SEMI-POLITICAL: Equality, Beliefs & the Constitution

[the_mother_thing]

I hope that this can be a thoughtful & respectful discussion that does not delve specifically into religion or your personal observance or opinion on religion; rather on the Constitutional "free exercise" thereof as it may relate to women's rights.

Stemming from a few other recent discussions here surrounding women's equality, I found myself pondering a scenario (by virtue of an individual who was subject to the discussion), and that is: where might we as a country (not any one party, movement or belief system) draw the line between "equal rights" and "cultural/religious beliefs"? In as culturally diverse a society as the U.S. has and continues to become, could we see a possible 'battle' of these two?

On one hand, as evidenced by last weekend's Women's March, there is a clear demand for women and other groups to be legally, professionally and socially treated equal where it is felt by some they are not. On the other hand, there is also a clear demand for the same with regard to different cultures and religions, some of which have different views about (for example) women's equality and/or their "role". This may create areas where I think these two could clash, depending on where you stand and/or what you believe, and the potential consequences either way.

What largely makes me wonder about this scenario - where this 'line' is drawn or how we may come to an acceptable solution for ALL - is our First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My questions/thoughts driving this topic:

- Are there 'rights' being sought specific to women or any 'group' that ARE in direct contrast to any one religion, whereby it creates a constitutional conflict?

- If there are, and it came down to HAVING to remove the "free exercise of religion" from the constitution in order to grant citizens those rights, would you then be concerned about the "slippery slope" such a move may create? What about the potential then for alteration of our free speech rights?

- What is the solution for those who may face a 'constitutional conflict' by virtue of freely exercising that religion in our culture/society? "Pack your bags"?

I am struggling to determine for myself where the "line" might be, and am genuinely interested in what others think.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Thinking further, and having caffeine, might a change such as this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof where it does not create a violation of another citizen's constitutional rights; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

- be feasible and/or considered 'acceptable'?

- still pose a "slippery slope" concern?

My thought process here being I don't think our free society should 'tolerate' any belief or religion that does not equally value every member of our society.

 

[ksinger]

My hat's off to you. You've walked boldly into the "exciting" end of the minefield. It's too early and too little caffeine for me to tease out a point to address, so I'm going to hope someone else is up to the heavy lifting today.

I am curious though, (and this is slightly tangential) you keep mentioning changes to the constitution. You are not, I hope, one of those who is currently beating the drum of calling a constitutional convention?

 

[the_mother_thing]

My hat's off to you. You've walked boldly into the "exciting" end of the minefield. It's too early and too little caffeine for me to tease out a point to address, so I'm going to hope someone else is up to the heavy lifting today.

I am curious though, (and this is slightly tangential) you keep mentioning changes to the constitution. You are not, I hope, one of those who is currently beating the drum of calling a constitutional convention?

Good morning; I am on my third cup of coffee; you need to catch up!

I'm not musically inclined. I'm just a thinker, and since this subject came up and the various topics kind of collided, it's been on my mind ... thinking about the views and perspectives from ALL sides. I would LOVE to see our country truly consider, treat and protect every citizen equally. And as I noted in a separate thread, one of the things I don't like in these cases is "situational solutions" that create unintended consequences or adverse impacts on others, which creates yet another problem to be solved. In this case, it occurred to me that by trying to solve for one "problem", it became evident that we could be creating another "problem" - here, it pertains to the constitution, thus my questions & thoughts around it's possible change.

IF we are to effect any kind of change, let's learn from our mistakes in the past, and make sure we do it right, once, and fairly for all - gender, ethnicity, orientation, religion, etc.

THAT is the drum I am beating, if any. Hope that clarifies my intent.

 

[ksinger]

My hat's off to you. You've walked boldly into the "exciting" end of the minefield. It's too early and too little caffeine for me to tease out a point to address, so I'm going to hope someone else is up to the heavy lifting today.

I am curious though, (and this is slightly tangential) you keep mentioning changes to the constitution. You are not, I hope, one of those who is currently beating the drum of calling a constitutional convention?

Good morning; I am on my third cup of coffee; you need to catch up!

I'm not musically inclined. I'm just a thinker, and since this subject came up and the various topics kind of collided, it's been on my mind ... thinking about the views and perspectives from ALL sides. I would LOVE to see our country truly consider, treat and protect every citizen equally. And as I noted in a separate thread, one of the things I don't like in these cases is "situational solutions" that create unintended consequences or adverse impacts on others, which creates yet another problem to be solved. In this case, it occurred to me that by trying to solve for one "problem", it became evident that we could be creating another "problem" - here, it pertains to the constitution, thus my questions & thoughts around it's possible change.

IF we are to effect any kind of change, let's learn from our mistakes in the past, and make sure we do it right, once, and fairly for all - gender, ethnicity, orientation, religion, etc.

THAT is the drum I am beating, if any. Hope that clarifies my intent.

You did not exactly answer the question but I'll let is slide for now.

I'll pick one...

- Are there 'rights' being sought specific to women or any 'group' that ARE in direct contrast to any one religion, whereby it creates a constitutional conflict?

I see there being a couple or more of issues in this one bullet.

The one I'm going to zero in on right now is your use of "constitutional conflict". (I'm pretty much only good for one point at a time today, I'm thinking - I'm going to settle for clarification of terms at the moment)

I'm not a lawyer (although I'm related to some really awesome ones, ha ha! - shameless plug to gain cred where I don't have much. ) but I've never heard that term used as you're using it. Constitutional conflict is usually about a conflict of laws, and has nothing to do with religion. You seem to be using the term "conflict" in the sense of the free exercise clause meaning that laws allowing actions that conflict with religious conviction creates a restriction of the free exercise of the beliefs of the objecting religion, hence conflict. Or am I reading that wrong?

 

[the_mother_thing]

I don't have a 'firm stance' either way on a constitutional convention, but if I did, I guess I just don't see it being specifically relevant to this discussion. I'm not asking these questions as a 'conservative', rather as an American citizen without 'party politics' in mind. And I don't mean that the way it probably reads (rudely); I just think it's a different discussion.

Maybe 'constitutional conflict' isn't the right term; I wasn't meaning for the question to sound "legalistic", though I realize it is a legal subject. What I am asking is this: is there anything being sought by either one in terms of 'rights' that is known, perceived or suspected to be in opposition of the other's rights? I want to understand both sides & perspectives.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

No, I would not change the wording of the Constit as it has served us well for these 200 ys. Religions have been in conflict for yrs, in fact insisting that the other religions are not valid, and trying to eliminate them through speech.(preaching). It has been a tough time for some, Jews, even Catholics, who have been the most vocal about their supremacy. After all, threats of going to Hell from Christians of all sorts is rather bullying. We have worked through these. albeit, for some not fast enough.

Now, womans rights- Society does have a right to limit some so called rights, if the benefit is for all society. I think the last tri-mester abortion ought to be disallowed. I think if we had other facilities to care for unwanted babies it would help. Five months is enough time to take the action. This is a value that we should preserve. JMO.

There will be conflicts, muslims think they are superior and know what God wants, Christians the same, no matter what they say.
It has has not worked perfectly, but it has worked enough for us to live together. Its good enough for me. The clashes are what we are about.

Annette

 

[ksinger]

Hi,

No, I would not change the wording of the Constit as it has served us well for these 200 ys. Religions have been in conflict for yrs, in fact insisting that the other religions are not valid, and trying to eliminate them through speech.(preaching). It has been a tough time for some, Jews, even Catholics, who have been the most vocal about their supremacy. After all, threats of going to Hell from Christians of all sorts is rather bullying. We have worked through these. albeit, for some not fast enough.

Now, womans rights- Society does have a right to limit some so called rights, if the benefit is for all society. I think the last tri-mester abortion ought to be disallowed. I think if we had other facilities to care for unwanted babies it would help. Five months is enough time to take the action. This is a value that we should preserve. JMO.

There will be conflicts, muslims think they are superior and know what God wants, Christians the same, no matter what they say.
It has has not worked perfectly, but it has worked enough for us to live together. Its good enough for me. The clashes are what we are about.

Annette

Thanks Annette, for cutting to the chase. I was still stuck at the "mapping the mines" stage. Last night was pretty rough sleep-wise.

 

[ericad]

JoCoJenn, I haven't read through all replies yet but let's take abortion, yes? How is MY right to an abortion impacting another person's right to practice her religion and not choose an abortion for herself? Pro-choice means that we each get to choose, yet there's nothing being forced upon people who don't want it. However removing choice for religious reasons DOES force others' behavior to comply with one group's religious beliefs. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM it.

