DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 02, 2013, 01:27:24 PM
-
Fluke oudoes even herself
On MSNBC this afternoon, Sandra Fluke truly outdid herself, attempting to argue that the people who disagree with the contraception mandate on religious freedom grounds are in the same category as people who oppose insurance coverage for leukemia. Just...watch:
Sandra Fluke: Opponents to Contraception Mandate Have 'Very Extreme Ideas About Religious Freedom' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXLv3NY1Njk#ws)
What's important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern, and they want to be able to deny their employees particular types of healthcare. Now if you take a step back and think about that, that's--you konw, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store, and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions, or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to. So the folks who are still objecting have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee healthcare in this country.
Fluke attended Georgetown Law, but it's not clear that she's particularly skilled at her craft: she's not making a terribly logical argument, and it's based on a false comparison anyway. Contraception is "preventative care," in that it's intended to head off a pregnancy, which--although at times inconvenient for the couple in question--is not a disease at all, but instead the result of a decision to have sex.
Leukemia is cancer, a life-threatening illness, which requires prohibitively expensive treatment and most decidedly does not result from a decision about how to conduct one's romantic relationship.
By now, we're all aware of the faith community's reasoning for its position on the matter--including that of secular, but nonetheless faith-infused businesses such as Hobby Lobby--which is rooted more in moral teachings than the basic proceedings of logic. But honestly, even if I wasn't on the opposite side of the morality aisle from Fluke, I would find her argument severely lacking. I did, however, enjoy watching her beclown herself, and I invite you to take the opportunity to do the same (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2013/02/01/sandra-fluke-opposing-the-contraception-mandate-is-just-like-opposing-leukemia-coverage-n1503446). Happy Friday!
-
tangent
pregnancy is not a disease,but pro-lifers all agree it`s life threatning. if not ,then why the expensive hospital stay with doctors? maybe if childbirth was less than 2k cost without insurance this would be less an issue. economics has always been a factor but never been a front issue.
-
tangent
pregnancy is not a disease,but pro-lifers all agree it`s life threatning.
...actually not just life threatening, but downright deadly to the unborn child.
To be honest though, I really don't think its the cost of having the child that deters a mother from keeping the child....more so the cost, financially, emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and sociologically that's involved in raising the child, that is far more a motivation for killing the child vs simply putting it up for adotion
IMHO
-
very true
-
Pregnancy is mildly life-threatening, slightly more so than clinical abortions.
A woman should have the personal right to birth control as well as abortion.
If the government paid for abortions, it would save money, because there would be fewer unwanted children on the dole.
The Catholic Church has no right to meddle in a woman's choices.
-
tangent
pregnancy is not a disease,but pro-lifers all agree it`s life threatning. if not ,then why the expensive hospital stay with doctors? maybe if childbirth was less than 2k cost without insurance this would be less an issue. economics has always been a factor but never been a front issue.
I am unaware of any pro-life doctrine that requires hospital stays to deliver said baby. I am aware of efforts by the AMA to thwart licensing of midwifery, which services could easily lower costs for the market kimba is talking about.
-
Good point
-
not saying require,but pointing out here in america it`s a common method for childbirth. you do bringup a very goodpoint about mibwives as a alternative. by all rights AMA has not rights stopping midwives since alot of places outside of america gives birth without the aid of a doctor or hospital. remember the expression"hospital are for sick people not childbirth"
I think it was in the movie gypsy king.
alot of women in my life had complication during childbirth,so a doctor is important. so my question is why is american women losing thier abilty to give birth without help?
-
I think that women have the right to have or not have children as they wish.
I certainly have nothing against competent childbirth clinics or midwives.
The BBC has a series called "The Midwives" about the British National Health Service's first years of providing midwives and prenatal care. This was back in the 1950's. The midwives in the series were in Liverpool, I think, and were issued bicycles to make home visits.
A great series and a good way to learn a bit about the history and culture of that time and place.
-
I think that women have the right to have or not have children as they wish.
And yet you'll not find one anti-abortionist advocating that a woman does not have a right to have or not have a child. That's a deflective ploy ::) The issue becomes when a child IS involved. Until that point, the woman has a right do do anything she wants with however many guys/gals she wants, but pay for your own damn birth control
-
alot of women in my life had complication during childbirth,so a doctor is important. so my question is why is american women losing thier abilty to give birth without help?
I'm not sure american women have lost the ability to give birth without a hospital admission. The process has been the same for thousands of years. But midwives and hospitals do mitigate risk to both the mother and child.
-
So my insurance pays for all my medications. I make a $5.00 co payment. But they shouldn't pay for contraception? Go back to the middle ages with the Taliban.
BSB
-
CONTRACEPTION IS NOT MEDICATION FOR SOME INJURY LIKE LOSS OF LIMB, OR FOR SOME MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS LIKE LEUKEMIA, OR EVEN A MIGRAINE :o
-
So my insurance pays for all my medications. I make a $5.00 co payment. But they shouldn't pay for contraception? Go back to the middle ages with the Taliban.
BSB
If you choose to have a policy that covers contraceptives, that is great. I assume you are free to choose any policy you want and tailor it to your particular needs.
The issue is not having coverage that covers contaceptives the issue is being forced to provide a policy that covers contraceptives: a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the taliban, other that both the taliban and the us government seem to be saying my way or the highway.
-
Well I don't agree. I would say the US Government is about allowing for choice and that organizations like the Roman Pedophile Church are saying my way or the highway. I wonder if their priests use condoms when they're buggering little boys?
BTW, the Taliban is also known for its pedophile activities.
BSB
-
Well I don't agree. I would say the US Government is about allowing for choice
Apparently they aren't, thus the court cases winding their way to the supreme court.
The ObamaCare ACT require employer provided health insurance policies cover contraception at zero cost no matter the religious beliefs of the employer.
If the goal of Obamacare was to have more people covered, why would they decide to muck up the works by getting involved in forcing employers to go against their conscience by demanding they cover contraceptives.
I could see why they would use it as an election issue, but i don't see it as means of lowering the percentage of uninsured.
Not sure what your pedophile remarks have to do with anything.
-
Hmm
The thing is birthcontrol pills is under the counter. Meaning it's not safe to be taken without a doctors consent. Forget about insurance covering the cost. Increase doctors caution in presribing them. I believe quite a few women had some serious reactions from them.
I'm pointing out these pills are as safe as any over the counter medication. A fraction of percent can get very harmful reaction and doctors should factors this when prescribing it. A fraction could translate to hundreds to thousand of women getting harmed.
-
So about an hour ago I'm driving north on one of our main north/south boulevards and a jeep style vehicle, by the light configuration, pulls up behind me very close. It backs off, pulls up, backs off, etc. We get to an overpass and cloverleaf and it passes me. About 100 yards into the cloverleaf, as it bends around to the left, the car going about 60, flips. I slowly go by it. It's resting on its roof and hood. The drivers side door is gone. The right front wheel is gone. All the airbags are deployed so I see a curtin of white as I look at the drivers section of the car. I'm thinking shit, I don't want to look at what's in there. But I pull over, exit my car, starting walking towards the flipped car, and I hear the engine trying to turn over. It doesn't. Then I hear it trying again. I walk around to the passenger side and look in. A women is hanging upside down trying to start the car as if nothing happened. I ask her if she's all right. She replies, oh I'm fine, and tries to start the car again. She is so hammered she thinks the car just stopped or something and she can just start it up and drive off. I get her to unbuckle, and crawl out. She, in fact, seems to be fine.
Cops arrive, so on and so forth.
Jesus Christ, when will people learn?
BSB
-
http://www.livestrong.com/article/30331-adverse-effects-birth-control-pills/ (http://www.livestrong.com/article/30331-adverse-effects-birth-control-pills/)
The only reason i thought of this is one of my meds give me a one in a thousand chance of having a bad reaction to leafy green vegetables. I did it. Eat some kale and got some really nasty bruise on my body. Irony is kale is the popular veg nowadays
-
Hmm
The thing is birthcontrol pills is under the counter. Meaning it's not safe to be taken without a doctors consent. Forget about insurance covering the cost. Increase doctors caution in presribing them. I believe quite a few women had some serious reactions from them.
I'm pointing out these pills are as safe as any over the counter medication. A fraction of percent can get very harmful reaction and doctors should factors this when prescribing it. A fraction could translate to hundreds to thousand of women getting harmed.
Sometimes you just have to play the odds.
-
The odds are very good but still a doctor should be require to prescribe them.
-
You see it goes like this. Pedophiles don't give children a choice. They force them to have sex. The Catholic church has a long history of forcing things on people. Denying choice. Same with their take on contraception. If they hire you you should have the choice, just as you would at Ford Motor Co., to use your insurance for contraception or not.
As the world moves along choices are expanding for the common man. That's the idea. Those with long lists of what you can't do because "we don't believe in it" are losing the fight. Gays can serve openly in our military. Women can now serve in combat units. Immigrants are going to get a better deal. Abortion is legal. The jig is up for people like the Taliban and their oppressive beliefs and the NRA who is for keeping dangerous weapons in the open market because they "believe in it".
