Religious Liberty

[GoIrish41]

In addition to the examples given above, there's also the speech code for lawyers recently proposed by the American Bar Association. My oldest son is an argumentative little sh!t (much like his dad was), and I'm sure he'll make a fine lawyer himself someday. I'd love to hand my practice over to him when he's older, but it's conceivable that orthodox Catholics, Jews and Muslims won't be permitted to serve in publicly sanctioned professions at that point because our views on sexual ethics conflict with liberalism.

I'm not interested in inflicting my religious beliefs on anyone else. But the powers that be are very interested in persecuting Catholic institutions for adhering to Catholic doctrine. I don't think it's too much to ask that we be allowed to maintain the religious freedom necessary to run our institutions in line with our beliefs, particularly in light of all the good that Catholic charities accomplish.

This is a fair argument ... one I perhaps have not considered fully. I don't have a response because I want to consider your POV. Believe it or not you have had an influence on my thinking on these church/state issues. I might not be right there with you but your arguments have broadened my thinking. So, thanks for the explanation. As a person I have a lot of respect for posted not terribly long ago, this is what makes IE great.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is a fair argument ... one I perhaps have not considered fully. I don't have a response because I want to consider your POV. Believe it or not you have had an influence on my thinking on these church/state issues. I might not be right there with you but your arguments have broadened my thinking. So, thanks for the explanation. As a person I have a lot of respect for posted not terribly long ago, this is what makes IE great.

Hear, hear. There are very few places on the web where these sorts of contentious issues can be debated civilly. Thanks for hearing me out.

 

[Legacy]

Where did I argue for theocracy? I'm a big fan of the separation of Church and State, mostly because it protects the Church from corruption.

Where did I argue otherwise? Though you'll note that the First Amendment protects the "free exercise" of religion, and not merely the "freedom of worship". Progressives have been aggressively trying to drive religion from the public square by defining the former down to the latter.

This is all over the place, so I won't bother addressing it point by point. My argument is this: all political problems are religious disputes at root. The political principles enshrined in our Constitution are uniquely Christian, and as John Adams stated: "[It] was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Everything that is good about this country was inherited from Christendom. And as Tocqueville noted nearly 200 years ago, our only bulwark against tyranny is a virtuous, self-reliant citizenry. Today, our society is rapidly de-Christianizing, and the secular ideologies being offered in its stead are manifestly insufficient to forming the virtuous, self-reliant citizenry we require to keep our republic intact.

I am not calling for a papist conspiracy to overthrow the government, nor do I miss the days of Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority". But I do think Americans of all political persuasions need to think very hard about what makes our country special, why our forebears were able to build such a remarkable republic, and how those things can be maintained going forward.

The fact that you are dismissive of those who have different religious beliefs is offputting. The "great conceit of liberalism", most mainline Protestant religions have adapted whatever is the latest "fad", you cannot be "bothered" addressing some of my points which are "all over the place", the rejection of American government that is not adherent to your perception of religious morals, how ND or other Catholic universities are not adhering to Catholic teaching, that Progressives misunderstand freedom of religion, which "can involve what one eats, how one dresses, when one works, etc."

You intertwine government/politics with Christian religious thought that, as you indicate, most Americans do not espouse to. "all political problems are religious disputes at root" You've dismissed almost all the mainline Protestant churches and many Catholics. That's a moral minority opinion, which I imagine, at times, makes you want to establish your own community somewhere.

You said: The ideologies that are replacing Christianity as the culturally normative forces in America are clearly not up to the task of instilling virtue and forming a citizenry that is able to overcome passion and prejudice in the interest of the greater good.

I look forward to talking with you about that in the future.

 

[NDgradstudent]

New York has joined California in attempting to require Catholic institutions -including churches, dioceses, etc.- to pay for abortions. This is the purpose of the HHS abortifacient/contraceptive mandate: to eventually require all Catholic employers, including Notre Dame, to pay for their employees' abortions.

Law professor John Breen observes that as with the HHS abortifacient/contraceptive mandate, this policy was established by the bureaucracy, not by legislation, because it would not be approved by a legislature. Thus it is an attack not only upon religious liberty and the unborn but also upon democratic government itself.

 

[Prof K]

I am a vice president for a Catholic University that has filed suit against the federal government over the Contraception mandate in Obamacare. Ironically, the bishops supported Obamacare and then they tried adding the mandate, which threatened not our freedom of worship (a term invented in 2009) but our freedom of religion (a term build into the Constitution). Previously freedom of religion required that the government could limit the free exercise of religion only when the state had a compelling interest in doing so. The courts interpreted this to mean only when there was no viable alternative. Please tell me what women in American cannot afford contraception, or can't get to their local planned parenthood clinic, where it is free. The pretense that there was a compelling reason to force my University and the Little Sisters of the poor to pay for contraception, was, in my opinion, pure hubris on the part of the administration.

 

[Legacy]

I am a vice president for a Catholic University that has filed suit against the federal government over the Contraception mandate in Obamacare. Ironically, the bishops supported Obamacare and then they tried adding the mandate, which threatened not our freedom of worship (a term invented in 2009) but our freedom of religion (a term build into the Constitution). Previously freedom of religion required that the government could limit the free exercise of religion only when the state had a compelling interest in doing so. The courts interpreted this to mean only when there was no viable alternative. Please tell me what women in American cannot afford contraception, or can't get to their local planned parenthood clinic, where it is free. The pretense that there was a compelling reason to force my University and the Little Sisters of the poor to pay for contraception, was, in my opinion, pure hubris on the part of the administration.

Could you clarify for me, Prof, whether all a Catholic institution needs to do is fill out a form to be exempted from this requirement of the Affordable Care Act? Also, could you give us an idea of how many of your employees qualify under ACA, being paid just 40%higher than poverty levels? What kind of paid maternity leave do you provide? If a woman employed by you had an abortion, would that affect her employment? Thanks.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Could you clarify for me, Prof, whether all a Catholic institution needs to do is fill out a form to be exempted from this requirement of the Affordable Care Act?

I can address these questions vis-a-vis Notre Dame.

ND isn't "exempted" by filling out a form. Churches are "exempted"; universities have to participate in the process, which is formal cooperation with evil. Filling out the form initiates the process, and constitutes formal cooperation within Catholic theology. Many liberal Catholics apparently reject this view (although if ND were being required to pay for its employee's machine guns, I think they might feel differently) but it reflects Church teaching. Furthermore, courts are not competent to decide whether or not a religion's views about cooperation with evil are morally or theologically true. This is not just my opinion; the courts themselves have said it.

Also, could you give us an idea of how many of your employees qualify under ACA, being paid just 40%higher than poverty levels?

The HHS rule applies to all insurance plans provided by employers, not just those of people being paid '40% higher than poverty levels.' The value of one person's work is not necessarily equal to that of another person, anyway. If the institution is paying for one person's abortions, that is enough cooperation to raise a problem. It is not about the number of people.

What kind of paid maternity leave do you provide?

ND provides maternity leave consistent with the FMLA.

If a woman employed by you had an abortion, would that affect her employment? Thanks.

As far as I know, ND would not fire someone for having an abortion, but it is not going to be paying for her abortion, either.

I assume your point is that if you wouldn't fire someone for having an abortion, you don't really oppose abortion. This view simply does not reflect Catholic moral theology, which distinguishes between formal and material cooperation with evil. Paying taxes to the government that are used for abortions, or paying a salary to someone that she uses for an abortion, is at most material cooperation. Directly arranging and/or paying for an abortion is formal cooperation, and that is what ND and the other institutions object to doing.

 

[Legacy]

I can address these questions vis-a-vis Notre Dame.

ND isn't "exempted" by filling out a form. Churches are "exempted"; universities have to participate in the process, which is formal cooperation with evil. Filling out the form initiates the process, and constitutes formal cooperation within Catholic theology. Many liberal Catholics apparently reject this view (although if ND were being required to pay for its employee's machine guns, I think they might feel differently) but it reflects Church teaching. Furthermore, courts are not competent to decide whether or not a religion's views about cooperation with evil are morally or theologically true. This is not just my opinion; the courts themselves have said it.