 

[partgypsy]

My view, is that the relationship between a person and their religion, can be a deep and PERSONAL, and private. I.e. between you and God. There is a reason why there is separation of Church and state.
However there will always be conflicts. If a Muslim who believes in a sect of islam that practices sharia law, or female circumcism, no, they will not have the right to practice those parts of their religion because it is against US law to say practice female circumcism or stone females who have sex outside marriage. In the same way, for a long period of time, Mormonism taught that polygamy is OK and encouraged in their religion (well, it's in the Bible). But- it is against the laws of the United States, so no they cannot practice that part of their religion here.

As far as birth control and abortion, Catholics, and more recently (in the 70's?) conservatives have taken a stance again abortion. Having birth control bills and abortion being legal does not restrict Catholics and conservative Christians from practicing their religion. It is a prescription or prohibition for those following that faith. For them to try to restrict politically or otherwise, other females reproductive choices would be similar to female Muslims, not only covering their own head, trying to go around covering all females heads with coverings, whether they liked it or not.
In actual practice no matter what religion or sect you follow, it is really up to each individual how one interprets and follows one's religious prescriptions (between you and God).

 

[lovedogs]

My view, is that the relationship between a person and their religion, can be a deep and PERSONAL, and private. I.e. between you and God. There is a reason why there is separation of Church and state.
However there will always be conflicts. If a Muslim who believes in a sect of islam that practices sharia law, or female circumcism, no, they will not have the right to practice those parts of their religion because it is against US law to say practice female circumcism or stone females who have sex outside marriage. In the same way, for a long period of time, Mormonism taught that polygamy is OK and encouraged in their religion (well, it's in the Bible). But- it is against the laws of the United States, so no they cannot practice that part of their religion here.

As far as birth control and abortion, Catholics, and more recently (in the 70's?) conservatives have taken a stance again abortion. Having birth control bills and abortion being legal does not restrict Catholics and conservative Christians from practicing their religion. It is a prescription or prohibition for those following that faith. For them to try to restrict politically or otherwise, other females reproductive choices would be similar to female Muslims, not only covering their own head, trying to go around covering all females heads with coverings, whether they liked it or not.
In actual practice no matter what religion or sect you follow, it is really up to each individual how one interprets and follows one's religious prescriptions (between you and God).

This sums up my feelings perfectly, PartGypsy!

 

[the_mother_thing]

I appreciate those who have responded so far, and hope more chime in. I'm not ignoring the thread (by posting in others); I'd just like to read and mentally digest a few views before I reply because I appreciate this is both a sensitive and thought-provoking topic.

 

[telephone89]

I believe freedom of religion (and really, anything) stops the moment it touches another person. You are free to practice or believe whatever you want as long as it's about you. Ex Child abuse/punishment. If your religion says you can (or should) hit your kids, not cool. If your religion says to preach on the street and hand out flyers, sure. I believe that's the easiest way to make sure peoples individual rights aren't intruded by with someone elses religious rights.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Hi,

No, I would not change the wording of the Constit as it has served us well for these 200 ys. Religions have been in conflict for yrs, in fact insisting that the other religions are not valid, and trying to eliminate them through speech.(preaching).

Now, womans rights- Society does have a right to limit some so called rights, if the benefit is for all society. I think the last tri-mester abortion ought to be disallowed. I think if we had other facilities to care for unwanted babies it would help. Five months is enough time to take the action. This is a value that we should preserve. JMO.

There will be conflicts [...involving/between religions...] It has has not worked perfectly, but it has worked enough for us to live together. Its good enough for me. The clashes are what we are about.

Annette

Thank you for the thoughtful input, Annette! I hope you don't mind, but I removed/edited some parts of your post in the above quote, just to ensure I'm not breaking any PS rules with regard to the discussion of religion; I know some mention is allowed, but the line is a bit blurry to me.

I agree wholeheartedly about religions being at war with each other. I don't want to specify any one religion; rather, I just grouped them together for ease of discussion and because of how it's worded in the Constitution, which I also agree has served us well thus far.

When it comes to your comment: "Society does have a right to limit some so called rights, if the benefit is for all society.", are there some examples you (or anyone else) might highlight? Do you/anyone know - to what extent or limit - rights may be limited? Is there a threshold or legal test for these scenarios?

 

[the_mother_thing]

JoCoJenn, I haven't read through all replies yet but let's take abortion, yes? How is MY right to an abortion impacting another person's right to practice her religion and not choose an abortion for herself? Pro-choice means that we each get to choose, yet there's nothing being forced upon people who don't want it. However removing choice for religious reasons DOES force others' behavior to comply with one group's religious beliefs. Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM it.

I agree with the bolded parts of your comments; and, off-hand, I can't think of any reason your being pro-choice (or abortion being legal, for that matter) forces anyone else to have an abortion, or prevents them from freely exercising their religion. Someone else may have a differing opinion.

On the underlined part of your comments, I don't see it being banned entirely, so I assume the remaining issue (broadly speaking) is religious citizens believe they are supporting abortion if/when their tax dollars are allocated to organizations providing abortion, and that support is considered in conflict with and thus 'limiting the free exercise' of their religion. Perhaps someone else can add to, clarify, correct or refute my understanding; though, it may be slim pickings because of the PS limitations on discussion specifically of religion, so it's really a bit unfair to delve too far into.

Related to my above assumption and assuming abortion remains legal, how would removing Federal funding from abortion providers prevent anyone who wants an abortion from obtaining one or otherwise conflict with women's or human rights? NOTE: I won't enter into a debate on how providers allocate Federal funds or what should/shouldn't be part of one's health insurance plan; I don't want to get that far off topic since this is about perceived 'rights'; not budgets or healthcare plans which are not constitutionally-granted rights.

 

[Matata]

Hi,

No, I would not change the wording of the Constit as it has served us well for these 200 ys. Religions have been in conflict for yrs, in fact insisting that the other religions are not valid, and trying to eliminate them through speech.(preaching).

Now, womans rights- Society does have a right to limit some so called rights, if the benefit is for all society. I think the last tri-mester abortion ought to be disallowed. I think if we had other facilities to care for unwanted babies it would help. Five months is enough time to take the action. This is a value that we should preserve. JMO.

There will be conflicts [...involving/between religions...] It has has not worked perfectly, but it has worked enough for us to live together. Its good enough for me. The clashes are what we are about.

Annette

Thank you for the thoughtful input, Annette! I hope you don't mind, but I removed/edited some parts of your post in the above quote, just to ensure I'm not breaking any PS rules with regard to the discussion of religion; I know some mention is allowed, but the line is a bit blurry to me.

I agree wholeheartedly about religions being at war with each other. I don't want to specify any one religion; rather, I just grouped them together for ease of discussion and because of how it's worded in the Constitution, which I also agree has served us well thus far.

When it comes to your comment: "Society does have a right to limit some so called rights, if the benefit is for all society.", are there some examples you (or anyone else) might highlight? Do you/anyone know - to what extent or limit - rights may be limited? Is there a threshold or legal test for these scenarios?

Yes. It's called the Lemon Test http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

 

[the_mother_thing]

My view, is that the relationship between a person and their religion, can be a deep and PERSONAL, and private. I.e. between you and God. There is a reason why there is separation of Church and state.
However there will always be conflicts. If a Muslim who believes in a sect of islam that practices sharia law, or female circumcism, no, they will not have the right to practice those parts of their religion because it is against US law to say practice female circumcism or stone females who have sex outside marriage. In the same way, for a long period of time, Mormonism taught that polygamy is OK and encouraged in their religion (well, it's in the Bible). But- it is against the laws of the United States, so no they cannot practice that part of their religion here.

As far as birth control and abortion, Catholics, and more recently (in the 70's?) conservatives have taken a stance again abortion. Having birth control bills and abortion being legal does not restrict Catholics and conservative Christians from practicing their religion. It is a prescription or prohibition for those following that faith. For them to try to restrict politically or otherwise, other females reproductive choices would be similar to female Muslims, not only covering their own head, trying to go around covering all females heads with coverings, whether they liked it or not.
In actual practice no matter what religion or sect you follow, it is really up to each individual how one interprets and follows one's religious prescriptions (between you and God).

Regarding your first paragraph, female circumcision is an absolutely horrific procedure - mentally and physically, and it's mind-boggling that the number of at-risk women & children in the U.S. has quadrupled (I believe) since the law was passed. I did a quick google search for convictions on the Federal level to see what type of defense - if any - might have been used as it pertains to this overall discussion, but haven't uncovered any. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not though.