Those of us who are moving on will however protect the rights right to remain ignorant. After all, that's the rights choice.
BSB
-
i`m just pointing out the health risk involved with that choice.
-
You see it goes like this. Pedophiles don't give children a choice.
Oh wow...this is priceless coming from the side that not only doesn't give the unborn child a choice, but murders it, most of the time, out of mere inconvenience
I guess you keep missing the part where no one is forcing the woman do anything. Have sex, don't have sex, do it on top, do it on the bottom, do it with guys, do it with girls. Just buy your own damn birth control.....or don't, their choice
-
I will defend your right and choice to remain ignorant in all matters Sirs. So far you have succeeded brilliantly at that endeavor. More power to you.
BSB
-
As will I, and I echo your ignorant accomplishment as well. From guns to freedom of choice ::)
Sure would be nice sometime for you to actually get off your almighty know-it-all high horse and try explaining your irrational ignorant accusations, instead of merely proclaiming such. Inquiring minds, and all that. Tends to help spearhead debate and discussion, especially with us apparent lesser minds
Unless of course, you find solace in hiding behind such grand proclamations of intellectual superiority, and can't be bothered explaining anything
-
What didn't you understand? Try being specific.
BSB
-
my drawn out point is if a drug for safety reason is needed to be presribed then maybe insurance should cover it since she still got to pay for the co=pay for the doctors visit
-
The government has no more right to force a religious organization to pay for contraceptives than it does to force them to hold services on Thursday.
This fictitional woman certainly can go to work for an organization that does not hold those same beliefs, and get a policy that covers contraceptives without a copay. or they can go to walmart and get their prescriptions filled for $4 a month. See plenty of choices there.
This isn't about the patient, this isn't about doctors or insurance companies. This is about the federal government telling religious organizations what they must do, thereby prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Now i know the constitution is a piece of paper with "guidelines" written by old white men, and rights are given by government and can be taken away at will, but the fact remains that our more enlightened brethren have not the stones to amend the document this country lives by.
-
Religious organization are no different then any other organization as soon as they go out into the private sector are hire workers. They might as well be the Pipe Smokers of America. And in reality they're no different period but we haven't secularized that far yet. We will though. It's only a matter of time. There's nothing special about a group of people who think someone was removed from a cross dead and got themselves alive 3 days latter. Mental wards are full of patients who think those sorts of things. We don't give them tax breaks and insurance exceptions.
BSB
-
Religious organization are no different then any other organization as soon as they go out into the private sector are hire workers.
Since when? I'm pretty sure there is caselaw that says the opposite.
-
Religious organization are no different then any other organization as soon as they go out into the private sector are hire workers.
Actually, they do......its called the 1st amendment, which applies at all times, to all Americans, both public and private sector. Not surprised you're not up to speed on that, with your ignorance of the 2nd amendment
What didn't you understand? Try being specific.
BSB
I thought I made the question painfully clear.......how supposedly am I being ignorant, in your grand proclamation following my post. You were trying to justify the ridiculous connections between medications prescribed for some illness/injury, and use of birth control for no such illness. Then came the even futher irrational effort to connect the taliban <--> catholic church <--> pedophiles <--> anyone that doesn't agree with you on abortion, using the notion of forcing people/children to do...whatever, as in giving them no choice.
It was bad enough in trying to make those connections, but apparently when your barrels were empty, you decided just to simply call me ignorant, when I demonstrated there's no such act of forcing women to do anything. They can even chose to use birth control, or not. Their choice, their penny
I hope that was specific enough for you. Can't get much more detailed
-
The Constitution guarantees people the right to their own opinions and how to exercise them so long as it does not interfere with others. The Church gets no such a pass. If a person chooses to obey their own views rather than those of an employer (church or not) the citizen's rights should always come first.
The Roman Catholic Church (and some others as well) is a dogmatic, undemocratic organization. Its rights should NEVER trump those of individuals who choose to disagree with it.
-
I don't call you ignorant because my gun is empty. I call you ignorant because that's what you are. 99.99999% of the time your nonsense isn't worthy of a reply. I wish to hell it wasn't so, I'd like some interesting debate, but it is.
BSB
-
LOL....so ONCE AGAIN, you provide nada, squat, zip, as it relates to why I'm supposedly ignorant on this or any other issue. Just your say so, and ..........that's it
Here's a hint, debate requires dialog, it requires substance, it requires effort. Just because you don't like my positions, or how I post them, doesn't mean you can't make an effort to try. and if you don't want to try, fine. But don't think just radiating your self perceived all knowing opinion on matters, and then refusing to justify or back them up, gets you some ring of debate immunity. You're going to get called on it, again, and again, and again......until you start WANTING to have some interesting debate at least
-
I've made it quite clear Sirs many times. When the Church hires a worker they must provide them with the same benefits any other employer has to provide. Get it?
