Should Catholic agencies have to pay for employees' birth control?

I don't think any of us should have to pay either through insurance or taxes for something we don't agree with. People should pay for that themselves and if others want to help pay for an abortion then maybe they can have an organization that funds it where people can donate to. It's infringing on all our rights to make us pay.

Firstly, I think abortion is wrong. It is killing a living person. If it wasn't alive, why would there be a need for the abortion. Moving on to the topic:I think the only people who should pay the costs of an abortion are the two people that created the baby. Pregnancy is not an illness, it is the result of an adult choice. To the thought about "It is insurance paying, not an individual", where do you suppose the insurance companies get their funding? ..from every premium paid, either privately or paid by the government...again individuals..believe it or not folks, nothing is free.

Yes

Please don't confuse providing with paying for insurance coverage. They are different things.

Right now JW's are not required to pay insurance for blood transfusions. Right now, Catholic hospitals are not required to purchase contraception coverage for their employees. This has not been a problem so far.

The "dangers" of not purchasing coverage for certain objectionable procedures is a "problem" created by the mandate.

Also, consider this. If free contraception and sterilization are so important, the government would have no justification for exempting any religious employers.

Sure, Old Dog, the religious exemption would have to apply to other religious groups, though the objections are probably going to be to different things. If a Catholic-run charity could refuse to pay for artificial contraception, the Jehovah's Witness run charity could definitely refuse to pay for a life saving blood transfusion or any care related to it.

So do the Jehovah Witness organizations now step and refuse to pay for health care if it involves blood transfusions?

I don't think it's any of the church's business what their employees use their health insurance for. As far as I know, they're bound by HIPA like everyone else.

So the Fair Housing Act would apply to what, a monastery or a Catholic home for pregnant teenagers? Would it apply to a landlord in an intentional living community of Catholics like Ave Maria in Florida? How far should it go in that case or in the case of Catholic nonprofits that provide health insurance but provide services that aren't primarily religious?

Actually, the housing laws provide exemptions to religious based housing projects.

In any event, why should the government decide that some religious organizations are okay and others are "not religious enough?" Catholic Charities serve the needy because it is Catholic. It's religious identity is no different than a parish. Why should it be forced to violate its tenets?

That's actually the larger argument about health care reform, though. Assuming that the rules will require that all insurance plans cover contraception, why should Catholic employers be exempt? They've already said strictly religious organizations like churches ARE exempt, but something like a hospital or a charity isn't.

There's already something similar under federal housing guidelines. A landlord may well have religious objections to renting to an unmarried couple or may not want to rent to a single mother with kids for whatever reason, but the law doesn't let him discriminate.

First, whether most people or most Catholics use birth control is irrelevant. The only issue is whether someone should be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

Second, you ask, "Should an organization that receives government funding be free to ignore rules that apply to every other organization that provides health insurance on the basis that it interferes with religious freedom?" But this is not about government funding. The rules apply to every organization whether or not it receives government funding.

Third, when a private organization refuses to do something that violates its tenets it does not trample on someone else's rights since, properly speaking, that person had no "right" to compel the organization to provide the act.

Fourth, under the proposed alternatives it would have been easy for a person to get coverage from someone other than the employer, but the Administration rejected those proposals.

The Catholic's absolutely should have to pay for birth control for those who employed and insured by them. They should also pay reparations for the victims of their pedophile priests. I use to be catholic; I got tired of their overreaching attempts to control my mind.