Author Topic: HHS Civil Rights Division  (Read 1387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2018, 04:40:53 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3875
  • Tommy Points: 310
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2018, 04:56:54 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34610
  • Tommy Points: -27841
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2018, 05:08:31 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32555
  • Tommy Points: 5351
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2018, 05:23:38 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3875
  • Tommy Points: 310
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?

Interesting and fair way to turn the concept around but no, I don't think it is the government interfering with religion to compel a doctor to treat gay people even if it against their religious belief.  Much like the woman in Kentucky or where ever it was who worked in the county clerk office but didn't want to issue marriage licenses to gay/lesbian couples.  I believe she has every right to get another job but not a right to decide what part of her job she will do and what part she will not.

The problem is that you can claim almost anything is against your religious belief.  How about vaccinations, speed limits, there are a whole host of things that the government compels people to do or prevent you from doing that anyone could say it interferes with their religion.

In reality, I don't trust Trump so I view this as just a stunt to fire up his base.  I think it is the wrong way to defend religious liberty.  There is no country in the world where peoples' religious liberty is protected more than in the USA.  We don't need this type of "regulation".

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2018, 05:24:08 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10438
  • Tommy Points: 1170
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isn’t that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

I personally have no objections to the use of contraception.

But I respect those that do, and if as a private practitioner of medicine, you do object, you should have the right to choose to not offer such.

And as a patient with free will, and freedom of choice, you should have the right to choose to seek out another doctor.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2018, 05:25:43 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26626
  • Tommy Points: 2
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Can't speak for transgenderism, but Catholicism is the main opponent to the use of contraception (including everything from hormonal IUDs/pills to hysterectomies) in the West, and this is well established in their theology based upon natural law reasoning. They've even included this explicitly in their "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" that every legitimate Catholic healthcare organization is bound by: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf.

While I think there's pretty strong empirical evidence that the majority of lay Catholics do not follow or agree with this particular Catholic doctrine, it is one of the more frequent issues brought up in Catholic healthcare ethics.
Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2018, 05:32:26 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17667
  • Tommy Points: 1264
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
Cool. So I can break the law freely as long as I write in the specifics in the tenets of my church (scurries off to figure out how to not pay taxes anymore, ever).

To translate this from knee-jerk language into English, your statement doesn't answer the question of what to do with religious "beliefs" that are against the law of the land.

When did you, of all people, become so black and white?

(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2018, 05:32:32 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32555
  • Tommy Points: 5351
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Can't speak for transgenderism, but Catholicism is the main opponent to the use of contraception (including everything from hormonal IUDs/pills to hysterectomies) in the West, and this is well established in their theology based upon natural law reasoning. They've even included this explicitly in their "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" that every legitimate Catholic healthcare organization is bound by: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf.

While I think there's pretty strong empirical evidence that the majority of lay Catholics do not follow or agree with this particular Catholic doctrine, it is one of the more frequent issues brought up in Catholic healthcare ethics.
Yeah, I said most religions. But that still doesn't answer my question for other religions and it especially doesn't answer my question for treating gay or transgender people.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2018, 05:38:55 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34610
  • Tommy Points: -27841
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Birth control has been a sin under Catholic doctrine for centuries.  The same is true of homosexuality. Itís an established sin. 

Thereís a lot of gray area. To me, birth control is probably the simplest, as itís purely doctrinal and is fairly easy to avoid, just like if a Jehovahís Witness didnít want to participate in blood transfusions. Not treating gays seems like something that is impossible to reasonably accommodate, and isnít something directly supported by any specific faith.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2018, 06:08:12 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3196
  • Tommy Points: 490
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?

Interesting and fair way to turn the concept around but no, I don't think it is the government interfering with religion to compel a doctor to treat gay people even if it against their religious belief.  Much like the woman in Kentucky or where ever it was who worked in the county clerk office but didn't want to issue marriage licenses to gay/lesbian couples.  I believe she has every right to get another job but not a right to decide what part of her job she will do and what part she will not.

The problem is that you can claim almost anything is against your religious belief.  How about vaccinations, speed limits, there are a whole host of things that the government compels people to do or prevent you from doing that anyone could say it interferes with their religion.

In reality, I don't trust Trump so I view this as just a stunt to fire up his base.  I think it is the wrong way to defend religious liberty.  There is no country in the world where peoples' religious liberty is protected more than in the USA.  We don't need this type of "regulation".

I'm very troubled by the notion that one can invoke one's religious beliefs as justification for deviation from providing treatment to someone.   Religious beliefs are, by definition, arbitrary, capricious, fluid and technically invisible to the government.  I.E., at what point does the government start defining: That's a valid religious belief but that over there is not?

I think this question might get informed by what the Geneva convention (which the U.S. signs on to) has to say about the responsibilities of combat medics are regarding enemy personnel.   In short, per the convention's articles, a combat medic is required to treat ALL wounded irrespective of nationality and to prioritize the most injured regardless of which side.   So given two patients, a soldier on the same side and an enemy POW, if the latter is the most severely injured, the medic is obligated to treat him first.

