i am awaiting...

[markfiend]

My objection to religious exceptions is not the same, but, I suppose, related to EvilBastard's views. The Catholic hospital (or school, or whatever) is not a person and does not therefore have personal rights, such as that to religious liberty. Its employees are people with the rights and liberties. Any member of the Church is entirely at liberty to defy its teachings on birth control (and given that the birth-rate for US Catholics isn't noticeably higher than that of other Americans, they quite clearly do); surely this is entirely the point of "freedom of conscience"?

It's like the pharmacists who try to claim (and shockingly, have been allowed to claim) that their freedom of conscience should allow them to refuse to dispense contraceptives. If you don't want to do your job—the dispensing of drugs which have been prescribed by a doctor—find another line of work.

[EvilBastard]

The Catholic hospital (or school, or whatever) is not a person and does not therefore have personal rights, such as that to religious liberty...It's like the pharmacists who try to claim (and shockingly, have been allowed to claim) that their freedom of conscience should allow them to refuse to dispense contraceptives. If you don't want to do your job—the dispensing of drugs which have been prescribed by a doctor—find another line of work.

That's very much the problem in the US - corporations have successfully argued that they are "legal persons" with all the rights (but of course not the responsibilities) appertaining to "natural persons". This definition only comes up when the government tries to pass a law that they disagree with (like being obliged to provide certain types of medical insurance) - when it comes to other things (like wanting to avoid paying taxes on the basis that this "legal person" is actually a "charitable institution") then they are most definitely not people (people cannot be held to be charitable institutions, and therefore must pay taxes).

[markfiend]

Yeah I'm aware of the whole "legal persons" thing. It's blatant bulls**t isn't it?

[DeWinter]

My favourite piece of US corporate bastardry is "malicious compliance", which loosely seems to be following the management line knowing they're making a balls-up. It's you who'll get the sack for being "disruptive" one way, and you getting the sack the other. Without having broken the law or your employment contract. Clever in a heinously sociopathic way.

[stufarq]

Catholic institutions (colleges, hospitals, etc) are expected to provide health insurance for their employees.

Expected by whom?

They are expected to do so by the Church.

The Church expects it of Catholic universities. Saying "the Protestants don't have to do it" is pointless. It's like saying that they don't have to keep kosher. The Church hierarchy expects it. And frankly, if a pious Catholic who runs a business unaffiliated with the Church chooses to provide insurance to his or her employees, I don't see why he or she should be have no option but to pay for coverage that he or she considers sinful.

You appear to be saying that the Church expects its own institutions to provide insurance policies that go against their religious beliefs. This would seem, on the surface, to be rather poorly thought through on the part of the Church. However, here:

I'll respond to the other comments later (I'm between classes), but legally mandating that religious organizations purchase insurance plans that are incompatible with their religious beliefs is an infringement of their religious liberty. If the Catholic church thinks abortifacients are sinful, why should Catholic institutions be required to pay for them through insurance plans that cover them?

you appear to be saying that it's a legal requirement. Granted it could be both but then arguing that "the Church expects it" would be both self-defeating to your argument and a rather odd way to answer EvilBastard's question.

[sultan2075]

Expected by whom?

They are expected to do so by the Church.

The Church expects it of Catholic universities. Saying "the Protestants don't have to do it" is pointless. It's like saying that they don't have to keep kosher. The Church hierarchy expects it. And frankly, if a pious Catholic who runs a business unaffiliated with the Church chooses to provide insurance to his or her employees, I don't see why he or she should be have no option but to pay for coverage that he or she considers sinful.

You appear to be saying that the Church expects its own institutions to provide insurance policies that go against their religious beliefs. This would seem, on the surface, to be rather poorly thought through on the part of the Church. However, here:

I'll respond to the other comments later (I'm between classes), but legally mandating that religious organizations purchase insurance plans that are incompatible with their religious beliefs is an infringement of their religious liberty. If the Catholic church thinks abortifacients are sinful, why should Catholic institutions be required to pay for them through insurance plans that cover them?

you appear to be saying that it's a legal requirement. Granted it could be both but then arguing that "the Church expects it" would be both self-defeating to your argument and a rather odd way to answer EvilBastard's question.

I guess I've been unclear. The Church expects Catholic institutions to provide insurance plans for employees (a requirement of Catholic social teaching). The US government is requiring that those insurance plans cover things that the Church considers sinful (according to Catholic moral teaching). If Catholic colleges fail to provide insurance, they run the risk of their institution being severed from the Church. The problem is that the federal government wants to tell them what must be in those insurance plans. The federal government is saying that if insurance is purchased, it must include things that the Church objects to; the Church is saying that Catholic institutions must provide health coverage for employees. So, Catholic institutions are caught between fidelity to the Church or fidelity to the government.

[stufarq]

^^ Right, I see. I misunderstood you, sorry. But in that case, my first point stands: isn't the Church rather shooting itself in the foot by insisting on health insurance when it knows that the avilable packages go against its teachings and it isn't legally obliged to provide health insurance in the first place? It would make more sense (from the Church's pint of view) to stipulate that its colleges should provide insurance as long as that insurance is compatible with Catholic teachings.