Pharmacists and the "duty" to dispense emergency contraceptives | Issues in Law & Medicine | Find Articles (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6875/is_3_23/ai_n25432072/)

It's a long read but hits the good points.

Here it is, Obama redefining religion (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/):


Group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. A religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C.F.R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B)

So let's get this straight, The One gets up and preaches his gospel that "I am my brother's keeper". He then announces a rule that narrowly redefines what qualifies as religious.

(1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose

Gone, feeding the hungry. Gone, caring for the sick. Gone, clothing the naked. Gone, sheltering the homeless. Gone, furnishing safe harbor to abused women and children. Gone, prisoner re-entry programs. Gone, gone, gone.

(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets

Gone, any employer that isn't a house of worship.

(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets

See above. The church is no longer to supposed to help others regardless of who they are or what they believe? We're either supposed to discriminate or violate our conscience? Are you kidding me? And for what, a cure in search of a disease?

This is a dangerous precedent being set here and I'll repeat, if you value your cherished rights you'll join me in protecting religious freedom.

speech, you are running a strawman argument.

You are defining religion as something that does not engage in human charity, yet these values are ensconced in religion, at least in christian religion which holds that looking after the needy is true religion..
I can hold religious views without attending a church or being a card carrying member of a demonination and I see nowhere a requirement to ascertain a persons religious views before helping them

Speech didn't write the code . It is Obama who says that a religious organization is one that primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
When you include missions it is possible that Catholic affiliated organizations serve more outside the flock.

Ain't no straw man there, Clete.

You guys should let the pope speak for himself, but as the President he set a policy debate that has a year to go before its the law. So be glad we at least have the debate. You say he is wrong, I say he is NOT!! What's clear is we have to define what everyone is entitled to and make a law that sets the boundaries and consequences for what we can do, and don't do! That's just The American Way, and you may think your God comes first, which I can agree with, that doesn't mean I should/or you suffer under the beliefs of people, or the way they interpret what their GOD tells them to do.

That means any nut job can justify whatever they do, right or wrong, and do so in the name of serving their GOD. That's what NOT having a definition brings you, and there are thousands of years of history to say that's so! That's the problem now, as has always been when we put the right of instituitions over the rights of people, and its great when it works, and makes second class subjects of those that have no way to overcome the whims, agendas and motives, of those who would have powers over others.

I can respect you guys views and fears, but just do not agree with the way you frame things because, I doubt the right, or the left is a majority, but in the end we have to at least have a consensus that's fair to MOST of us.

Why can't we meet in the middle, and give some to get some, until we can have a law that we can live under? The real beauty of freedom of religion, is no church can dictate to any citizen how they practice their religion, and no church can penalize any citizen who doesn't do as they are told. Even when they leave the church, and walk among the citizens.

There has to be a definition for there to be a law, or the few will surely screw the many, just because they can. Just an observation though, the churches seem to be doing quite well under the law, and I don't see that changing by any definitions, or laws at this time or the near future.

Can a church decide to be an insurance company and demand to be treated like a church?

Absolutely not!!

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3029627]Here it is, Obama redefining religion (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/):



So let's get this straight, The One gets up and preaches his gospel that "I am my brother's keeper". He then announces a rule that narrowly redefines what qualifies as religious.
[I]


Hi Steve,


Unfortunately I think the Constitution is going to end up backing you in a corner. Alternative, it will force people to hold a contradictory position.
Anyway that's what I see happening.

The legislation, or proposed legislation you quote has elements of legal fiction contained within. The Obama administration seems to be inspired by the nonsensical and ridiculous idea of 'corporate personhood'

Basically what I am saying is that you can't support the idea of 'corporate person' and how it relates to the other admendments while at the same time rejecting the Obama inspired version of 'personhood' as it relates to religion.

You can, but you would be holding a contradictory position.

Tut

P.S. Before someone jumps in and accuses me of saying the constitution is legal fiction.

No.. I said 'personhood' is legal fiction. I DIDN'T say the Constitution is legal fiction.

speech didn't write the code . It is Obama who says that a religous organization is one that primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.
When you include missions it is possible that Catholic affiliated organizations serve more outside the flock.

It may be that some churches have strong social programs and government would have greater expenditure if it were it were not for such church programs and so who ever holds these views is a strawman.
If it is Obama then I could suggest he is no Christian whatever his protest might be. There is a facility for making clear that the writer is quoting someone else

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;3029627]Here it is, Obama redefining religion (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/):



So let's get this straight, The One gets up and preaches his gospel that "I am my brother's keeper". He then announces a rule that narrowly redefines what qualifies as religious.
[I]


Hi Steve,


Unfortunately I think the Constitution is going to end up backing you in a corner. Alternative, it will force people to hold a contradictory position.
Anyway that's what I see happening.

The legislation, or proposed legislation you quote has elements of legal fiction contained within. The Obama administration seems to be inspired by the nonsensical and ridiculous idea of 'corporate personhood'

Basically what I am saying is that you can't support the idea of 'corporate person' and how it relates to the other admendments while at the same time rejecting the Obama inspired version of 'personhood' as it relates to religion.

You can, but you would be holding a contradictory position.

Tut

P.S. Before someone jumps in and accuses me of saying the constitution is legal fiction.

No.. I said 'personhood' is legal fiction. I DIDN'T say the Constitution is legal fiction.

Ni Tut,

No offense but you're going to have to speak in plain English for me. All I know is religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment, free birth control is not.

Whether that's the 'corporate body' as the church and its extended ministries or the individual matters not in my view. He is narrowly defining what qualifies as religious to those things generally found in houses of worship; faith, common beliefs, teaching and evangelism, etc. in order to disqualify service to the community as legitimate religious activity and burden the church to violate its beliefs or get out of the business of helping others. This is illegal, hypocritical and violates our rights (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223003824714664.html).

