.

And no one is forcing anyone to go into Insurance business but if they do they are expected to follow certain rules. Just like banks have rules about what kinds of loans they can offer etc.

[Ephiral]

Fine but why do the religious like a Quaker get an assumed out of such an obligation and the atheist objector would have to jump through hoops since they are not religious. And its not all the same Mohammad Ali had to serve or go to jail. I would take religion out and go on the persons wishes and beliefs.

In theory, because not all atheists are avowed pacifists. Which is fine. In practice, because there's a huge goddamn bias against atheists in the US military. Which is not.

[ofDelusions]

I don't know if its same in US, but in Finland the reason groups like Jehowah's witnesses are exempt from conscription is because army found that throwing every JW of certain age to Jail every year was too costly.

Still sucks though.

[Valthazar]

Even if this were the case - again, you're ignoring the fact that any exemption sets a precedent, and insurance companies have a strong incentive not to provide services - they'd still be on the wrong side of this argument. The entire reason this reform happened is because insurance companies needed to be coerced in order to reliably provide any services at all.

I'm confused by your statement that the Church's private insurance exempting abortion would set a precedent - for whom?  If, as you suggest, there is a growing demand in the US population for health insurance that provide abortion and women's health services, then business owners will identify this as a growing market that is asking to be tapped.  I disagree with your statement that there is a growing shift towards reducing services, but even if that was the case, it would lay the foundation for entrepreneurs in the health industry to offer insurance plans that cater to this very same population demanding women's health services.  That is just money waiting to be tapped into.  Individuals who may currently be on private insurance plans not providing abortion and women's health services would immediately switch over, and if the demand is there, there is much profit to be had.

There are plenty of companies that provide this service! Because the law requires them to. This is the United States, where we already have years of data on exactly how much service insurance companies will provide (as little as possible) for what price (as high as possible).

The law has never dictated what particular medical services an private insurance companies must provide in the past.  You need to realize that all companies are driven by profit incentives, and as a result, every medical service represents a unique market opportunity for an insurance company.  Again, if hypothetically you are suggesting that the net-sum of all private insurance companies are willfully deviating from women's health, reproductive services, and abortion (which is fundamentally untrue), then that presents a clear market-opportunity for a private insurance company to cater to the growing demand for that medical service (a new market opportunity).

None of what I have said is controversial, this is how the American economy functions based on supply and demand, and profit motivations.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The choice is an illusion though.  Essentially once a workplace can opt out of purchasing the more expensive insurance plan for their employees, the vast majority will make that choice due simply to economics.  The ability to offer an adequate necessity for a cheaper price is preferable to offering an unnecessarily larger plan at a more expensive rate.  Workplaces can satisfy government regulation for less.  Companies have done such things multiple times in the past over a wide range of issues from medical coverage to product safety.  The average American cannot afford to purchase health insurance not provided for by their employer.  The average American also cannot afford to be picky about their job.  If asked few Americans even consider benefits when applying for a job considering the offering of any insurance as a perk, not a necessity.  Only those at the upper echelon give such consideration.  Therefore the choice of an insurance company is an illusion.

Now not all companies will take that stance.  Some will indeed offer to cover such practices creating a market, but because of the increased expense for offering more services few employers will take up such a cause.  Some companies may indeed offer different plans whereby an employee can opt out of purchasing certain healthcare options (such as abortion, morning after pill or birth control).  This then means that women, the people primarily interested in this type of service, will pay an additional fee to receive coverage for their particular needs.  So a healthcare reform meant to give everyone equal medical treatment, coverage and ensure payment has now caused a divide and potentially done the opposite so far as women are concerned.

All because a group of people whose rights were not being infringed upon decided that their desire to not pay for a government mandate which included things they found objectionable was more important than a woman’s right to certain medical procedures and prescriptions allowed by law. 

[Valthazar]

Pumpkin Seeds, I see your perspective, but we can't have the best of everything.  There are certain advantages to living in a country such as Finland or England, where healthcare is essentially free (despite enormous taxes).  However, do you know how long it takes to see a doctor there, or how difficult it is to start a business there?  Someone who works their butt off in the United States through creativity can easily carve out a very success life for themselves.  This is the primary reason why the US is the most powerful nation in the world.  It is very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone is entitled to certain benefits, and turn into any other ordinary country in the world. 