BSB
-
The fact that he always fails to"get it" is why it is not worth discussing anything with him.
The only thing that might convince him in this argument would be if we could somehow get him pregnant.
-
When the Church hires a worker they must provide them with the same benefits any other employer has to provide.
No they don't and they definitely do not have to provide a policy that contains coverage that goes against their religious beliefs.
In lieu of insurance they could compensate their employees for the same amount of money that the forced policy would cost and be done with the entire controversy. If the employees are not happy with that arrangement well they have the choice to seek employment elsewhere.
Seems like a win win . The employee has coverage and the church maintains its beliefs.
-
When the Church hires a worker they must provide them with the same benefits any other employer has to provide.
No they don't and they definitely do not have to provide a policy that contains coverage that goes against their religious beliefs.
BINGO. Not to mention Birth Control is not a "medical benefit" for any diagnosed illness or acute injury. If other insurances want to provide them, fine, THEIR CHOICE. If a Church wants to provide them, again, THEIR CHOICE. To mandate that they do against their religious beliefs is very much anti-choice, not to mention Anti-1st amendment.
You'd think someone who supports the deflective notion of "pro-choice", would grasp that concept
-
on further thought maybe not. Awhilwe ago a former co-worker quite her job to go to another firm with favorable benefits. meaning employees should be able to decide if they want to stay on a job with less favorable benefits.
hell
take me for example. I`m taking a job now with such crappy insurance ,the only reason I have it is thats the only plan my job has. I`m actually paying full cost for my medical and zero coverage from insurance. I am quitting that job as soon as kaiser accepts me.
Meaning people can choose to not take a job with lousy benefits (ex. no birth control) if anything I wished my job informed what kind of insurance I be getting. this job litterally cost me money from day one.
-
"No they don't and they definitely do not have to provide a policy that contains coverage that goes against their religious beliefs"
Says who?
BSB
-
Says the Founding Fathers, such as Madison & Jefferson, via the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that says who
-
"No they don't and they definitely do not have to provide a policy that contains coverage that goes against their religious beliefs"
Says who?
BSB
I think one of the lower courts has already forwarded the Hobby Shop case to the Federal Circuit Court which will eventually lead it to SCOTUS. And the Hobby Shop is not a religious organization. Its owners have deeply religious beliefs, and this regulation infringes upon that.
-
Apparently Hobby Shop is appealing directly to the Supreme Court
In the meantime:
Forty-two separate lawsuits challenging the mandate have been filed on behalf of religious schools, hospitals and charities, for-profit businesses and individual states. Rulings in the cases have been split. Among for-profit businesses, four have been granted preliminary injunctions and two have been denied them.
-
Also:
In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.
The Oklahoma City-based company and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government in September, claiming the mandate violates the owners' religious beliefs. The owners contend the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.
At a hearing earlier this month, a government lawyer said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.
In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/19/judge-rejects-hobby-lobby-case-against-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/#ixzz2Jsep3bIM (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/19/judge-rejects-hobby-lobby-case-against-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/#ixzz2Jsep3bIM)
-
Do individuals have rights or do Churches and businesses have rights?
Are corporations people?
Are Churches people?
I don't know how a person can have a right to practce his religion only while he is in church and must practice something elese as soon as he sits at his desk.
Does the government have the right to make Jews buy pork for their employees?
That might be a usefull ability for the government to have.
-
Hmm
If this works and churches are require to cover birth control. Does this potentially means everybody gets full organ transplant coverage?.?
Isn't this also an issue what is the limits of insurance coverage?
-
I fail to see what this has to do with organ transplants.
Corporations are NOT people.
Churches are NOT people.
The Constitution has no provision to regulate churches or corporations or to guarantee rights to them. This is as it should be.
Since eating pork is unrelated to any medical condition, I see no chance how pork would be any part of any medical coverage.
Allergy medicine is certainly a valid medical treatment. It prevents a more serious condition with potential health problems, as do contraceptives. No one is requesting that the government force anyone to get or take contraceptives. It is only proposed that people who REQUEST contraceptives get them through their medical insurance. People who do not believe in contraceptive medicine would not be required to receive or take them.
-
Corporations are NOT people.
Churches are NOT people.
The Constitution has no provision to regulate churches or corporations or to guarantee rights to them. This is as it should be.
.......................
Then there is no point in protecting a church from having to violate its conscience.
But individuals who feel hurt at financeing a procedure that they feel immoral should be protected.
