IMO, We need a law to require a separation of church and healthcare

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Jan 01, 2015 3:43 AM GMT
    I don't know if it would require a change in the Constitution or if it could be done through Congress (obviously not the current Congress).

    Healthcare decisions should be between the healthcare provider and the patient. Religious organizations should not decide what treatment a patient gets or does not get.


    US Bishops Working To Ban Hospitals From Providing Women With Common Form Of Birth Control

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/_us_bishops_quietly_halt_hospitals_from_providing_women_with_common_form_of_birth_control
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Jan 01, 2015 3:43 AM GMT
    10402731_10152639466626275_6656710079924
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2015 5:59 AM GMT
    "Church" should have no claim to anything other than religion. God does not perform surgeries or pick up prescriptions at the drug store.

    The only thing worse than religion are Republicans, and they basically go hand in hand.

    You're never going to get a separation because lobbyists from religious sectors dump tons of money into getting their way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2015 7:04 AM GMT
    Sure, who is going to make up all the gap in funding they give?

    I don't like them anymore than the next person, but asking the hundreds of thousands of poor people they help with healthcare to suffer for agnostic virtue is not any better than denying them birth control on religious grounds..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2015 5:06 PM GMT
    Misleading as usual. Catholic bishops are only banning Catholic hospitals and associated facilities from performing procedures counter to Catholic teaching. Not all as insinuated. No one forces anyone to go to a Catholic or and other religious affiliated healthcare provider. You want your tubes tied - go somewhere else, not to a facility run by Catholics. It's as simple as that. People stop going; they close down.

    Separation of church and state is a one way street. The US GOVERNMENT is not to establish a state religion or prevent the people the exercise of their particular religion.

    "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    I'm sure it would be difficult to pass a constitutional amendment requiring the separation of church and healthcare as it would be seen as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Catholic Church has been providing healthcare in this country before it was even a country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2015 5:14 PM GMT
    We are supposed to have separation of church and state and federal laws are supposed to be non- discriminatory. Obamacare threw those both under the bus . Mandatory healthcare discriminates based on sex, age and income and forces big pharma on those that find it morally and religiously repugnant
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Jan 02, 2015 6:29 PM GMT
    Adam228 saidSure, who is going to make up all the gap in funding they give?

    I don't like them anymore than the next person, but asking the hundreds of thousands of poor people they help with healthcare to suffer for agnostic virtue is not any better than denying them birth control on religious grounds..


    Do these religions contribute money to these hospitals or are they using these hospitals to make money? Healthcare would not end if churches stopped deciding what kind of healthcare to provide to people.
  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Jan 02, 2015 6:37 PM GMT
    Charts: Catholic Hospitals Don't Do Much for the Poor


    "Ever-expanding swaths of the country are now served only by a Catholic hospital, where patients have no choice but to receive care dictated by Catholic bishops whose religious edicts don't always align with what's best for a patient."

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/catholic-hospitals-arent-doing-much-poor
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2015 7:49 PM GMT
    Separation of church and state is a two way street as already established in the Constitution, as elaborated and clarified by the founding father who put it there, as understood and exercised by the Supremes and as enforced by the government variously.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
    ..."Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States....

    ...Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."


    To the application of the principal to the topic of healthcare...

    http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_rcc_health_sep.htm
    When a church is affiliated with or runs a hospital, they are justified in having a say in how the institution is run. This principle is not only supported by basic religious freedom, but also by the fact that private organizations should have as much freedom as possible in deciding how they will operate.

    But the situation just isn't (that) simple. The fact of the matter is, all hospitals - including Catholic hospitals - receive public funding.

    How is it possible for religious organizations to receive public funding and then deny legal health services to the public? Because Congress has granted them exceptions - starting with a "conscience clause" enacted in 1973 which permitted health-care organizations to refuse to provide certain services like abortion or sterilization if those services violated religious or moral convictions...

    ...But wait, it gets worse. In 1997 Congress permitted Medicaid managed plans (which are publicly funded) to refuse to "provide, reimburse for, or provide coverage of a counseling or referral service if the organization objects to the provision of such service on moral or religious grounds...


    So is this a matter of "requiring a change in the Constitution" or simply bringing the Constitution to bear.

    Constant vigilance.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Jan 03, 2015 3:30 PM GMT
    EZ2Talk2 said"Church" should have no claim to anything other than religion. God does not perform surgeries or pick up prescriptions at the drug store.

    The only thing worse than religion are Republicans, and they basically go hand in hand.

    You're never going to get a separation because lobbyists from religious sectors dump tons of money into getting their way.
    Not all republicans are what you perceive them to be. You need to stop stereotyping all republicans as ignorant, backward, and intolerant because not all of them fall into that negative category. It is only the conservative, right wing of the GOP that is opposing anything that benefits the population as a whole.
  • LJay

    Posts: 11612

    Jan 04, 2015 1:34 AM GMT
    Please, Bob, tell us much more about the left wing of the Republican party, particularly the names of the legislators and accounts of their actions.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 04, 2015 3:01 AM GMT
    metta8 saidCharts: Catholic Hospitals Don't Do Much for the Poor


    "Ever-expanding swaths of the country are now served only by a Catholic hospital, where patients have no choice but to receive care dictated by Catholic bishops whose religious edicts don't always align with what's best for a patient."

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/catholic-hospitals-arent-doing-much-poor


    the article is biased and false.

    If a patient is in a catholic hospital and bills medicare and or medicaid of course it has a right to the funds ( where 50% ) of the funding comes from.

    The chart leaves out the other significant patient load. One that has NO MEDICAID, NO MEDICARE , NO INSURANCE.

    catholic hospitals take care of illegal immigrants.

    By the way emergency abortions are rare. However uninsured illegals are not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 6:26 AM GMT
    Let's see, what's a good way to decrease the elective abortion rate? Could it possibly be by decreasing the numbers of unplanned pregnancies? Don't worry, the Catholic Church will eventually figure it out. Shit, it only took them 350 years to admit Galileo was right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 6:31 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    metta8 saidCharts: Catholic Hospitals Don't Do Much for the Poor


    "Ever-expanding swaths of the country are now served only by a Catholic hospital, where patients have no choice but to receive care dictated by Catholic bishops whose religious edicts don't always align with what's best for a patient."

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/catholic-hospitals-arent-doing-much-poor


    the article is biased and false.

    If a patient is in a catholic hospital and bills medicare and or medicaid of course it has a right to the funds ( where 50% ) of the funding comes from.

    The chart leaves out the other significant patient load. One that has NO MEDICAID, NO MEDICARE , NO INSURANCE.

    catholic hospitals take care of illegal immigrants.

    By the way emergency abortions are rare. However uninsured illegals are not.



    What's much more common than uninsured undocumented aliens, are uninsured American citizens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 10:08 PM GMT
    metta8 said10402731_10152639466626275_6656710079924


    ..and it reduces abortions, an important ramification those bishops should be considering, but then that would require thinking outside the confines of religious dogma, which they can't do.

    Or won't.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Jan 04, 2015 11:34 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    metta8 said10402731_10152639466626275_6656710079924


    ..and it reduces abortions, an important ramification those bishops should be considering, but then that would require thinking outside the confines of religious dogma, which they can't do.

    Or won't.


    First off oral contraceptives and condoms are readily obtainable for free in just about every state.

    You are conflating 2 issues.
    Abortion access which is not a problem in the US ,and long term contraception.

    The fact is there are OTC and prescription birth control that is available in 50 states.

    I am sure that if we sent nurses to the house to make sure they take there pills that would work as well.

    There are many unintended consequences of IUD's and this is why they took a back seat since the 70's. Now they seem safer, however you are asking a population to make an informed decision about fertility, when clearly the IUD push implies that the women are not responsible enough to use the entry level techniques.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2015 11:59 PM GMT
    http://catholicwatch.org
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2015 12:12 AM GMT
    It's not a matter of the availability of contraception alone, it's a matter of education. Our national puritanical sexual suppression manifests itself in how we teach our kids about sex and its potential consequences. This rightfully begins at home and should continue through the school years and be brought up at each yearly pediatric visit following puberty.

    The average monthly cost of oral contraception is about $40. Both the Mirena IUD (5 yrs) and the Paragard T380 IUD (10 yrs) approach $1000, not including the insertion fee. None of these however have the added benefit of STI prevention that condoms provide. Condoms should be readily available and affordable to anyone, regardless of age. It's a public health matter.

    Gone are the days during the Bush Dark Ages where federal funding for sex education required instruction in abstinence-only practices. Unfortunately, many state program are still based on the myth that teenagers will abstain from sex.

    The Netherlands is both one the most sexually open societies as well as having the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the world.

    Education works!

    And all health insurance plans should provide contraception coverage. Reproductive health is after all....HEALTH.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Jan 06, 2015 5:18 PM GMT
    Koastal saidIt's not a matter of the availability of contraception alone, it's a matter of education. Our national puritanical sexual suppression manifests itself in how we teach our kids about sex and its potential consequences. This rightfully begins at home and should continue through the school years and be brought up at each yearly pediatric visit following puberty.

    The average monthly cost of oral contraception is about $40. Both the Mirena IUD (5 yrs) and the Paragard T380 IUD (10 yrs) approach $1000, not including the insertion fee. None of these however have the added benefit of STI prevention that condoms provide. Condoms should be readily available and affordable to anyone, regardless of age. It's a public health matter.

    Gone are the days during the Bush Dark Ages where federal funding for sex education required instruction in abstinence-only practices. Unfortunately, many state program are still based on the myth that teenagers will abstain from sex.

    The Netherlands is both one the most sexually open societies as well as having the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the world.

    Education works!

    And all health insurance plans should provide contraception coverage. Reproductive health is after all....HEALTH.
    Probably you should have run for Governor of Texas as a log cabin republicanicon_biggrin.gif You can finally educate all those NARROW MINDED BIBLE THUMPING SCREWBALLS that abstinence only education does not work and point out all the high STD transmission rates in West Texas in places like Lubbock and Abilene.