One thing I don't get about the no-contraception paying employers. . .

[Paula Sims]

I know for sure that if they didn't HAVE to pay minimum wage or didn't HAVE to hire non-whites or didn't HAVE to limit hours, they wouldn't, probably citing something from Leviticus. So HOW do they get off by not offering contraception? It's a CIVIL law and as employers they are required to abide by ALL CIVIL LAWS. WHY is there an exclusion?

I'm not sure if my frustration is with the employers (which really is anger) or the government for letting them get away with it?!?!

In some ways my question is rhetorical but in others it's not. Can someone please explain this to me?

Thanks

Paula

[Demit]

1. Religious organizations have an exemption. Non-religious orgs don't, but...

they are testing it in the courts. So it's not settled, they aren't getting away with it, but they're giving it a try. This is my understanding.

[roguevalley]

12. they don't want to allow contraception but they want to stick their faces in our

pants for every other thing. They don't want us to impose on them but they impose on us. Hypocrites.

And I am not anti-religious either. I am anti-dumb ass.

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. If they could use Leviticus, they wouldn't have this problem

They would just buy slaves.

[Enrique]

3. some of the debate is phony

the religious school Wheaton College covered birth control before it was mandated by the government. Then during the debate, they fought against the effort to mandate such coverage, saying it was against their religious values.

[spanone]

4. wonder if their insurance covers meds for erectile dysfunction?

i suspect outrageous hypocrisy...

[LisaLynne]

6. Yes, the university I unfortunately work for WILL cover meds for erectile dysfunction, even for ...

single men, but not BC for married women.

Because their beliefs are actually about controlling women's bodies, not following some ancient religious code.

[abelenkpe]

5. Businesses are just hiding behind religion to avoid insurance costs. Nt

[Still Sensible]

7. Which makes no sense whatsoever

because the insurance costs for a pregnancy dwarf the minuscule costs of contraception. No, I believe these people are simply from the fundamentalist mentality... they lost the "sexual revolution" in the sixties and seventies and want to keep fighting the war.

[julian09]

9. They will have to cover the baby til the age of 26 after it is born.

[veganlush]

8. the part I would like explained...

Benefits on the job, along with salary, together form what's often called a "compensation package" . It's what you are offered in exchange for working there. It's what you are "given" in return for working there, it's your compensation for renting your services to a company. If they can decide how your health benefits are applied, why can't they also simply decide that you can't BUY anything they find offensive with the CASH part of your compensation? Why not just let them force you to prove that you didn't use the money they "gave" you to buy contraception, porn or whatever else they don't think you should have?

[Jim Lane]

10. Two valid First Amendment principles come into conflict here.

Under the Free Exercise Clause, people shouldn't be forced to act against their religious beliefs. Under the Establishment Clause, the government shouldn't favor one religion over another, or favor religion over nonreligion, or favor nonreligion over religion.

So what happens when there's a civil law of general applicability, and someone comes along and asserts that compliance would violate his or her religious beliefs? You can enforce the law uniformly, no exceptions, and quite possibly violate the Free Exercise Clause. You can grant churches an exemption that purely secular entities don't get, thus favoring the religious entities in violation of the Establishment Clause. You can try to avoid the problem by challenging whether the person demanding an exemption really does have a religious belief, which entangles the courts in religious matters. (Do you want judges to be reading Leviticus and St. Thomas Aquinas, or interpreting the Talmud or the Koran, to decide which interpretation is correct, possibly on a question where different sects of that religion have different views?)

The actual course followed by the law is a somewhat messy case-by-case accommodation that, depending on the facts, may resort to any one of these three uncomfortable alternatives. Mormons must allow non-Mormon fire inspectors to enter their temples, the dictates of their religion to the contrary notwithstanding (Free Exercise Clause violation). The Amish get an exemption from paying Social Security taxes (Establishment Clause violation). If a bunch of college kids start up a "church" that purportedly requires its members to use marijuana, they don't get an exemption, because the courts get entangled in religious matters at least to the extent of determining that this particular asserted religious belief is not sincere.

I'm no expert on the ACA but I think it follows this general pattern of messy accommodation. As I understand it, a religious organization such as a Catholic diocese gets an exemption from providing birth control coverage for its employees, but a bolt factory owned by a devout Catholic doesn't get an exemption. Thus, each of the religion clauses of the First Amendment is violated in some respect. The defense of this unconstitutional outcome is that there's no better alternative. Live with it.

[Freddie]

11. They are ignoring the "preventive care" part

The ACA mandates contraception coverage with no co-pay as part of the other preventive care requirements of an acceptable plan such as mammograms and physical exams. The reason BC is preventive care is because doctors now routinely recommend that a woman wait at least two full years between pregnancies for the optimal outcome for herself and the baby. Unless we all live in Rick Santorum's world and practice celibacy during marriage, 2 full years between pregnancies is achieved with contraception.
So I can only interpret that those who are opposed to BC coverage are in favor of maternal/child complications or death. Real pro-life of them.