I think too, that you could argue that the sole purpose of a blood transfusion is to SAVE a life, while the whole purpose of an abortion is END a life, and the whole purpose of contraception is to PREVENT a life.

Contraception is an evil often used to eliminate the consequences of another evil…an illicit sexual act.  Nothing good comes of contracepting, but much good comes from a blood transfusion. 

So if the right to Life is the first and most important right, then blood transfusions can only be seen as good, while abortion and contraception can only be seen as evil.  The problem is that you and I agree without reservation that the Right to Life IS the most important right, while there is a faction of society that does not seem to agree.  The right to do whatever you want often seems to trump the Right to Life.  How do you enlighten a population to this insane, not to mention irrational view?

Your article is FANTASTIC and I hope that someone else has the wherewithall to articulate your points!  Thank you! It could change views on the Left and I hope and pray that it does.

Not sure why people keep bringing up Jehovah’s Witnesses and the issue of blood transfusion around this issue. For us how a person lives is between them and Jehovah god. We do not look to impose our values on others, who are not of our faith. We are know for sharing our beliefs with others but we don’t force anyone to join.

In the Acts chapter 15, the apostles where clear, repeating the command to abstain from blood twice. The prohibition on contraception is not found anywhere in the bible, it is just another man made tradition the catholic church has made up,

If I want to obey a command from God, it is my choice. If you do not, that is your choice. In the end we both will stand before god to answer for our choices. In this case the Catholic church is trying to impose their views on the people who work for them, catholic and non. The funny thing is, many Catholics take contraception anyway.

If I pay into a healthcare plan, it should be up to me what it covers, not my boss.

Does your boss have the ability to force you to buy sweaters with polka dots? Does your contract state you will be fired if you ever purchase contraceptives for any reason? So go ahead….buy whatever you want, even ugly sweaters and contraceptives,  but don’t say your boss decides what you can and can’t have; go buy the health insurance w/ contraceptives included the same way I can go and buy a solar powered calculator. People sell them.

Of course the JW employer should be able to refuse to pay for your blood transfusion. Before passage of the health care bill, you can get a transfusion and pay for it yourself. Everyone was free to make their own health care decisions. The problem is now, we’re not free—the government decides what’s best for everyone. They can deny you, the JW, and everyone of faith their rights to receive a certain treatment or refuse one. That is the real issue, not the blood transfusion itself.

Biblical, historical Jesus to the woman caught in adultery: “Go, and sin no more.”

Liberation-theology, progressive, Marxist “Jesus” to the woman caught in adultery: “Go, and have an abortion.” “Go, and use birth control/contraception.”

My question is why can the Amish, McDonalds, and a few other groups opt out of this forced healthcare completely when the Catholics can’t even opt out of one part of it?

Aj writes: ”In this case the Catholic church is trying to impose their views on the people who work for them, catholic and non.”——Since the Church is being forced to add something by the government, how is this the Church’s action of imposition. Aj continues: ”If I pay into a healthcare plan, it should be up to me what it covers, not my boss.”—-Employees health plans grew out of bargaining agreements that made it profitable for management and labor to negotiate benefits in place of higher pay. Because the government steps in and demands features, does not remove the right to negotiate with your employer – or your employer to not agree to undesirable features or costs.

Aj’s comment above seems to answer the question in a way the column does not. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not feel that they can impose the transfusion ban on other people, therefore paying for transfusions in their health insurance does not violate their conscience.

Paying for birth control DOES violate a Catholic’s conscience.

“If I pay into a healthcare plan, it should be up to me what it covers, not my boss.”

This is illogical.  If you and your boss are paying into the plan, then your boss has a say in what is in it by right.

PaulinVA wrote:“Paying for birth control DOES violate a Catholic’s conscience.”——I would add that even helping people (through an insurance plan or just giving driving directions) to get birth control or abortion causing drugs violates conscience. Do it yourself without my help.

My questions. Can a woman have a goverment agency pay for abortion with our(including catholics)tax dollars? If so, how is that any different then paying for a insurence policy that offer’s to pay for abortion? If it’s a matter of conscience how in good conscience could you pay one and not the other. Abortion is abortion, no matter how you pay for it.

How are you paying for it? Health insurance in the us is part of compensation and most of us pay part of the cost of private insurance.
Corporations do not have a religious conscious to be offended.  Corporations can’t go to hell, they don’t have souls.  A non catholic nurse’s medical record and coverage and privacy is not your concern. Why do I have to subsidize the churches in my community that are exempt from property taxes that pay for the police and EMS?

Good article.  Ritual impurity applicable only for adherents versus the subsidization of intrinsic evil is a good point.  Jews may not object to tax dollars paying for pork to feed non-Jewish kids in public schools, but they would object if the government decided that public school kids were to be fed to pigs. 

As Chesterton said, birth control really means no birth and no control.

No birth means that pay-as-you-go social programs will fail.  No control leads to promiscuity.  Promiscuity promotes the spread of venereal disease.  A number being tossed around for the yearly treatment cost of venereal diseases in the US is 10 - 15 billion dollars a year.  Contraception and a culture of promiscuity promotes broken homes.  There is upwards of 100 billion a year spent supporting broken homes.  That is quite a loss on investment. 

A perfectly logical atheistic government would not be pushing this.  No rational government would want to subsidize something just so it would incur further cost cleaning up the mess. 

Only rational reason is that the powers that be are not rational, or they are and it is an attempt to use the lure of sex to seperate people from God.  If someone wants to water down religion and make agnostics, don’t argue about philosophy and theology, instead start cranking out smut and have the culture push all sex all the time.  That is the root of what is going on here.  There is also a drive to take God’s place by doing that which is reserved for God, which feeds the abortion-as-a-sacrament crowd and the bioethics movment.

dch - the members of the churches in your community pay taxes.  Fire and Police are paid for.

People own/run corporations.  They do have consciences.  Yes, you pay part of your health insurance cost.  However, your employer also pays part of the cost.  They decide on the plans you have available.  They are involved in plan design.  They have quietly been deciding what to cover since the beginning on employer-provided insurance.

Insurance is a benefit, not a right.  It’s part of the overall compensation package.  In this free market economy, if you don’t like the compensation package, don’t accept the offer.

