Timeline for How should an employer respond to a government policy requiring abortion coverage?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 15, 2012 at 22:36 | vote | accept | Tal Fishman | ||
| Feb 15, 2012 at 22:04 | history | edited | Barry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
some sources
|
| Feb 15, 2012 at 19:34 | comment | added | msh210♦ | +1. As always, sources for your specific claims (e.g., that lifne iver is mitigated when the anticipated event may never happen, that lifne d'lifne is permitted, and that the sinner can sin by other means if not thus assisted) would be most valuable. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 19:15 | comment | added | Isaac Moses♦ | @ArielK, The previous version of this question had a title that seemed to be about public policy, but questions in the body about specific reactions by employers. I've edited the title to match the body. Given that, Barry's approach regarding what would be permitted or prohibited in the context of the hypothetical law in consideration is to the point. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 18:48 | comment | added | Seth J | @TalFishman You are ignoring Barry's point altogether. Even if the employer is paying for the premium, he is not paying for the abortion. Even if he were paying the employee directly for the abortion itself, this is still not necessarily (see pg 38, footnote 19, R' Breitowitz (9th pg of the PDF)) direct Lifnei 'Iver. The worst case would be the employer paying the doctor directly, but that is not the case here. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 18:41 | comment | added | Ariel K | @Shalom, Jews would obviously be opposed to such a law even if they weren't required to shut down to avoid paying for it. From a Jewish perspective, one won't want to be forced to support something forbidden, because its wrong, even if technically not a "lifnei iver". | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 18:20 | comment | added | Tal Fishman | Good points, all of them, but the employer may be paying more directly for these abortions than you realize. First off, the premiums will rise immediately once abortion is covered, so the employer is paying directly for the potential provision of a prohibited service. Second, many employer schemes base one year's premiums on the previous year's costs, so that higher costs in one year due to coverage of abortions feeds directly into the employer's premiums the following year. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 17:54 | comment | added | Shalom | Barry, I think you hit the nail on the head here. From a strict halachic perspective of "sin facilitation", we have more than ample wiggle room. There may still be Jews opposed on principle because of precedent on First Ammendment interpretation, but that's way, way beyond a technical halachic concern. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 17:26 | history | answered | Barry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |