[Sheila B]

Originally Posted by Zeus

And, the religion of their employer needs to be irrelevant when it comes to personal healthcare.

Sadly, religion is irrelevant to many Christians and Jews and others. It should be the guiding light to live a just life.

[kalliste]

Why?

Is it still a free country when people have to agree with you in order to get a job, let alone medical treatment?

[Sheila B]

Originally Posted by PureX

My point is that religion doesn't define what is and is not proper health care. But someone has to, for the sake of public safety.

We believe God has defined what is and is not life and that only HE has the final say as He creates each soul.

Govt, institutions and individuals are but trusted servants, is the Christian attitude, or should be.

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally Posted by PureX

My point is that religion doesn't define what is and is not proper health care. But someone has to, for the sake of public safety. And the agency that has been assigned that task has determined that contraception is an essential and positive aspect of modern health care. Which of course it is. So I see no reason that they should not be able to mandate that institutions calling themselves "hospitals" and purporting to practice medicine for the benefit of the public's health, be expected to follow these guidelines.

Can anyone explain to me why they shouldn't ?

So then should someone tell me it's illegal to give birth at home with the attendants of my choice? Should someone force my attendants to be licensed or illegal despite my wishes?

Furthermore, is someone going to prevent me from having a natural medicine friendly doctor who would prescribe vitamins when he and I deem it appropriate?

Is someone going to force my doctor to violate his conscience to practice medicine in a way I don't want any doctor of mine to?

Why not allow medical freedom as generously as freedom of speech?

It's about individual discernment and liberty!

[rexlunae]

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

So then should someone tell me it's illegal to give birth at home with the attendants of my choice?

You know, you're not just risking your own life. You're risking the life of the baby too. And you're not entirely free to do that.

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

Should someone force my attendants to be licensed or illegal despite my wishes?

Sorry, but yes. The unlicensed, unregulated, amateur practice of medicine is very dangerous.

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

Furthermore, is someone going to prevent me from having a natural medicine friendly doctor who would prescribe vitamins when he and I deem it appropriate?

As long as he or she practices according to accepted professional standards, that's fine. And you're certainly free to ignore medical advice for yourself.

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

Is someone going to force my doctor to violate his conscience to practice medicine in a way I don't want any doctor of mine to?

For instance?

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

Why not allow medical freedom as generously as freedom of speech?

Because bad medicine kills, and people have a right to be protected from it.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

So then should someone tell me it's illegal to give birth at home with the attendants of my choice? Should someone force my attendants to be licensed or illegal despite my wishes?

Should your wishes regarding the method of child birth be allowed to seriously endanger the life of the baby inside you?

People have some pretty bizarre religious beliefs, and if we allow the label "religion" to circumvent the guidelines for proper public health care, we'll see a lot more bizarre ideas and practices going on - many of them cons and scams.

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

Furthermore, is someone going to prevent me from having a natural medicine friendly doctor who would prescribe vitamins when he and I deem it appropriate?

No, but they will prevent phony doctors and religious nuts from pretending to be doctors and legitimate health care providers. The purpose of these agencies is not to order you around, it's to protect you from liars, cheats, and incompetents. We are not medical professionals, so it's difficult for us to tell when someone is trying to mislead us regarding health care practices and procedures. That's why we have these established guidelines. You don't have to follow them, but anyone claiming to be a health care professional, does. And the law does step in when our own foolish insistence of dangerous health care practices or procedures threatens our lives or the lives of others.

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

Is someone going to force my doctor to violate his conscience to practice medicine in a way I don't want any doctor of mine to?

This has nothing to do with anyone's "conscience". It's about protecting people from unhealthy and dangerous health care practices and procedures.

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

Why not allow medical freedom as generously as freedom of speech?

Because the man who has himself for a doctor has a fool for a doctor. Health care involves expertise that most of us do not have. So we need guidelines to help us determine what is proper health care and what isn't. If we're too stupid to follow the guidelines, then we are free to ignore them. But when our choices endanger others, then it's the purpose of the law to protect those other people from us.

Originally Posted by 1PeaceMaker

It's about individual discernment and liberty!

Sure, until your liberty infringes on someone else's. Or someone else's infringes yours.

[BillyBob]

Obama is a tyrant.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by rexlunae

...when they engage in secular activities. And it's always been true that they aren't immune to secular laws when they engage in secular activities.

Huh!? So a Catholic hospital is opened to provide a valuable service to society and you think that when Obama forces this hospital, which is not a public institution, to violate the Catholic conscience by providing detrimental services which treat pregnancy as a disease, he is not impinging on religious freedom? Recheck your history, you'll find that charity isn't a secular activity.

The last I heard it is 30% of healthcare that is provided by private Catholic organizations. This same sort of nonsense shut down Catholic Charities adoption in Boston. Maybe the country will have to pick up the slack and find money to publicly fund the 30% itself after Obama forces these hospitals and health services to shut down instead of violate their conscience?