Whether that's the 'corporate body' as the church and its extended ministries or the individual matters not in my view. Hello again, Steve:

If you'd STOP using right wing PC, you'd SEE how ridiculous your statement sounds... A hospital is NOT a ministry... I've been to a "ministry" before. A hospital ain't one.

excon

So they're just in it for the money? I'm going to use one of my favorite ministries as an example, the Christian humanitarian group called World Vision (http://www.worldvision.org/). You take a look and tell me what they do, ex. Check into their finances, too, it's right there on the website. You want them to stop feeding children because Obama has this cure in search of a disease? Are you kidding me?

So they're just in it for the money? Hello again, Steve:

I'm sure they ARE in it for the good works.. But, they TAKE the money, and that's the difference.. I'm sure the bill doesn't say DONATION!

excon

That was an interesting read there Steve, and brought up an interesting idea. Can my boss take away my religious rights if they schedule me to work on Sunday? Can my boss make me work on any religious holiday I celebrate?

Can they force my kids to pray to their God, in school, or can my kids pray to their own?? Dude, when you limit government, and enhance religion, we look more and more like a theocracy, following religious rules than we do a nation having fair rules we all follow.

I suspect these religious freedom motives have a more insidious purpose in mind, and that's to minimize and subjugate the individual rights of choice for the individual. The events of the last few months seem to indicate, by vote, and legislation that the far right citing religious beliefs is again trying to subjugate female choices, and make them second class citizens.

The Person hood initiatives, DEFINING when life starts, AND the defunding of Planned Parenthood, to deny access to woman's health choices by DEFINING it as an abortion mill, even if 97% is about other health services. And most egregious the recent legislative push by the state of Virginia (http://mypatrioticdoody.com/2012/02/15/the-republican-war-on-women-invading-the-vagina-in-virginia/) to invade a females body (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-barrington-wolff/virginia-ultrasound-bill_b_1278832.html)for NO medical reason, against her will. Much like justifying slavery by saying the slave were not real people, only 3/5ths of a human, to deny equal protection of the law.

Seems like the real conflict is against the needs, and rights of females to follow church doctrine, than it is against the freedom to religion. This is individual rights versus institutional rights. So the freedom of religion has to define what religions are so we know for sure where the institutional right end, and the rights of the citizens begins.

According to you, the church, and you can decide that, and all due respect right wingers, I would like it in writing through consensus, instead of taking your word for what my rights are, thank you. Not to mention the overwhelming consensus that most of the country is in agreement with the presidents accommodation to the catholic church, as balanced and fair. That only leaves the far right on the side of the bishops.

Tal, there is no 'consensus' when Obama decrees thusly.

fair rules we all follow.

Lol , what a concept . That would be the same rules where a tax code is thousands of pages giving one person or the other an advantage ?

Religious exceptions are a reality that predates this country,and it is well established in constitutional law... [Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court decided that sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption.]

Hello again, Steve:

I'm sure they ARE in it for the good works.. But, they TAKE the money, and that's the difference.. I'm sure the bill doesn't say DONATION!!

excon

In other words they have no expenses? Dude.

And do you have any idea how much free healthcare these places provide? And as I keep repeating, it isn't just hospitals it WILL spread to EVERY community outreach program the church and parachurch organizations provide. You're perfectly willing to destroy the very good works that have been demanded of us AND our constitutional rights for this cure in search of a disease?

lol , what a concept . That would be the same rules where a tax code is thousands of pages giving one person or the other an advantage ?

Religious exceptions are a reality that predates this country,and it is well established in constitutional law.... [Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court decided that sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption.]

Those would be the same "fair" rules that give $100 million of taxpayer money to assist the 1 percent in buying an electric car.

Religious exceptions are a reality that predates this country,and it is well established in constitutional law.... [Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court decided that sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption.]

Hi Tom,

This is not accurate. A sincere objection is not enough.

If it were someone would claim a sincere objection to not being allowed to smoke marijuana as being part of their religious ritual The Free Exercise Clause requires the state to show a compelling interest in restricting someone religious PRACTICE. A persons religious beliefs and opinions are absolute and this is the only unqualified aspect.

Yes, as you point out the Free Exercise test was all but eliminated, but it was reinstated again in 1993. As I have been saying this clause has sometimes been interpreted in a narrow fashion and sometimes broadly depending upon the historical circumstances.

Tut

Sorry Tut the "Sherbert Test" is still the law of the land . And nothing has changed about a law infringing on religious liberty if 1) the person or institution has a valid claim to a sincere religious belief, and 2) the law is a substantial burden on the that belief.
The contraception decision clearly meets that standard .
Now ,a more recent ruling.. . 'Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta'l.SCOTUS decided that the federal government must show a compelling state interest in restricting religious freedom.
Obama has not met that test either .
This also complies with legislation called the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act '. I would argue in court that there is absolutely no compelling state interest to force this mandate of a preventive waiting for a disease. And the only justification I can see for this is the hostility to religious institutions this administration has... it is clearly politically motivated .

back to the original question. Here is a thought. This would not be an issue if the secular state didn't attempt to force its values on the church in order to circumvent the constitution.. So ask yourself what is a constitution worth if it can so easily be overturned.

Churches shold be allowed to provide their services within their ethical standards and if that doesn't suit some them let them seek service elsewhere

Not only that ;but the President has just dicatorially decided that a company must give it's services for "free" ;a service he calls a financial burden to the customer. And here we were laughed at when we said Obamacare was a government takeover of medical care industry.The insurance companies may as well be the Post Office... well except for one thing... the Constitution gives the government the power to establish a postal system.It gives the government no such authority over the health care industry.

