Liberal Forum

I have cross posted this in my 'Favorite Clem Kadiddlehopper Quotes' thread, and am anxiously awaiting a reply.Once we've accepted the principle that employers or insurance providers have the right to refuse coverage of any services, treatments, or medications included in a health-care mandate that clashes with their moral or religious beliefs, (see Senator Roy Blunt's [R] bill), where does it stop? Can you be denied blood transfusions or surgery, because your employer's religion forbids it?Can gay people be denied HIV testing because being gay clashes with their employer's or insurance carrier's moral beliefs?The first is a legitimate question and far, far more pertinent because it involves literally saving someone's life in an emergency situation or integral to arguable life saving operations. However if someone wants to take an AIDS test, they don't need the cooperation of a health insurance. It's cheap and easy to get one. Why pressure a religious organization over that?Other than to exert the power of the state over their religious beliefs?Mandating birth control, which has no immediate effect on anyone's health and is also easily and cheaply available to anyone who wants it, clearly violates the Catholic Church's Constitutional Right to free expression of religion, as supported by the cases I cited.I guess you didn't really understand my question. Those were just two examples I gave off the top of my head.I was speaking more generally about the scope of Roy Blunt's amendment, which would allow employers (and/or insurance carriers) to opt out of federal benefit mandates that violate, not just their religious beliefs, but their moral beliefs as well.That could cover a very wide range of services, treatments or medications.As I pointed out, Obamacare's mandate is for a cheap, easily available product. There is absolutely no reason to mandate it on Catholic organizations, other than to make the State's values trump the Catholic Church's, other than for for sheer political purposes to help Obama's re-election.Are you really such a dense jackass, or do you just play one on this forum?Once again, I was talking about Roy Blunt's amendment which would allow employers (and/or insurance carriers) to opt out of federal benefit mandates, not just for contraceptives, but for ANY treatment or ANY condition they claimed was contrary to their religious and/or MORAL beliefs as well.Moral beliefs don't necessarily have anything to do with any church, Catholic or otherwise.An employer could deny treatment for cervical cancer, because it's caused by HPV, which is transmitted sexually.Or they could deny coverage for treatment of alcoholism or any health issue associated with drinking, if that is against their moral beliefs.