[Mavdog]

Lurkin wrote

my contention is that the government is overregulating rights to medical coverage. When that happens, there will be a power struggle in any of the "blurry" areas, and there's no way that once an area is suitably "blurry" an encroaching government will relinquish power. The government will define what is "relgious" and "non-religious" in order to suit what is by definition a non-religious agenda. The government will then be making decisions that are otherwise considered religious choices. The true tragedy is that because the government has decided to regulate the matter of contraception, the business is no longer free to define itself as a religious organization (which is something they would clearly like to do). The consequence is that they cannot behave according to the religion that they choose. Our country is founded on free-will and self-determination and this is a clear limitation of both.

The question of "overregulating" is in reality establishing equal access. Do you believe that the insurance industry can "police itself?
Wasn't the religious criteria included to protect the religious orgs? The issue here was that the Charities were determined to NOT be a religious org. The business CAN become a religious org by the way it hires/acts.

Mavdog, you are making my point. Catholic Charities is not barring any employee from obtaining or using contraceptives. They are leaving that decision up to the employees. Catholic charities is paying wages to their employees with which the employees can purchase whatever they want, including burgers and contraceptives. In this way, the employer is not interfering with the employees personal decision.
You should still tell me whether or not you think the Hindu boss should be forced to pay for your hamburger.

The hindu boss does pay for the hamburger because he pays wages to the employee.

By not allowing for the healthplan to pay for the prescribed birth control many employees would not be able to afford it. The denial of coverage effectively denies some employees, therefore "interfering". To these employees the Charities is denying them the use of birth control.

As a matter of fact, to increase medical coverage would possibly result in a decrease in wages. This is forcing employees to allocate their own resources toward the purchase of contraceptives. To provide this coverage would definitely force others under the carrier to pay for some share of the purchase. Both of these are definite interference in employees decision making, and are a limitation on the employees religious decision of whether or not to pay for something they might consider a sin.

Actually the insurers found that providing coverage for birth control actually saves them money, helping keep premiums lower for all the insured. Birth control is a lot cheaper than mothers having babies...