With the exception of the third link, these look like individuals, and small groups. And the rest are pretty extreme anti-birth-control groups.

They were just a few examples, but your rebuttal isn't much of one. There really aren't too many overly large organized religious groups outside the Church. It will come from a number of smaller movements.

How many people do you figure are actually represented?

It's hard to say. The point is that the issue is being recognized by non-Catholic religious and non-religious alike as being very problematic with respect to religious freedom.

[rexlunae]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Huh!? So a Catholic hospital is opened to provide a valuable service to society and you think that when Obama forces this hospital, which is not a public institution, to violate the Catholic conscience by providing detrimental services which treat pregnancy as a disease, he is not impinging on religious freedom?

If I open a spiritual center or place of worship, I have certain protections based upon the First Amendment that don't apply to other organizations. However, if I open a business, a hospital, say, I have to follow a number of rules under the law, including labor standards, even if I have some objection to them. I don't see where the situation is very different with the Catholic church.

Also, whether the services are detrimental should be between the doctor and their patient. The employer shouldn't really have much say in that.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Recheck your history, you'll find that charity isn't a secular activity.

Um, nonsense.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

The last I heard it is 30% of healthcare that is provided by private Catholic organizations. This same sort of nonsense shut down Catholic Charities adoption in Boston. Maybe the country will have to pick up the slack and find money to publicly fund the 30% itself after Obama forces these hospitals and health services to shut down instead of violate their conscience?

I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but I have no problem with communities taking up the slack where Catholics withdraw. I'd rather find a compromise that accommodates Catholic sensibilities, but at the same time I think the Catholic position on contraceptives is pretty indefensible, and that they are pushing this issue as a way to flex their political muscles.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

They were just a few examples, but your rebuttal isn't much of one.

I'm not sure what kind of rebuttal you expect for a list of names, but the real question is how many people does this really represent?

Originally Posted by zippy2006

There really aren't too many overly large organized religious groups outside the Church. It will come from a number of smaller movements.

Which is a bit of a problem for making the case that there's this huge backlash against this based on the organizations. Undoubtedly, there are some churches who are opposed. But I think it's a mistake to put set the churches' faces against women's health, which is also widely supported, and most churches understand that too.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

It's hard to say. The point is that the issue is being recognized by non-Catholic religious and non-religious alike as being very problematic with respect to religious freedom.

You'll note, please, that I entered this thread commenting that I slightly sympathize with the church. I don't like mandates that force people to do things they don't believe in. But the question of religious freedom cannot be allowed to subsume all other questions regardless of how distant they are from religious activities, and I think this is a case where the secular concerns are much much greater.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by rexlunae

If I open a spiritual center or place of worship, I have certain protections based upon the First Amendment that don't apply to other organizations. However, if I open a business, a hospital, say, I have to follow a number of rules under the law, including labor standards, even if I have some objection to them. I don't see where the situation is very different with the Catholic church.

I'm surprised that you are unable to see the problem here. Suppose tomorrow that the government decided that all (public and private) healthcare organizations are required to buy and provide suicide pills. Or heroine, etc.

It's actually somewhat hard to provide examples to your nihilistic temperament, but what you are essentially doing is denying the objectivity of health. Fine, our world is clearly headed that way: the influence should not be surprising. But to force someone who finds suicide morally objectionable to provide suicide pills is a ridiculous violation of conscience that you are overlooking. If you actually believe your counterexample to hold true, why not give an actual example where a labor standard forces someone to deny their moral conscience?

I'd rather find a compromise that accommodates Catholic sensibilities, but at the same time I think the Catholic position on contraceptives is pretty indefensible, and that they are pushing this issue as a way to flex their political muscles.

That's silly, and I doubt it would last long if you did a bit of research into the topic. We've only arrived at this juncture because Catholics are so shy to flex their political muscle, and now we get to pick between providing health care and following our conscience.

But I think it's a mistake to put set the churches' faces against women's health, which is also widely supported, and most churches understand that too.

How do contraceptives and abortifacients improve women's health Rex? Do you believe pregnancy is a disease threatening women?

You'll note, please, that I entered this thread commenting that I slightly sympathize with the church. I don't like mandates that force people to do things they don't believe in. But the question of religious freedom cannot be allowed to subsume all other questions regardless of how distant they are from religious activities, and I think this is a case where the secular concerns are much much greater.

Fair enough, and I think I made it clear why I think you're wrong above.

[rexlunae]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

I'm surprised that you are unable to see the problem here. Suppose tomorrow that the government decided that all (public and private) healthcare organizations are required to buy and provide suicide pills. Or heroine, etc.