I would argue in court that there is absolutely no compelling state interest to force this mandate of a preventive waiting for a disease.

I would argue just the opposite as its well documented and a common practice to prevent many diseases particular to women by the use of contraception.

Highly effective reversible contraception. Birth control pills provide highly reliable contraceptive protection, exceeding 99%. Even when imperfect use (skipping an occasional pill) is considered, the BCPs are still very effective in preventing pregnancy.
Menstrual cycle regulation. Birth control pills cause menstrual cycles to occur regularly and predictably. This is especially helpful for women with periods that come too often or too infrequently. Periods also tend to be lighter and shorter.
Reduce menstrual cramps. Birth control pills can offer significant relief to women with painful menstrual cramps.
Decreased risk of iron deficiency (anemia). Birth control pills reduce the amount of blood flow during the period. Less blood loss is helpful in preventing anemia.
Reduce the risk of ovarian cysts. The risk of developing ovarian cysts is greatly reduced for birth control pills users because they help prevent ovulation. An ovarian cyst is a fluid - filled growth that can develop in the ovary during ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary).
Protection against pelvic inflammatory disease. Birth control pills provide some protection against pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Pelvic inflammatory disease is a serious bacterial infection of the fallopian tubes and uterus that can result in severe pain and potentially, infertility.
Can improve acne. Birth control pills can improve acne. For moderate to severe acne, which other medications can't cure, birth control pills may be prescribed. The hormones in the birth control pill can help stop acne from forming.
Reduces the risk of symptomatic endometriosis. Women who have endometriosis tend to have less pelvic pain and fewer other symptoms when they are on the Pill. Birth control pills won't cure endometriosis but it may stop the disease from progressing. The pills are the first-choice treatment for controlling endometriosis growth and pain. This is because birth control hormones are the hormone therapy that is least likely to cause bad side effects.
Improves fibrocystic breasts. 70 - 90% of patients see improvement in the symptoms of fibrocystic breast conditions with use of oral contraceptives.
Improved excess hair (hirsutism). Women with excessive facial or body hair may notice an improvement while taking the Pill, because androgens and testosterone are suppressed by oral contraceptives. High androgen levels can cause darkening of facial and body hair, especially on the chin, chest, and abdomen.
Prevents ectopic pregnancy. Because birth control pills work primarily by suppressing ovulation, they effectively prevent ectopic pregnancy as well as normal pregnancy. This makes the pills an excellent contraceptive choice for women who are at particular risk for ectopic pregnancy, a potentially life-threatening condition.
Helps prevent osteoporosis. Several studies show that by regulating hormones, the pill can help prevent osteoporosis, a gradual weakening of the bones. However, the results of different studies are conflicting (1-3).
Does not affect future fertility. Using the pills will not affect a woman's future fertility, although it may take two to three months longer to get pregnant than if a woman did not take pills.
Easy to use. Does not interrupt foreplay or sexual intercourse.
Safe for many women. Research for over 40 years has proven long term safety.

And since men have insurance for viagra, why shouldn't a female have access to contraceptives since it clearly does multiple thigs that benefit a woman.


And the only justification I can see for this is the hostility to religious institutions this administration has... it is clearly politically motivated .

So its okay for states to make a law, but not okay for the federal government to have the same law. Did any of you figure out if Obama just said forget it, you would still be under the same law?? You lose under the EEOC ruling.

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law)


In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."
.


After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co. a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

"We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago. (DePaul officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official told Mother Jones that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law."

So yet again you righties blame this on Obama tyranny but this was long before he even though of being president.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!!

Sorry Tut the "Sherbert Test" is still the law of the land . And nothing has changed about a law infringing on religious liberty if 1) the person or institution has a valid claim to a sincere religious belief, and 2) the law is a substantial burden on the that belief.
The contraception decision clearly meets that standard .
Now ,a more recent ruling ....

Hi Tom Nice try, but this particular aspect is not a faita accompli.

In your first example you state that ," The Supreme Court decided that sincere religious objections had a presumptive constitutional right to exemption."

Yet here you say,".....the person or institution has a valid claim to a sincere religious belief"

Which is it? What did the Supreme Court decide? Answer... neither of these two when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause.

Taken from Wikipedia Justice Brennan's quote in summing up the majority opinion, " To condition the availability of the appellant's willingness to violate CARDINAL PRINCIPLES* of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties".
(*my emphasis)

A religious objection doesn't wash. A religious objection can be anything I want it to be. I can always claim that the state stopping me from smoking dope is religiously objectionable from my point of view. However this religious belief contains no cardinal principles. The state can also intervene because it has a vested interest in stopping me from breaking the law. I lose out on two accounts.

The 'Sherbert decision' is saying that a persons religious beliefs are being burdened because they are going against the cardinal principles set out in this this particular individuals religion.

To rule otherwise would allow all sorts of nonsense such as ritual killings to go ahead in the name of a sincere religious belief.

Tut

[QUOTE=TUT317;3030166]

Ni Tut,

No offense but you're going to have to speak in plain English for me. All I know is religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment, free birth control is not.

Whether that's the 'corporate body' as the church and its extended ministries or the individual matters not in my view. He is narrowly defining what qualifies as religious to those things generally found in houses of worship; faith, common beliefs, teaching and evangelism, etc. in order to disqualify service to the community as legitimate religious activity and burden the church to violate its beliefs or get out of the business of helping others. This is illegal, hypocritical and violates our rights (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223003824714664.html).

Hi Steve,

I agree with what you are saying here. There no requirement for a persons religious belief to be codified in law. Up until now that is!

