Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says (Page 6)

Would you have gotten CO status except that the Quaker stepped in and said it was against his religious beliefs to give it to you?

Would you have gotten CO status except that the Quaker stepped in and said it was against his religious beliefs to give it to you?

The argument of "Well, then, I shouldn't have to pay for it" is ridiculous.

I've never had cancer, broken a bone, had any kind of surgery (appendix removal, etc), or suffered health effects from smoking, poor diet, etc.    I probably average 1 trip to the doctor/year beyond my normal health exam, usually for something like acne (go biannually) or something like a bladder infection, which has a really simple test and resolution.    So, why do I have to pay for everyone else's...  (pregnancies, broken bones, bypass surgeries, etc)?  Because that's how group insurance works.

Also, there should be an allowance for different uses of a drug.   This is in place for other things.  In order to fill my Rx for an acne medication, the doctor must confirm the use is for acne.   It can be used cosmetically for wrinkles and the insurance plans will not pay for that.   A kind Christian person should understand that someone may need a drug for medical reasons.  If they object to birth control, fine, but there should be allowances for those needing it for other reasons.

I don't think it's crazy to except someone would want a drug to improve the quality of their life.  Would you deny me acne medication?  Not really "necessary", but no one argues me filling that Rx with my affordable insurance copay.

Just a few thoughts.  Again, I don't object to a company owner making some decisions about how the insurance health care dollars should be spent.   It's the silly arguments I object to.

Take the case of the Quaker CO again.

Let's say there is a war that requires a draft.  It's legitimate for the federal government to draft and compel citizens to take up arms.

I doubt a Catholic could persuasively argue for CO status citing religious beliefs. It's not supported by our teaching.

A Quaker however can. Right or wrong, it is a deeply held belief supported by a long history of sober consideration within Quakerism.

In that case, the Quaker is not contributing to what the rest of us would probably agree is the legitimate national defense.  Therefore, is he imposing his religion on the rest of us?  

Exactly.  That's why his CO Status point is irrelevant.  The Quaker's religious decision about CO in no way affects Don's religious decision about CO.

The CEO's religious decision about birth control does affect his employees no doubt widely varied religious decisions on birth control.  He is in effect deciding for them.  In Don's example, the Quaker isn't deciding for Don.

The CEO's religious decision about birth control does affect his employees no doubt widely varied religious decisions on birth control.  He is in effect deciding for them.  In Don's example, the Quaker isn't deciding for Don.

There are people that make the same argument for smoking/obesity/etc.  And it's not a dumb argument.  I think everyone can universally agree that most types of cancer aren't caused by any choice.  No one does anything that causes their appendix burst.  But the "I'm using it to help my periods" excuse is WELL worn out for BC.  I think there are very very very few people that MEDICALLY need it to help their periods.

Take the case of the Quaker CO again.

Let's say there is a war that requires a draft.  It's legitimate for the federal government to draft and compel citizens to take up arms.

I doubt a Catholic could persuasively argue for CO status citing religious beliefs. It's not supported by our teaching.

A Quaker however can. Right or wrong, it is a deeply held belief supported by a long history of sober consideration within Quakerism.

In that case, the Quaker is not contributing to what the rest of us would probably agree is the legitimate national defense.  Therefore, is he imposing his religion on the rest of us?  

The CEO's religious decision about birth control does effect his employees no doubt widely varied religious decisions on birth control.  He is in effect deciding for them.  In Don's example, the Quaker isn't deciding for Don.

If there is a legitimate reason for a draft, then what the Quaker is doing though, in my opinion, is putting everyone else at risk by not taking up arms himself.

It is analogous to your argument that a Catholic employer not providing birth control is discriminating against female employees.

He's not deciding it for them. He's just not paying for it. You can buy birth control without health insurance. There's a difference between having the right to use something vs. someone else being required to pay for it.  Freedom doesn't mean that everything is for free.

If there is a legitimate reason for a draft, then what the Quaker is doing though, in my opinion, is putting everyone else at risk by not taking up arms himself.

It is analogous to your argument that a Catholic employer not providing birth control is discriminating against female employees.

Good point. That's true, and I know Quakers who've done so.

My use of the CO issue was to draw an analogy. It's not perfect.

Here's another: In Pennsylvania a parent can get a religious exemption to not immunize their children. (That's not a teaching held by Catholics or Quakers so we'll get them off the table for now.)

I think not immunizing your children is a really bad idea.  It affects all of us.  Immunization is the easiest way to keep currently eradicated diseases at bay.

A decision to not immunize your children has an effect that extends out to the entire community.  It is not just a personal decision.

Yet, there are religious faiths that have a legitimate and long held belief that children ought not be immunized.  I don't agree with that belief. I think it's wrong and and be proven to be so, but I do agree that it is a sober and seriously religious belief.  So while I disagree with the belief, I agree that it is protected under the First Amendment.

Respecting your opinion, I just cannot agree with you here.

In the 60s (?) my grandmother had a hysterictimy because of period complications - very likely Dysmenorrhea but it wasn't diagnosed as such back then. That's how bad it was and how they dealt with it back then. I'm willing to bet she would have much rather gone on the pill than that kind of surgery and recovery... but you are saying she should have just 'dealt with it'? 

I don't think that's a decision you (or anyone) should be making for all of woman-kind.

Good point. That's true, and I know Quakers who've done so.

My use of the CO issue was to draw an analogy. It's not perfect.

Here's another: In Pennsylvania a parent can get a religious exemption to not immunize their children. (That's not a teaching held by Catholics or Quakers so we'll get them off the table for now.)

I think not immunizing your children is a really bad idea.  It affects all of us.  Immunization is the easiest way to keep currently eradicated diseases at bay.

A decision to not immunize your children has an effect that extends out to the entire community.  It is not just a personal decision.

Yet, there are religious faiths that have a legitimate and long held belief that children ought not be immunized.  I don't agree with that belief. I think it's wrong and and be proven to be so, but I do agree that it is a sober and seriously religious belief.  So while I disagree with the belief, I agree that it is protected under the First Amendment.