Federal employees, no matter what their religion, are already covered by health insurance that includes contraception and sterilization.  Those who are practicing Catholics do not use these items but they still pay for them.

Mark Shea writes:
“a Jehovah Witness riff on the Old Testament ritual prohibition against eating blood.  (“You shall not eat blood, for the blood is the life.”).”
and
“Jehovah Witness theories”
and
“the need to save life trumps the ritual theories of Jehovah Witnesses”
I’m happy to set the record straight on these “beliefs” often wrongly attributed to us Witnesses.
“New Testament”:
“For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted: But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood.
... We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. For it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Farewell. They therefore, being dismissed, went down to Antioch and, gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle. Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.” Acts ch. 15, Douay

So: Not theory; not ritual; not “Old Testament”. ABSTAIN from idolatry, fornication, eating of blood, and blood. Under the circumstances of 1st-C Jerusalem the last one was unnecessary; in the present day it is very useful ‘to those with ears to hear’. We hear, obey, and are blessed.
Do you have any fact-based objections to transfusion?

I think it was sometime in the nineteen sixties that Pope Paul VI established a committee to study the issue of contraception.
I believe it was a split decision among the hierarchy, according to the rumors at the time, and the Pope then made the final decision to ban it.
Can someone explain this further?

Religions need to adapt and accommodate.
Jehovah’s Witnesses blood transfusion confusion

Jehovahs Witnesses take blood products now in 2012.
They take all fractions of blood.This includes hemoglobin, albumin, clotting factors, cryosupernatant and cryopoor too, and many, many, others.
If one adds up all the blood fractions the JWs takes, it equals a whole unit of blood. Any, many of these fractions are made from thousands upon thousands of units of donated blood.
Jehovah’s Witnesses can take Bovine *cows blood* as long as it is euphemistically called synthetic Hemopure.
Jehovah’s Witnesses now accept every fraction of blood except the membrane of the red blood cell. JWs now accept blood transfusions.
The fact that the JW blood issue is so unclear is downright dangerous in the emergency room.
—
Danny Haszard

And, as to the RC side:
Aj is correct; we don’t force any of our beliefs on others. We don’t kill fellow Christians in wars but other church members are free to do so. (And to kill us also.) We pay our taxes on principle but others (Italy comes easily to mind) are free to make a national game of tax avoidance.

Contraception is nowhere mentioned in the NT. In the OT Jeremiah was told not to marry, not to have children. Noah and his family- all married adults- were given a full-time job to do, in which the raising of children would have been a hindrance. Gen ch. 9 ff show they carried out their work with the ability to have children, and no divine intervention specified, so birth control must have been used. Onan [we hope] is no longer used as a counterexample. All this makes it a matter of choice among married couples. It is even so here in New Mexico, USA, where the unmarried mother problem is increasing- the state is considered to be majority Catholic. So the “vote” here is clearly pro-choice.

“In the case of Jehovah Witness theories about blood transfusion, it seems to me then that the issue is whether the notion of ritual defilement trumps the moral law which protects such things as life, freedom, and property.”

But it’s up to the Jehovah’s Witness who is the employer to decide what trumps what, isn’t it? A Catholic can’t tell a Jehovah’s Witness what violates his conscience anymore than a Jehovah’s Witness can tell a Catholic what is a violation of his conscience.

That is the point of the argument that if you recognize the right of all employers to refuse to cover elements of healthcare that violate their consciences, you are inviting employers to refuse to cover other types of healthcare than contraception. A Christian Scientist employer could conceivably refuse to provide any medical care, offering only counseling and prayer.

Doug said:  “A Christian Scientist employer could conceivably refuse to provide any medical care, offering only counseling and prayer.”

YES!  Absolutely.  Health Insurance is a benefit.  It is not a right.

Why do people think it’s a right?  If you need a benefit-eligible job, get one.  If you get benefits from somewhere else (employed spouse) then you don’t care.

If you have a problem with not being able to access contraception with a Catholic employer, then get a job elsewhere.  The same would go for the Jehovah’s Witness arguement about the blood transfusion.  I wouldn’t work for a Jehovah’s witness Employer who didn’t provide insurance that I needed.  Very simple.  No one is imposing anything on anyone. This idea that the Catholic Church has a war against women is a joke. The Cathoic Church isn’t forcing all women to stop using contraception.  They aren’t telling women they can’t go elsewhere.  IT IS LEGAL TO OBTAIN CONTRACEPTION…. just not through the Catholic Church.  What is the problem???

Doug:

1) You’ll note the Bible also nowhere says all moral teaching is found in the Bible

2) Neither Jeremiah nor Noah were directed to have sex without having kids. No one is arguing against celebacy.

3) Why do you hope no one will use Onan as a counterexample, besides it destroying your tenuous argument?

4) Oddly enough, a majority of Catholics in you State doesn’t affect the Church’s worldwide and 2,000 yr old teaching.

Posted by PaulinVA on Friday, Mar 23, 2012 2:32 PM (EST):Doug said: 
“‘A Christian Scientist employer could conceivably refuse to provide any medical care, offering only counseling and prayer.”
“YES!  Absolutely.  Health Insurance is a benefit.  It is not a right.
“Why do people think it’s a right?  If you need a benefit-eligible job, get one.  If you get benefits from somewhere else (employed spouse) then you don’t care.”

Hmm. I guess you haven’t been job-hunting lately. “Benefit-eligible” jobs are getting scarcer all the time. You’ve heard about the K-Marts that counseled part-time employees about how to apply for Medicaid since K-Mart wanted to avoid employing them on full-time and thus have to provide benefits?  And what happens if you are laid off and someone in the family has a pre-existing condition? As an individual, you can’t afford to buy that person health insurance. It’s the growing difficulty of getting health care that is driving the HHS mandate that some employers will be required to provide a minimum of benefits.

Why do we consider health care a right? I don’t think we’re ready for a society where a child who doesn’t have a parent who can get a job with an excellent benefits package must simply die of his injuries in a car crash if the parents don’t have savings to pay for surgery and 10 days in the ICU. Or are we going to compel them to go $250,000 into debt? Are we going to deny an affordable abortion to a poor woman at 10 weeks, and then tell her to stay home and let the baby die if she goes into labor at 26 months? If healthcare is not a right, we are fools to provide the elderly with Medicare. We should let the insurance companies charge whatever they need to to cover these expensive customers and still make a profit, and if one payment is late, drop them like hot coals.

