Editorial: Right decision on birth control

  • Article
  • Updated: January 29, 2012 - 6:14 PM

Requirement balances religious freedom, equity, public health.

  • 61
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
ricochet101Jan. 29, 12 7:04 PM

What other First Amendment rights shall we suspend for the public good? Maybe freedom of the press could be denied or freedom of speech! I don`t imagine this article`s author would much care for that idea under any circumstances! If this mandate stands(I don`t believe it will) then the Amish can be expected to start paying into Social Security and health plans. The Quakers can forget about conscientious objector considerations from military service. Jehovah witnesses will be prosecuted for not allowing blood transfusions.Woman have no explicit right to contraception in our Constitution but churches have the explicit right to freedom of religion in our Constitution! Which one wins at our Supreme Court? If contraception trumps religion then Catholic or other religious based hospitals can expect to be forced to perform abortions in the near future or close their hospitals. Of course Catholic health facilities will close and woman will get nothing!

pitythefoolsJan. 29, 12 7:56 PM

It's been many years since we visited an obstetrician, but I do remember we walked into the obstetrics office our insurance recommended, saw the crucifix on the wall and walked right back out. I want a Dr. woho believes in MEDICINE not RELIGION for their decisions diagnosis.

davewtcJan. 29, 12 8:23 PM

"Critics, such as New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, blasted the decision as an attack on religious freedom." >> He means the "religious freedom" to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

lalahemJan. 29, 12 8:40 PM

They are free to practice their religion to their heart's content. They are NOT free to dictate anyone else's choices. If they choose to employ staff, then that staff must be treated the same as any other employee in the state or the country. The Catholic Church wants to have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps they haven't gotten over the Reformation.

tufi001Jan. 29, 12 9:00 PM

The Bishops are in no position to tell women how to manage their bodies. Of all people, Bishops and the record of priests abusing children, they should have no voice at the table. Besides that Catholic church is non profit, it should not be involved in politics ... or they should pay taxes!! It' their choice politics or taxes. Of course, they'll choose no taxes.

davewtcJan. 29, 12 9:11 PM

@tufi001 Jan. 29, 12 9:00 PM "... Besides that Catholic church is non profit, it should not be involved in politics ... or they should pay taxes!! It' their choice politics or taxes. Of course, they'll choose no taxes." > Wrong. They choose both and, because all politicians are gutless - or worse, sympathetic - they get away with it.

sellisJan. 30, 12 3:52 AM

Hard to believe that there is still a "debate" about the wide availability of birth control. There are limits to the degree in which employers can control their workers' private lives - of course bosses have a right to insist employees are not stoners, but reproductive issues are entirely personal. Does no one remember the old saying : "birth control is the safety fence at the top of the cliff. Abortion is the ambulance coming to attend to someone at the bottom." Or is that too radical a concept to the God botherers?

gener7Jan. 30, 12 6:58 AM

ricochet101 - the place for your religion is in church, not in a doctor's office. If your faith does not allow you to do a job, find a different job. We've allowed people exemptions from military service based on their faith, if you can't do contraception, then be a dentist.

gener7Jan. 30, 12 7:07 AM

lalahem - actually, just recently the Supreme Court ruled in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. that churches don't have to treat employees just like everybody else. Something about First Amendment rights of churches trumping rights in general.

noslo55Jan. 30, 12 7:49 AM

This is not a case of religous freedom. It is a case of employer/employee relationships, and what an employer can offer in their healthplans to their employees. There was a case in Michigan, where an employer would fire anyone who smoked at anytime. The employer did not want to provide insuranse for smoking related deceases. This was challenged and it stood up. I don't know how these 2 incidents can coexist. If you don't like the health care plan provided go out and get your own.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters