A Different Spin on the Obama Health Care Issue

[Michael Phelps]

Ok, here's a hypothetical situation:

Let's say the JW has formed a health care organization, or a school, etc. and they have requested and received government funding. Now, the caveat is, the government requires that they provide all of their employees with health care insurance. They don't have to provide abortion or birth control coverage, just basic medical care.

Of course, this organization does not believe in medical treatment, only in the power of prayer.

Could this group claim that their civil liberties and religious freedoms have been violated?

Part two of the question - what kind of support do you think this group would have from the mainstream Christian coalition?

[NorCal]

Government mandates, no matter what, are an invasion of the freedom given to use by God through the Constitution of the United States.

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.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by NorCal

Government mandates, no matter what, are an invasion of the freedom given to use by God through the Constitution of the United States.

I understand. Let's keep the issues separate. The government is not coming into this particular organization's church and telling them how to worship, or even mandating that they, as free moral agents, must partake in medical treatment.

They are simply mandating that as a government funded organization, they must provide health care coverage for all of their employees. Whether the employees choose to use it or not is their prerogative.

So, let's get back on point.

[NorCal]

You said "The JW form a Health Care Organization". I am assuming that at that point they would not be doing blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc., that go against their beliefs.

As a civil liberty, the government can not force them to provide this to their customers nor to their employees.

[Traci]

I think the key issue in this situation would be that they receive government funds...if we don't want the government to tell us what to do, we shouldn't ask them for money....just say'in....

[Jay]

This is not freedom of worship, but freedom of religion. The government has no right to demand a religious group do anything that the group feels is in direct violation of their beliefs.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Jay

This is not freedom of worship, but freedom of religion. The government has no right to demand a religious group do anything that the group feels is in direct violation of their beliefs.

So the government has no right to enforce monogamy on Mormons?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Traci

I think the key issue in this situation would be that they receive government funds...if we don't want the government to tell us what to do, we shouldn't ask them for money....just say'in....

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by NorCal

You said "The JW form a Health Care Organization". I am assuming that at that point they would not be doing blood transfusions, vaccinations, etc., that go against their beliefs.

As a civil liberty, the government can not force them to provide this to their customers nor to their employees.

If it's an organization that receives government funding, and the government requires that they provide health care coverage for their employees, you feel that's a violation of their rights? I'm not saying the government is requiring that anyone in particular partake of the medical treatment, only that it be provided to employees.

I probably should have used a different example, let's say school.

[Pressing-On]

I believe that the basis of government funding, which would please just about anyone, is to follow what the provision of The Charitable Choice covers in The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).

The law says that the providers may not discriminate on the basis of religion and that recipients must not be forced to receive services through a faith-based provider but must have the choice of a secular provider and that no funds provided to institutions shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytizing.

Think that would keep your liberal hide happy, MP?