Letters: Our religous freedom at stake

Wake up, America! The constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion is being attacked in the Catholic Church today. Tomorrow it may be your religion.

Many Americans may not be aware of the fact that the Health and Human Services mandate of the Obama health care plan will take away the religious freedom of every person.

There is no exclusion for those who object to abortion, contraception or other issues of moral conscience.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has publicly stated its disapproval and recently encouraged all Catholics to pray for Congress to reconsider and remove this mandate.

The issue is not contraception and abortion. The issue is the government is forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs to provide contraception and abortion insurance coverage.

On June 24, there was a gathering at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church where the mandate was discussed.

Members of First Baptist Church of Zachary were in attendance, and the Rev. Jeff Bayhi of St. John’s and Dr. Reggie Bridges of First Baptist were among those who spoke. This ecumenical meeting was a statement and demonstration that the HHS mandate affects all of us, regardless of religious affiliation.

It has now come to my attention that U.S. House Resolution 1179 was submitted to a congressional committee by a former Baton Rouge resident, Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry, R-Neb.

It is called the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. As per protocol of Congress, this bill was sent to committee for discussion and has been languishing in that committee since March 2011.

The Senate counterpart bill is S1467 and contains the same ideas. It has been in committee since August 2011.

If passed in the House and in the Senate, both of these pieces of legislation would protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and service under Obamacare.

Dr. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, is on the congressional committee, and in a recent town hall meeting in Baton Rouge, he indicated that he would take another look at the resolution and endeavor with Rep. Fortenberry to get it to the floor of Congress for a vote.

Already, over 375 Zachary citizens have signed a petition that will be mailed to Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and David Vitter, R-La., and to Rep. Cassidy urging them to vote to approve HR1179 and S1467.

Those wanting to sign the petition may do so electronically by clicking the link on the St. John’s website http://www.sjb-ola.org/. It is hoped that other area churches will participate in this grass-roots effort to make a difference.

Dot Dickinson

retired educator

Zachary

Comments

1) Comment by potkcalb - 12/08/2012

The sky is falling. The sky is falling!

2) Comment by chem - 12/08/2012

Whatnow: No argument with your last post. I think it is an abomination that health care costs so much in this country and we get so little for that cost. It makes no sense that the cost of the same drugs in this country are much less in other countries. The pharmaceutical industry spends billions on lobbying and our spineless politicians do their bidding.

3) Comment by Whatnow - 11/08/2012

@chem, Yes, The U.S. pays much more for health care than any other country in the world, but we get less for it. So, why hasn't the drug cost, medical supply costs and hospitals cost been addressed? Follow the money and the lobbyists. And who do the lobbyists visit on a regular basis? My Korean exchange student, who only can get student insurance, which doesn't cover office visits, went to the doctor and his medicine was $350. Now, how come those costs are so high? How many drug companies go under? Ask the lobbyists and Washington why that wasn't addressed.

4) Comment by chem - 10/08/2012

Anyone that says all of this stuff is "free" is being disingenuous. Employees pay for a part of the insurance cost and the employer the other part. The ACA is simply saying that some things, routine office visits, for example, will not have a co-payment, which is usually 10 to 20 dollars. The U.S. pays much more for health care than any other country in the world, but we get less for it. As has been stated in another thread on this board, the U.S. ranks at or near the bottom of industrialized nations regarding health care, but number one in cost. How is it that in other countries, the same drugs are half the cost of what they are in the U.S.? How is that other countries give superior services at half or less of the cost in the U.S.? Our system has been broken for a long time and needs to be changed. I have stated it before: I believe we need to embrace the Canadian/European type of health system. If that makes me a socialist commie, than so be it. I am for "free markets", just not unfettered ones. They need to be regulated -- there needs to be some constraints. But for health care, free markets do not work. This country has proven that.

5) Comment by phil - 10/08/2012

chem - actually I agree with you somewhat but that is not all of the story. The banks and the increase in money spent to support socialism and "free" (it's not really free since someone pays) stuff in this country both caused the problems we now have. In other words, I think both of the 2 political parties can share the blame. Now we can add birth control pills to the list of "free" stuff.

6) Comment by phil - 10/08/2012

On a personal level, I just received a refund check as a result of Obamacare from my insurance company. The only problem is, about a week before that I also received notice of an increase in my insurance premium that was much larger than the refund check was. In other words, this is kind of like the federal national debt. They claim to make cuts and then the actual overall result is an INCREASE in costs. YES, someone always pays, and nothing is really free. - exactly like this birth control pill issue. Hope I am on topic.

7) Comment by phil - 10/08/2012

SuzanneMS - Yes I agree - "let's" means let us, meaning both of us. However, I was on topic and I am sure others got my point. So apparently that leaves only you who was not on topic.

8) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 10/08/2012

The Church asked the Catholics to pray. What else do you need?

9) Comment by DMJ - 10/08/2012

Hey, I know who we should ask for moral guidance....an ex Hitler Youth who wears a ridiculous hat and $5,000 shoes...

10) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 09/08/2012

So the Catholic solution to the use of contraceptives and abortion is to have relations with minors of the same sex? Y'all can have that theology.

11) Comment by SuzanneMS - 09/08/2012

phil, you buy private health insurance that covers "laziness" as a medical condition, and you'll be entitled to all of those benefits. Now, let's try to stay on topic, ok?

12) Comment by chem - 09/08/2012

To say that the financial problems in Europe are due to their health care is just flat wrong. Their problems are because of the same issue that caused the financial meltdown in this country, which still persists. It wasn't healthcare, but the arrogance of capitalism as exploited by the worlds largest banks and investment firms.

13) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

it isn't just religion . people are becoming afraid to speak their mind , give their honest opinion for fear of backlash , retaliation . political corectness has made certain subjects taboo . speaking out on them automatically makes you a racist , homophobe , bigot , zealot , etc . gotta be nice , can't offend anyone , except ....

14) Comment by prbeav - 09/08/2012

Regrettably, he editor overlooked we the people (see the preamble to the US Constitution for a definition) when he captioned this letter “Our . . .” What we need is not freedom of religion, but freedom of thought. I oppose coercion, either to or from anyone. Thus, I oppose all the slogans and propaganda like “ . . . under God,” and “ . . . so help me God,” I oppose clergy like New York’s Cardinal Hayes, rip, who asserted that the main obligation of every Catholic father toward the public school is “to keep his children out of it.” America has always denied my freedom of thought and forced me to be troubled by religion in the public sphere. I do not want to leave America, as my conservative neighbors suggest, but want America to change to freedom of thought. >>>> When I was a boy, I got the impression that people should fend for themselves, for example, make certain they ate well and behaved, in order to preserve their good health. Despite best performance, unforeseen health problems could become prohibitively expensive, and therefore, anyone who wanted to help offset the risks could purchase an opportunity to participate in a pool—hence, insurance. Customers knew they were adding risk reduction to their expected health care cost. That scene seems to be lost, due to long-practiced government coercion. Now, people with healthy practices should pool with people with risky health practices. And government dictates insurance as a means to health care. In Europe, health as well as other politically promised “human rights” became universal; financial ruin has been expected and is now playing out. I want America to change to a focus on viability instead of the emotions of so called “human rights.”

15) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

I am so tired of these religious zealots. The answers are out there, not even hard to find, for anyone willing to look. www.ironchariots.org/

16) Comment by DMJ - 09/08/2012

Ms. Dickinson is right. I went to church to pray today and there was a man in black guarding the door who said I couldn't practice my religion anymore because of the Affordable Care Act. Does this sound like a feasible scenario to anyone? Of course not. I'm guessing what Ms. Dickinson meant was that not every single religious "freedom" is legal in this country. She's right....but that was the case BEFORE the ACA. That's always been the case. Real laws trump religious laws. The 1st Amendment does NOT give anyone the freedom to circumvent actual laws. Christian Scientists go to jail if they don't take their kids to the hospital. Muslims who pracitce Sharia (because that's a HUGE problem in America) can't honor kill their daughters. Rastafarians can get arrested for possession of weed....and....wait for it.....Catholic institutions can't dictate which aspects of health insurance their employees can and cannot benefit from. Anyone still confused?

17) Comment by gofigger - 09/08/2012

I just hope they can do better with healthcare than what they did to the pony express

18) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

and yes this is about government intervention . expect more privatization of services ....

19) Comment by nimby? - 09/08/2012

I've had the same insurance coverage for a number of years , I'm happy with my doctors and my plan , I HOPE they don't CHANGE . when I use these services I am required to make a co-payment . from what I have read the mandate will require these service provided without a co-payment , for free , meaning the cost will be absorbed by ? many doctors are not accepting certain coverages because of slow payment . after 2014 , with the loss of federal dollars states , some in bankruptcy or on the verge , and private institutions will be forced to pick up the tab . for those who say they cannot afford coverage or the fine , will subsidies be provided ? will this be enforced to the same degree as welfare fraud ? will public heath follow the same path of public education ? how is this to provide better coverage for all while lowering the cost ?

20) Comment by shad-o - 09/08/2012

I guess they could choose to just not have health insurance and pray the health problems away. That would certainly fix the moral/religious injustice of it all.

21) Comment by shad-o - 09/08/2012

Phil - No one said anything about free! It goes without saying that we all end up paying. The main point I am trying to drive home is that no one is going to be forced to use birth control or have an abortion if they don't want it. It's a personal choice as to whether they want to or not. I don't see how this is even an issue for those that object from a moral/religious perspective.

22) Comment by DMJ - 09/08/2012

“I don’t think your boss should get to control the health care that you get. I don’t think insurance companies should control the care that you get. I don’t think politicians should control the care that you get. I think there's one person to make these decisions on health care, and that is you.”—President Obama. Yeah.

23) Comment by DMJ - 09/08/2012

Social conservatives are against birth control and also against abortion. Why is irony always lost on the right?

24) Comment by LSUalum0808 - 09/08/2012

@phil: Do you realize that if a woman is already pregnant, she cannot get health insurance because her pregnancy is considered a pre-existing 'medical condition' by insurance companies? How is that fair?

25) Comment by chem - 09/08/2012

SuzanneMS: phil & rgeraldwallace will never get it. As has been stated previously, no ones religious freedom is being taken away. If a religious institution operates a business that deals with commerce, than it has to obey the laws just like any other business. I doubt that phil and his ilk will ever understand a woman's unique issues. If they had to endure an unwanted pregnancy, I am sure they would not be saying such stupid things. The right-wing crazies are all about government staying out of peoples lives, but they have no problem with the religious cults dictating what people should and should not do. What hypocrisy.

26) Comment by DMJ - 09/08/2012

"Many Americans may not be aware of the fact that the Health and Human Services mandate of the Obama health care plan will take away the religious freedom of every person." Oh no!!!!!! What will we do?!!??!!! Give me a break. Someone needs to switch to decaf....that, and stop believing right-wing nonsense. As soon as the government forces someone to take birth control, I'll eat my words. Until then...enough with the hysterics. Ms. Dickinson would do well to read the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. You see...when you fulminate over imaginary dangers (like the government taking away EVERYONE'S religious freedom), then you lose credibility when voicing concerns not based on lies and hyperbole. Oh well....in the meantime, to all the women who now have their birth control paid for by their insurance....on behalf of liberals everywhere....you're welcome.

27) Comment by phil - 09/08/2012

Suzanne I have a medical condition called being lazy, and I think the government should pay for someone to mow my grass, clean my home, and also should buy a car for me so I do not have to walk anywhere. Also since I have paid for my own birth control all of these years I think the government owes me some money for past expenses. My lazy medical condition seems to get worse every year so I also think the government should increase my "health coverage" every year to so I can pay for other things I do not want to do or want to pay for. Stopping someone from having a baby is not treating a medical condition. Maybe the government should just outlaw sex. That would seem to solve the problem as far as treating that specific "medical condition". Also when the government helps people, that is one thing, but when the government helps just a few and harms many others in the process, then that is not so good.

28) Comment by phil - 09/08/2012

The previous statement "The bottom line is that it is a personal choice for the individual with the health care coverage as to whether or not they want any of those services. No one is being forced to take advantage of these benefits" is somewhat true. However, if you think that everyone will not have to PAY for that coverage then you are being very naive' . One problem is in the USA now is there seems to be a trend to call something "free" coverage when if fact it is not free at all. We all will pay for this either through increased health insurance premiums or through some sort of tax. There is no such thing as free even when you get it free because someone else has to pay - and the federal government is already about $16 trillion in debt. That is a good example of what "free" does for us.

29) Comment by krl777 - 09/08/2012

I warned against pious, lurid-minded fools making this all about sex. In jumps rgeraldwallace, who makes two points, one correct but irrelevant, the other demonstrably false. First, the government has " no moral presumption upon which it can dictate to it's [sic] people what they should believe." True, but irrelevant -- nothing in the government mandate for insurance coverage dictates what anybody must believe. It does not require Christian Scientists to regard medical treatment as morally acceptable, or require rgerald to regard contraception use as morally acceptable. It just assures that Christian Scientists and rgerald do not get their employees killed by denying them insurance for modern medical care. Second, rgerald claims that the government does not have "the right to presume that it alone can mandate what the rest of us must support when it comes to the beliefs of others." Not true. If a couple decide to starve their children on the view that food is the instrument of the devil, the government does have the right to direct revenue to provide for those children under existing welfare laws and prevent them from dying. When people's crazy, inhumane religious beliefs lead them to do things that harm others, the wider society has a right to mitigate that harm. And returning to the lurid-minded, why does rgerald's mind go to bestiality when contraception coverage comes up?

30) Comment by shad-o - 09/08/2012

The bottom line is that it is a personal choice for the individual with the health care coverage as to whether or not they want any of those services. No one is being forced to take advantage of these benefits. Yes, I said benefits because that's what they are in reality. Another giant non-issue created because of Moral/Religious outrage that ends up hurting all of us in the long run. Please just stop. It's hurting all of us.