I am not a constitution lawyer but I don't think there are too many here at the moment so I will put my two cents worth in.

The bottom line for me is that a corporation enjoys quasi legal status. This means that one of the defining features of a corporation is that it resembles a person when it comes to freedom of speech and many other liberties. What it can't do is claim the right to vote.

The Obama administration is not redefining religion per se. Rather it is redefining religion for legal purposes. According to the legislation as 'a religious employer' I enjoy quasi legal status. In other words for the purpose of law religion can be defined in legal terms.

Despite what Tom thinks, freedom of religious beliefs and opinions is different freedom of religious practices.The first is absolute and the second is qualified. Here in 'lies the rub'

A quasi religious interpretation can give the state a compelling interest to interfere in religious beliefs. In other words, it will be a lot easier for the state to show a compelling interest.

This is what I mean when I say the Constitution may well end up backing you into a corner, What do you think? Is it possible?

And since men have insurance for viagra, why shouldn't a female have access to contraceptives since it clearly does multiple thigs that benefit a woman.
Men do not have a "right " to "free " viagra . There are many things I take to prevent disease . Why can't I get them for "free" ? I take all types of supplements as preventives . I want my saw palmetto for "free " . I want my very expensive co Q "free" . I'm thrilled they found such wonderful other uses for "the pill " besides the reason the vast majority of women use it for (to prevent the disease called pregnancy ). However ,they are also finding many other reasons to take aspirin than for relief from headaches. Why can't we all get "free" aspirin ?
When the nanny state can make such mandates anything is possible ! Why not mandate that women take the pill if it's such a compelling state interest ?


So its okay for states to make a law, but not okay for the federal government to have the same law.
Actually yes .The constitution has very few restrictions on what a state has the power to do.


Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones
Maybe so... what changes here is the religious exeptions . That is unchartered territory .Religious liberty precedes any state interest in this instance .

Hello again,

Instead of starting a new thread, I'm going to shift this one LEFTWARD...

ENOUGH about church's... You righty's had a winner there... Then you turned your win into a loss. We're not talking about church's any more, we're talking about contraceptives...

That's a LOSER for you guys - a real loser...

excon

How about you just talk about the constitution instead? Where is that right to free contraceptives found?

Hello again, Steve:

You're missing it again... I think you do this on purpose...

I'm not talking about FREE or paid for.. I'm talking about your right wing co-horts telling women that they're SLUTS if they SCREW and don't want to get pregnant. It's having a congressional committee on contraception WITHOUT saying the word contraception and WITHOUT having ANY women on it.

The Limp one, Isis and Santorum are on that bandwagon... Looking for a link, but you KNOW I speak the truth..

excon

Can't speak for the others . I don't march to their orders... I have no objection to contraception on the market (except the morning after pill) . To me this is only a question about religious freedom .

Carolyn Maloney of New York and Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, DC are both on the committee so your contention is wrong. They staged some political theater by walking out complaining about the witness list. That I suppose is what you mean by 'without any women on it '.
They were hearing testimony from religious leaders. I have no opinion on the political savy of not having female witnesses. The Repubics have been shooting themselves in the foot a lot lately . Just this week they gave the President another victory by caving in on the pay roll tax cut.

Hello again, Steve:

You're missing it again... I think you do this on purpose...

I'm not talking about FREE or paid for.. I'm talking about your right wing co-horts telling women that they're SLUTS if they SCREW and don't want to get pregnant.

Dude, stop making stuff up. I think the problem is you guys want to have both sides of the debate without our input, commonly referred to in liberal circles as "compromise", "bipartisanship" and other bizarre euphemisms.

In fact Pelosi's idea (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pelosi-catholic-church-should-directly-pay-free-birth-control-pills_629923.html) of "compromise" or "accommodation" is even self-insured Catholic organizations need to get over their "conscience thing" and be forced to violate their beliefs.



It's having a congressional committee on contraception WITHOUT saying the word contraception and WITHOUT having ANY women on it.

The Limp one, Isis and Santorum are on that bandwagon... Looking for a link, but you KNOW I speak the truth..

Excon

So, basically what I get from your post is facts don't matter, the constitution doesn't matter and profiling is cool after all. My name is neither The Limp one, Isis or Santorum.

Now about that constitution thingy again, where is that free contraceptives civil right found?

My name is neither The Limp one, Isis or Santorum.

Now about that constitution thingy again, where is that free contraceptives civil right found?Hello again, Steve:

Dude! Well, my name isn't whomever the hell said contraceptives should be free...

excon

OK, so you're fine now with the executive branch dictating laws instead of our elected representatives doing it? I don't recall you being so happy about Bush doing that, why the change of heart?

Which brings us back to the real issue here. Obamacare's mandates in all their manifestations are unconstitutional . In that, Obama is an equal opportunity tryant .

Which brings me back to oft repeated warning that this is only the first step in destroying our freedoms by the tyrant-in-chief..

Indeed... contraception becomes... "preventive services" and the lid is off . If this can be mandate then what else ?

Anything. Obamacare, like the new CFPB (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/consumer-agency-wants-oversight-of-debt-collectors-credit-bureaus/2012/02/15/gIQAieioHR_print.html) whose illegally appointed director is already wanting more power, are from bills filled with phrases such as “The Secretary/Director shall determine... ”

Sky's the limit.

Chances are if the state mandates and exemptions meet constitutional muster, so will the federal mandates and exemptions since they are basically no different, and the free market that you righties preach about can work its will.

OOOOPS! Didn't mean to say FREE market!

But I would sure not listen to what the catholics say about what's right for a female, especially since catholic females don't. And this farce of a congressional hearing on free speech for the church is a farce, and even the right wing claims of conscientious objections fall well short of already settled law. Now we all have a right to object, and express whatever views we have, and that includes at the ballot box.

