Should a Christian business owner be forced to pay to abort the babies of employees?

The simple answer: no. Why? Because it violates **personal** freedom of religion - primarily, the freedom of the religion of the people who operate the business.

Note that this is NOT the same as taxation. An individual living in a nation and earning a living in that nation has to pay taxes - there is no religious or legal recourse and no violation of freedom of religion.

The question does not concern how tax money is spent supporting Obamacare.

The question concerns businesses having to *directly* copay for medical items - such as "the morning after pill" - that violate the religious beliefs of the business owners. Let me say that again so the people who have already answered and who clearly do not understand the issue *will* understand: people who religiously believe that it is wrong to pay for the morning after pill will - under Obamacare - be required by law *themselves* to pay for the morning after pill used by others.

This is not a tax.

This is not even a health insurance premium.

This is a copay that the employer will **be required by law** to pay when the law comes into effect next year.

For Roman Catholics, doing this - paying for "the morning after pill" - will result in **automatic excommunication from their church**. That's right: individual Roman Catholic business owners who obey the law will be kicked out of their church **because they obeyed the law**.

If this isn't a violation of Constitutional religious freedom, then I don't know what is. In the U.S., a law *cannot* FORCE someone to violate their religious principles. A law can require someone to pay taxes and those taxes used to do something that violates a religious principal of the taxpayer - that does NOT violate Roman Catholic teaching or the Constitution. If the government paid for the objectionable medical items, the opposition from Catholics would be completely different.

But that is not how the law has been structured. Instead of the employers paying taxes and the government using that tax money to pay for the objectionable items, the government is requiring Roman Catholic employers to personally pay for a medical item, and doing that - paying for the objectionable medical item - is **prohibited by their religion**.

When the law forces them to violate their own religious teachings to such an extent that they will be kicked out of their own church if they obey the law, it's **completely** understandable that they are opposed to that law - and it seems to me that it is clearly unconstitutional.

Frankly, I think the law will *certainly* be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court if it is not changed. Personally, I believe that it will be changed before it gets to the Supreme Court - no matter who wins the election. But: the fact of the matter is that Obama has been presented with this information and to avoid appearing weak has **so far** refused to change the regulations in the manner necessary. If he wins the election, I believe that he (no longer caring if it makes him look weak) will change the regulations to avoid having Obamacare struck down in the Supreme Court.

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

Hmmm, I suppose that you simply will have to be a witness on your moves and love and regard for your fellow man and that is it. I had a boss that tried to "witness" to me in the way in which I feel you can be implying ... No longer certainly one of her staff had a excessive opinion of her. Should you try to do a lot other than set a good example, i'm afraid you'll be able to lose each recognize and just right staff. On the other hand, if which you could be the variety of Christian Jesus wishes you to be, even though your staff will not be fellow believers, many could admire your humility, honesty, and giving spirit. Despite the fact that the schooling is voluntary, if anyone who accepts ends up with a advertising, you may grow to be with a lawsuit for your fingers (although the merchandising used to be utterly founded on benefit) I feel it appears like a terrible inspiration. Additionally, you can also wish to rephrase your last sentence. I feel i know what you are attempting to get throughout, however you would as well make clear extra as to now not go away yourself so vulnerable to ridicule. Ha ha, that's true, however you do not want needless riducule do you? I mean should you stand through your beliefs and you're ridiculed i will recognize that, but you don't want individuals to disrespect you considering that you are not able to make a clear point do you?

No, not at all! Obama's new laws are nothing more than what Daniel 7:25 says that would come at the end times. This is an evil thing that is going on while he seeks to eradicate the Constitution, but the media would be afraid to tell about it.

Daniel 7:25 (KJV)

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The government should not dictate pay and benefits period.

They should be able to offer however much money and benefits they want.

If some one can hire people for $1 a day let them- banning that would take a job away from some one who was really desperate for work.

I am anti Abortion- too but that is yet another issue that makes this a bad idea.

As an employee I pay every paycheck into my insurance. Why should the insurance not cover medical procedures and medicine I may require? My money goes into it as well. And really, the amount I have paid by now would more than cover the morning after pill (which is not an abortion, by the way, if the cells implant then the pill won't terminate the pregnancy). My employer should not have any control over my morals as long as they have nothing to do with his business (like if I steal supplies, for example, or show up drunk to work).