Perhaps I am in the minority here, but I firmly believe that even today, hard work can guarantee a secure life in the US - with healthcare coverage.  Americans, even today, like hearing success stories, and we reward that success through monetary means.  It is nice to know that having a unique vision, and working creatively to that endeavor can provide you with instant medical care, unlimited choices for healthcare, etc. 

But yes, I do agree that for the average person living in the US, things are not ideal.  I guess the reality is that the US is an amazing country for people with above average financial means.  Personally, I respond to that positively by seeing the benefits of such a system - that ambition and hard work yields immense benefits.

[Ephiral]

ValthazarElite, I can't argue with you on a theoretical level, but something is clearly wrong with your theory - because it does not describe what is happening in the real world. Denial of coverage for "pre-existing conditions" not only ballooned ridiculously in recent years - 20% of customers were paying their insurer for literally nothing - but was seen as a prime area of growth that leading providers were explicitly looking to expand. Why? Because finding excuses to deny coverage means that they get to take money without providing any service - it's almost pure profit. What does your economic theory tell you a company will do when provided with such an opportunity? Because saying "You don't have to provide women's health services" is exactly that.

As for precedent: I can't believe I have to explain this, but these nuns are hardly the only ones seeking such an exemption. As I understand it, the way law works in the US is that, if an exemption on religious grounds is found to be valid in one case, then it becomes very difficult to deny a religious exemption in any future cases. This is not about a single small group - this is about any company of any size that can possibly find an excuse to claim a religious exemption.

[ofDelusions]

Finlands problem with how long it takes to see a doctor is ENTIRELY separate issue caused by lack of doctors. Which in turn was caused BY the doctors who lobbyed decrease in how many students the Med schools would take each year in the nineties and then have stopped that from increasing.

And even then, anyone who has money can go to private doctors and not have to wait nearly at all. Its the poor who have that problem but atleast they (we) can get that care.

Our problem is NOT the public healthcare but the fac that doctors hold our entire society hostage.

[Ack Arg]

I could get into a lot of arguments here. Ephiral is demonstrating exactly why protection for religion, especially from religion is so necessary. Personal autonomy is a big claim mostly unnecessary. I suspect it's simpler to say something like "women should be able to abort babies in a safe way." That might be preferable.


Valthazar, I'm more amazed by your "economics" than I am of your narrative about American society. I suppose that's something for another thread more suited to the topic. Three bits of reality to inject here:


1) A firm isn't for or against providing a service like women's healthcare. They're indifferent to it. They exist to make a profit. That's not the kind of firm we'd like when trying to grapple with reality but that's the bare bones, undergraduate economics assumption.


2) In reality, citizens fought private power and private interests (companies, corporations, individuals) to create standards for work and living. There's no magical free market where things solve themselves.


3) It's really important to question your assumptions. If you think it's uncontroversial that in America X, Y and Z and healthcare works a certain way, that's just dogmatism.


Does Beorning have a suggestion about where the conversation should be at this point? If not I'm thinking the best material is found in the linked statement from Sisters of Life. It might be good to slam our heads against that specifically.

[Ephiral]

I could get into a lot of arguments here. Ephiral is demonstrating exactly why protection for religion, especially from religion is so necessary. Personal autonomy is a big claim mostly unnecessary. I suspect it's simpler to say something like "women should be able to abort babies in a safe way." That might be preferable.

I think the wider claim is still valuable. Nobody has the right to tell you what you must, or what you cannot, do with your own body. Full stop. Are there any real grounds for dispute on this one?

[Kythia]

I think the wider claim is still valuable. Nobody has the right to tell you what you must, or what you cannot, do with your own body. Full stop. Are there any real grounds for dispute on this one?

Vaccinations?  I know its wildly off topic but an individual being vaccinated against whatever has benefits to all of society.

Meh.  Only one I thought of.  Drunk, so might not even make sense.

[Ephiral]

Vaccinations?  I know its wildly off topic but an individual being vaccinated against whatever has benefits to all of society.

Meh.  Only one I thought of.  Drunk, so might not even make sense.

