They're not requiring the use of birth control, or asking the church to endorse it...they're only not providing an exemption from a requirement that all other large employers have to meet. I suspect there is other employment legislation that may go against specific teachings of a religious order?
They aren't though. The woman can still get her BC and enjoy all the sex she wants! Why make the church support it? It's not in their vision of healthcare.
its not even working for the church. its working for one of their businesses. on a sidenote, hospitals are some of the wealthiest organizations i ever worked with according to net worth
These are private institutions that are, I'm assuming, supported exclusively by the church. If they don't want to supply BC, they shouldn't have to. Now, I'd be a little more ok with it if the Churches paid taxes (like ALL private entities do) in order to gain that independence.
they aren't supplying bc, please re-read article and thread. they are supplying insurance that is reqired by most every other employer
These are large employers and should be subject to the same employment law as other large employers. No different then if a manufacturing company was owned by a staunchly religious person. Their employees are no less worthy of whatever rights or protections legislators deem appropriate.
They shouldn't be forced to supply insurance that supplies BC. Same difference. (Is there insurance that doesn't cover BC? I assume there is)
So they should just fire anyone who isn't Catholic instead of trying to start institutions that try to help a community and are in line with their moral beliefs, that provide a vision for human living and excellence? Really, is that the other option. 1 in 6 people who go to a hospital go to a Catholic hospital. This is just sickening to me.
bnb is in human resources, just saying. anyway, how much are birth control pills without insurance. i used to by them for my ex on the co pay
No need to be snippy. I wasn't talking about Churches, I'm talking about the hospitals, unis, etc. That doesn't even answer my question. I need an explanation for why they "do not qualify".
i don't know the rational for having to cover bc -- maybe that's a separate debate. I just disagree that churches should be exempt if it's a requirement for others.
no, they should just provide normal insurance, no need for sad face. if they truly had to make this choice, hopefully the would provide the services over making the decision not to provide the insurance.
I'll admit it's somewhat ambiguous, but as I quoted to Donny I think the distinction is well founded - a religious employer (i.e., the church) is exempt. Not sure how cool that is, but I digress. An affiliated entity is different.
And that's the problem from a lot of commentator's view, the religious exemption is too narrow in the HHS mandate. Back to work though, I'll pick up the discussion tonight if it's still going on.
I'm looking for the explanation of WHY it is different. My OP was asking that, not talking about the churches themselves.
There is a fine line here. If the organization is explicitly a religious institution where practice and proselytizing of the faith is the primary function then I think they should be exempt from this rules. If I am not mistaken that exception is in place. If this is a matter of the religious institution subsidiary business that doesn't exist primarily to advance the faith then they should be subject to the laws as every other business is. How you draw that line though I personally would be willing to give leeway in regard to the religious institution so if Notre Dame University made the argument that their mission is to teach and spread Catholicism I think that qualifies them for the exception. On the flip side though if we are to respect the separation of Church and State such institutions shouldn't qualify though for federal funding if they are also demanding religious exceptions to employment laws.