I see the problem just fine. The Catholic Church think that contraceptives are the moral equivalent of suicide, as you've just exemplified.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

It's actually somewhat hard to provide examples to your nihilistic temperament,

I see the problem. You erroneously assume that I have a nihilistic temperament. Fix that, and we might get somewhere. This is a matter of conscience on both sides.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

but what you are essentially doing is denying the objectivity of health.

Whereas I'd say you're negating valid health concerns in the service of unsupportable dogma. As if you can say that all pregnancy is good for women and all prevention of pregnancy is bad (except those few methods that the Church sanctions, of course). I suppose it makes sense for a person who answers all questions in artificial absolutes.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Fine, our world is clearly headed that way: the influence should not be surprising. But to force someone who finds suicide morally objectionable to provide suicide pills is a ridiculous violation of conscience that you are overlooking. If you actually believe your counterexample to hold true, why not give an actual example where a labor standard forces someone to deny their moral conscience?

It's really no difference from enforcing civil rights laws against business owners who are segregationists. There are activities, employment among them, where the private preferences of organizations and individuals yield to the rights of the people under their control.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

That's silly, and I doubt it would last long if you did a bit of research into the topic. We've only arrived at this juncture because Catholics are so shy to flex their political muscle, and now we get to pick between providing health care and following our conscience.

The Church has never been shy to flex what political muscle it has.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

How do contraceptives and abortifacients improve women's health Rex?

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a pretty good start. But there are other uses as well, if that's not enough for you.

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Do you believe pregnancy is a disease threatening women?

It certainly can be. But lets not forget about a woman's choice and the health consequences of that.

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally Posted by rexlunae

You know, you're not just risking your own life.

Birth is a sexual event. I have to let a baby pass through you-know-what at the same time that my body is putting out the same hormones that are used in sex (bonding) my psyche is vulnerable, everything imprints upon a woman emotionally in a very deep way when giving birth, despite the fact that I'm of a sound mind also.

You are telling me that I am not free to keep my clothes on or take them off as I please. Next thing you'll be telling me that I can't have a baby if I choose a mate who's health isn't perfect. After all, I'm not just taking risks for myself.

Originally Posted by rexlunae

You're risking the life of the baby too. And you're not entirely free to do that.

Speaking of my inalienable human rights, I don't have to donate blood or an organ to save another person's life. I don't have to go to a place with deadly bacteria running rampant to get birth-raped, whether you think I'm in any danger during the natural process of my body or not!

Originally Posted by rexlunae

Sorry, but yes. The unlicensed, unregulated, amateur practice of medicine is very dangerous.

Birth is not a medical event. It is a bodily function.

I do not need a license to get pregnant, and if I want to give birth with my mother and my husband, it's my adult responsibility to choose wisely and accept the consequences. No one has the right to arrest or kidnap me for birth. Therefore I can birth wherever I choose. In the hospital they behave as though they have custody of you and your baby. I have an acquaintance who was forced into a c-section for no reason other than doctor impatience when she was fully dilated, ready to push, strong heart tones, and no consent to being put into 5X the risk of death or future dangerous complications. He gave her an hour to labor the second he was on duty and showed up 45 minutes later without even checking her to take her for surgery. You should have seen the look on the nurses faces, I'm told.

The treatment of laboring women in hospitals is inhumane.

Originally Posted by rexlunae

As long as he or she practices according to accepted professional standards, that's fine. And you're certainly free to ignore medical advice for yourself.

Then I can get pregnant with whomever whenever I please and give birth where and with whomever I please!!!

Originally Posted by rexlunae

For instance?

Like requiring nurses to attend abortions. I don't want an accomplice to murder in my sacred birthing chambers!!

Originally Posted by rexlunae

Because bad medicine kills, and people have a right to be protected from it.

Doofus, doctors kill and maim way more people than I think you realize. Check the stats for iatrogenic deaths. Especially American Obstetricians, who are responsible for uncountable cases of PTSD and postpartum depression.

Never mind the premature cord clamping of the baby (doctors do with it without parental consent!) which is totally damaging to the child's brain stem and is associated with SIDS.

[1PeaceMaker]

Originally Posted by PureX

Should your wishes regarding the method of child birth be allowed to seriously endanger the life of the baby inside you?

Yes.

Should you be allowed to strip me naked under bright lights while I'm in agony from being forced onto my back in labor, bring in strangers to force their hands into my sexual parts and even cut my body while I scream "no!?" No matter what you think you are doing, you have no right.

Originally Posted by PureX

People have some pretty bizarre religious beliefs, and if we allow the label "religion" to circumvent the guidelines for proper public health care, we'll see a lot more bizarre ideas and practices going on - many of them cons and scams.

Oh, let's talk cons and scams, shall we? Government is the #1 cause of unnatural death, isn't it? Do you really think it's wise to hand total dictatorial powers to a pharmaceutical run institution? Hello!?