I think most are still missing the issue, which is how to respond to the question.  The answer should not address the rights or wrongs about JW’s beliefs about transfusions or JW’s beliefs about others.  The answer is really twofold.  First, employer’s have the right to not cover those services now and it has not been a problem.  Second, no one disputes that the government can infringe on religious liberty in order to pursue a legitimate and compelling interest.  If the alleged lack of coverage really threatened someone’s life, then the law would be valid.  There is, however, no such compelling interest in HHS mandate case.

Nathan writes about moral teaching. We follow moral teaching about e.g. “just wars” [there ain’t no such thing] at John 13:34,35. Same teaching in all translations, but other churches claiming to follow Jesus [as God, no less!] disobey the “command” there.

Nathan writes about Jeremiah and Noah. Jeremiah was a single man, so as a witness of and for Jehovah he was celibate. Noah and Ham and Shem and Japeth ‘were not directed to have sex’ (?), but it’s a part of the marriage arrangement since Gen 2. Sex assumed necessarily in these cases. William of Ockham, a Roman Catholic (c. 1285–1349) is remembered ... for the maxim attributed to him and known as Ockham’s razor. The term razor ... refers to distinguishing between two theories either by “shaving away” unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar theories. (Cribbed from the ever-popular Wikipedia.)

Noah writes about Onan. His problem was flagrantly disobeying a command from Jehovah about family succession. Read the book.

Nathan writes about his fellow Catholics. Not my problem. From my view New Mexico is the tip of the iceberg- for all mainstream religions, everywhere. Single parent families are the new nuclear families.

...And I think that we even need to go a step further and look at the fundamental issue, which is the Right to Life. The infringement upon religious liberty is a big problem. But, the BIGGER problem is the life issue because the RIGHT TO LIFE trumps all other rights. That’s why the abortion issue is at the front-center of all the debates - including this one. The LEFT cannot win the battle on abortion and that’s why they’re picking on contraception. They’re trying to score points with women. But, all these issues are part of the Culture of Death, including the use of contraception. The Culture of Death is the foundation for this HHS mandate. And the only solution is to fight for the Culture of Life on all fronts. If the Culture of Life loses this battle, it will lose the battle for life. And once the Culture of Death is victorious, then our freedoms will truly disappear. The Right to Life is the FIRST right in the Declaration of Independence. And let’s not forget it!!!!

Doug, where in the Bible does it say Noah and his family members used contraception?  Methinks you are making things up.

HHS issue has nothing to do with religious liberty. Well, it does, but it is the right of group to force their beliefs on others. You cannot operate a large hospital or university and force people to beleive what you do. This is such a disgrace - trying to claim religious freedom when what the Church administrators are really doing is denying freedom to others. The Bishops should be ashamed.

Rick, you are confused. 

Religious freedom is a right granted in the US Constitution.

Contraception is covered in health insurance, which is a benefit provided by employers.

They are is no way equal.  Religious freedom should always win over an employer benefit.

Assuming the JW/blood transfusion conundrum were a real-life dilemma, couldn’t I just choose to work for a non-JW business if I wanted blood transfusions covered in my medical plan? I work for an employer who doesn’t pay for my eyeglasses. Or my migraine medication. I need to pay for my own. I never thought to cry “foul” on that. I don’t understand the entitlement attitude, in the first place.

Mark, I think you got it wrong this time. Of course a Jehovah’s Witness doesn’t have to pay for blood transfusions. It’s called “freedom.” We’ve become so anesthetized to incursions on our freedom that it sounds paradoxical to us.

IN 2002 the NY Legislature passed the Women’s Health & Wellness Act (WHWA) which (among other services) mandated that employer insurance plans which offer prescriptive drug benefits must include coverage for hormonal contraceptives. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany joined by some Baptist organizations brought suit with the same argument, that the requirement was an infringement on their religious freedom. In 2003 the NY Supreme Court dismissed the compliant upholding the WHWA as constitutional. The divided appellate affirmed the original decision in 2006. Appealing once again, the NY Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and preserved the WHWA as constitutional. The SCOTUS decided not to consider the challenge in 2007.
See Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany et al v. Serio.
Why would they touch this now?

Posted by cowalker on Friday, Mar 23, 2012 3:35 PM (EST)
“Why do we consider health care a right? I don’t think we’re ready for a society where a child who doesn’t have a parent who can get a job with an excellent benefits package must simply die of his injuries in a car crash if the parents don’t have savings to pay for surgery and 10 days in the ICU. Or are we going to compel them to go $250,000 into debt? Are we going to deny an affordable abortion to a poor woman at 10 weeks, and then tell her to stay home and let the baby die if she goes into labor at 26 months?

Cowalker, a few comments.  You have no right to my hard-earned money.  And that’s what you are talking about.  You want my money.  My money is not going to be used to pay for abortions, ever. 

Second, giving people health insurance and not care does not help anything.  Poor people won’t be able to afford the copays or deductibles on their “free” insurance anyway.  It’s a huge socialist ploy that actually doesn’t help the people who need help.

Third, right now only 50% of the people in America pay taxes.  Those of us that do pay taxes can’t pay for this.  We can’t afford it.

dch-

Because of legislation passed by Congress, the standard for federal legislation is more stringent. The government has to show that it has a compelling state interest for the infringing legislation and that it cannot accomplish its objective any other way. On the state level all the government has to show is that the legislation in question has general applicability and wasn’t directed at a religion.

The standard used to be “compelling state interest” in every case, state or federal. But the Supreme Court changed that in a case involving the Native American Church and their sacramental use of peyote, and came up with the less stringent standard. In a rare act of nonauthoritarianism, the likes of which we may never see again, Congress passed legislation reinstating the compelling state interest standard in freedom of religion cases. But the legislation only applies to federal laws. So there are two standards now, depending on whether the law being challenged is a state or federal law.

Freedom of religion has a tortured history in this country, because everyone thinks that it applies to them and no one else.

Posted by PaulinVA on Friday, Mar 23, 2012 7:07 PM (EST):
“You have no right to my hard-earned money.  And that’s what you are talking about.  You want my money.  My money is not going to be used to pay for abortions, ever.
Second, giving people health insurance and not care does not help anything.  Poor people won’t be able to afford the copays or deductibles on their “free” insurance anyway.  It’s a huge socialist ploy that actually doesn’t help the people who need help.
Third, right now only 50% of the people in America pay taxes.  Those of us that do pay taxes can’t pay for this.  We can’t afford it.”

For what it’s worth, my spouse and I have worked all our lives, and paid taxes at almost twice the rate Romney paid last year. So it isn’t we who want your money. I feel extremely lucky to have been able to get jobs that carried benefits, and to save some money for retirement. Right now, some people I know are unable to find a job or have just been laid off. I’m not mad that families just scraping by don’t have to pay taxes. I’d rather be me than them.

Not everyone is lucky enough to have the intelligence, social skills and mental health to hold down a job with benefits, and they will never earn enough to pay for a coronary bypass or dialysis. There are people out there whom no employer would hire because they just wouldn’t add to that employer’s bottom line. Yet I can’t see leaving them to die on the street.

I have to ask, if poor people who can’t afford to pay deductibles and co-pays on health insurance aren’t the right people to help, who is? I suppose you believe that Jesus would agree with you that such people should rely on private charity, and if a philanthropist doesn’t come through, well there’s always heaven. In fact, anyone who comes to a hospital emergency room must be very, very expensively treated. I guess your task will be to change that law, so that only those with health insurance coverage get hospital treatment, unless they can find a wealthy sponsor.

And truly, I can’t give you a quote from the Bible that says the government should force hospitals to treat the uninsured. There’s nothing in the Bible that says government should step in to be sure the elderly have health insurance rather than being shut out of health care when they become unprofitable customers to an insurance company. After all, we can’t share risk as a country like those socialists in France and Spain.

If we had been able to ask Jesus, he would have told a story about a Samaritan who made an individual decision to pay for the private care of one man who was beaten by robbers. And there wasn’t a police department back then either to investigate the crime. Maybe we should handle that as individuals too.

The fundamental problem with this situation is the government has mandated not just that; even those who find it morally reprehensible must pay for contraceptives etc., but they mandate that all people must have heath care insurance.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses, as has been said, believe blood transfusions are anathema (regardless of whether that is “ritually” or “morally”). Christian Scientists believe that prolonging life through the use of modern medicine is anathema.  The basic problem is government mandated health care coverage.  I have not heard yet but the Supreme Court should decide if this is constitutional shortly.  Hopefully the entire argument will be moot.

It is due time for more unapologetical unashamed uncompromising American Catholics to get into political office. Imagine if there were an unmissable lot of those in Congress.

“Right now only 50% of the people in America pay taxes.”

Every time I hear this alleged “fact” I feel compelled to set the record straight. It is true that under current tax laws, only 50% of Americans end each year with a FEDERAL income tax liability. That DOES NOT mean they aren’t paying other taxes, such as sales tax or property tax, at the local level, or that they aren’t paying state income taxes. (I myself got a refund from Uncle Sam but I still owe income tax to my state.)

Also, most of those people who allegedly “don’t pay taxes” had income and Social Security tax (which isn’t refundable) withheld from their paycheck throughout the previous year—in effect, giving Uncle Sam an interest-free, 12-month or more LOAN of tax money they didn’t actually owe.

Returning to the topic at hand, I think the whole concept of using health insurance to pay for anything other than catastrophic expenses, and the concept of linking health insurance to the employer, really needs to be reexamined. If it were, then maybe we wouldn’t be having this debate to begin with.

What if, for example, the federal government required all car insurance policies to cover routine maintenance such as oil changes and tire rotation? Or what if homeowner’s policies were required to cover lawn mowing, cleaning your gutters, repainting, etc.? Not only would it drive up the cost of the insurance premiums, it would probably also drive up the cost of all these maintenance items.

The whole concept of insurance is based on a large number of people paying a small amount of money into a pool to help cover a SMALL number of people who suffer catastrophic losses beyond their ability to pay. If you start insisting that insurance cover routine expenses that a large number of people incur regularly, it doesn’t work, not without becoming ridiculously expensive.

Please stop misusing this word as in; “The Catholic Church should not impose it’s will on us”. 

Definition of IMPOSE from Merriam-Webster online.
Transitive verb
1
a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties>
b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies — C. H. Plimpton>

When this whole HHS mandate thing started I had my own questions…I wondered how the Mormons were forced to give up polygamy and admit African-Americans with out violating the “free exercise” clause in the 1st ammendment?  I do not know enough about the law or the details of Mormon belief to understand how is that different than forcing the Catholic church to pay for contraceptives.  Perhaps they voluntarily gave them up to join the union?  Mr. Shea do you have any thoughts?

dch said: “Corporations do not have a religious conscious to be offended.  Corporations can’t go to hell, they don’t have souls.” —-Incorporation is a process of combining persons into a whole that can be referred to as one: the corporation. You cannot have a board meeting without persons present. A corporation cannot be severed from it’s human conponent. The entire corporation has many souls and can go to hell, each member has a conscience and most claim a religion. Seems distant to us, but law can also tend to dehumanize us.

Jack Quirk,
No, he didn’t get it wrong. He wasn’t saying that they SHOULD have to pay when we don’t because they are on different levels, he is just saying that EVEN IF they had to pay, which they shouldn’t, isn’t remotely a parallel. “Ritual” and “Morality” are always on two levels. (But still, you wouldn’t want people intruding on our or their non-vital rituals and practices, would still be a major intrusion, just a different and lesser one)

First, do no harm.

Healthcare, while termed a “benefit,” is NOT a gift from my employer. It is part of my “benefit” package that includes such things as wages, retirement, and paid vacation. Employment “benefits” are routinely regulated by the government for non-discrimination (e.g., ERISA), and the government has every legal right to regulate healthcare for religious non-discrmination. Catholic institutions have complete free will. They can choose to continue to offer these benefits and comply with non-discrimination rules, or they can cease to offer any medical benefits and experience the consequences of not being able to attract and retain exceptional talent.

(Cross posted from CAEI)

I think this discussion is in danger of becoming incoherent and impossible to disentangle. Mark, I think your post does a good job distinguishing the morality of the two practices, but it falls short of answering the original question.

There are multiple issues here:
1) The moral perspective of the practices.
2) The context of liberalism.
3) The moral perspective of the HHS mandate.
4) The moral perspective of a mandate that requires transfusions.

You’ve done a decent job with step one, but you have gone no further.

The second challenge is to disentangle the moral discussion from the context of liberalism.

In liberalism, freedom and equality (applied in an absolute and self-contradictory fashion) are the supreme ideals, not life. That is precisely why liberalism is so dangerous—because it has no compunction about killing to attain its ideals. (Liberal society’s compunctions, insofar as they exist, are endemic to its Christian and natural law roots—they do not come from liberalism.) The fact is, liberalism’s self-contradiction makes all mutually exclusive freedoms and all mutually exclusive equalities valid conclusions, and it is a self-refuting ideology; however, it is the prevailing ideology of the day, and it requires severance of that link to provide any kind of moral foundation. (This kind of talk scares liberals, but they are entangled in the undeniable contradiction that there can be no moral credibility to liberalism without it.)

The reason this is important comes clear in one of the responses in the comments at ncregister. One of the commenters there observes that it is the Catholic program to impose its views on non-Catholics. The fact is that all discussions of morality—including every “moral” imposition by the liberal program—is an imposition of morality over those who reject that morality. There is no exception. So such objections are irrelevant and without substance, but they don’t seem to be. That poor Jehovah’s Witness doesn’t even realize that he is more beholden to the gods of Liberalism than he is to Jehovah when he undermines the natural struggle between his morality and Catholic morality.

The third challenge relates to the injustice and immorality of the HHS mandate to force Catholics into committing evil. This is obviously evil on its face, both for the immorality of the practices and for the iron hand of the government forcing its citizens to engage in activities that are repugnant and sinful to them, but is the latter issue that is being put to the question. Losing sight of that while dealing with the former is what prevents an adequate handling of the fourth challenge.

The fourth challenge is understanding how the issue would relate to blood transfusions. For one, we should preface this discussion with an understanding that we are not actually representing the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, it is irrelevant whether this is about Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, or Trekkies. The question postulates that some individual or religion have the belief that blood transfusions are forbidden by God. That they are unequivocally immoral and repugnant in that engaging in them is a direct rebellion against God.

That being said, there is no moral responsibility for an employer to provide anything more than a fair wage. (In terms of payment—this does not deal with the other side of the coin which requires adequate safety and well-being while on the job.) That being the case, there is no moral responsibility for the employer to provide coverage for any particular procedure, and there is no reason force them to do so. Employers provide a way to negotiate bulk prices as reduced costs, and those reduced costs are what are being passed to the employee. The employee should not be required to spend his money on these goods and services. It is my opinion that the entanglement of insurance with employers, now that it became more than a mere price advantage and approaches entitlement, is one of the primary reasons health insurance has gone to hell.

In that context—where there is no moral requirement of provision—why in hell would we want to enforce people to violate their consciences to provide things they believe to be sinful and repugnant? There are other ways society and commerce will provide, so why should an employer or even a specific insurance company be forced to comply with the demand or marginalize themselves from the commerce of their livelihood?

They shouldn’t. In fact, I think it is repugnant to force them to. Bear in mind that my judgment might determine that the life of a child must be saved against the wishes of parent by providing a blood transfusion—and that is a decision that would be extremely grave and not easily come to—but I would still not force someone to engage in the provision of it at any level. To do that is the beginning of tyranny in the worst way.

Even though liberalism is invalid with its self-contradiction, applying the same respect for conscience provides us with a consistent application of the ideals of freedom and equality.

Please understand that my discussions above are neither complete, nor in the fourth challenge are they even resolved. However, I don’t think they can be resolved unless they are approached in this coherent manner. The matter of conscience must be approached singly.

Seattle—

No, we don’t even have the right to not provide medical benefits under the mandate. Our choices are provide coverage that includes contraceptives, close down, or pay the fines.

Also, you beg the question when you say that the government has the right to regulate in this area. Every regulation has to pass constitutional muster. Regulations cannot override the Constitution.

Susan Chaney—

The idea behind the First Amendment has been so hard to realize because, the truth is, very few people actually believe in it.

Loud—

What would be the point in discussing a distinction without a difference?

Non-discrimination regulation has already “passed muster.” There are two issues: 1) does the government have the right to regulate, and 2) even if the government has the right, is religious discrmination nonetheless exempt. Catholics are getting a good taste of what the vast majority of the U.S. thinks the answer to the second question should be. So you are incorrect when you say my statement “begs the question.” In addition, the decision is not Catholic institutions must “provide” coverage, it is whether they can take the affirmative step of having coverage stripped from insurance plans. In like manner, the question presented in this article is whether or not JWs should be able to STRIP blood transfusion coverage from healthcare plans. The only exception would be self-insured Catholic institutions, which could easily solve the problem by contracting for healthcare services. Lastly, this article is yet another example of Catholic arrogance, and it is a shining example of the disdain Catholics have for other belief systems…while concurrently demanding this great nation bend to their narrow biblical interpretations.

Seattle said: “In addition, the decision is not Catholic institutions must “provide” coverage, it is whether they can take the affirmative step of having coverage stripped from insurance plans.”—More trick language. Since this coverage cannot be added to a Catholic plan there is nothing to strip. The government does not have the unrestrained right to regulate.

Seattle said: “Healthcare, while termed a “benefit,” is NOT a gift from my employer. It is part of my “benefit” package that includes such things as wages, retirement, and paid vacation.”——Wages are not the same as benefits in business. All of these things are negotiable. Because the government passes laws is not an excuse to assume that it is always right; or even wise.

There is no such thing as a “Catholic plan,” unless you are referring to the self-insured institutions…which I already addressed in my post. No trick language, unless you term logic trickery. And no, the government does not have the “unrestrained” right to regulate. No one that I know is asserting that; that IS an example of trick language, or more accurately, the logical fallacy of taking an argument to the extreme. But it does have the constitutional mandate to make sure that one religious organization is not bullying members of another religious organization.

Wages are the same for exactly the reason you state: they are all bargained-for. I can bargain to have my employer pay me more wages and not provide health care. I can bargain to have or not have an employer sponsored retirement plan. However, IF my employer chooses to provide one of those plans, and obtain government benefits in the form of preferential tax considerations, then the government has the right to regulate the plan.  Your last sentence is irrelevant to the argument the Catholic church is making which is the constitutionality of the mandate…though I think it both consitutional and wise.