Individuals that are hired are free to quit , free to fianance their own procedures , free to buy their own additional insurance.
The Taliban is all about compliance , so is the Federal government , we should expand the federal role in our lives with great caution , because they have the leven of the Pharisee as badly as the Taliban ever did.
-
Actually i think corporations legally might be people. The issue has been brought up but don't recall if answered
-
This is E N T I R E L Y about giving women who want contraceptives what they want, just like women who do nor work for the Holy Mother Church. The rights of the individual TRUMP those of the Church. We see this, because the citizen has the right to vote and the Church does not.
There is no violation of individual rights involved.
A majority of the Catholic women in most countries use contraceptives. This explains why after contraceptives were available the birth rates of Catholic women plummeted.
The Church has the right to advise women that it frowns on birth control.
The citizens have the right to ignore the Holy Mother Church. They have the legal right to tell the Holy Mother Church to piss off.
Corporations are NOT PEOPLE. If they were, they would be eligible to vote. The law makes distinctions between people and corporations.
Note that people are always mortal. People cannot legally be bought. People cannot legally be sold.
Corporations have the potential of being living forever. Corporations can be bought. Corporations can be sold. Corporations can issue stock and sell it. People cannot do this. You cannot buy 100 shares of Beyoncé. You cannot buy a controlling interest in Donald Trump. You cannot buy Robert DeNiro, seize his assets and reincorporate him under a different name. If you had the money, you could do this with most corporations.
Some company bought the rights to the products and name of Hostess Bakeries and will start making Twinkies and other products using those names. It will have no problem selling a different product under the names formerly used by Hostess.
No one can purchase Kenye West and force him to record Sinatra tunes or sing operatic arias.
The government can and does stipulate tax regulations and rates for corporations that are different from tax rates for citizens.
Corporations are NOT people.
-
Corporations have the same rights as citizens. At least that is what SCOTUS has said on numerous occasions.
I don't agree with that but that doesn't matter.
I also don't agree that money is speech, but apparently SCOTUS thinks it is, and my opinion does not matter.
-
XO says: This is E N T I R E L Y about giving women who want contraceptives what they want,
No it isn't. no one is stopping any woman from obtaining contraceptives so please don't delude yourself into thinking they are.
The issue is entirely first amendment based. Does the Federal government have the authority to force a religious organization to act contrary to their beliefs. The first says no.
-
I can buy a corporation and sell shares in it to others.
I cannot legally buy a person and sell shares in him to others.
There are clear distinctions in every state between the rights and obligations of corporations and those of citizens.
Corporations do NOT have the same rights.
-
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the most common usage of the word, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.
Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[1] While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." [2] This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate)
-
Actually her rights are not been denied thier has been no mention of birth control being denied. Just no coverage which shouldn't be much of an issue since alot of medications are not covered. But are still availabe at full price to the patient.
But if the church wins this case would insurance companies be able restrict coverage even more?
-
What goes on within the Church is one thing. When you go outside and hire private citizens to do a job, be they Catholic or not, then you lose any special consideration as a religious institution as far as those employees go. That's my take. And, eventually, I believe that will be the accepted view and practice.
BSB
-
The insurance company is not the villain in this story. It is an overreaching federal government.
-
"It is an overreaching federal government. "
That's just redneck speak for states rights, the Civil War, and all that crap.
BSB
-
The Constitution has no provision to regulate churches or corporations or to guarantee rights to them. This is as it should be.
The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee rights to churches/religions?? Since when??
Allergy medicine is certainly a valid medical treatment. It prevents a more serious condition with potential health problems, as do contraceptives.
NO, NO, NO....This is spoken out of ignorance.....not a personal insult, but to someone who is wholly uninformed. An allergy can be a serious, if not a deadly diagnosis. THERE IS NO MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS TO A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO BUY BIRTH CONTROL. If they want them, they can shell out the few bucks for something. THEIR CHOICE
-
Please. The first talk of secession came from your neck of the woods.
See the Hartford Convention of 1814 for details.
-
Is there such thing as a church that includes no people?
Same question for corporations....
It is hard to imagine an opposite equivelent.
What if an anti gun organisation were forced to pay dues to the NRA?
Or provide employees with guns as they were inclined.
That isn't precicely reciprocal, but it is pretty close.
-
"It is an overreaching federal government. "
That's just redneck speak for states rights, the Civil War, and all that crap.
BSB
You don't think that there can actually be an overreaching overcentralised government?
Don't think Lincon and the Union, think Lennin and the Soviet Union.