The cheap therapies or methods of birth-giving or getting well are being persecuted!

Originally Posted by PureX

No, but they will prevent phony doctors and religious nuts from pretending to be doctors and legitimate health care providers. The purpose of these agencies is not to order you around, it's to protect you from liars, cheats, and incompetents.

I'm not against certification. There should be ways people can affirm the safety of their care providers. But the fact remains, one in 50 doctors, the last time I checked, were actually unlicensed impostors.

But to force me to have a pharma-regulated - er - government regulated - (wink-wink) doctor is crazy. Buyer beware.

This is only going to be a nation of children if we deny our responsibility to think for ourselves.

Originally Posted by PureX

We are not medical professionals, so it's difficult for us to tell when someone is trying to mislead us regarding health care practices and procedures.

Oh, the poor people who never took a class in medicine or bothered to educate themselves with all the resources on the internet. Too bad for the idiots who won't learn medical terminology. That means we should let big pharma choose our doctors, huh?

Originally Posted by PureX

That's why we have these established guidelines.

The guidelines are for establishing pocketbooks. That's why there are people suffering and dying left and right from doctor-induced causes or the neglect of cheap non-pharmaceutical cures or therapy methods.

Originally Posted by PureX

You don't have to follow them, but anyone claiming to be a health care professional, does. And the law does step in when our own foolish insistence of dangerous health care practices or procedures threatens our lives or the lives of others.

It steps in for all kinds of petty reasons. It's even been known to step in and force people into harmful treatments. Like the plutonium experiments on over 800 pregnant women in the USA. Look it up.

Originally Posted by PureX

This has nothing to do with anyone's "conscience". It's about protecting people from unhealthy and dangerous health care practices and procedures.

That's a load of naive crap.

Originally Posted by PureX

Because the man who has himself for a doctor has a fool for a doctor.

Only if he's such a fool he fails to educate himself. Anyone going to a doctor needs to insist on informed consent. I trusted a doctor, a dentist, who filled a tooth in such a way that it died from irritation to the root. Had I gone to a better dentist after insisting on a web search for a local waterlase dentist, my tooth would be alive right now. And the other ones which are weakened and hard to chew with would also be feeling better. And I wouldn't have packed on the extra pounds all this suffering gave me.

A man who thinks a doctor can think for him probably has a fool for a doctor.

Originally Posted by PureX

Health care involves expertise that most of us do not have. So we need guidelines to help us determine what is proper health care and what isn't. If we're too stupid to follow the guidelines, then we are free to ignore them. But when our choices endanger others, then it's the purpose of the law to protect those other people from us.
Sure, until your liberty infringes on someone else's. Or someone else's infringes yours.

It infringes on my liberty when someone forces me to give blood, donate an organ or get a surgery during a birth I believe I could accomplish on my own.

[annabenedetti]

Obama: Americans—Including Catholics--Will Still Be Forced to Buy Coverage for Sterilization, Contraception, Abortifacients

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama announced today that “religious organizations” such as charities and hospitals will not be forced by the federal government to directly pay insurance premiums that cover sterilization, contraception and abortifacients but that their insurance providers must nonetheless provide those services free of charge to women insured by those organizations.

Obama did not announce any change at all to the administrations’ sterilization-contraceptive-abortifacient mandate insofar as it applies to individuals and private-sector business owners who will still be forced by the government to buy and/or provide health insurance plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients even if those things directly violate the teachings of their religion and their conscience.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had directly and specifically asked that the administration to rescind the regulation in its entirety so that all individuals, employers and insurers, including Catholics, who have a religious or moral objection to sterilization, contraception and abortifacients would not be forced by the federal government to act against their faith and their consciences.

The bishops said that the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion protected Catholics and others who have a religious objection to sterilization, contraception or abortion from being forced by the government to buy insurance that pays for those things.

In recent days, leaders of other religious denominations have joined their voices to those of the Catholic bishops, decrying the regulation as an attack on the religious liberty of individuals as well as institutions.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission made a forceful appeal for Baptists to resist the regulation.
“Does the government have the right to intrude on the consciences of people to force them to pay for that which they find unconscionable?” said Land. “This goes contrary to our tradition in this country and contrary to our understanding of the First Amendment's religious freedom protections.”
"In my opinion, a Baptist needs to take a stand on this issue,” said Land. “Our Baptist forefathers went to prison and died for the freedoms that we have, and now it's our responsibility in the providence of God to defend these freedoms lest they be taken away by government fiat.’

Still, President Obama did not budge today in insisting that his government will order all insurance companies in America to provide all women with free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients—and that everyone other than a religiously based organization will be forced to pay for it, whether it violates their religious beliefs or not.

[annabenedetti]

It's my understanding that no matter what Obama says or offers, that his office does not give him the authority to change what has already been mandated.