So until you guys get something better than you have, I predict you are out voted, but what's obvious is in the end the females will have the final say about their bodies. Now you can keep playing the outrage hand, but the consequences are on YOU!

I have yet to see any prescription with no out of pocket expenses, as insurances companies don't roll that way. If you know one let me know.

indeed ... contraception becomes ... "preventive services" and the lid is off . If this can be mandate then what else ?

Naw! We call it a females rights to reproductive health care. And they need it to keep the catholic right from imposing influence and beliefs on them without their CONSENT. I call it and the Blount bill political RAPE, and subjugation.

Anything. Obamacare, like the new CFPB (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/consumer-agency-wants-oversight-of-debt-collectors-credit-bureaus/2012/02/15/gIQAieioHR_print.html) whose illegally appointed director is already wanting more power, are from bills filled with phrases such as “The Secretary/Director shall determine...”

Sky's the limit.

I used both the link you provided, and the internal one, but couldn't find what the S/D shall determine. Please guide me or clarify.

Right there in the headline, "Consumer agency wants oversight of debt collectors, credit bureaus". It's easy, Tal,Obama and the Democrat congress created bureaucracies and allowed them to set their own boundaries. That ought to scare the hell out of you.

Men do not have a "right " to "free " viagra . There are many things I take to prevent disease . Why can't I get them for "free" ? I take all types of supplements as preventives . I want my saw palmetto for "free " . I want my very expensive co Q "free" . I'm thrilled they found such wonderful other uses for "the pill " besides the reason the vast majority of women use it for (to prevent the disease called pregnancy ). However ,they are also finding many other reasons to take aspirin than for relief from headaches. Why can't we all get "free" aspirin ?
When the nanny state can make such mandates anything is possible ! Why not mandate that women take the pill if it's such a compelling state interest ?
.

Hi Tom,

Probably because the ones you mention are over the counter. The others require a prescription .

That's going to change here too once the government fully implements it's coversion to the rediculously low dosages in Codex Alimentarius .

Because it needs to be read, Bishop William E. Lori's testimony regarding the effort to destroy our liberty.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people, who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things.

First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.

It's time men become responsible. There needs to be a fool-proof contraceptive measure for men so women no longer have to worry about getting pregnant every time they agree to have intercourse. All males would undergo a vasectomy before puberty, say at age 10, and have it reversed when they and their brides can produce a current valid wedding certificate.

Think of the problems that would solve!

Surely you jest. And by the way, I am responsible and I do take offense at the suggestion that it's all men's fault.

I didn't say it's all men's fault.

Isn't time the other gender takes responsibility now with medical science so advanced? Women have been responsible (and getting "blamed") since the dawn of time.

And how do all those babies get started in the first place?

Yes Speech a very scarry scenario painted there, however oversight doesn't mean setting your own boundries but reviewing actions and calling into question practices as well as responding to complaints

Right there in the headline, "Consumer agency wants oversight of debt collectors, credit bureaus". It's easy, Tal,Obama and the Democrat congress created bureaucracies and allowed them to set their own boundaries. That ought to scare the hell out of you.

And I guess its okay that these lending agents, and credit bureaus, and debt collector had nothing to do with shrinking the american pie, and sinking the economy??

And I guess its okay that these lending agents, and credit bureaus, and debt collector had nothing to do with shrinking the american pie, and sinking the economy????

Bit of a disconnect there Tal, I fail to see how debt collection shrinks the pie and sinks the economy. The economy sinks because people, corporations, don't pay their bills leading to bankruptcy of suppliers, so with responsible debt collection (and responsible taxation and collection) you get a bigger pie. Now lending also adds to the pie by enabling economic activity, no lending and the economy slows down (economics 101.)

Look at Greece, no responsible policies there and the result; chaos

“The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.

Now that's just ridicules! You can't make up a scenerio and offer it as fact! It hasn't happened in reality. Come ON!!

Now thats just ridicules! You can't make up a scenerio and offer it as fact! It hasn't happened in reality. Come ON!!!He does it all the time.

Bit of a disconnect there Tal, I fail to see how debt collection shrinks the pie and sinks the economy. The economy sinks because people, corporations, don't pay their bills leading to bankruptcy of suppliers, so with responsible debt collection (and responsible taxation and collection) you get a bigger pie. Now lending also adds to the pie by enabling economic activity, no lending and the economy slows down (economics 101.)

Look at Greece, no responsible policies there and the result; chaos

No Clete its called predatory lending and its not responsible. Its extraction with transparency. And if the ratings agency had been honest and did its due diligence the banks wouldn't have to default, and need a bailout.

Austerity isn't the answer. Never was, and just another way of putting profits before people. Another name for predatory lending is de leveraging, which has become an accepted practice of taking money with NO risk. You want a bigger pie, then you make sure circulation is enabled.

I can go along with responsible lending, but its not happening in Greece. If you have no income stream, or assets by which to leverage, then you don't get a loan. That's economics 101. And debt collection which is a growth industry works with predatory lending to to extract cash, and assets, with no investment or down side.

I guess you guys don't have companies whose sole existence is to use debt and assets to make themselves and their clients money while tearing companies apart. Heck we had a President (BUSH43) who bankrupted 7 companies, and a baseball team, and got rich!

Because it needs to be read, Bishop William E. Lori's testimony regarding the effort to destroy our liberty.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let's call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don't should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that's not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people, who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn't need to be on the menu, and didn't need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things.

First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis' meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.


I think there is one important point being missed in this hypothetical.