-
NO, NO, NO....This is spoken out of ignorance.....not a personal insult, but to someone who is wholly uninformed. An allergy can be a serious, if not a deadly diagnosis. THERE IS NO MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS TO A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO BUY BIRTH CONTROL. If they want them, they can shell out the few bucks for something. THEIR CHOICE
I maybe reading this wrong, but as stated earlier a doctor is required to prescribe to prevent possible bad reactions to the medication. Also birth control pills are also prescribe for Non-contraceptive purposes . Meaning thier are unrelated medical reasons for it
-
Like.....................? In other words, what are the medical diagnoses that would require the prescription of Birth Control?.....not related to birth control of course, since that's not a medical diagnosis, of any kind
-
Sirs??
The main post was about sanrda fluke . She's the rush limbagh target that started this talk about non-birth control use for the pill.
We talked about this when it happened .I'm could of sworeyou and I were disscussing it. I forgot the detail of it
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill (http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill)
-
For anyone that has a legitimate diagnosis of.........whatever, and a Dr. wishes to prescribe Birth Control pill or some similar prescription, to deal with that diagnosis, I have no problem with that. (unless of course, its the mandating of a religious institution to provide it against their doctrine and counter the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
Otherwise, much of what you've posted as to "needs" are largely to lessen the issues of ...being a woman I guess. It's kinda like taking aspirin to lessen the risk of a heart attack. And as such, I have no problem either, if a woman chooses to purchase birth control, to lessen their risks of cancer, or uncomfortable periods, if that's what they have. But again, if they're having "painful periods", that indeed could be a medical issue, and warrants whatever the Dr believes can address that condition
Just wanting Birth Control to help prevent the possibility of a birth is NOT a medical condition or diagnosis that justifies ANY forced coverage of it by any insurance agency, much less a Religious organization
-
"See the Hartford Convention of 1814 for details"
Hell, Hartford is several hours SOUTH of here.
BSB
-
That's fine . A lot of Mass People attended.
-
This is where it gets iffy would the church be ok with it if it was used for non-contraceptive use. Insurance itself may not be as relfaxable. If the pill gets on the no coverage list it might not have a "unless clause" .
-
That should be up to the Church in question....not the Government. As in their choice
-
The Georgetown policy of Sandra Fluke fame did cover the pills if prescribed for non contraceptive uses.
-
It should be up to the CITIZEN what benefits she wishes to receive.
Screw the Church. The Constitution does not guarantee the Church anything, nor should it.
The opinion of the Church is due to only one single, foreign person: the Pope. The US Constitution does not bestow the right of that one non-American, unelected foreign Church functionary the right to decide what benefits a woman should receive from her government.
-
It should be up to the CITIZEN what benefits she wishes to receive. The Constitution does not guarantee the Church anything, nor should it.
Listen to yourself......."wishes to receive"?? Since when does anyone have a right to receive anything?? Please, show me that in the Constitution. And the Church is the foundation to religion, duly connected to the 1st amendment to the Constitution. There is an ABSOLUTE GURANTEE afforded the Church.....as in ALL CHURCHES, not just the Catholic church
Screw the Church.
Yea, as in screw the Constitution. But naaaaa, no hard core liberal here. See, its statements just like this that keep validating my original references to your hard core nature. I know plenty of liberals, many of them friends, who can talk objectively, make rational comments supporting their liberal postions, have spirited debate, and none of them tell me to "just screw the Church", or that gun owners are gun nuts
-
The only religion the Catholic Church practices is the religion of self-aggrandizement.
BSB
-
Your opinion on that specific religion/church is duly noted
-
Why should anyone interpret the US Constitution to mean that the alien Pope's opinion should trump that of bona fide tax paying American citizen?
If the Pope claimed God told him contraceptives were okay with Jesus, he'd pass the word down tomorrow, I assume.
-
Why should anyone interpret the US Constitution to mean that the alien Pope's opinion should trump that of bona fide tax paying American citizen?
Probably because no one is ::)
-
XO seems to be building with straw this week.
-
You are incapable of seeing reality, as always. This is about the Pope imposing his will on millions of American women who want contraceptives.
-
You are incapable of seeing reality, as always. This is about the Pope imposing his will on millions of American women who want contraceptives.
It has nothing to do with the Pope. It has to do with bureaucrats stepping all over the first amendment.
-
It has to do with a guy in Rome wearing a penis hat deciding who gets insurance coverage on what.
BSB
-
If the Pope okayed contraceptives, this issue would vanish. That is clear.
Why should our Constitution allow some dork in Rome to prevent women from getting the pills they want?
Most Catholic women ignore the Pope on birth control issues already. No one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives.
The Roman Catholic Church is not an American citizen and does not have the right to inflict its views on American citizens.