On your second thought - I agree, and as noted to Erica, I don't think abortion or BC will go away. My personal feeling is that so long as someone else wants to do 'something' within the law, it's not my business to tell them not to so long as it does not impact/involve my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I believe freedom of religion (and really, anything) stops the moment it touches another person. You are free to practice or believe whatever you want as long as it's about you. Ex Child abuse/punishment. If your religion says you can (or should) hit your kids, not cool. If your religion says to preach on the street and hand out flyers, sure. I believe that's the easiest way to make sure peoples individual rights aren't intruded by with someone elses religious rights.

I've generally always had the same approach as you, Telephone. I think what makes it complicated is in how people (on all sides) interpret differently the meaning of/what constitutes a "right" and "free exercise of religion".

 

[lovedogs]

I think this is interesting, and I'm trying to put myself on both sides of the coin here. That's tricky for me since I'm one of the most socially liberal people there is, but I do have one really odd "quirk" of a belief (which I realize is irrational, so I hope no one jumps down my throat too hard). Due to my past history of abuse/rape, I have a huge personal problem with BDSM. Yes, I realize it can be healthy and consensual, but I just ....cant. It makes me angry even thinking about it, since I have this belief that it always stems from an unhealthy place. So my personal belief is that it shouldn't be allowed---ever. Like to the point that when I see books about it I get irrationally angry. So I actually do understand the idea of people not wanting their tax dollars going towards something they don't believe in/specifically is against their own religious or personal beliefs.

That said, what I try to do on this issue is kind of pretend it doesn't exist, and tell myself that everyone should have the freedom to express their love/sexuality in any way they want (what's between 2 consenting adults should be their business!)

I try to hold to what Telephone said below in terms of personal freedoms stopping the moment they touch another person.

telephone89 wrote:
I believe freedom of religion (and really, anything) stops the moment it touches another person. You are free to practice or believe whatever you want as long as it's about you. Ex Child abuse/punishment. If your religion says you can (or should) hit your kids, not cool. If your religion says to preach on the street and hand out flyers, sure. I believe that's the easiest way to make sure peoples individual rights aren't intruded by with someone else religious rights.

Sorry for the personal rant--it's just one of the (few) social issues I can put myself on the other side for.

 

[AnnaH]

The "live, let live" approach is acceptable to me regarding many controversial issues. Not the case with abortion. Many of us view a fetus as an unborn child, a living being, no matter the politics of the woman. That said, terrible things happen to some women and girls, and I understand why they may choose abortion. This is legal and highly unlikely to change. I think the most that could change is restricting third trimester abortions, as someone else suggested, or maybe a ban on partial birth abortions.
My views are connected to religion and human rights. Failing to support the unborn would be, to me, a violation of both.
An example of this controversy is the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They objected to the Obamacare mandate that they provide birth control, sterilization, and abortion services to their employees. Last I heard, they received a reprieve from the court, but the case was to be appealed. While birth control and sterilization is not objectionable to me, or most Americans, the nuns believe differently, as is their right, I believe.
There are such strong feelings on this issue. Not sure a consensus is possible, but maybe a compromise? I don't know...

 

[partgypsy]

The "live, let live" approach is acceptable to me regarding many controversial issues. Not the case with abortion. Many of us view a fetus as an unborn child, a living being, no matter the politics of the woman. That said, terrible things happen to some women and girls, and I understand why they may choose abortion. This is legal and highly unlikely to change. I think the most that could change is restricting third trimester abortions, as someone else suggested, or maybe a ban on partial birth abortions.
My views are connected to religion and human rights. Failing to support the unborn would be, to me, a violation of both.
An example of this controversy is the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They objected to the Obamacare mandate that they provide birth control, sterilization, and abortion services to their employees. Last I heard, they received a reprieve from the court, but the case was to be appealed. While birth control and sterilization is not objectionable to me, or most Americans, the nuns believe differently, as is their right, I believe.
There are such strong feelings on this issue. Not sure a consensus is possible, but maybe a compromise? I don't know...

Again, I would prefer that there was single payer healthcare for the United States. It has been shown to provide the most coverage, with the most efficient cost. I could list a whole bunch of references for this (I did a section on health care for my post doctoral fellowship on aging) but truly if people were interested in learning about this topic in a non-political way they can.