I.E., per those rules, care is not dictated by the loyalties / beliefs of the medic, but by the needs of the patient. 

(Note:  The rules assume patients are not currently active hostiles.   A medic is not required to prioritize the care of an enemy who is trying to attack the medic or anyone.  The normal scenario where the rules come into play for an enemy is that the enemy is a POW.   There are many cases where a combat medic has actually had to treat an enemy right after having shot him!)
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2018, 06:17:03 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26626
  • Tommy Points: 2
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Can't speak for transgenderism, but Catholicism is the main opponent to the use of contraception (including everything from hormonal IUDs/pills to hysterectomies) in the West, and this is well established in their theology based upon natural law reasoning. They've even included this explicitly in their "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" that every legitimate Catholic healthcare organization is bound by: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf.

While I think there's pretty strong empirical evidence that the majority of lay Catholics do not follow or agree with this particular Catholic doctrine, it is one of the more frequent issues brought up in Catholic healthcare ethics.
Yeah, I said most religions. But that still doesn't answer my question for other religions and it especially doesn't answer my question for treating gay or transgender people.

A) I'm not sure why you're being so confrontational in your response. I simply answered the part of your question that I have experience with and knowledge about.

B) Per your quip about "most religions," that's not necessarily a directly answerable question, because religions are very dynamic and varied. Catholicism is pretty much the only major sect of religion that has a (fairly) consistent fundamental doctrine prohibiting artificial contraception in this way, and it is by and large going to be the biggest influencing factor in the West.

However, certain other Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic groups have also expressed some sort of opposition to at least some forms of artificial contraception. For example, most Islamic sects are generally accepting of artificial contraception within the confines of marriage, but permanent forms of contraception (e.g. hysterectomy) are either frowned upon or totally prohibited. Many Jewish groups also view certain barrier types of contraception as "wasting seed" and immoral, but they're fine with other forms of contraception.

So while there are certainly numerous other particular religious sects and groups that morally object to some form of contraceptive use, in the West any experience with this issue is highly likely to be based on Catholicism due to its robust moral theology on the issue and the sheer number of Catholics compared to other religious adherents. And given that over 15% of American healthcare is Catholic-based with nearly a quarter of the American population identifying as Catholic, that's a substantial number that should be taken into account.

C) As I stated previously, I can't speak for the issue of transgenderism, because that's not an area that I have much experience in, especially regarding religious philosophy.
Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2018, 06:25:25 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32555
  • Tommy Points: 5351
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Birth control has been a sin under Catholic doctrine for centuries.  The same is true of homosexuality. Itís an established sin. 

Thereís a lot of gray area. To me, birth control is probably the simplest, as itís purely doctrinal and is fairly easy to avoid, just like if a Jehovahís Witness didnít want to participate in blood transfusions. Not treating gays seems like something that is impossible to reasonably accommodate, and isnít something directly supported by any specific faith.
Exactly. So how does the deregulation allowing people to not care for a gay or transgender pass a legal litmus test, especially after the SC ruling on gay rights? People can choose to not care for others simply because that other person is immoral in the eyes of the caretaker's religion? That leads to a very slippery slope when you break it down to the ridiculous with other examples.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2018, 06:37:33 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32555
  • Tommy Points: 5351
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Can't speak for transgenderism, but Catholicism is the main opponent to the use of contraception (including everything from hormonal IUDs/pills to hysterectomies) in the West, and this is well established in their theology based upon natural law reasoning. They've even included this explicitly in their "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" that every legitimate Catholic healthcare organization is bound by: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf.

While I think there's pretty strong empirical evidence that the majority of lay Catholics do not follow or agree with this particular Catholic doctrine, it is one of the more frequent issues brought up in Catholic healthcare ethics.
Yeah, I said most religions. But that still doesn't answer my question for other religions and it especially doesn't answer my question for treating gay or transgender people.

A) I'm not sure why you're being so confrontational in your response. I simply answered the part of your question that I have experience with and knowledge about.

B) Per your quip about "most religions," that's not necessarily a directly answerable question, because religions are very dynamic and varied. Catholicism is pretty much the only major sect of religion that has a (fairly) consistent fundamental doctrine prohibiting artificial contraception in this way, and it is by and large going to be the biggest influencing factor in the West.

However, certain other Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic groups have also expressed some sort of opposition to at least some forms of artificial contraception. For example, most Islamic sects are generally accepting of artificial contraception within the confines of marriage, but permanent forms of contraception (e.g. hysterectomy) are either frowned upon or totally prohibited. Many Jewish groups also view certain barrier types of contraception as "wasting seed" and immoral, but they're fine with other forms of contraception.

So while there are certainly numerous other particular religious sects and groups that morally object to some form of contraceptive use, in the West any experience with this issue is highly likely to be based on Catholicism due to its robust moral theology on the issue and the sheer number of Catholics compared to other religious adherents. And given that over 15% of American healthcare is Catholic-based with nearly a quarter of the American population identifying as Catholic, that's a substantial number that should be taken into account.

C) As I stated previously, I can't speak for the issue of transgenderism, because that's not an area that I have much experience in, especially regarding religious philosophy.
Sorry for appearing confrontational, jp. Absolutely wasn't my intention. Was cooking and trying to post simultaneously and was just trying to be brief.

Great examples but look at most American Protestant religions. They don't follow Catholic Doctrine yet my guess would be the first people to starting turning away people for contraception or caring for those in the LGBT community would be Southern Protestants even though there is nothing in their religion stating you can't care for LGBT people or not provide contraception.

I just think deregulating this is just placating the religious right to the detriment of all. If you're in the medical profession and don't want to care for certain types of people, maybe you chose the wrong profession.

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2018, 06:47:53 PM »

Offline TheisTheisBaby

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 598
  • Tommy Points: 29
Quite frankly religion and medicine shouldn't mix. 

Re: HHS Civil Rights Division
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2018, 06:55:35 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26626
  • Tommy Points: 2
This religious liberty line is very grey and inexact.  It can start with a well intended objective of preventing people from performing pregnancy terminations but then people can extend that to providing services to gay people (see wedding cake case).  This type of religious liberty regulation (yes, the anti regulation party is pushing a regulation) always seems like a good idea when the religion aligns with your personal belief but quickly breaks down.  Why doesn't religious liberty apply to Mormons who want 5 wives for example?

I think church and state have been separated for good reason.

Free exercise of religion is a constitutional right. When the government compels people to act in a way that violates their religion, isnít that the state interfering with the church?
I can understand this when it comes to a woman's right to decide...you know. But where in most religions does it say that birth control or treating gay or transgender people is wrong? At what point does it just become discrimination?

Can't speak for transgenderism, but Catholicism is the main opponent to the use of contraception (including everything from hormonal IUDs/pills to hysterectomies) in the West, and this is well established in their theology based upon natural law reasoning. They've even included this explicitly in their "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" that every legitimate Catholic healthcare organization is bound by: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf.

While I think there's pretty strong empirical evidence that the majority of lay Catholics do not follow or agree with this particular Catholic doctrine, it is one of the more frequent issues brought up in Catholic healthcare ethics.
Yeah, I said most religions. But that still doesn't answer my question for other religions and it especially doesn't answer my question for treating gay or transgender people.

A) I'm not sure why you're being so confrontational in your response. I simply answered the part of your question that I have experience with and knowledge about.

B) Per your quip about "most religions," that's not necessarily a directly answerable question, because religions are very dynamic and varied. Catholicism is pretty much the only major sect of religion that has a (fairly) consistent fundamental doctrine prohibiting artificial contraception in this way, and it is by and large going to be the biggest influencing factor in the West.

However, certain other Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic groups have also expressed some sort of opposition to at least some forms of artificial contraception. For example, most Islamic sects are generally accepting of artificial contraception within the confines of marriage, but permanent forms of contraception (e.g. hysterectomy) are either frowned upon or totally prohibited. Many Jewish groups also view certain barrier types of contraception as "wasting seed" and immoral, but they're fine with other forms of contraception.

So while there are certainly numerous other particular religious sects and groups that morally object to some form of contraceptive use, in the West any experience with this issue is highly likely to be based on Catholicism due to its robust moral theology on the issue and the sheer number of Catholics compared to other religious adherents. And given that over 15% of American healthcare is Catholic-based with nearly a quarter of the American population identifying as Catholic, that's a substantial number that should be taken into account.

C) As I stated previously, I can't speak for the issue of transgenderism, because that's not an area that I have much experience in, especially regarding religious philosophy.
Sorry for appearing confrontational, jp. Absolutely wasn't my intention. Was cooking and trying to post simultaneously and was just trying to be brief.

Great examples but look at most American Protestant religions. They don't follow Catholic Doctrine yet my guess would be the first people to starting turning away people for contraception or caring for those in the LGBT community would be Southern Protestants even though there is nothing in their religion stating you can't care for LGBT people or not provide contraception.

I just think deregulating this is just placating the religious right to the detriment of all. If you're in the medical profession and don't want to care for certain types of people, maybe you chose the wrong profession.

Eh, I've yet to see any Protestant (in or outside of healthcare) raise any issue with contraception, because it's just not a big deal in their faith. They don't see it as a moral issue (as long as it's within marriage).

But you're right about the other issues, especially the forbidden topic on the blog. But is that really surprising? Most Evangelicals and those in the religious Right are not really political liberals (in the sense of political philosophy not the current left/right colloquialism) and would seemingly rather live in a theocracy governed by Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. Anecdotally, my wife's uncle is a mainstream Christian minister, and he outright told me one time that we simply have too much freedom in America and need to get back to living a "biblical" life with "biblical" laws.

I'm not sure what effects this new proposal would have, but conscience clauses certainly do have a place in healthcare, even if on a limited basis. And I think people are unaware of how much non-religious-based "conscience" factors already play a part in many tough ethical decisions in healthcare, especially at the end of life.
Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.