-
It's not even a moral issue for the Church. It's about having more little barefoot Catholics running around then Protestants. Or now probably Muslims.
BSB
-
If the Pope okayed contraceptives, this issue would vanish. That is clear.
What is clear is that this isn't about 1 man, but the hard left, as explified by messers xo & bsb, apparently has unresolved issues with the Catholic Church. But to placate your obsession, it MIGHT make the issue vanish, as it relates to the Catholic Church ONLY. There's all manner of religions, that would make their own CHOICE, and if their convictions would also decline the providing BC, that would also be their CHOICE
Why should our Constitution allow some dork in Rome to prevent women from getting the pills they want?
Because it has nothing to do with any dork in Rome
No one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives.
Exactly......ITS THEIR CHOICE. So, what's the beef??
The Roman Catholic Church is not an American citizen and does not have the right to inflict its views on American citizens.
Nor is it
-
Who is left and who is right on this one? Sirs, BT, and other Catholics are on the left here. This is old time Rome rules over the local authority crap. We've been fighting this battle for centuries against the Catholics. My forefathers fought it in England.
BSB
-
What the hell are you talking about?? I can't speak for Bt, but sirs is on the side of the constitution. It has squat to do with the Catholic church, outside of the Federal government & its think-they-know-better bumbling LEFT bureaucrats attempting to mandate acts upon religious organizations, squarely counter to the clear wording of the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that would prohibit the free exercise of said religion. My forefathers fought for that freedom, and by God, I'm going to keep defending it
-
Thoughtfull people were against abortion before there was such a thing as a Pope.
That is why it is mentioned in the Hippocratic oath.
Being for abortion , no matter what evidence might be presented ,is a refusal to accept both logic and compassion.
If the Pope is against abortion , good on him , I might co-operate with his efforts to do a good thing, even if I disagree with him quite a bit on other decisions.
What sort of logic is being used to say that something is bad becauase the Pope is in favor of it?
-
Why should our Constitution allow some dork in Rome to prevent women from getting the pills they want?
What a misogynist thing to say.
Why do you insists that women are so stupid that they cannot go down to the walmart and get a prescription filled that will cost them $4 a month.
What is it about democrats that they insist their subjects couldn't tie their shoelaces without governments help.
-
It's the old time Democrats that supported the Church over the individual. We're apparently back to that. Next thing you know no one will be able to eat meat on Friday.
BSB
-
::) Good gravy. You can always tell when the barrels are empty, when the responses get exponentially hyperbolic
-
The Pope has a right to his opinion. But a woman has a greater right to decide what to do with her own body than his "Holiness". She has the right to disagree with the Pope in conscience and should have the same right to disagree in action. If every other worker has the right to contraceptives from a medical plan, the woman should also have the same exact right.
Bestowing the ability to deny her the pills she wants on the Pope and the Holy Mother Church makes the Church and the Pope agents of the government, allowing their wishes to trump that of a citizen.
That sucks.
-
Good thing then, that's not what's happening. (*whew*, we dodged a close one there)
-
That is precisely what he happening here.
If you can't see that, you are incapable of rational thought.
-
Again no one is denying women the right to purchase contraceptives.
What is happening is the government is encroaching on the separation of church and state by mandating that said church purchase for others a product that goes against their beliefs.
This is not a hard topic to understand.
-
BINGO!!
-
What is happening is the Church is encroaching on the separation of church and state. They are telling employees, not of the Church itself, but of hospitals, charities, etc., they run, what their insurance is allowed to cover based on the Churches religious beliefs. These are private sector workers working in jobs open to the general population to fill.
This isn't Saudi Arabia. We don't follow religious law in the United States. The Church can stick their believes where the sun don't shine.
BSB
-
What is happening is the government is encroaching on the separation of church and state by mandating that said church purchase for others a product that goes against their beliefs.
This is not a hard topic to understand.
==================================================
It is the Church that is doing the encroaching here: the employee wants contraceptives, and the Church refuses to provide them.
The constitution does not guarantee the rights if any church.
The Church has this belief because a foreigner who does not even live here and never even visits here tells oit to do this.
Why should my country allow the dictates of some foreign fool to trump those of an American citizen?
THAT is what hard to understand.
His effing Holiness does not run this country.
-
What is happening is the government is encroaching on the separation of church and state by mandating that said church purchase for others a product that goes against their beliefs.
This is not a hard topic to understand.
==================================================
It is the Church that is doing the encroaching here: the employee wants contraceptives, and the Church refuses to provide them.
The Church is not preventing ANYONE from getting them, if they want. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE. Also, they have no legal obligation to provide them, and the Constitution allows them the choice to NOT provide them, if they so wish
The constitution does not guarantee the rights if any church.