Wuh-oh . . . sounds like someone doesn't understand what the morning-after pill is.

The morning-after pill is emergency contraception, also known as EC or commercially as Plan B, Next Choice, or Ella. All the morning-after pill consists of is a higher dose of the same hormones found in birth control pills- a higher dose so that it is able to function more quickly in emergency situations. (Indeed, it is possible to take regular birth control pills in an abortifacient manner: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/dose.html ). When taken within five days of an act of unprotected sex, the morning-after pill works to prevent ovulation and thus pregnancy.

Claims that emergency contraception is an abortifacient are untrue. Pregnancy is defined by the medical establishment as implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine lining; this is so because it is literally impossible to tell if a woman is pregnant or not before that. Pregnancy tests work by detecting the presence of the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a glycoprotein that is secreted by the placenta shortly after fertilization. The placenta begins developing after the fertilized egg implants in a woman's uterus, which happens about six days after conception, so the earliest we can know someone is pregnant is about six days post-conception. Emergency contraception cannot cause an implanted, fertilized egg to be rejected (even though at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized during normal conception naturally either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort).

Even if you define pregnancy as beginning at the point of fertilization, emergency contraception still could not be considered an abortifacient, as there is no evidence whatsoever that emergency contraception can cause a fertilized egg to be unable to attach to the uterine lining:

"According to experts, the primary (if not the sole) method of action of emergency contraception is to prevent ovulation. In 2004, a meta-analysis of scientific literature conducted by experts at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm found that the contraceptive effects of a one-time dose of levonorgestrel, the active ingredient in emergency contraceptive pills, “involve either blockade or delay of ovulation”. In the same year, researchers at the Chilean Institute for Reproductive Medicine found that emergency contraceptive pills interfered with ovulation 82% of the time. Not coincidentally, EC is effective approximately 85% of the time if taken within seventy-two hours of unprotected sex… . Nor is there any evidence that if an egg has already been fertilized, EC will stop it from implanting in the womb and becoming a viable pregnancy.”

See Page 109, here: http://bit.ly/ksKN8U (Cristina Page's "How The Pro-Choice Movement Saved America").

This is also a wonderful article detailing how emergency contraception is not an abortifacient: http://belowthewaist.org/2010/01/thinking-ethicall...

The abortion pill does exist, but it is not the morning-after pill- the abortion pill is mifepristone, a progesterone receptor antagonist which works by blocking the receptors of the hormone progesterone in a woman's body. Since progesterone is needed to maintain a pregnancy, taking mifepristone will end it, and then taking misoprostol will cause the expulsion of the embryo and all other pregnancy-related tissue.

Hope that helps!

A business owner should be required to pay their share for their employees' comprehensive health care. The exact nature of that health care, inasmuch as it does not effect the premiums, is between the employee and the doctor, and does not concern the business owner.

So...yes. Just as the money the portion they pay may cover contraception, STD treatments, alcohol treatment, drug abuse treatment, etc, etc.

Business owners don't have any right to pick and choose, nor do they have any right to know what services their employees use.

no then you are giving in to a dictatorship, and what next will follow, can they seize the woman who wants her baby and forcefully sterilize her and abort her baby? I think America has gone insane by agreeing to this, Arent you asking for a dictatorship to rule over you?

1) Whether or not a fetus is a person is precisely the point of contention. You defining it as such, as if that amounted to an argument, is a form of the "begging the question" fallacy.

2) Employers should provide insurance for their employees, and it should be up to the employee what that insurance covers. If not, we end up with all sorts of problems, like women who get pregnant without being married suddenly losing their coverage. If the employer doesn't want to be subject to those laws, don't own a business.

Of course not. Government should not force people to cooperate with evil.

The rights of the unborn must be protected. The founding fathers of the US said we all have certain inalienable rights that belong to us because we are human. A government can not give someone an inalienable right or take it way because it belongs to them by nature for being human. Thus, if government denies rights to certain groups they are clearly committing an act of evil. No one should be forced to participate in such an act. But does it surprise you coming from a government that permits such evils in the first place?

They want to enforce 'free choice' by taking away our choice?

Chuck Norris' dire warning for America - 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ud3pK5Wa90