31) Comment by SuzanneMS - 09/08/2012

Yes, everyone's freedom to practice their own religion, not that of their employer, is at stake. Try to understand, phil. Health insurance covers treatment for medical conditions, not just diseases. Pregnancy is a medical condition. In fact, if you think about it, life is a medical condition. That's why we have annual physicals. To keep ourselves in a healthy, rather than unhealthy, medical condition. Free pill? You looked at the cost of health insurance lately, phil? Nothing "free" about it. As for your predication, the contraceptive pill has been widely available for at least 50 years. It's the contraception of choice for the majority of American women, including those in monogamous relationships. Get with the times. And your argument is about 100 years out of date. It's the same one that was used when Margaret Sanger started advocating for birth control in 1914.

32) Comment by [e-mail] - 09/08/2012

You digress; the whole point is that government has no right, no authority, and no moral presumption upon which it can dictate to it's people what they should believe; neither does it have the right to presume that it alone can mandate what the rest of us must support when it comes to the beliefs of others. If government bureaucrats decide that bestiality is a right, must we provide means and methodoloy to accomplish it?

33) Comment by 8point6 - 09/08/2012

Religious and political debates. A no-win situation. Thanks, phil, for your common sense comments. May God bless and keep all of us.

34) Comment by phil - 09/08/2012

At least the federal government has come up with a new way to limit all of those new babies from being born that will collect welfare checks. Nobody seems to want to discuss that issue here.

35) Comment by phil - 09/08/2012

This is even more complicated than the religion issue. Sure I agree that under certain conditions when used to treat a medical condition all women should possibly be able to have easy access to the birth control pill. However that is really not the issue here, What this does is give access to the pill to treat a disease called getting pregnant or also called preventing a disease called a baby. Is the government now in the business of preventing new births in the USA and calling childbirth a disease? In addition, I predict that when all women get on that free pill and stop using other forms of protection, the rate of AIDS and STDs will increase. Thank you federal government for this wise decision (not).

36) Comment by dday198 - 09/08/2012

does it cover exorcisms?

37) Comment by Bighug - 09/08/2012

I agree with all the comments below.

38) Comment by Maelstrom - 08/08/2012

Doesn't effect our religious freedom of all. Strong suggestion, stay away from commerce if don't want to have to deal with the government. Some faiths don't believe in Psychiatry. Don't cover that. Sharia law. How about a religious group that owns a hospital that refuses to cover blood transfusions for religious reasons?

39) Comment by flashdman - 08/08/2012

Once again the Catholic Church tries to get into someone's bedroom/personal life for the sake of righteousness. The role of a church is not to force it's people into submission, but to guide them... I feel that the right to religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution is an individual right, not an institutional right, therefore the claim that the Church-owned insurance companies should not have to pay for "birth-control" is ludicrous. And who decides that it's not okay to cover the cost of the "birth-control pill", or it's okay to cover the cost of "hormone replacement"?...both are the same... That should be between a woman and her doctor... In 1879, the Supreme Court up held the conviction of a Mormon polygamist. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. Should we just let anyone do anything they believe in in the name of their religion? Of course not! Especially when those beliefs directly affect persons that do not have the same religious beliefs. Many religions are prevented from practicing some of their beliefs, but they cannot be prevented from actually believing their beliefs.

40) Comment by krl777 - 08/08/2012

Will Fortenberry and Cassidy support a Christian Scientist employer who wishes to deny all health care coverage to employees, since Christian Scientists believe prayer is the only legitimate treatment for ailments? If not, they are religious bigots. If so, they are idiots. Which are you Fortenberry and Cassidy, bigots or idiots? I knew a Christian Scientist who tried to pray away a lung infection. He lost his lung, and almost lost his life. But he at least chose that route. He didn't have it forced on him by some bigot exercising religious tyranny over him under the guise of a bogus religious "freedom". And please, don't let any pious, lurid-minded fool suggest that employees of Catholic institutions should do without contraception by simply refraining from sex. Birth control pills control ovarian cysts, which can become malignant.

41) Comment by 8.3 - 08/08/2012

Yes it was a bad idea to have those provisions in the law, but throwing the baby out with the bath water is just as dumb. A couple of observations: Wouldn't good Catholic employees refuse coverage for contraception and abortion insurance coverage? So there are heretics hiding among the faithful? Who is forcing the religiously free to take contraception and have abortions? Have all the kids you want, its a free country. Whats the big deal? What about those who cannot obtain coverage for a condition that is preexisting and fatal? Isn't that immoral as well? Not to mention religious groups using government to force their beliefs on others, see creationism.