As far as the little sisters of the poor. I'm assuming most of their employees are nuns. Yes, they probably won't be using birth control, sterilization, abortion services. They also won't be using prenatal care, pediatric services, protate exams or viagra prescriptions. Taking out that coverage wouldn't be saving them any money. In fact it would become prohibitively costly to offer individually tailored insurance for every individual or particular situation. And again, just because something is covered, does not mean it needs to be used, or someone is forcing them to use those services. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept.
Unless, of course the little sisters of the poor were trying to prevent non-nun staff from being able to afford birth control, sterilization or abortion services. In that case I would say that would be a case of employers trying to force their religious values on their employees, infringing on their rights, the legality of which, I don't know. I personally would not want my employers deciding what or which kind of healthcare I could get. For example if i was employed by Jehovah's witnesses, and after I was in a car accident, I couldn't get a blood transfusion, or found transfusions weren't covered by my insurance? That would kind of suck.

Again regarding planned parenthood funding, non of the federal funding goes towards abortions. So there shouldn't be any religious conflict, etc for tax payer monies to go to planned parenthood or similar agencies. It is called "planned" parenthood. It is legal in our country for women to plan if or when or how many children they will have. If a woman does not have control over her own body, her own reproductive choices, how can we be equal citizens? The answer is, we cannot. And that inequality will fall harder on economically disadvantaged women, increasing the divide in this country.

 

[AnnaH]

Thanks for your reply, PartG.
As to single pay, I haven't studied it as you have, but many who have disagree, as you know. That's another topic, a thread you are more qualified to start than I.
Not a Catholic, I'd never heard of the Little Sisters of the Poor before the court case. This is a worldwide charity, with multiple facilities in several large Us cities. It's not just a group of nuns or a group of Catholics. In the case of religious organizations, in particular, I think prospective employees would consider the benefits offered before accepting employment.
While many probably believe that taxpayers don't fund abortions, except in rare cases, that's debatable. In a Forbes article (lengthy and complicated--to me anyway) Chris Conover states that taxpayers subsidize about 24% of all abortion costs, more money from states than the federal government. That means taxpayers fully fund 250,000 abortions a year.

 

[telephone89]

In a Forbes article (lengthy and complicated--to me anyway) Chris Conover states that taxpayers subsidize about 24% of all abortion costs, more money from states than the federal government. That means taxpayers fully fund 250,000 abortions a year.

Just to play devils advocate, some religions don't believe in drinking coffee. I'm reasonably sure that tax payers pay for coffee in gov't offices as a pretty standard item, likely paying a lot more than for 24% of the coffee drank. Why is their religion/religious convictions not as important? Why should 1 religion be able to control purse strings, but not the others?

 

[partgypsy]

I guess there will always be issues, where one's personal values, conflict with how taxpayer money is used. There are many pacifists who are truly against how much we are spending on the military, one of the largest parts where our tax dollars go, and for them even one drone-related death is too many. I'm actually always surprised that people who are pro-lifers don't necessarily protest about how much money our gov does to fund, essentially "death"....
There are many who feel that more money should have been spent to help individual home owners, versus bailing out big banks and other corporations during the last meltdown. Unfortunately, there is not a check off box, where we get to allocate where our tax dollars go. Being a US citizen and paying taxes has been so far, an all or nothing deal, it's not like the dollar menu at McDonalds.

 

[partgypsy]

Thanks for your reply, PartG.
As to single pay, I haven't studied it as you have, but many who have disagree, as you know. That's another topic, a thread you are more qualified to start than I.
Not a Catholic, I'd never heard of the Little Sisters of the Poor before the court case. This is a worldwide charity, with multiple facilities in several large Us cities. It's not just a group of nuns or a group of Catholics. In the case of religious organizations, in particular, I think prospective employees would consider the benefits offered before accepting employment.
While many probably believe that taxpayers don't fund abortions, except in rare cases, that's debatable. In a Forbes article (lengthy and complicated--to me anyway) Chris Conover states that taxpayers subsidize about 24% of all abortion costs, more money from states than the federal government. That means taxpayers fully fund 250,000 abortions a year.

Regarding the Forbes article, because of the Hyde act, Medicare cannot pay for the procedure "except if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed." The procedures covered by Medicare are these exceptions (250K across the United states).

Just to be clear, you are NOT OK with Medicare covering this procedure in these situations?

