Can the president now order Kosher delis to give away pork?

[hadit]

The president has caused a firestorm by attempting to force the Catholic Church and other religious organizations to provide contraception for their employees, even if said organizations have religious objections to doing so. In addition, every health insurance company is now required to give away contraception, even if said company was created specifically to serve religious organizations that object to doing so. This was done on the sketchy grounds that contraception is so very vital, so very important, and apparently so very expensive and difficult to obtain that horny people without health insurance were basically reduced to begging in the streets for a condom. Yeah, yeah, I know, hyperbole. Don't get your underwear in a twist. Anyhoo, what's to stop the logical next step?

Food is a much, much more basic need than is contraception and there are people in America who can't even afford an XBOX 360 because they have to spend all their money to feed their families.

If the president now has the power to just order things like this to happen, why could he NOT simply demand that all food providers such as ethnic grocery stores, neighborhood bake sales, and yes, the aforementioned Kosher deli provide a full selection of all approved food products which includes pork, on the grounds that it's lower in fat than beef?

Would those of you now applauding the president's power grab be so thrilled to know that when you go to your favorite Jewish eating establishment, you now have to pay significantly more for your Kosher meal because you have to subsidize the pork chop dinner they are forced to give away for free? Feel free to substitute vegetarian and meatballs, or Muslim and pork, etc. You know what I'm getting at. Would you applaud all food establishments being forced to provide ALL foods from a government enforced list, or would you prefer to allow stores to specialize on certain foods, knowing that you have the choice to eat there or not?

Discuss. If this is allowed to stand, what would stop the scenario I just described?

[Cyclone Ranger]

For Christ's sake, he allowed a compromise for religious institutions.

[hadit]

For Christ's sake, he allowed a compromise for religious institutions.

Not if they want to have employees. They still have to provide insurance that gives away contraception. IOW, they have to buy contraception, or pay large fines.

Now, to take it out of the religious arena, picture a nice, little vegan restaurant to caters to people who absolutely abhor meat. With this authority, a president could require all eating establishments to give away meat, carving out exceptions for religious objections. Obviously, the vegan restaurant now must purchase, prepare, and give away meat. Does that make such an edict any less of an intrusion on freedom?

[Cyclone Ranger]

The insurance companies pay for the contraception, not the church. You only have so much latitude to make demands about your employees' sex lives.

[hadit]

The insurance companies pay for the contraception, not the church. You only have so much latitude to make demands about your employees' sex lives.

The Church has to pay for the insurance. An employee only has no latitude to demand subsidies for his sex life from his employer. In this case, the employer is not making any demands whatsoever on his employee's sex life, he's merely demanding that he not be forced to subsidize it.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Contraceptives affect reproductive health, so yes, health care coverage should cover it. If the law says as much, the church really has no position.

[hadit]

Contraceptives affect reproductive health, so yes, health care coverage should cover it. If the law says as much, the church really has no position.

Contraceptives effect only voluntary activities, so no, health care coverage should NOT cover it. Just how expensive is a box of condoms anyway? The law has run afoul of the First Amendment, so the Church is right to challenge it.

[Cyclone Ranger]

It doesn't matter if they're voluntary. The law defines them as health care issues that are not at employer discretion to deny, church or not.

[Šñøü†ê®]

As far as kosher, that may not be a good example because many food companies are actually forced to have their products kosherized. It is basically a hidden, religious-based tax. You can see the little symbol of the kosherization on the food's packaging. Bizarre.

[Cyclone Ranger]

No one is forced to have their food certified as kosher, dickhead. They do it because they want the business from those who only eat kashrut.

You got that "kosher tax" thing straight off Stormfront.

[IFF]

hadit, if we're going to do it to the furthest in line of government control,
let's look at the reverse, if the religous organisation had complete and utter control under the benefits of the health policies.
for example, than an employee of the jehovah's witnessesess couldn't get a blood transfusion on their policy.
an employee of the chuch of scientology health care plan would be the power of prayer.

if we're going to play at it one way, let's play it both ways.

according to the irish times on saturday

Never mind that 28 of 50 states already have laws requiring the same thing, that 99 per cent of sexually active American women have used artificial contraception, including (according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute) 98 per cent of Catholic women in the US.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...311623129.html

[hadit]

hadit, if we're going to do it to the furthest in line of government control,
let's look at the reverse, if the religous organisation had complete and utter control under the benefits of the health policies.
for example, than an employee of the jehovah's witnessesess couldn't get a blood transfusion on their policy.
an employee of the chuch of scientology health care plan would be the power of prayer.

if we're going to play at it one way, let's play it both ways.

Under Oh-crap! care, every individual MUST have health insurance. Also, under Oh-crap! care, every health insurance plan MUST provide free contraception. That means that every individual MUST purchase contraception for themselves and everyone else in the country, even if they object on religious grounds. How is that ensuring freedom of religion?

If every health insurance plan MUST give away contraception, then organizations that object should at the very least be able to opt out of supplying said insurance for their employees, but that's not what TFO is doing. He is forcing EVERY organization to buy and supply this for all employees, regardless of religious objections. Now, if this is allowed to stand, what's to stop a future president from forcing EVERY food outlet to give away for free EVERY item on a government checklist that is deemed to be healthful? This would include vegan shops being forced to purchase and give away meat, Kosher shops being forced to do the same with pork, etc.

And no one has yet made the case that a box of condoms are so expensive and so hard to obtain that it justifies this kind of overreach.

[hadit]

No one is forced to have their food certified as kosher, dickhead. They do it because they want the business from those who only eat kashrut.

You got that "kosher tax" thing straight off Stormfront.

So what WOULD be your reaction to a government food care plan that guarantees everyone free access to items on a government approved checklist, and that EVERY food outlet must purchase and supply the items to be given away for free, especially if that list includes pork or other products abhorent to Othodox Jews?

[Sparkly Mary]

Contraceptives effect only voluntary activities, so no, health care coverage should NOT cover it. Just how expensive is a box of condoms anyway? The law has run afoul of the First Amendment, so the Church is right to challenge it.

Tell that to a woman with PCOS or heavy, irregular periods. How in the world are those conditions "voluntary activities". BC Pills are the first line treatment option for those INVOLUNTARY, medical problems.

[hadit]

Tell that to a woman with PCOS or heavy, irregular periods. How in the world are those conditions "voluntary activities". BC Pills are the first line treatment option for those INVOLUNTARY, medical problems.

As is the case with many medical treatments, there are differing reasons for applying them. I seriously don't know what the Church would say about that one. I do know, however, that the scenario you describe would apply to a small percentage of the cases involved.

[IFF]

Under Oh-crap! care, every individual MUST have health insurance. Also, under Oh-crap! care, every health insurance plan MUST provide free contraception. That means that every individual MUST purchase contraception for themselves and everyone else in the country, even if they object on religious grounds. How is that ensuring freedom of religion?

If every health insurance plan MUST give away contraception, then organizations that object should at the very least be able to opt out of supplying said insurance for their employees, but that's not what TFO is doing. He is forcing EVERY organization to buy and supply this for all employees, regardless of religious objections. Now, if this is allowed to stand, what's to stop a future president from forcing EVERY food outlet to give away for free EVERY item on a government checklist that is deemed to be healthful? This would include vegan shops being forced to purchase and give away meat, Kosher shops being forced to do the same with pork, etc.

And no one has yet made the case that a box of condoms are so expensive and so hard to obtain that it justifies this kind of overreach.

but my point is that if religous organisation are allowed an opt out on contraceptions, whats to stop other religous organisations claiming opt outs for other medical stuff?
or other employers, not religous organsations, who hold religous views of no use of contraceptions be allowed opt outs also?
but then, wuldn't this be the employers pushing their religous views onto their employees.

[hadit]

but my point is that if religous organisation are allowed an opt out on contraceptions, whats to stop other religous organisations claiming opt outs for other medical stuff?
or other employers, not religous organsations, who hold religous views of no use of contraceptions be allowed opt outs also?
but then, wuldn't this be the employers pushing their religous views onto their employees.

No, it would be employers refusing to pay for things contrary to their religious beliefs. Wouldn't it ultimately be in everyone's best interest to stop forcing the employer to provide health insurance in the first place? Then the employee could buy whatever plan he/she wants. And if you allowed for differing types of coverage, the individual would be able to buy what works best for his/her unique situation.

[Sparkly Mary]

As is the case with many medical treatments, there are differing reasons for applying them. I seriously don't know what the Church would say about that one. I do know, however, that the scenario you describe would apply to a small percentage of the cases involved.

But would you support their ability to deny coverage of a medication that was intended to treat a medical illness? Poly-cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) causes infertility. Treating it with BC Pills for 6 months can often aleviate it enough to allow conception. Endometriosis can also be treated with BC pills if caught early enough and can save a woman's fertility by allowing her to keep her uterus and/or ovaries.

It doesn't matter if it's a "small percentage of the cases involved". Your claim that it is only for "voluntary activities" is total BS, and I've just given you conditions that prove it.

Now, simple question...since BC Pills are used to treat actual, medical illnesses and conditions in women not caused by "voluntary activities", should it be covered under any and/or all health insurance plans?

[Cyclone Ranger]

So what WOULD be your reaction to a government food care plan that guarantees everyone free access to items on a government approved checklist, and that EVERY food outlet must purchase and supply the items to be given away for free, especially if that list includes pork or other products abhorent to Othodox Jews?

Food just isn't a parallel to healthcare.

[hadit]

But would you support their ability to deny coverage of a medication that was intended to treat a medical illness? Poly-cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) causes infertility. Treating it with BC Pills for 6 months can often aleviate it enough to allow conception. Endometriosis can also be treated with BC pills if caught early enough and can save a woman's fertility by allowing her to keep her uterus and/or ovaries.

It doesn't matter if it's a "small percentage of the cases involved". Your claim that it is only for "voluntary activities" is total BS, and I've just given you conditions that prove it.

Now, simple question...since BC Pills are used to treat actual, medical illnesses and conditions in women not caused by "voluntary activities", should it be covered under any and/or all health insurance plans?

They should be covered under whatever plans wish to cover it as a service to their customers, but employers shouldn't be forced to pay for them if they don't want to.