Religious freedom to deny PrEP

[onlyraw]

I just saw a story in HuffPost that a judge in Texas ruled that requiring employers who provide insurance to include coverage for PrEP violates the religious freedom of employers.!!!!

Oh and the judge also ruled that they don’t need to provide the HPV vaccine either 

because of course by providing these essential health care miracles- they (the employer) would be complicit in encouraging sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man and one woman

this is why we need to all vote this November-

if the Republicans gain back control of the senate in November Mitch will make sure that Biden is not allowed to get even one more judge approved - creating more vacancies for the next republican president to fill -  and these are the types of judges they will be looking to nominate 

 

[Guest]

I've grown more-and-more convinced that religious freedom doesn't only have limits but should be severely restricted because it causes people harm.

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, BareLover666 said:

religious freedom

religious "freedom" = freedom to hate those of other traditions than your own.  The whole O.R. shitbag has been turned upside down so completely, it has nothing of value to offer anymore.

[ellentonboy]

All the more reason to vote in November.  This particular ruling will be the first of many if we don't raise our concerns to elected officials and those running for office.  I think for many of us these stories "fly under the radar", but they will have implications in our lives down the road.  

Keep you eyes open to media reports, and vote for candidates that will protect your rights for things as crucial as PREP.   If lawmakers or judges begin to side with those who want to restrict our access to medical care, it's only a matter of time before they try to go further.

[hntnhole]

16 hours ago, onlyraw said:

a judge in Texas ruled that requiring employers who provide insurance to include coverage for PrEP violates the religious freedom of employers.!!!!

This kind of hatemongering reflects only the most cursory beginning of the depth of hatred about to wash over the United States, if these inhuman creatures get elected (and I mean all the downballot offices).  The next attack will come from the individual States, if not both the States and the Federal government.

These maga people want to cloak their hatreds in smallish, religious snippets, cut from an already compromised* "new testament", disregarding the intent of the original message.  Today, we hear these so-called republican "christians" mouthing little snippets of cultural shit, and claiming the moral high ground.  This has happened over and over and over again throughout Western history, and will continue until we humans finally manage to kill off virtually everyone. 

Unless: 

So where's the hope for the future?  It lies in every single one of us to resist the dark forces running amok these days.  It lies in standing up for the basic human rights of every person, beginning with the already downtrodden.  It lies in supporting a Government  that stands for the rule of law, observing and guaranteeing the rights of all, and suppressing the anit-human instincts of selfishness, greed, grasping, privilege, the whole narrow mess.  And it begins with each and every one of us.  Every person of good will, doing their own small part, is all it takes.  

If someone places their religious belief in some supernatural contrivance, so be it.  When they corrupt the message of that contrivance, and turn it into a vehicle to repress others, prevent them from living full, productive lives, then let them live out their lives in the hell they've made for themselves, without the power to force it on others.

Isn't it odd how simple the original message actually is, yet so difficult to reflect in our lives?  No one has said it's easy, but that doesn't mean we get a pass either.

*there are many, many scholars who have examined the "new testament", phrase by phrase, line by line, devoting their lives to teasing out what is the "original" message, and what has been added, first by the Romans (in service of expanding/maintaining their empire) and later, the hellish construct of Organized Religion, which squats upon the Original Message to this day.

[onlyraw]

7 hours ago, hntnhole said:

This kind of hatemongering reflects only the most cursory beginning of the depth of hatred about to wash over the United States, if these inhuman creatures get elected (and I mean all the downballot offices).  The next attack will come from the individual States, if not both the States and the Federal government.

Yes hntnhole is right- when I say we all need to vote in these next elections I don’t mean just for congress or senate or president 

we need to pay attention all the way down the ballot 

the republicans were smart all those years ago when they started paying attention to state legislatures- as they control the districting- and thanks to their being better at gerrymandering than the democrats- the republicans will be able to elect more legislators than their percentage of the actual vote would otherwise get them

and remember school boards and library boards can ban books - and city councils can make our lives miserable if they want to

So pay attention alllll the way down the ballot 

[BergenGuy]

1 hour ago, TheSRQDude said:

To this day, Mr. Obama still holds documents that have been sought by the National Archives (allegedly held by the former President under the premise of their use in an Obama Library, which still has not happened) and there has been no mention of or action bye the FBI. 

Obama turned over ALL documents to the Archives.  The Archives then moved some NON-CLASSIFIED documents to an Archives warehouse in the Chicago area.  It didn't return them to Obama personally.

On 8/12/22, the Archives issued this statement:

Quote

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.

On 9/8/22, it issued this statement regarding the claim that Obama is holding documents being sought by the Archives:

Quote

Some news outlets and individuals on social media are mistakenly reporting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) confirmed that a large number of boxes of Presidential records are missing from the Barack Obama administration. This is false. NARA has never issued any such statement and is not aware of any missing boxes of Presidential records from the Obama administration.