The HHS rule applies to all insurance plans provided by employers, not just those of people being paid '40% higher than poverty levels.' The value of one person's work is not necessarily equal to that of another person, anyway. If the institution is paying for one person's abortions, that is enough cooperation to raise a problem. It is not about the number of people.

ND provides maternity leave consistent with the FMLA.

As far as I know, ND would not fire someone for having an abortion, but it is not going to be paying for her abortion, either.

I assume your point is that if you wouldn't fire someone for having an abortion, you don't really oppose abortion. This view simply does not reflect Catholic moral theology, which distinguishes between formal and material cooperation with evil. Paying taxes to the government that are used for abortions, or paying a salary to someone that she uses for an abortion, is at most material cooperation. Directly arranging and/or paying for an abortion is formal cooperation, and that is what ND and the other institutions object to doing.

Thanks for your clarifications.

Many of these determinations are, in my mind, government overreach, but will be worked out in court. No difficulty exists for any institution who does not want federal funding determining their health policies according to their beliefs. Courts are pulled into these cases because of that funding. Since few institutions that we may be referring to do not accept federal funding, laws passed by Congress and decisions by courts are applicable. Catholic legislators in Congress who voted for this bill may have struggled with these inclusions.

I am not sure if you are advocating for Catholic or other religious institutions who do not want to participate in evil to abstain from paying taxes that may be expended for abortions? We pay taxes for wars that do not meet the "Just War" criteria and in states that have the death penalty. BTW, many European countries, including overwhelmingly Catholic Italy allow use of the abortion pill. The Church has threatened excommunication of any Catholic physicians who prescribe it.

Does a university's tax-exempt status apply to most or all of their taxes? At the same time they accept federal monies?

Do many companies or insurances pay for scheduled abortions?

I don't think you are accurate about all insurances requiring payment for abortions, especially private insurances. States have even placed restricted insurance coverage of private insurances written in those states as well as on insurances obtained through exchanges. State Policies In Brief: Restricting Insurance Coverage for Abortions

Medical standards of care dictate abortions in certain emergency cases where the mother's life is at stake - uncontrolled uterine hemorrhaging, some placental conditions, etc. Aren't these done in Catholic hospitals without contributing to evil? And by Catholic physicians who adhere to their religious beliefs? I expect that's the case.

 

[pkt77242]

ND provides maternity leave consistent with the FMLA.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if most (or even many) universities provide paid maternity leave?

I come from the world of banking where most if not all of the major banks give 12 weeks paid time off for having a baby (to the primary caregiver) or adoption and some give 1 week off to the secondary caregiver.

Honestly, it kind of makes me sad/disappointed that ND doesn't offered paid maternity leave (or for adoption).

Family and medical leave to care for a faculty member’s newborn child, the placement of a child with a faculty member, for adoption or foster care, and to care for that child, or to care for a spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition is unpaid.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Many of these determinations are, in my mind, government overreach, but will be worked out in court. No difficulty exists for any institution who does not want federal funding determining their health policies according to their beliefs. Courts are pulled into these cases because of that funding and those beliefs. Since few institutions that we may be referring to do not accept federal funding, laws passed by Congress and decisions by courts are applicable. Catholic legislatures in Congress who voted for this bill may have struggled with these inclusions.

First of all, the HHS mandate was not 'in' the Obamacare bill itself. It's a rule created by HHS as part of the "preventive services" mandate that is the bill itself. You are right that if it were included in the bill it would not have passed Congress; that's why they didn't include it.

Second, this does not have to do with accepting federal money. The Little Sisters of the Poor do not accept federal money, but they are covered by the HHS mandate too. The only institutions not covered are literally churches themselves.

I am not sure if you are advocating for Catholic or other religious institutions who do not want to participate in evil to abstain from paying taxes that may be expended for abortions? We pay taxes for wars that do not meet the "Just War" criteria and in states that have the death penalty.

No, I am not advocating that we not pay taxes. I am distinguishing between paying taxes, which might be material cooperations with evil depending on the circumstances, and paying for someone's abortion in an insurance plan. Some critics of the Church's position argue that there are no morally relevant differences between the two cases; I disagree.

Does a university's tax-exempt status apply to most or all of their taxes? At the same time they accept federal monies?

The tax example does not apply to ND specifically; I don't know much about tax law but the HHS mandate does not have to do with taxes.

Do many companies or insurance pay for scheduled abortions?

Some do, yes.

I don't think you are accurate about all insurances requiring payment for abortions, especially private insurances. States have even placed restricted insurance coverage of private insurances written in those states as well as on insurances obtained through exchanges. State Policies In Brief: Restricting Insurance Coverage for Abortions

This is a different issue: whether or not insurance plans offered on a state's "exchange" may include abortion is up to the state, but in a state where there no ban on it, there can be a rule requiring an employer to cover abortion in the insurance plan. There is litigation in CA and NY on this point right now; no other state has yet sought to do this, but more hard-left states surely will.

Also, four of the required drugs under the mandate can act as abortifacients under certain circumstances. So from the Catholic perspective we are already requiring to pay for abortions, just not surgical abortions.

Medical standards of care dictate abortions in certain emergency cases where the mother's life is at stake - uncontrolled uterine hemorrhaging, fetal death, etc. Aren't these done in Catholic hospitals without contributing to evil?

Yes, but under Catholic moral theology these are not abortions: they are some other procedure with a good end that has the foreseen by unintended effect of killing the fetus.

 

[Legacy]

First of all, the HHS mandate was not 'in' the Obamacare bill itself. It's a rule created by HHS as part of the "preventive services" mandate that is the bill itself. You are right that if it were included in the bill it would not have passed Congress; that's why they didn't include it.

Second, this does not have to do with accepting federal money. The Little Sisters of the Poor do not accept federal money, but they are covered by the HHS mandate too. The only institutions not covered are literally churches themselves.

No, I am not advocating that we not pay taxes. I am distinguishing between paying taxes, which might be material cooperations with evil depending on the circumstances, and paying for someone's abortion in an insurance plan. Some critics of the Church's position argue that there are no morally relevant differences between the two cases; I disagree.

The tax example does not apply to ND specifically; I don't know much about tax law but the HHS mandate does not have to do with taxes.

Some do, yes.

This is a different issue: whether or not insurance plans offered on a state's "exchange" may include abortion is up to the state, but in a state where there no ban on it, there can be a rule requiring an employer to cover abortion in the insurance plan. There is litigation in CA and NY on this point right now; no other state has yet sought to do this, but more hard-left states surely will.

Also, four of the required drugs under the mandate can act as abortifacients under certain circumstances. So from the Catholic perspective we are already requiring to pay for abortions, just not surgical abortions.

Yes, but under Catholic moral theology these are not abortions: they are some other procedure with a good end that has the foreseen by unintended effect of killing the fetus.

Is the litigation by the ACLU or some other group or by the federal government? (I make a distinction.)

From a Catholic perspective, one should also oppose any war that does not meet Just War criteria and the death penalty for which we pay taxes.

I imagine we do not have good stats on M/M abortion (or medical abortion) stats.

United States Abortion
DEMOGRAPHICS

Who's getting an abortion? Not who you would think

 

[Legacy]

Little Sisters of the Poor Receive Evangelium Vitae Medal

The Center for Ethics and Culture bestowed the Notre Dame Evangelium Vitae Medal, the preeminent lifetime achievement award for heroes of the pro-life movement, upon Mother Provincial Sister Loraine Marie Maguire and the Little Sisters of the Poor at a gala banquet on Saturday, April 9. More than 400 guests joined in the celebration, including many elderly residents from the St. Augustine Home in Indianapolis, one of 28 hospitality homes run by the Little Sisters across the United States.

"The Evangelium Vitae Medal recognizes those whose outstanding efforts have served to proclaim the Gospel of Life by steadfastly affirming and defending the sanctity of human life from its earliest stages until death," said Carter Snead, Director of the Center for Ethics and Culture. "That reverence for life is the cornerstone of the work of the Little Sisters of the Poor, who embody true compassion through their ministry to the more than 13,000 elderly people of every race and religion who live in their homes in 30 countries. They have given the world a powerful witness to the unique, inviolable dignity of every human person, demonstrating the radical solidarity and hospitality at the core of the Gospel of Life."