 

[AnnaH]

I'm unaware of any debate regarding a pregnancy that endangers the life of the mother. As to rape and incest, I would support law allowing those exceptions. Those three situations represent a very small percentage of abortions.
The Forbes article explains how taxpayer money funds abortions beyond the small number represented by threatening the life of the mother, rape or incest.

 

[Tekate]

The "live, let live" approach is acceptable to me regarding many controversial issues. Not the case with abortion. Many of us view a fetus as an unborn child, a living being, no matter the politics of the woman. That said, terrible things happen to some women and girls, and I understand why they may choose abortion. This is legal and highly unlikely to change. I think the most that could change is restricting third trimester abortions, as someone else suggested, or maybe a ban on partial birth abortions.
My views are connected to religion and human rights. Failing to support the unborn would be, to me, a violation of both.
An example of this controversy is the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They objected to the Obamacare mandate that they provide birth control, sterilization, and abortion services to their employees. Last I heard, they received a reprieve from the court, but the case was to be appealed. While birth control and sterilization is not objectionable to me, or most Americans, the nuns believe differently, as is their right, I believe.
There are such strong feelings on this issue. Not sure a consensus is possible, but maybe a compromise? I don't know...

I abso do not agree with your beliefs etc.. BUT since we now have Trump, let me ask you; if your religious/human rights views extend on to the zygote/fetus/baby and its life? are you willing to fund that child for life? Men get off easy.. if a man wants to abort his fetus and the woman doesn't want to, then he should not have to support that child. But it's the woman is always wears the scarlet A.. As to nuns, I"m all in favor of them doing their thing, but if they want tax exemption status (meaning they are trying to make a profit but don't want to pay taxes on it, and I know this Anna because I've worked for 2 non profits ) then they must follow the law.. if they don't, they should lose their tax exemption status..Seems simple to me.. Following the law works on both sides of the street.

 

[Tekate]

Thanks for your reply, PartG.
As to single pay, I haven't studied it as you have, but many who have disagree, as you know. That's another topic, a thread you are more qualified to start than I.
Not a Catholic, I'd never heard of the Little Sisters of the Poor before the court case. This is a worldwide charity, with multiple facilities in several large Us cities. It's not just a group of nuns or a group of Catholics. In the case of religious organizations, in particular, I think prospective employees would consider the benefits offered before accepting employment.
While many probably believe that taxpayers don't fund abortions, except in rare cases, that's debatable. In a Forbes article (lengthy and complicated--to me anyway) Chris Conover states that taxpayers subsidize about 24% of all abortion costs, more money from states than the federal government. That means taxpayers fully fund 250,000 abortions a year.

Anna, fungibility of money, I haven't read the Forbes article to be honest, but I have read how Ryan stated the fungability of money pays for abortions, having taken a lot of business courses many years ago I read up on it.. So here is Slate's take on Ryan.. I tend to agree with Slate.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/09/11/_money_is_fungible_at_planned_parenthood_not_actually_true.html

 

[OreoRosies86]

I would like to know how people plan to enforce abortion laws in the event that a woman could walk into an office and say "I was raped and I do not want this fetus inside of me."

Okay well,what then? Try to prove whether or not she's lying first?

 

[Tekate]

I'm unaware of any debate regarding a pregnancy that endangers the life of the mother. As to rape and incest, I would support law allowing those exceptions. Those three situations represent a very small percentage of abortions.
The Forbes article explains how taxpayer money funds abortions beyond the small number represented by threatening the life of the mother, rape or incest.

Anna, take for example, Liberty University, the growth of federally backed student loans has skyrocketed, I pay taxes, I don't want to fund LIberty University and any way, shape or form. If we go along with republicans and Ryan then my tax money and all those who do not want to fund in any way Liberty University is being used. I want children to get a good education but I don't want to pay for indoctrination at this school. so the school can say we will NOT use any money from federally funded student loans in any religious classes etc (although I don't see how they could do that). The fungibility of money says that even though they say it, they will put the kids student loan money into the big pot that pays for religious education too.

As a decent person, I don't mind really as I want good education for America. But if we are going to go down this road then we have to take into consideration ALL federal money that goes to religious institutions. Catholic Charities - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/catholic-church-collects-16-billion-in-us-contract/

The republicans better be sure they want to go down this road. Because the left will want to ensure their money is not going for religious fungibility.