Since a plan offered to Catholic institutions to contract will have to offer services that those institutions accept, they can very well be called Catholic plans or conscience plans or Baptist plans. Don’t offer me a product that fits someone else.

Seattle said:“However, IF my employer chooses to provide one of those plans, and obtain government benefits in the form of preferential tax considerations, then the government has the right to regulate the plan.”——You are insisting on unrestrained regulation. It is not acceptable in our country.

“Don’t offer me a product that fits someone else.” This comment of yours just confirmed my assertion that Catholics are seeking to STRIP coverage from insurance plans. Isurance companies offer a set number of plans. You want a “special” Catholic plan that has contraception STRIPPED, and you want insurance companies, the government, and the majority of society to bend to your religious whims.

Seattle, give me a break. I have been involved in negoations for emmployee insurance and you are speaking rubbish.

I’m not insisting on “unrestrained regulation.” The regulations already exist, and have existed for decades. If you have a 401(k), stock-opion plan, profit-sharing plan, or any other type of plan as part of YOUR compensation,” you benefit from these laws. Since you have been benefitting from them (albeit clearly unknowingly), you have not complained about them or portrayed them as “unrestrained regulation.” Since you do not perceive yourself as benefitting from THIS particular regulation, you want to play the “unrestrained regulation” card.

I simply don’t believe you have been negotiating for employee benefits. Otherwise, you would have never made the nonsensical claim to the “Catholic” plan. Spare me the dramatics.

Susan Chaney.  I suspect the Mormons rethought polygamy to avoid prison.  Mormon polygamy resulted in their prosecution for the felony of bigamy in the Utah Territory.  A Mormon defended himself claiming the First Amendment right of “free exercise” of religion.  He lost.  The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and wrote, “So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?  To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”  Reynolds v. U.S.  98 U.S. 145, 167 (1878)  Many years later an Amish employer used the “free exercise” clause to object to Social Security taxes because participation in government welfare programs was prohibited by the Amish religion.  He lost.  The U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.”  U.S. v. Lee 455 U.S. 252, 258, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 1055 (1982)  You can read the opinions for yourself by typing the case name and citation into Google.  For example, type “Reynolds v. U.S.  98 U.S. 145” to find the Reynolds opinion.

Seattle, the tone of your comments reflects an attitude that we triumphed over during the cold war. In the Soviet Union, a person arrested was required to prove his innocence because the state was considered right automatically unless proven wrong.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it………”

I also suggest that you look “ad hominem” and realize what you are doing here!

look up (obviously)

And all you have done is call the regulation “unrestrained” with no documentation as to how that is so. Concurrently, you benefit from and voice NO complaints against a multitude of other regulations. Now you again resort to dramatics in tabling the Soviet Union?! LOL! Just be honest Duncan. You just don’t like this regulation; you do not see it as benefitting from it, so NOW you want to scream government overreach. The government must not establish a state religion by showing favoritism to Catholics. Your religious conscience is no more deserving of protection than the rest of the U.S.

Seattle, you are my documentation! When you repeat “the government has the right to regulate” you are not admitting the obligation to regulate fairly and lawfully. All I read from you is an insistance. You are very cleaver with words but I don’t think that a lack of complaint from me on any other subject or regulations is in any way an indication of anything. Buy me a beer and I will tell you all my gripes.

Susan Chaney. You might also want to research Mormonism and racial discrimination. Prior to the mid-70s, Mormons disallowed black men from being priests because they felt that blacks were descendants of Cain and under a biblical curse. The Mormon church ran afoul of anti-discrimination laws, and changed their beliefs on a dime when threatened with legal action. It is another example of the federal government exercising its duty to ensure freedom from discrimination, even when that discrimination is housed under religious belief. Rather than just using Google, I recommend you use Google Scholar for better quality articles.

Joseph Condon, sighting court cases is what the lawyers will do when the time comes. Each will present his best shot. And both sides will probably be frustrated that the court will not be totally directed by their very righteous arguments. I hope the Justices have a better sense of justice than they have in the past.

When we organized into a society we gave the government the consitutional right to make all “necessary” laws. It is a right. yet, nothing in anything I posted ever indicated that I advocated that it was an unrestricted right, and I clearly stated that in a prior post. In like manner, Catholics have a right to religious freedom; however, that right too is not unrestricted or beyond regulation.

Seattle said: “Mormons disallowed black men from being priests…”—- You are not seriously suggesting that black discrimination is equivalent to the free distribution of cheaply bought and commonly available pills!

This issue is not whether the pills are “cheaply bought and commonly available.” The issue is whether my Catholic employer has the right to discrminate against my religious beliefs, which allow me to take these “cheaply bought and commonly available” pills, and in favor of his religious beliefs, which disallow the taking of these “cheaply bought and commonly available” pills. Framed accurately, the issues are both the same: religious discrimination by a religous organization.

Or perhaps more accurately, religiously motivated employer discrimination.

What religion that has been respected by our congress and our courts in the past teaches that the taking abortion causing drugs has a theological basis?

Seattle—

The First Amendment is protection against government action, not the action of private entities.

First Amendment rights have nothing to do with whether one receives government funds. The government may decide for its own policy reasons to decline to provide government funds to any entity, but it may not deny freedom of religion which is a constitutional right. Hence, in the case of Bob Jones University, which for a long time did not admit black students on religious grounds, and, after they were admitted, had a campus policy against interracial dating, the federal government revoked the school’s tax exempt status. But there was no direct action by the government against the discrimination that the school was engaged in.

Also, you seem to be mistaken about the applicable standard that will be applied. In state cases where this issue has come up courts have applied the rule that legislation will stand as long it is of general applicability and is not directed against a specific religion. That is a relatively recent development in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. Congress was so outraged by this development that, for federal legislation, it enacted by statute the previous standard, which is that the government must show a compelling state interest for making the infringement on religion, and must also show that it could not accomplish its purpose in another way. Since we’re talking about federal legislation in this case, it is the compelling state interest standard that will be applied.

We have to be careful not to mix apples and oranges here. I’ve just told you what the law is. You and I can also talk about what the law should be. In that vein, I can’t see how the government gets to violate a specifically enumerated constitutional right even if it thinks it has a good reason for doing so.