2016: Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire and the Little Sisters of the Poor

“For more than 175 years, the Little Sisters of the Poor have dedicated their lives to humble service of the most vulnerable among us,” said O. Carter Snead, William P. and Hazel B. White Director of the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture. “Their work and witness embody the goods at the heart of the Evangelium Vitae Medal. Their unwavering defense of the unborn in the HHS mandate litigation, alongside their longstanding work to care for the elderly poor, offers a beautiful and powerful witness to the unique, inviolable dignity of every person, from conception to natural death. Their work is a testament to the radical solidarity and hospitality at the core of the Gospel of Life.”

University of Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., said: “We are delighted to award this medal to the Little Sisters of the Poor to honor them for their inspiring efforts to build a Culture of Life, where every member of the human family is welcomed and embraced. They are most deserving of this year’s Evangelium Vitae Medal.”

The Little Sisters of the Poor are an international congregation of women religious dedicated to serving the elderly poor. Founded in 1839 by St. Jeanne Jugan, the Little Sisters now operate in 31 countries around the world, with 30 homes in the United States that offer health care and assisted living for more than 13,000 low-income seniors.

In 2012, led by Maguire, the Little Sisters of the Poor became the face of religious nonprofit organizations struggling against a federal mandate to facilitate access to contraceptives and drugs that (according to FDA labeling) may function by causing the death of newly conceived human beings.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Is the litigation by the ACLU or some other group or by the federal government? (I make a distinction.)

The rule is created by a state agency in these cases, not the federal government. The litigation was brought by the Catholic dioceses and other institutions that do not want to include abortion in their health plans.

From a Catholic perspective, one should also oppose any war that does not meet Just War criteria and the death penalty for which we pay taxes.

You are right that we should oppose any unjust war, but paying taxes that eventually fund a war, or the death penalty, etc., is not the same as including abortion in your health plan. The degree of cooperation involved in paying taxes, which go into a pool of money from which is taken the money for an unjust, is not nearly as much as paying directly for abortion-inducing drugs. Again, this is not only my opinion but the view of the Church. It explains why it is not wrong to pay taxes, but it is wrong to pay for insurance that includes abortion coverage.

 

[Legacy]

The Little Sisters of the Poor at the Supreme Court (National Review)

What Are the Sisters Challenging?
First, it’s important to understand that the Sisters are not challenging a law passed by Congress. Instead, the contraception mandate is a rule concocted by bureaucrats. When Congress passed Obamacare it intentionally passed the statute with a number of vague directives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) interpreted and expanded through the regulatory rulemaking process. Thus, the Obamacare statute itself does not contain a contraceptive mandate. Instead, it merely requires employers to “provide coverage” for “preventive services” for women, including “preventive care.”

What’s the Big Deal About Filing a Form?
That question, in essence, is the heart of the Left’s public argument. This is just a case about a form, they say, and filling out a form — that doesn’t require the Sisters or any other religious employer to pay for the contraceptives — can’t possibly constitute a legally recognizable burden on religious liberty. In the earlier Hobby Lobby case, the company had to pay for contraceptive coverage. Here, the Sisters don’t have to pay. They can “opt out.” The Sisters counter by noting a crucial fact — HHS still requires the Sisters to participate in the process of providing contraceptives even if that process does not include payment. They’re required to facilitate the provision of abortifacients and other contraceptives by providing the government with ongoing access to updated insurance information. Other religious employers, such as churches, don’t have to participate in the process at all. They don’t file forms. They don’t notify the government. They simply provide health plans in accordance with their religious beliefs.

What Are the Sisters’ Legal Arguments?
This case is being argued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) — a federal statute — not the First Amendment. Bill Clinton signed RFRA into law after the Supreme Court gutted the First Amendment’s free-exercise clause, striking down the traditional legal test and affording much less protection for religious liberty. RFRA represented Congress’s attempt to essentially overrule the Supreme Court. Under RFRA, if a federal law substantially burdens the free exercise of religion, it can only be enforced if it represents the “least restrictive means” of advancing a “compelling government interest.” The Sisters and their fellow petitioners argue that the government’s case fails on each part of the legal test.

Aren’t There Only Eight Supreme Court Justices?
What if The Vote is 4–4? A tie vote is essentially a non-event. It has no precedential value, and it leaves the lower court decision intact. Since the lower court ruled against the Sisters, that would mean they’d lose — at least for the time being. If the court does deadlock, it’s highly likely the case would be reargued following confirmation of a ninth justice. The Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuit courts of appeal have held that the HHS accommodation does not substantially burden religious employers’ free exercise of religion and have ruled against religious employers. The Eighth Circuit has gone the other way, ruling for two religious colleges. So a tie would preserve the confused status quo, with different religious entities in separate states living under different legal regimes.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of The Little Sisters of the Poor. Very heartened by this ruling.

 

[Legacy]

SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of The Little Sisters of the Poor. Very heartened by this ruling.

Opinion analysis: A compromise, with real impact, on birth control
Analysis

Without settling any legal issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate, the Supreme Court on Monday nevertheless cleared the way for the government to promptly provide no-cost access to contraceptives for employees and students of non-profit religious hospitals, charities, and colleges, while barring any penalties on those institutions for failing to provide that access themselves. Thirteen separate cases were sent back to federal appeals courts for them to issue new rulings on the questions the Justices left undecided. One immediate issue is how soon the government can work out the technical arrangements to provide actual access to the contraceptive benefits.

The Court largely shifted to six federal appeals courts the task of ruling on the mandate’s legality — the task that the Court had agreed last November to take on itself in seven of the cases. Five appeals courts had ruled in favor of the mandate, and one had ruled against. All were ordered to re-think those outcomes in the wake of new positions that the two sides in the controversy had made in recent filings in the pending Supreme Court cases.

The Court acted through a per curiam (“by the Court”) opinion — announced in the Courtroom by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. — dealing with the cases the Court was reviewing, along with three orders extending the effect of that opinion to six other cases that the Court had not yet agreed to hear. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote separately to stress that the Court had not decided any of the legal questions it considered in the cases, under the lead case’s title, Zubik v. Burwell, and to caution lower courts not to read anything into the new opinion and orders about where the Court stands.

Zubick et al vs Burwell (Sylvia, HHS Secretary) brief

 

[zelezo vlk]

SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of The Little Sisters of the Poor. Very heartened by this ruling.

Excellent news. It's good to see that the justices can, well, still be just.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Legacy]

From the Judicial Crisis Network's Chief Counsel and Policy Director Carrie Severino:

“Today’s decision is a slap in the face to the Obama Administration’s efforts to crush religious liberty in pursuit of its liberal agenda. This is great news for religious organizations who will now have a chance to make their case to the lower courts: there is ample room for compromise if the government will actually do what it claimed it was doing, allowing religious groups to simply raise their hands as objectors so the government can provide their employees contraceptives through other means. The nuns called their bluff, and the Supreme Court’s remand recognizes that this is a game changer. Despite the nuns’ victory, however, the decision highlights the stakes for the next Supreme Court justice. Forcing nuns to provide contraceptives is obviously unconstitutional and at odds with federal law, but the Court couldn’t find a majority to recognize that fact today.”

JCN's Severino, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, is also opposing Merrick Garland's nomination to the court with meetings with Senators and a $2 million ad campaign. Garland was a clerk for Justice William Brennan.

Perhaps SCOTUS may issue more "per curiam" opinions until a ninth Supreme Court Justice has been approved, remanding cases back with guidance while avoiding binding decisions when the Court is split.

 

[EddytoNow]

New York has joined California in attempting to require Catholic institutions -including churches, dioceses, etc.- to pay for abortions. This is the purpose of the HHS abortifacient/contraceptive mandate: to eventually require all Catholic employers, including Notre Dame, to pay for their employees' abortions.

Law professor John Breen observes that as with the HHS abortifacient/contraceptive mandate, this policy was established by the bureaucracy, not by legislation, because it would not be approved by a legislature. Thus it is an attack not only upon religious liberty and the unborn but also upon democratic government itself.

IMHO, there is a solution.

1. Catholic institutions should be required to offer healthcare, but not required to offer insurance that covers abortions.
2. A separate sum of money is provided to each employee to fund a health savings account.
3. Employees wanting abortion coverage use the extra sum to pay for that coverage.
4. Employees not wanting the abortion coverage can use the extra sum to pay their deductible or co-insurance costs. They might even be given the option of using this fund to pay for an adoption.

With this solution, the church is not making a decision to fund abortions. They are providing a specific amount of money to pay for healthcare. The individual is making the choice as to whether or not they want to use their health care account for abortion coverage (obtained privately) or to reduce their out-of-pocket healthcare costs.

This could also enable those unable to get pregnant an option for spending their healthcare benefits wisely. Those unable to get pregnant might even be permitted to use the extra health care benefit to pay for adoption costs.

For those who would argue the church is still paying for the abortion, albeit in a round-about way, I would ask them to ponder the following.

Catholics, who are employed in some capacity by a Catholic institution, earn wages that they spend on life's expenses. Some choose to spend those wages on the excessive use of alchohol, pornography, illegal drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Some even buy guns that end up being used to kill someone else. Catholics, like members of other denominations, use their wages to cheat on their spouses. Are these not all sins in the eyes of the church? Using the same logic as the church applies to providing abortion coverage in their health insurance plans, the church's money should not be used to fund an individual's pursuit of sin. Therefore, my question is where do you draw the line? Should the church be allowed to deduct the cost of your alcohol usage from your wages? What about the money you spend on gambling? Should you write a check to the church paying back the money you spent on dinner and hotel rooms for your mistress? If you purchase a gun and that gun ends up being used to kill someone else, should you write out a check to the church for using your wages to do something of which the church disapproves.

 

[Legacy]

The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050
Why Muslims Are Rising Fastest and the Unaffiliated Are Shrinking as a Share of the World’s Population

Over the next four decades, Christians will remain the largest religious group, but Islam will grow faster than any other major religion. If current trends continue, by 2050 … (Below excerpted)

-- The number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world.
-- In Europe, Muslims will make up 10% of the overall population.
-- In the United States, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, and Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion.
--Muslims will be more numerous in the U.S. than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion.

Islam Growing Fastest | Pew Research Center (graphic)

Religious Composition of the United States, 2010-2050 | Pew Research Center (graphic)

The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

Extremism Widely Rejected

Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam. Asked specifically about suicide bombing, clear majorities in most countries say such acts are rarely or never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies.

In most countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians. And in most countries, the prevailing view is that such acts are never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies. Yet there are some countries in which substantial minorities think violence against civilians is at least sometimes justified. This view is particularly widespread among Muslims in the Palestinian territories (40%), Afghanistan (39%), Egypt (29%) and Bangladesh (26%).

 

[Legacy]

State-by-State Percentage of White Evangelicals, Catholics, and Black Protestants
(November 02, 2004) Percents divided into White Evangelicals, Catholics and Black Protestants categories

 

[IrishLax]

Elderly Christian woman stripped naked and paraded through streets by mob | Africa | News | The Independent

At least we're not Egypt

 

[ACamp1900]

At least we're not Egypt

If you listen/subscribe to the base narrative we basically are...

 

[NDgradstudent]

Elderly Christian woman stripped naked and paraded through streets by mob | Africa | News | The Independent

At least we're not Egypt

Not yet, although the virtual version of this happened to the evil pizza parlor outside of SB last year.

 

[clashmore_jon]

Popularity of an idea doesn't guarantee it is correct, it just makes groupthink far more likely.

You're saying this in a pro-religious context?!

 

[gkIrish]

Pakistani Woman Burns Daughter Alive for Eloping - ABC News

 

[wizards8507]

Pakistani Woman Burns Daughter Alive for Eloping - ABC News

Yet for some reason the feminists won't say a word.

I'm a feminist and I converted to Islam - CNN.com

 

[gkIrish]

Yet for some reason the feminists won't say a word.

I'm a feminist and I converted to Islam - CNN.com

We live in a world where anything that contradicts "white, Christian, middle-class, male" goes together. Logic be damned.

 

[ACamp1900]

We live in a world where anything that contradicts "white, Christian, middle-class, male" goes together. Logic be damned.

 

[dshans]

Yet for some reason the feminists won't say a word

I call bullshit on this.