Christian College Files Lawsuit Over HHS Mandate to Provide Contraceptives

[natepro]

Forcing them to pay for contraceptive coverage is ridiculous. Federal government overreach to the max.

[natepro]

So, should their moral beliefs (derived from their religion) get them exempt from providing contraceptives?

Obviously not. What medical care you receive should not be determined by the whims of your employer's religious beliefs. I have yet to see a decent argument stating why it should be.

It is also hard not to notice that these are, once again, limits placed only on women. How surprising that is!




I looked on Wheaton's homepage, and they currently offer Blue Cross Blue Shield of IL, along with a Flexible Spending Account. It is hard for me to believe neither of these things aren't already going to pay for things they don't support. And if they don't support them, fantastic! They're free not to use any of it. They're not free to dictate that others don't, as well.

[avrpatsfan]

I don't see why insurance companies are being forced to provide contraceptives.

Condoms aren't that expensive, if you can't afford contraception, you probably shouldn't be engaging in financially risky behavior anyways. That's how I see it.

[flips333]

Yes 18-22 year olds are constantly weighing the long term consequences of their actions. If they **** up by ****ing, **** um'. Oh or they could just abort the fetus!

[hoggin88]

Obviously not. What medical care you receive should not be determined by the whims of your employer's religious beliefs. I have yet to see a decent argument stating why it should be.

It is also hard not to notice that these are, once again, limits placed only on women. How surprising that is!




I looked on Wheaton's homepage, and they currently offer Blue Cross Blue Shield of IL, along with a Flexible Spending Account. It is hard for me to believe neither of these things aren't already going to pay for things they don't support. And if they don't support them, fantastic! They're free not to use any of it. They're not free to dictate that others don't, as well.

I'll admit I don't know the legal aspect of everything here. But, having gone to this college, this article is all over my facebook home feed with alumni saying the government should not be allowed to enforce this upon a private religious institution. It would seem that a private religious institution should be able to set some of its guidelines to which students and employees can either agree to before starting there, or go somewhere else.

I don't even agree with their views but I still am inclined to feel this way in this particular case. I personally don't think I would even care if a religious institution refused to provide any health care at all if they thought it was immoral for whatever reason, as long as all students and employees knew this before hand, and the institution stay separate from government affairs. Doesn't this apply to separation of church and state to an extent? Can the government really mandate that a religious institution go against their beliefs? Because to be honest, I would rather the government stay out of their business and religion to stay out of the government's business.


Unfortunately though, Wheaton really took a step back with this new president that started there a few years ago. They were really starting to progress well, long abandoning young earth beliefs, lifting bans on dress codes, opening up to stem cell research, raising a lot of awareness for gender quality, etc. Then this guy comes in and holds the view that males are meant to be spiritual leaders over women. Doesn't surprise me to see him holding this position against women.

[hoggin88]

Yes 18-22 year olds are constantly weighing the long term consequences of their actions. If they **** up by ****ing, **** um'. Oh or they could just abort the fetus!

That phrase "abort the fetus" translates as "kill the child" to Christians since they believe life begins at conception. To them you are basically saying, "If teenagers make a mistake they should have the right to murder their baby". Since the question of when life begins is arbitrary, I'm not sure if I agree the government should have the power to control this situation. The question of when life begins is scientific, philosophical, but ultimately: arbitrary.

That's why I don't think women should be denied the right to have these plan b medications by any means, but I don't necessarily think this religious institution should be required to provide it, especially considering these students/employees are aware of the situation going in. As stupid as it seems, that seems appropriate to me.

[homestarunner93]

Jokes on you.

[dbroncos78087]

Wheaton has achieved its real goal here. Who before this had ever heard of Wheaton?

Unless you're from the area, you would say "where the **** is Wheaton?". I would have guessed Iowa because that state would name a college after wheat.

[flips333]

That phrase "abort the fetus" translates as "kill the child" to Christians since they believe life begins at conception. To them you are basically saying, "If teenagers make a mistake they should have the right to murder their baby". Since the question of when life begins is arbitrary, I'm not sure if I agree the government should have the power to control this situation. The question of when life begins is scientific, philosophical, but ultimately: arbitrary.

