A majority of Americans say religiously affiliated organizations — such as hospitals and universities — should be exempt from the Obama administration’s abortion/contraceptive mandate, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.
The survey found that by a 57-36 percent margin, U.S. adults believe religious organizations should be allowed to “opt out” of covering birth control for their female employees. The poll did not use the word “abortion,” although Christian leaders say the mandate would require them to cover contraceptives that can cause chemical abortions.
The poll also found that 51 percent of adults believe that any employer — and not just the ones with religious ties — should be able to opt out if they find such coverage objectionable based on religious or moral beliefs. Forty percent disagree.
What should be shocking is the large number of people opposed to freedom of religion and conscience.
What is also shocking is the fact that people think that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to tell people that they must buy something. What we have here is a difference between the unconstitutional and the really, really unconstitutional.
What is truly amazing is how we have become blinded to the fact that we all ought to be purchasing our own health insurance like we purchase our own home insurance. And how blind we have become to believe that the Fed Govt should dictate what is in our policies. And how many people blindly believe the Fed Govt knows best in making key decisions in their lives.
That 36% wouldn’t dare let Barack Obama decide which reality show they could watch on TV, but they have no problem letting Barack Obama decide what their healthcare future is going to look like. Says a lot about priorities, no?
A shame that people think that this exemption should be for groups. Our constitution shouldn’t give more rights to corporations than to individuals. We’re supposed to have individual rights.
Maybe more Americans are beginning to understand how important religious freedom and religious teachings are when they coincide with common sense, after all, most people who pay health insurance premiums think their health insurance premiums are already too high and surely they must realize how much higher their premiums will be when insurance companies (or the government) pass on birth control costs and abortion surgery costs to the American people who will be forced to pay extremely high insurance premiums.
Before y’all get your hopes too high…
Looking at the RCP average against the rest of the poll, this may be an outlier.
If you ask most americans should people be able to express their religion, they will say “yes.” as they should.
If you ask people if an employer should be able to dictate their employee the options they can have in the market, they will be less likely to agree.
Essentially, we’re asking, should a religious employer be able to tell an employee how to purchase, buy or think?
The compromise was to say an employee be able to purchase directly from the insurance company.
And we are fortunate for this. Because offering birth control and abortions means fewer health costs for those who want to have children. Prenatal care and postnatal care are costs for others, and are spread throughout the pool. Contraception is much less expensive. A more economically accurate choice would be for those who want a “religious” insurance plan to pay a few hundred dollars more than a plan that included all the options protected by law.
Good point JW: toss in after-birth abortion, euthanasia, worth-tested care and we’ll have this nation whipped into shape as the new superior people in no time flat as we successfully weed out the worthless and the cost-ineffective ones.
But one thing; who will be making all these important decisions? It’ll have to be someone pretty smart won’t it? Won’t it be kinda tough to get everyone to agree on the criteria? Oh, you mean we won’t get to vote on it? I see, it will be unelected smart people who will do the heavy lifting. I’m not so sure that has worked out so well before.
I understand the commerce clause debate. That issue is before the SCOTUS and we will have an answer at some point. That is not a religious freedom debate.
However, I am having a difficult time with the moral arguments here. As I understand it, the argument is an employer should be able to direct their insurance company to not cover medical services or products (in this case contraception but possibly other things) if the employer finds use of the service or product objectionable based on religious or moral beliefs.
But, What is the difference between paying an insurance company money it may use to pay for contraception, and paying an employee money he or she will use to pay for contraception?
In the case at hand, isn’t the only consistant position of the employer that it will not employ any individual who uses contraception, and would not that position make the issue of insurance coverage moot as no employee would need coverage for contraception?