Source:  [think before following links] https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

[hntnhole]

Reportedly, he's (President Obama) trying to get enough space near his neighborhood for his Presidential Library, but that'll be tough since it's a densely populated urban neighborhood that has already suffered the destruction of the Eisenhower Administration's bulldozing entire Af/Am neighborhoods for the Congress and Ryan Expressways.  I've heard that he's looking at an area around 5500 S, but that's just hearsay ..... 

The notion that he kept/is keeping stuff he shouldn't have is beyond laughable.  

[funpozbottom]

On 9/7/2022 at 10:45 PM, onlyraw said:

I just saw a story in HuffPost that a judge in Texas ruled that requiring employers who provide insurance to include coverage for PrEP violates the religious freedom of employers.!!!!

 

Does anyone know what bible verse is used as rationalization to justify that position?

[Rillion]

2 hours ago, funpozbottom said:

Does anyone know what bible verse is used as rationalization to justify that position?

The usual ones they cite against homosexuality. The truth is that these so called Christians would prefer that we all die of AIDS.

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, funpozbottom said:

Does anyone know what bible verse is used as rationalization to justify that position?

That's not how religious freedom, in a legal/courthouse context, works.

Not all religions have scriptures; some don't even have formal creeds of what an adherent of that faith must believe.

The relevant question for the courts is (in most contexts) "Does X law/rule/regulation interfere with a sincerely held religious belief?" with the caveat that courts must tread carefully in probing whether there is a religious belief at all, and if so, whether it is sincerely held. 

Scriptural passages *can* be illuminating as to whether there is, in fact, a religious belief in question; when the scriptural passage prescribes or condemns X behavior, that's pretty good evidence that there is such a belief. But there need not be any written rule about a religious belief for that belief to be valid; they are generally *presumptively* valid religious beliefs.

The question of sincerity, on the other hand, goes beyond that. A religion may mandate that believers attend church faithfully on Sundays. But a worker who objects to being scheduled for shifts on Sundays on the grounds that she must attend church can fairly be questioned as to whether she does, in fact, regularly attend church on Sundays absent a work requirement.

So, for instance, let's say I claim that my religion doesn't allow artificial chemicals (yeah, I know, everything is chemicals, bear with me) to be used for anything, so I object to my office's use of Pine-sol to clean the tile floors in my work area. Generally speaking, there can't be much, if any, questioning about whether the ban on artificial chemicals is in fact a religious belief. But there CAN be questioning as to whether my belief is sincere: do I use chemicals at home to clean with, for instance? Are there other motivations for not wanting chemicals used around me, motivations that are not religious in character?

That's how (broadly speaking) courts do analyses of religious freedom claims. 

[topblkmale]

Directing this towards one religion shows most don't understand religious freedom in America. There are other more conservative faiths beside Christianity. 

[BootmanLA]

23 hours ago, topblkmale said:

Directing this towards one religion shows most don't understand religious freedom in America. There are other more conservative faiths beside Christianity. 

That is true, certainly. But only one of the many faiths in the United States has the political power and the numbers to push for this kind of change - and only one such faith is shared by a substantially large number of employers such that it will impact lots of people.

Put another way: There are just over 500,000 adult Orthodox Jews in America. Orthodox Jews might well fit into this "conservative faith" grouping you describe, but they are not (as a group) mostly entrepreneurs or business owners, except, for example, for certain faith-specific businesses (kosher restaurants/delis, grocery stores, etc.). You don't generally find a large corporation with three thousand employees headed by a close-knit Orthodox family, and so they're unlikely to be in the position to take advantage of such a provision allowing them to discriminate on this basis. A typical small Orthodox bakery or deli is unlikely to even have enough employees to be mandated to offer health insurance; and while it's not guaranteed, it's at least likely that many or most employees in such a business share their owner's views. (That doesn't mean the principle shouldn't apply to them, but the point is, the practical effect, if they choose to oppose PrEP for religious reasons, is likely to be quite small).

By contrast, a single store like Hobby Lobby, with more than 40,000 employees, run by conservative Christians can and does have a huge impact when it refuses to cover birth control or PrEP. That's just one company; add in Chick-Fil-A and any number of other closely held companies run by conservative Christian families, and the impact is correspondingly enormous.

[PozBearWI]

Getting back to the original post...  Religious freedom is the freedom to believe as you will for yourself.  NOT to impose that on everyone else which was what many of the early US settlers were attempting to do; believe what they want, not what others want them to believe.  

We've lost our way here...  In religion and other topics like abortion.  If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.  But what others choose to do with their own bodies is none of anyone else's concern.  We need to remove gender from the equation and make sure every individual can choose for themselves what happens to themselves.  

[hntnhole]

4 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

early US settlers

That's an interesting observation, and cries out for another layer to this religious "freedom for some, required for all" theme.

The "early US settlers" were vastly outnumbered in the land they were in process of invading / killing off the indigenous.  Forcing their magical, fevered notions of religiosity upon said indigenous enabled the new conquerors to engender hatred to the "infidels", and also promoted the crop of babies, sorely needed for the further conquest of the invaded land. 

It's always been, and remains to this day, about Power, and nothing else.