This goes back to my point earlier post. No one wanted to respond even though a asked a number of questions. Let's look at this again in light of this hypothetical.

I would argue there are not two food outlets on the one premisses. What we seem to have is a 'quasi kosher deli'. This is the worrying aspect of the whole thing from my point of view.

Once you let in one quasi legal definitions in relation to the Constitution then there is no reason not to let in another, and another and so on.

Quasi legal definitions are very handy because they only operate in legal arenas. Therefore, its no good saying this is unconstitutional or that is unconstitutional because in the end what is constitutional will be decided in the courts.

In the future I would be rather worried by a Constitutional lawyer armed with quasi legal definitions. Look at the problems created by 'corporate personhood". Anyway time will tell.

Tut

Have to agree with you Tut, and raise you an ordinary personhood, but I take your point. Things can change in a society, so it stands to reason so should the laws, and no doubt, so will the interpretation of the Constitution. I think that's what the amendment process is about, and why its not an easy thing to do.

A minority opinion just won't do that.

Have to agree with you Tut, and raise you an ordinary personhood, but I take your point. Things can change in a society, so it stands to reason so should the laws, and no doubt, so will the interpretation of the Constitution. I think thats what the amendment process is about, and why its not an easy thing to do.

A minority opinion just wont do that.


Hi Tal,

Yes, I think you are right.

What I have outlined is also a hypothetical. The direction things are moving (for better or worse depending on your politics) is not hypothetical. The fact is that our society is continually evolving.

I don't really see the point of being the conservative mayor of 'Pleasantville' (the film). Secondly, I don't really see much value in having you eyes firmly on the ideal while at the same time claiming that everything changing around you is an anathema. If you have seen the film you would know what I mean.

Lastly, I don't really see the point of a response that points even harder at the ideal. Then again Australian politics is different. We don't have much of a constitution compared to yours. Perhaps that's why I don't understand conservative politics over there.

Wouldn't it make more sense to work within the changing framework in order to slow down change? It is hard to accept change but it is almost impossible to stop it.

Tut

I don't think we are at a point that change can occur without a lot of friction, or conflict, but I would rather have a lot of hot words, rhetoric, and hurt feelings than bullets and blood of our last civil war.

Right or wrong, the ballots are better. It's a long, hard, never ending process, and that's what the whole point our constitution calls for, no matter who interprets what, which way. It's the process that's the most important I think.

So we vote every other year whether you love who wins or NOT! Sometimes I don't understand my conservative brothers either. But they do keep us from running head first into a brick wall, and we progressives keep them from being stuck in the mud. It's the American Way.

Go figure.

No Clete its called predatory lending and its not responsible. Its extraction with transparency. And if the ratings agency had been honest and did its due diligence the banks wouldn't have to default, and need a bailout.

Austerity isn't the answer. Never was, and just another way of putting profits before people. Another name for predatory lending is de leveraging, which has become an accepted practice of taking money with NO risk. You want a bigger pie, then you make sure circulation is enabled.

I can go along with responsible lending, but its not happening in Greece. If you have no income stream, or assets by which to leverage, then you don't get a loan. Thats economics 101. And debt collection which is a growth industry works with predatory lending to to extract cash, and assets, with no investment or down side.

I guess you guys don't have companies whose sole existence is to use debt and assets to make themselves and their clients money while tearing companies apart. Heck we had a President (BUSH43) who bankrupted 7 companies, and a baseball team, and got rich!

Confused arguments here Tal, no one is talking about austerity, which is reducing welfare and wage payments, Regulation is important banks need to have proper prudential oversight, but a deal is a deal and debt collection is part of that. You also need to understand that our mortgage laws are different to yours, no walk out and leave the bank with the debt here. Of course we have corporate predators but we have better regulation than you do so some of these questionable practices aren't allowed here, you see we didn't come down in the last shower and so we don't believe all the B/S put in front of us, we also have accountable government so the big questions get asked sooner.

Greece is a different issue, what happened there is pure fraud with no proper oversight, and those fellows are going to pay for it and so are those who lent to them without doing their own due diligence. The Greeks have been overpaying themselves and the clawback will be vicious, like any situation where you lend to a non credit worthy borrower, you will loose out

The question is... are rights inalienable ? And what are those rights ? In this country religious liberty predates the revolution The Enlightenment began as a defence of religious freedom, not an assault on it.

No one is assaulting religion, the debate is about the rights and needs of people. Of course the right characterizes anything people do that they don't like as an assault on them. Its obvious you are not open to the ideas, and rights of others unless YOU get to define them. That's why you come off as taking my rights and want to destroy them and everyone should live by the rights YOU think they should have, and I respectfully disagree strongly to that, or your premise that exercising MY rights is leading us to hell!

Rights became unalienable with the constitution Tom, which says basically no matter what the church preaches they cannot stop my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we all are equal under the law. But lets not forget it took 250 years to evolve to the point that ALL men are equal, and woman are too!

Religion has evolved to Tom, and has expanded its endeavors and reach into a lot more of the society than ever before, and as its role expands so do its responsibilities under the law. NO the church has NO rights in a free society, to restrict the rights of its followers. And health care is the new civil rights issue because not to have it is economically stupid, and morally reprehensible.

And lets be honest, the right wing would rather take away a persons choice in the name of life, and wants to use religious freedom as a vehicle to that end. More so the right also has an agenda to limit the government of the people to do for the people as we want them to. I disagree, so we have to go through the process of debate and see where we are. I think in this, and other social matters you guys are simply OUT VOTED. Just my opinion.

Just a curious observation though, I wonder if the churches rights would be violated by single payer, as opposed to employer based health care insurance??