What you are referring to, Mr. Quick, is called “strict scrutiny,” and the federal legislation to which you are referring is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which restored the “Sherbert” test.  I agree with you that “compelling state interest” is the standard, and I think the government easily meets this test. The government has a compelling interest in making sure that people are not discriminated against in their health care. The government has a compelling interest in making sure that employers cannot turn the health care system into a chaotic mess with religious exemptions for JWs, Catholics, Christian Scientists, etc. Interestingly, the writer of this article tacitly admits as much because he cannot, and will not, argue that JW employers should have the right to gut blood transfusion from their employees health care, a right analogous to the Catholics wanting to gut birth control. And—hypocritically—not one person on this thread has argued that the JW employer should be granted that very same ‘right’ that Catholic employers are demanding. Instead, the author of the article attempts to solve this conundrum by claiming that Catholic beliefs are superior, and therefore should be granted greater latitude, which is a losing constitutional argument. The second part of the test (least restrictive means) is also easily met. The government has tried to accomodate your religion, but it has foolishly drawn a line in the sand that I think it will come to regret in the future. This stance, combined with Santorum, will forever damage the Church’s credibility and make the general populace suspicious it.

And, you are correct; the government cannot “violate a specifically enumerated constitutional right even if it thinks is has a good reason to do so.” However, it can do so if it has a “compelling state interest” and uses the “least restrictive means.”

?? I’m not sure how you interpreted anything in my comments as referring to the acceptance of “government funds.” None of the law I have quoted even touches on that subject. And I wouldn’t be bothered by a “Bob Jones” solution, namely, reject the tax exempt status of all these Catholic institutions, and I think it is something the IRS should investigate. As the Court noted, when the government grants exemptions or allows deductions, all taxpayers are affected; the very fact of the exemption or deduction for the donor means that other taxpayers can be said to be indirect and vicarious “donors.” I don’t particularly enjoy donating to the Catholic cause right now.

Retraction: Apparently, PaulinVA argued that JWs should be able to gut blood transfusion care of their health care plans. But he is confused in that he thinks that labeling is a “benefit” places it beyond regulation. Just about all “benefits” are regulated already.

Seattle—

That’s “Quirk,” which isn’t a name of English derivation, so jokes in that regard will only partially hit the target.

When I say that the government shouldn’t be allowed to “violate a specifically enumerated constitutional right even if it thinks is has a good reason to do so,” I am expressing my personal opinion that even the strict scrutiny standard gives the government too much power. I tried to make that clear, so that the conversation wouldn’t get too confusing.

I almost always agree with Mark Shea, but, in this instance, I do not, as I indicated in a previous post on this thread. I believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be able to refuse to cover blood transfusions, that old style Mormans should be able to marry as many consenting adults as they want, and that Quakers should be exempt from participating in wars. If that sounds crazy, I answer it is because freedom has become a difficult concept to grasp in this era when statism has become the dominant paradigm.

Perhaps I will come back later and mount a challenge to your position that the HHS contraception mandate will, in fact, survive strict scrutiny. As things stand, I don’t think that the mandate that insurance be purchased will survive the current challenge. I couldn’t squeeze that power out of Section 8 even when I thought I wanted to.

Wow. Mark, you sure missed the argument here! The difference between the Jehovah prohibition on transfusions and the Catholic one on birth control, is that the former is only wrong for Jehovahs; they don’t have a problem with non-Jehovahs getting transfusions, and therefore they don’t have a problem with covering them in health insurance. But according to Catholic moral teaching, it’s wrong for ANYONE to use contraception; therefore, merely PROVIDING it -even to a non-Catholic, is a sin.

Since when does failing to financially support a person in committing a sin constitute imposing one’s beliefs on them?  The Catholic Church has shown no signs of taking steps to make contraception illegal.  Trying to make them cover it in their health care plans is the government imposing its opinion on the Church.  People keep forgetting that contraception was universally condemned until Lambeth.  Personally I think people should be able to reject covering contraception on medical grounds, since it does have negative health consequences.  Ever read about the initial artificial contraception drug trials?  There was both a men’s and womne’s contraceptive.  No deaths occurred amongst the male test group, but several women died.  The main consequence for men was they suffered “shrinkage”.  In spite of the more lethal consequences for women, the birth controlers went with the women’s pill.  What a bunch of misogynists.

I do not think the Jehova’s Witnesses should have to pay for my blood transfusions if it goes against their; in my opinion, misguided beliefs. I do not have to work for a Jehova’s witness if I do not agree with their way of thinking. My disagreeingwith the Jehova’s Witnesses on any religious issue in no way gives me the right to infringe on their constitutional right to religious freedom. A If aI religion poses no great harm to socety it should be tolerated.

Gaby, Just to clarify things, Jehovah Witnesses abstain from blood because the Bible says to. They believe that the Bible was written for all mankind’s benefit. If people want to apply the standards found there or not, that is their choice, but that does not change how God views things. So according to Bible standards, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, blood transfusions are wrong for Jehovah’s Witnesses and the rest of mankind.

Cowalker Said :
“I don’t think we’re ready for a society where a child who doesn’t have a parent who can get a job with an excellent benefits package must simply die of his injuries in a car crash if the parents don’t have savings to pay for surgery “

We are not in a society like that now.I have reaped the benefits of Medicaid, health insurance for the poor, and it is excellent. We don’t have a society like the one you described, and we don’t have this ridiculous mandate imposed upon us yet.
No one is advocating for a society where people die on the street because they are poor. On the other hand, a society that is so intrusive as to mandate that a Church hospital has to pay for contraception for a female doctor who makes 100,000 a year is ridiculous. We’re not talking about helping the poor here… we have medicaid for that… please keep that in mind.

Judith M writes: “Doug, where in the Bible does it say Noah and his family members used contraception? Methinks you are making things up”
The Bible doesn’t say so. I said “Sex assumed necessarily in these cases.” [Noah and Ham and Shem and Japeth; all married men.] Married sex over several years at least; no offspring; no divine intervention (as in other scriptural cases); contraception assumed.
BTW I just noticed a typo in my post: “Noah writes about Onan” s/b “Nathan writes ...”