...actually, that's a good one. Perhaps an "Except in the case of clear danger to the general population" clause is needed.

[Beorning]

Does Beorning have a suggestion about where the conversation should be at this point?

Not really - I'm just following the conversation, it's quite enlightening...

[Caela]

Normal Saline, D5 1/2NS and Lactated Ringers can all be used to increase fluid volume.  This can be done to replenish lost blood, but when too much blood then they are at a significant deficit for hemoglobin.  Hemoglobin carries oxygen.  Without enough hemoglobin to supply oxygen to tissue the cells will die as they cannot make energy.  So while replacement fluids can be used to an extent, blood transfusions are optimal in cases of low hemoglobin.  Now what can be done if a Jehovah's Witness is awake and consent is the blood can be administered as platelettes (sp?) and plasma.  Apparently the stipulation is "whole blood."  By separating the whole blood into components there is a work around solution. 

Off topic I know, but just thought it was interesting enough to say.

[off topic] This actually depends on how strict the JW is. Working in surgery we have some come through that will not take any sort of blood products at all. This ends up including some of our hemostatic agents, most notably thrombin, which can be a real pain if they just won't stop bleeding. For a major surgery, and even a minor one if we know the patient is a JW, we'll set up a device called a "cell saver" that hooks up to our suction so that we can actually collect and spin down their own red blood cells to return to them. [/ off topic]

[Caela]

Vaccinations?  I know its wildly off topic but an individual being vaccinated against whatever has benefits to all of society.

Meh.  Only one I thought of.  Drunk, so might not even make sense.

These are actually becoming a wildly contentious subject, especially as more and more parents refuse to get their children vaccinated.

...actually, that's a good one. Perhaps an "Except in the case of clear danger to the general population" clause is needed.

I am distrustful enough of my gov't to say, NO. If you give politicians a clause like this to play, any rights we enjoy will evaporate before our eyes as, "X, Y, Z, is a clear danger to the general population," become a new political mantra!

[Valthazar]

Valthazar, I'm more amazed by your "economics" than I am of your narrative about American society. I suppose that's something for another thread more suited to the topic.

Ack Arg, I was simply providing an alternative perspective.  I think most of us are here to learn more about the justifications of differing perspectives on this issue in a peaceful manner.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Also depends on the surgery.  One of the surgeons for a transplant had a JW type and screened for blood.  We asked why and he said, "he might have a change of religion on the operating table."  Apparently once you accept an organ your survival is not entirely your own choice.

[Oniya]

...Possibly because once you accept that organ, it can't go to anyone else.  (Time constraints if nothing else.)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The alternative would be denying someone acceptance onto the organ recipient list based solely on religious belief.  Since that is illegal the physician cannot factor that into refusing or denying a candidate for an organ transplant.  A recipient though is required to give the organ the best chance of survival and the physician has to do everything they can to give the organ the best chance to survive and take with the new body.  By giving the organ to one person another is denied, so the law doesn’t quite take the same view.  I believe the protection goes under the same protection an emergency room uses in the instance of an emergency.  Calling for help (aka calling 911 or contacting emergency services) is consent if the patient is unconscious or unable to respond.  Because the person came to the physician for an organ, they are considered to be agreeable to any and all necessary steps.

[Oniya]

Right.  Actually, other alternatives would be for someone to not ask to be put on the list in the first place, because of transfusion beliefs, or to self-donate while waiting for the transplant (if feasible).  When I went in for jaw surgery, they actually suggested the self-donating because it avoided any possible compatibility issues.  I don't recall actually doing it, but then again, I don't have any particular interest in whether I get my blood or someone else's.

[Ephiral]

Right.  Actually, other alternatives would be for someone to not ask to be put on the list in the first place, because of transfusion beliefs, or to self-donate while waiting for the transplant (if feasible).  When I went in for jaw surgery, they actually suggested the self-donating because it avoided any possible compatibility issues.  I don't recall actually doing it, but then again, I don't have any particular interest in whether I get my blood or someone else's.

Huh. Self-donating is something I've never heard of before, and should really look into. My partner and I are both O+, which frankly scares me a bit given how strained our national blood supply constantly is.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well any time you donate you're given some sort of guarantee or something regarding you getting blood transfusions.  I've never had a problem getting blood for a patient and I've given a lot of blood over my little career.