Just a curious observation though, I wonder if the churches rights would be violated by single payer, as opposed to employer based health care insurance???Hello tal:

If they pay taxes, and taxes are used for women's health, OF COURSE, they're going to complain...

The problem they have is balancing religious freedom with an individuals rights... They TALK a big story about inalienable rights, but they DON'T understand that if they DON'T respect others inalienable rights, they'll soon lose their own...

Of course, if you asked them, they'd say that Christianity is under attack in the US, when all the available evidence says otherwise.

excon

He does it all the time.

And you sir attack me all the time and usually as in this case, your attacks are not based on reality. The reality is I said it was Bishop Lori's testimony, nothing made up about that.

You and Tal for some inexplicable reason don't think examining the possibilities and consequences of the laws being imposed on us is wise - when you AGREE with them. I happen to think it wise to lay out the scenarios and the fact is the Bishop's parable is not in the least far-fetched.

Rights became unalienable with the constitution Tom, which says basically no matter what the church preaches they cannot stop my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nah they are God given. And you like rights others pay for.

So you are afraid of what might happen if affordable employer based health insurance is available to all? Please tell me what your solution is, and what the people affected are supposed to do.

Sorry your parable is nice, but not based in fact as I could say just as effectively the parable about being hit by a bus. It may be a concern but doesn't rise to the level of FACT! My position is you cannot tell a female what to do and call it moral objection. The churches opinion is NO better than mine and they have choices to make as we all.

So I ask you what do female EMPLOYEES of the church have in the way of CHOICE! Why are employees of the church different than McDonalds or Ford motors. You mean church employees are less than other employees?

.

nah they are God given. And you like rights others pay for.

Whose God?

There is only one .if you are denying they are endowed by the creator you are denying the existence of unalienable rights . If it's humans that giveth then humans can taketh away.

So you are afraid of what might happen if affordable employer based health insurance is available to all? Please tell me what your solution is, and what the people affected are supposed to do.

Yes I fear it. I fear it with a passion as I have seen it in action before. Do you really think that if something is free then people won't abuse it? I was involved years ago with a health care plan that eliminated copays. Then when the bills came in everyone started screaming as the money started disappearing at an alarming rate. Do you really believe that this affordable health care your talking about has no cost? How about a trade off. No raises for the next 10 years to pay for it? Hey at least its affordable. We have no idea of the real costs of this goliath and with things being added in for free. The sky is the limit.

Solution: Pay what you can afford. Keep a copay. Don't overregulate the system.





So I ask you what do female EMPLOYEES of the church have in the way of CHOICE! Why are employees of the church different than McDonalds or Ford motors. You mean church employees are less than other employees?

They have the right to access services that they can afford if they aren't offered by their current plans. Should we also pay for plastic elective surgury too? Im sure there are lots of women that would get work done if it were free.
It is no different from any other employer. If they pay for the plans they choose the plans. What is left is what we are stuck with to figure out how to modify to suit our needs. Is it any different then having a company choose a plan that goes from a $500 deductable to one that is $5,000 ? The choice is always there to accept it or walk away. That is how employer healthcare plans started in the first place.

There is always a choice.

there is only one .if you are denying they are endowed by the creator you are denying the existance of unalienable rights . If it's humans that giveth then humans can taketh away.Hello tom:

That's YOUR religious viewpoint. Mine is that the UNIVERSE created me, or a passing comet... What makes YOUR religious viewpoint take precedence over mine?

But, I wonder... Did YOUR God only give these unalienable rights to Americans?? You DO keep lists of people who don't qualify.. Why would your God do that?

My comet didn't.

excon

Hello tom:

But, I wonder.... Did YOUR God only give these unalienable rights to Americans??? You DO keep lists of people who don't qualify.. Why would your God do that??

My comet didn't.

excon

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

My government secures mine .Again this so called right to get the pill is a right paid for by someone else. The founders were careful to not enumerate so called positive rights that require taking property from someone else to pay for them.

Yes I fear it. I fear it with a passion as I have seen it in action before. Do you really think that if something is free then people wont abuse it? I was involved years ago with a health care plan that eliminated copays. Then when the bills came in everyone started screaming as the money started disappearing at an alarming rate. Do you really believe that this affordable health care your talking about has no cost? How about a trade off. No raises for the next 10 years to pay for it? Hey atleast its affordable. We have no idea of the real costs of this goliath and with things being added in for free. The sky is the limit.

Solution: Pay what you can afford. Keep a copay. Dont overregulate the system.






They have the right to access services that they can afford if they arent offered by thier current plans. Should we also pay for plastic elective surgury too? Im sure there are lots of women that would get work done if it were free.
It is no different from any other employer. If they pay for the plans they choose the plans. What is left is what we are stuck with to figure out how to modify to suit our needs. Is it any different then having a company choose a plan that goes from a $500 deductable to one that is $5,000 ? The choice is always there to accept it or walk away. That is how employer healthcare plans started in the first place.

There is always a choice.

I have my own horror stories of insurance companies that went bankrupt, and left us all scrambling for coverage. But a sliding scale tied to income sounds logical. But the difference between elective, and preventive is a crucial distinction.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

My government secures mine .Again this so called right to get the pill is a right paid for by someone else. The founders were careful to not enumerate so called positive rights that require taking property from someone else to pay for them.

If your government secures your rights, why can't they secure your Wife's rights? That's fair isn't it? I mean insurance ain't free and we all have to pay a premium, so nobody pays for what others get because they have their own group or individual policies. That's how it works, and insurances put all the money in the bank and deliver coverage, so the notion you pay for a pill is erroneous, and misleading.

So do catholic employees pay a premium for insurance coverage or does the catholic church offer it at no cost, and no deductible is the question? If the church benefits from group rates and deducts premiums from employees paychecks, they are obligated by law to not discriminate on the basis of color creed or gender, no matter what the doctrine of the church is.