Everyone has a right to health care, if…

(a.) They can afford it; or,

(b.) They can’t afford it but there’s an immediate unavoidable unforeseen emergency need which obligates them to use (normally immoral) force against their fellow man to procure it. This principle is affirmed by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (Second Part of the Second Part, I believe) with respect to a poor man stealing bread to avoid starvation. (Since people in need of medical attention are often not in a position to obtain it by force from their fellows, it is reasonable that they have delegated this task to their employees and servants, the government, which fulfills this task by making it illegal for emergency rooms to turn away patients for inability to pay for services. This has been the case in the U.S. as far back as records of such things go, and requires no additional legislative action.)

Of course, nobody has a right to health care if, by “right to health care,” one means “right to forcibly enslave one’s fellow human beings to provide an expensive service you would otherwise have paid for.”

For while one’s fellow human beings do have a moral obligation to assist the needy in general, and often will opt to assist those in medical need in particular, no human being has just authority under God’s Moral Law to use force—or ask the police to use force on their behalf—to compel all persons to preemptively and normatively give alms to a particular preferred class of needy persons. That notion is as much of a grotesque parody of Christian almsgiving as homosexual unions are of the Christian marriage sacrament. (How vividly the branches of Christian morality wither and rot when severed from the true vine which is Christ!)

As for health insurance, there is no right to that in the enslaving-others sense, nor is there even a right to it in the “emergency need” sense affirmed by Thomas Aquinas. For of course insurance is that by which we take action to guard against unexpected need prior to that need arising, and this is far outside the kind of need envisioned by the Angelic Doctor.

Aquinas envisions a poor man stealing from the kitchen of a wealthy man at need because he is hungry and ill health or death will otherwise result. The Welfare State envisions an army of the poor (some poor enough to experience real want, and others merely less-well off than their neighbors but still wealthy by world standards) hiring a band of mercenaries to plunder or incarcerate any neighbor who fails to include a loaf of bread with every paycheck, with bread distribution entrusted to a regulatory system they devise for their own (the regulators’) advantage.

Thus the Affordable Care Act, apart from its unconstitutionality and the fact that it creates perverse incentives guaranteed to drive up costs, introduce layers of bureaucracy, and reduce quality of care in the long run…apart from all that, it ensconces in American law an ongoing and systematic immorality, aping Christian charity through the violation of the natural rights of Americans. That it does so “for a good cause and with the best of intentions” is no excuse: For we Christians are forbidden to “do evil that good come of it.”

C.S.Lewis had it right: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

For all your concern about “poor” people not being able to afford treatment if they get in a car wreck or something, you must be unaware of a thing called EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act), which requires hospitals to screen patients and stabilize them regardless of ability to pay if they present int he emergency room with a medical emergency.  This is commonly known as the anti-patient dumping statute.  What ends up happening is that the hospital eats these costs, to the tune of several billions a year on a national basis.  Why do you think the Amercian Hospital Association and even CHA is all behind Obamacare?  With Obamacare, they won’t have to eat these costs anymore.

As for prohibition of contraception not in Scripture, first, you conveniently dismiss Onan simply because it is directly against your position.  You offer no reason why it should not apply.  Second, the Scriptures themselves say to hold to everything taught by the apostles, including orally - particularly since oral tradition is how the gospel was mainly transmitted for the first century. Even scripture, at the end of John’s gospel, states all the teachings could not be contained in written books.  Third, from the earliest Church teachings, contraception had been condemned and only in the 1930s (nearly 2,000 years later!!) did the Anglicans cave in, and most of the rest of the Protestants with them.  How are the Anglicans faring now?

And don’t give me this BS that things are different now.  People have been contracepting since ancient times.  The only thing that changes is the technology, not the act.

Perhaps they voluntarily gave them up to join the union?

From what I recall, outlawing polygamy was a condition of Utah joining the union.  Don’t know about the rest.

As for seemingly inconsistent application of freedom of religion, well, the SCOTUS is human, and it is not unheard of for a SCOTUS majority to twist itself into pretzels to achieve a particular result regardless of the actually conformity to Constitutional principles (which is usually the occasion for the most humurous dissents).  To be fair, this happens at all levels of the judicial system, federal and state.

the logical fallacy of taking an argument to the extreme

How is taking an argument to its logical conclusion (however extreme) a logical fallacy?  To the contrary, it is a logical fallacy to refuse to take an argument to its conclusion.

and obtain government benefits in the form of preferential tax considerations, then the government has the right to regulate the plan.

Actually, the tax benefits are not for the employer, but for the employee.  The employer could simply pay more wages, which are already a deductible expense, and forego any benefits.  The employee would then have to use after tax dollars to purchase similar benefits on the open market.

By providing benefits through the employer, the employee can receive
them either tax free, or pay for them using pre-tax dollars, depending on the benefit.  Why employers are even involved is because the big wig owners of the employer want to get the benefits through the entity, but to do so they have to offer the benefits to all employees (not just the big dawgs), or else the beneifts are known as “top heavy” and don’t get the favorable tax treatment for the employee.

If the “tax benefit” you refer to is the tax-exempt nonprofit status, that status is completely separate from employment benefits, and therefore has no connection to regulation of employment benefits.  An organization could be tax-exempt in that sense, and not have a single employee (eg, staffed by volunteers only).

The point is not life saving procedures versus non-life saving procedures. The point is that you may not inflict your values and morals (religious or otherwise) onto any patient. That is not your right

It may surprise you that it sounds self-serving and entitled to discount the religious beliefs of Jehovah Witnesses as merely “a ritual theory” and the commandments of the Torah are merely “ceremonial law” and thus, “lower” beliefs worth dismissing.

The notion the Church will “go to jail” is quite interesting.  Does the author seriously suggest the cardinals and all their flock are willing to go to jail over this?  I ask because I recall Catholic priests named Daniel and Phillip who spent considerable time in jail for bearing witness to their repudiation of the immorality of war.  I also recall the Church being silent on that. 

If the Church is now taking a position similar to the one you cited: “that those who regard it as morally repugnant not have their freedom crushed by being forced to pay for it—all while being told that “it’s none of your business ...” I wonder if you would support my right to refuse paying for the murder of innocent women and children in the various wars our government seems hopelessly addicted to fighting?

I have not read any of the comments above, and I am really late to the game, but I wanted to point out that, at least according to one Jehovah’s Witness apologist, blood transfusions is a general moral law applicable to everyone: http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-abstain-from.html