That's why I don't think women should be denied the right to have these plan b medications by any means, but I don't necessarily think this religious institution should be required to provide it, especially considering these students/employees are aware of the situation going in. As stupid as it seems, that seems appropriate to me.

My point which I guess the joke didn't get across is that the two viewpoints... Pro-life and anti-contraception are opposed. In places where family planning is paid for there are far far less abortions. So saying screw these kids, don't give them the pill, is like saying we are ok with more baby killing. Condoms and the pill not only prevent pregnancy,they prevent abortion.

[b1e9a8r5s]

Wheaton has achieved its real goal here. Who before this had ever heard of Wheaton?

Unless you're from the area, you would say "where the **** is Wheaton?". I would have guessed Iowa because that state would name a college after wheat.

Wheaton is a pretty big deal amogst evangelicals. Billy Graham went there. Granted, I do live in IL and have had friends that went there. They had been very strict in terms of code of conduct as a previous poster mentioned. When my friends went there (about 10 years ago) they didn't allow dancing. It's a very good school and is hard to get into.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...n-college-1781

[b1e9a8r5s]

My point which I guess the joke didn't get across is that the two viewpoints... Pro-life and anti-contraception are opposed. In places where family planning is paid for there are far far less abortions. So saying screw these kids, don't give them the pill, is like saying we are ok with more baby killing. Condoms and the pill not only prevent pregnancy,they prevent abortion.

The opposing point is no one is stopping them from getting them in general. They just don't want to provide them, because in their view, abstinence is the best course of action. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[dbroncos78087]

If we grant morality exemptions to our laws are we really a nation that follows a rule of law? What about speed camera to those who think that being photographed is bad for you? Would we let thei moral objection override the obvious benefit to speed cameras the same way we do for this? Of course not.

It sounds like this "mandate" reinforces he notion that it is the employee's health insurance and not the company's that the person works for.

If the employee wants acces to birth control there have been many lawsuits leading up to Row v Wade that establish personal protection to these practices under the Constitution.

[flips333]

The opposing point is no one is stopping them from getting them in general. They just don't want to provide them, because in their view, abstinence is the best course of action. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

If you are pro-life and you know by doing something you will cut down on the number of abortions from 20to 60% then it is unreasonable. It is also unreasonable to think that 19 year olds aint gonna pork each other.

[flips333]

Wheaton is a pretty big deal amogst evangelicals. Billy Graham went there. Granted, I do live in IL and have had friends that went there. They had been very strict in terms of code of conduct as a previous poster mentioned. When my friends went there (about 10 years ago) they didn't allow dancing. It's a very good school and is hard to get into.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandre...n-college-1781

The joke at my school was allways you can find a party at every school I the state... Except Wheaton.

[hoggin88]

Wheaton has achieved its real goal here. Who before this had ever heard of Wheaton?

Unless you're from the area, you would say "where the **** is Wheaton?". I would have guessed Iowa because that state would name a college after wheat.

I guarantee there plenty of good schools that dbroncos78087 and the average psd'er hasn't heard of. I assure you they didn't do this for the sake of mere publicity, they don't need it. It is already a well funded school and it is very competitive to get in. The average ACT score there is around 30.

Essentially, "I haven't heard of them, therefore they must be some fringe school and faulty insincere or faulty in their reasoning." Ad hominem anyone?

If we grant morality exemptions to our laws are we really a nation that follows a rule of law? What about speed camera to those who think that being photographed is bad for you? Would we let thei moral objection override the obvious benefit to speed cameras the same way we do for this? Of course not.

It sounds like this "mandate" reinforces he notion that it is the employee's health insurance and not the company's that the person works for.

If the employee wants acces to birth control there have been many lawsuits leading up to Row v Wade that establish personal protection to these practices under the Constitution.

Now this makes sense, and I think I probably fall into this viewpoint. Basically if someone has a religion where it is alright to rape someone, they should not and would not be granted a legal exception to practice it. I can just wonder where the line is drawn for separation of church and state. I'm thinking this probably doesn't fall in that separation.