Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
Adding to the discussion, part of the debate is coming to a head as Senator Roy Blunt has introduced, S.1467 (Respect for the Right of Conscience Act), with 37 co-sponsors, thus far.
What it entails - Respect for the Right of Conscience Act covers intentionally broad to make sure that it addresses all current and future religious liberty issues created by the new possible mandates in the healthcare law. It protects healthcare providers and insurers, including purchasers such as small businesses from being forced to violate their ethical principles to cover or fund products or services under the new healthcare law. The bill insures that all Americans are protected against discrimination, penalty or exclusion from the healthcare market for exercising their rights of conscience.
|
I will definitely research this.
Again, the point of this thread was merely to start the discussion that one person's normal is another person's extreme.
I realize that issues such as abortion and in some cases, contraception, go against the grain of most Christians. But, to most mainstream Christians, traditional health care is not only in accordance with their belief system, but very necessary.
So, while to us, this is something that shouldn't even be under debate, to other religious groups, such as the JW, this is just as hot of a button as abortion or birth control to us.
So, there will most definitely need to be some firm definition of
"being forced to violate their ethical principles" because "Ethical principles" are not absolutes to everyone.
For me, abortion violates my ethical principles. To others, blood transfusions, or even doctor visits violate their ethical principles.
It's going to be a drawn out process for the government or its appointed regulatory agency to determine how far each group can go in setting its own standards.
Threaded Mode