I'm not sure which constitution you keep referring to. Ours, as in the U.S. specifically guarantees rights to ALL religions. It makes it clear that the Government CAN NOT mandate any actions by a religions organization, Catholic Church included, that runs counter to their established doctrines....outside of Human Sacrifices perhaps
Why should my country allow the dictates of some foreign fool to trump those of an American citizen?...His effing Holiness does not run this country.
Because he doesn't. The U.S. Constitution dictates how this country is run, not his "effing Holiness", nor hard core liberals who think they just know better
-
What is happening is the government is encroaching on the separation of church and state by mandating that said church purchase for others a product that goes against their beliefs.
This is not a hard topic to understand.
==================================================
It is the Church that is doing the encroaching here: the employee wants contraceptives, and the Church refuses to provide them.
The constitution does not guarantee the rights if any church.
The Church has this belief because a foreigner who does not even live here and never even visits here tells oit to do this.
Why should my country allow the dictates of some foreign fool to trump those of an American citizen?
THAT is what hard to understand.
His effing Holiness does not run this country.
Are there indeed female employees of the Chirch that are complaining?
I havent heard of this.
-
It is the Church that is doing the encroaching here: the employee wants contraceptives, and the Church refuses to provide them.
Completely false. Purposely obtuse. And completely bigoted to boot.
The church is not in the business of dispensing medicines. They cannot refuse to provide that which they don't provide.
-
As an employer, the Church is trying to REFUSE to provide women with what every other employer provides, based on the opinion of just one foreign guy who knows diddly about women.
-
As an employer, the Church is trying to REFUSE to provide women with what every other employer provides, based on the opinion of just one foreign guy who knows diddly about women.
LOL....the linguistic distortions you're trying to apply to that sentence alone would have many language arts teachers cringing. trying to refuse to provide??
a) they don't have to
b) the Constitution protects their right if they chose not to
c) And no not every other employer provides it, as per some mandate. Those that do, chose to.
NO ONE IS DENYING THE WOMAN ANYTHING THAT SHE WANTS. NOR WAS THE CONSTITUTION WRITTEN BY ANY EFFING POPE
Gads, the amount of straw that you and Bsb have been producing with this Pope nonsense, could blanket Kansas :o
-
The church does not provide the medications therefore they are not denying anyone said medications. Again, this is not rocket science.
-
The Pope and his Church would LOVE to deny contraceptives to EVERYONE. They supported bans on contraceptives for decades and opposed rescinding laws against them. The Church opposes allowing the sale of condoms and other contraceptives in Ireland and Poland to this day.
-
It doesn't matter what the Pope would like. The US Church is reacting to an unconstitutional intrusion into their affairs by a bungling bureaucracy,
Their employees who wish contraceptives can obtain them at the pharmacy of their choice.
-
As much as they want in fact. No one is denying/preventing women BC. Is it intellectual dishonesty by the left Bt, or just simply unable to see the forest thru the trees, with so much straw, when any time the Catholic church is pulled into the discussion?
-
No one is telling the Church what to do with their priests or nuns or anyone who works within the Church itself. But when they step outside that capacity and run a hospital, say, hiring workers regardless of their religious affiliation, all bets are off. They're no more special then a Buddhist Temple that runs a bakery on the side and hires a baker off the street. Those Buddhists would have to follow all employer employee laws.
You have be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see the this. It's very easy. Of course the Buddhists wouldn't piss and moan. They'd just follow the law like good citizens.
BSB
-
Sorry, the Constitution applies to the church, every day of the week, not just Sundays. Nor is the Church preventing anyone from aquiring anything they want. They simply have the Constitutional protection of not having to provide them, against their religious beliefs
If you have a problem with the law, there's this thing called a Constitutional Convention, where you can amend the Constitution.
Good luck with that
-
No one has tested the constitutional viability of the Church's claim in this regard at the Suprem Court level. So your claims are bullshit sirs. Nothing new in that though. Everything you post is bullshit.
BSB
-
The 1st amendment speaks for itself...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Not supporting, or in this case, providing BC, is an "exercise thereof"
So your claims of BS, are as ususal, BS. Nothing new there
But, you always have a Constitutional Convention to fall back on. As I said, good luck with that
-
What we know from the first go-round with Scotus is that at least 3 on the court were ready to rule mandates unconstitutional. I don't see how Roberts can twist this mandate into being a tax. And with tthe additional conflict of themandate with the 1st amendment i would be quite willing to bet that the courts find this particular mandate unconstitutional.
Those in New England may disagree,as they see fit.