But yes you can actually donate before an operation for yourself and can also do personal blood drives for someone else specifically.  Sort of setting aside blood for them personally.

[Oniya]

Huh. Self-donating is something I've never heard of before, and should really look into. My partner and I are both O+, which frankly scares me a bit given how strained our national blood supply constantly is.

In my case, it was a planned surgery, with enough lead-time that I would replenish the loss by the time the actual date arrived.  Mr. Oniya used to donate regularly (whole and platelets) until he had a bad reaction to something (he was donating platelets at the time), and I remember the guarantee because he asked if it could be applied to his mother (she's a senior, and lives several states away.)

[backlash84]

Honestly, I don't see the issue here. Its legal, they have to pay for what is legal just like everybody else. Its a human right. I'm sure some KKK members don't like that their taxes go towards paying for black people's health care and such. There isn't an only white people option. I am agnostic, and I'm annoyed that the church is tax exempt.

Religion should have nothing to do with law, that's how you get countries where you can stone a woman for getting raped.

[Bandita]

I see that no one has yet pointed out the inaccuracy of the nuns' argument yet.  Leaving out religion as a whole, because I've seen what that does on here...

They are wrong, and they are twisting the health care policy towards religious ends.  I say this not because of any definition of life or soul or child or whatever.  I say this because everyone here seems to have missed that the nuns have no idea how a health care policy works.  Or if they do, they are ignoring that information.  They are using a religious excuse to get out of their country's mandated obligations, and are doing it inaccurately.

What I mean by this is:
1.  By paying into a health care policy you are putting money into your own health.
2.  When you do so, they pay it back every time you need a doctor's appointment, blood test, pap schmear, mammogram, etc... all things a nun requires...
3.  Your collected money go towards paying back the lab, the doctor, and the radiology clinic.
4.  If there is money left in your 'account' at the end of the year, it makes your rates good.  You probably won't get a discount for a good record like you might for something like auto insurance, but it still helps out your rates if you shop around for other providers.
5.  Finally, if you stick with a company for a long time, which a nun would probably be able to do, they end up paying huge amounts as you draw close to your end of life.  Most people have some kind of disease, or wasting sickness that ends their life, particularly in 'first world countries' where people live so long.
6.  If, for some reason, you have an early death and don't use up your 'collected funds' that you paid in for years, yes, you lose the money.  But you still have not paid for any contraception or abortion.

Another person: 
1.  Buys healthcare from the same provider.
2.  Requires contraception.
3.  Gets it through their own contributions to the health care insurance company.
4.  Has still not cost the nun a dime, nor even met her, or been in contact with her or her money in any way.


What I'm saying here is, if you don't believe in abortion, then you don't have one, same for contraception.  The insurance company doesn't have to pay for one then. There could be an argument that the money goes into a huge fund that pays for abortion, but then again, my money in that same company goes in to saving a pedophile priest.  I can't dictate that, and they can't either.  But the fact is, if they don't have an abortion, then the company is not paying for said abortion. 

And yes, the plans are required to guarantee the option of having an abortion, but that doesn't mean that they are just paying for abortions willy nilly. And many of the policies already cover that. Now, if the insurance companies were jacking up their prices in order to cover all these abortions, and contraceptives, that would be a different story.  However, that is not the case, they are actually under even more stringent rules about their pricing than they were previously, another part of the health care plan.  They can't charge extra for the 'abortion option,' because they can't jack up their prices now. 

The argument that the nuns are paying left and right for abortions is incorrect.  Insurance doesn't work that way. The excess money they pay is more likely going to the pocket of an executive.

Edit to add:  This notion of insurance covering abortions is actually a great thing, and I can see why the church would want to fight it.  Especially in states like Mississippi.  If anyone doesn't follow this, there's a law that has been on the books, but suspended by a judge.  It would close down the last abortion clinic in the state due to a medical technicality.  The leadership of the state, including the governor, I believe, have said that it would "end abortions in Mississippi." 

The problem with that notion is that they are not ending abortion in a private, paid for manner, only in the one remaining clinic.  All those people who have health care or money are welcome to go to a hospital and have the same procedure, so in effect, this law is only ending abortion for the least wealthy people, who can't afford health care and hospitals.

So, if everyone is mandated to get health care, and they do, all of a sudden those clinics that the religious leadership in the state have worked so hard to shut down is now unnecessary, because now everyone can go to the hospital for their abortion, and go to their new primary care doctor to get contraception. 

Yeah, I can see how they would want to stop that.

[Ephiral]

It's not quite that simple, though, Bandita, much as I wish it were. The entire point of mandatory coverage is to widen the risk pool - because some people will be very very sick, and their "account" will never have the slightest hope of ever having a positive balance, and they should not be left to die, while others will be very healthy and run a constant and large positive balance. The healthy people do subsidize the sick ones - there is a definite transfer of resources occurring. That's how it works.

[Bandita]

Well, first of all, the government funds abortions.  So if one pays their taxes they have already paid into a system that funds abortion.  So the "common pool" argument is null for every nun who has ever paid her taxes. And they do pay income taxes, not that the church pays them much.

To be honest, considering the demographics of nuns, we should all be saying... "You're going to eat up the pool in our health care."  I read somewhere that 70% of nuns are over sixty, and that was years ago.  The fact is that they are all elderly, there are very few young ones.  So if they're really stressed about it, they can just tell themselves they're paying in so another nun across the country can get her dialysis. 

The problem with their argument is that it's could hurt the poor.  They might convince a few people that they have been funding abortions and they'll drop their coverage. And then they fall down a flight of stairs, or get pancreatitis, or whatever...  and they're screwed. And I'm back to funding their trip to the ER.    <-----(my reason I have loved Obamacare all along... Because we pay for tons of medical stuff either way, but the ER is more expensive)

[Ephiral]

For the record, I am not supporting the nuns' argument in any way. Simply saying that pretending health resources are not pooled is not the way to argue against it, because that argument will fall the moment anybody examines it.

[Cyrano Johnson]

But yes, I do agree that for the average person living in the US, things are not ideal.  I guess the reality is that the US is an amazing country for people with above average financial means.  Personally, I respond to that positively by seeing the benefits of such a system - that ambition and hard work yields immense benefits.

The corollary of this kind of thinking of course is that all the less-fortunate people must be lazy and unambitious. Which, you know... at this point, I kind of have to admit to just cheering for the American conservative movement to continue digging its own grave by more-or-less openly denigrating and insulting (or just dismissing) larger and larger portions of the country's electorate. They've drifted so far out of touch with reality that it's just better for everyone in the long run, really. But at individual level, I'm still kind of puzzled at someone who can say something like the above and actually not realize, or not care, that this is what they're doing. Your country is only "amazing" for people with "above average financial means" and you think that's something to be celebrated, and you say this with a straight face as if you think the average person should buy into it*. Just, you know... wow.

(* I mean, the method used to be to get every "average person" to buy into the myth that they're really just a temporarily-embarrassed millionaire, which particular con used to be called "trickle-down economics." But bogus as it was, trickle-down at least tried to pretend that general prosperity was its aim; it wasn't just a flat-out dismissal of the notion that general prosperity should ever be a policy concern, much less an open defense of the notion that general poverty is actually preferable to interfering with the high times of the wealthy. I guess in that respect today's conservative movement has gotten more honest... but don't they still want to get, like, votes and stuff? From someone other than the Koch brothers?)

[Bandita]

For the record, I am not supporting the nuns' argument in any way. Simply saying that pretending health resources are not pooled is not the way to argue against it, because that argument will fall the moment anybody examines it.

Okay.  But then if they object to paying in to an abortion 'pool' then they should refuse to pay their taxes too. 

But the fact is that with the demographic age range of nuns, they're probably more likely to be paying for elderly nuns, who need the care. And the insurance companies can't reject them based on age anymore.

And besides, if they really object, they can simply opt out of health care and pay their fines.  That is always an option.  If their health care is prohibitively expensive and they cannot, then they are not paying in to a pool, they are paying their own health care. 

The fact is, they are paying for a policy that covers exactly one person.  What that policy covers is their own body.  Nothing more.  If that body never receives birth control etc... then they aren't actually paying for it.  The company simply provides it to other customers who also pay.