I of course believe in cancer. But being able to retract treatment options based on your institutions beliefs would open the door for so many exemptions. This would be fine if we had a free market of sorts with employers offering insurance plans to attract and retain employees. Soon to be mandatory offerings with a minimum level of care throws a wrench in the "freeness" of the market. Employers of dubious nature will now have to hit a very low target, and anything to make it lower will be free game in their books.
- Status
I of course believe in cancer. But being able to retract treatment options based on your institutions beliefs would open the door for so many exemptions. This would be fine if we had a free market of sorts with employers offering insurance plans to attract and retain employees. Soon to be mandatory offerings with a minimum level of care throws a wrench in the "freeness" of the market. Employers of dubious nature will now have to hit a very low target, and anything to make it lower will be free game in their books.
I understand your point, but cancer vs birth control(even if for medicinal purposes)? Keep in mind, medical conditions are too much hair growth, acne, pain, cramps, heavy flow... I really dont deem those as on par with cancer... papercut maybe... cancer no.
And again, I dont accept slippery slope arguments.
I don't have a uterus (unless you count the one in a jar in my basement) or a medical degree, but endometriosis and ovarian cysts probably warrant a bit more treatment than a paper cut.
I don't think armchair diagnosing the severity/legitimacy of other people's medical conditions is that strong of an argument against any particular treatment option.
Hormone imbalances that can cause complications with other medical conditions is not serious? Ovarian Cysts? An ounce of prevention?
So you agree that anyone with religious qualms about a given treatment should be exempt from providing insurance coverage for said treatment, even when the medical community recommends it? Man's interpretation of God's law trumps science?
I'm not Catholic, but I doubt they have an issue with hormones prescribed for those conditions. Dunno, just thinking out loud.
By refusing to provide certain types of medical treatment such as birth control because it goes against church teachings. Last time I checked hormonal birth control requires a prescription from a medical doctor, a medical examination, and supervision for possible life threatening side effects. Reproductive health includes the right to choose when or if you want have children.
It's so easy to forget. It's ironic considering Catholics were descriminated against in Protestant colonial American. Again, those wise Founding Fathers created the "No religious test clause" in Article Six of the US Constitution for a reason.
That's right the Catholic church is an employer that is providing medical benefits but choosing not to provide certain medical benefits based on church morality. You're pretty blind if you don't consider reproductive health a medical condition. Do they not cover antibiotics if you have a STI?
Spoken like someone truly ignorant of the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church. There are many church approved methods for reproductive health. Ever heard of NaProTECHNOLOGY? As for when and when not to have children there is always Natural Family Planning. But you know thats not near as easy as popping a pill every morning. So for all your arguments that the Church is forcing its beliefs on people when in reality they offer alternatives to traditional hormonal treatment that accomplish the same goal but still meet the teachings of the Church
You know what's truly ignorant is assuming that everyone who works for a Catholic institution, attends a Catholic school, or seeks charity from a Catholic organization is in fact Catholic themselves! As for the Catholic alternatives that's great if you want check mucus and don't indulge in spontaneous sexual activity.
I know you are, but what am I?
- Status
Similar threads