Since science and the medical field deems woman's reproductive health care as preventive medicine, its free as is mens medicine. I don't pay for yearly exams which include a range of tests for diseases, including prostrate and rectal exams (hehehe!), so why would a female pay for it?? If they pay their premiums they should get it whether the church, any church is against it or not.

I mean if your rights are unalienable so is hers.

They do . I dispute that the availability of contraception is a right. But even if it were.. . The availability was not denied to her before Sebellius mandated that it be provided for "free". I certainly wouldn't expect it to be covered by the church if I or she worked for them.
This is just an absurd intollerable abuse of power by the President.

They do . I dispute that the availability of contraception is a right.
So women are slaves to men and reproduction?

hmmmm 1st the fetus is a mass of disposable tissue .now reproduction =slavery.. I guess we can call that the banner statement of the progressive women's rights movement.

So women are slaves to men and reproduction?

Women are women, do you deny their biological right to reproduce?Women have sold themselves into that slavery you see to enjoy other benefits, they go willingly excepting in situations of rape. And even seek the situation more than men

the question is ...are rights inalienable ? and what are those rights ? In this country religious liberty predates the revolution The Enlightenment began as a defence of religious freedom, not an assault on it.

Hi Tom,

Ah, yes, this is the big question.

This directly relates to Locke's doctrine of rights that men exercised in a 'state of nature' before organised society existed to grant men these rights. In other words, 'natural rights'. Some people might argue that it is hard to see how these rights existed prior to there being an organized society to grant such rights.

Some people might also argue that the way 'natural rights' is being used is not actuallty descriptive, but is in fact prescriptive. In other words, it is a claim that men OUGHT to have these rights.

Tut

Women are women, do you deny their biological right to reproduce?Women have sold themselves into that slavery you see to enjoy other benefits, they go willingly excepting in situations of rape. and even seek the situation more than men
Women give sex to get love; men give love to get sex. N'est-ce pas?

Women give sex to get love; men give love to get sex. N'est-ce pas?
Quite a jaded view. I professed the full devotion of my love before marriage and before sex. Perhaps mine is the minority view these days ; but sex is a further expression of that love... not some recreation .

Recreational sex; now there's a thought. I wonder what the church thinks about that? Well we know don't we, it's called abstinance which coincidently is the same formula they have for limiting procreation

Quite a jaded view. I professed the full devotion of my love before marriage and before sex. Perhaps mine is the minority view these days ; but sex is a further expression of that love ... not some recreation .
If I judge from the questions this site gets, my statements have merit. I'm hoping we get the worst-case (teen?) situations.

Hello again,

All I got to say is, every time I wack off, it's STRICTLY for procreation.

excon

Hello again,

The vaginal probe is still in play. I haven't heard what my right wing friends have to say about it. You don't still deny they're contemplating doing it, are you??

excon

Are there other cases where a medical procedure is preformed without diagnostic testing... especially when the procedure is surgury ?

I say this is much more humane than Planned Parenthood's practice of giving their "patients" a miscarriage pill to take at home so they can miscarriage that bloody "tissue mass" on their bed without any medical supervision... in case something goes wrong. Yet I don't hear the pro-abortion crowd getting their undies in a knot over that barbarism.

Yet I don't hear the pro-abortion crowd getting their undies in a knot over that barbarism.Hello tom:

I'm NOT pro-abortion. I AM pro-choice. Nonetheless, my undies DO get into a knot when ANY abortion happens. .

Happy? I suppose that ruins your viewpoint of a liberal who cheers every time a baby is aborted.

But, you're right in line with the wrong wingers. The purpose for sticking the vaginal probe all the way up inside a woman WITHOUT her consent, and WITHOUT a medical need is simply to PUNISH/RAPE women and to GUILT trip them in to conforming what old white men think they should do...

It's an INSULT to women. No, it's worse. It's an ASSAULT! It shows that the right wing thinks it knows BETTER than women.. Not only is it an insult, it's a LOSER in terms of the election... GO Rick Santorum.

excon

PS> (edited) Did I read correctly, that you think this is a pre-op DIAGNOSTIC procedure?? You don't really believe that... You're NOT that nutty.

An insult to women? Pish posh, there can be no greater insult than to the child that's been aborted out of convenience. Even if you don't like abortion you still view it wrong. I'm not picking on women, I''m defending children. Somebody has to.

And besides, Virginia Planned Parenthood already routinely performs an ultrasound before an abortion (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/#.T0P3GibPM-N.twitter).


From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying.

In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.

And let’s be honest. The main reason pro-lifers support the Virginia ultrasound bill isn’t out of medical necessity — not if these scans are already standard operating procedure at clinics.

This fight, like virtually all abortion law fights, is about how much of a role religion and morality should play in regulating these procedures. Pro-choice activists seem to have no problem with ultrasounds, as long as they’re done for medical reasons. But the fact that ultrasounds tend to already be part of abortions isn’t enough for pro-life activists. They want the main purpose for the scans to be promoting the “culture of life.” The Virginia law would mandate doctors to display and describe the ultrasound to the patient. And the image could end up dissuading many women from going ahead with the abortion.

While the pro-lifers have been pretty open about their motives, the pro-choicers – whose motto used to be “safe, legal and rare” – haven’t been. If they want to oppose the bill in order to keep morality out of abortion laws, that’s fine. But the rape comparisons are fundamentally dishonest and insult the intelligence of the public they’re trying to win over.

We can't have a "culture of life" now can we?

We can't have a "culture of life" now can we?Hello again, Steve:

No problem... Just understand EXACTLY what we're talking about here... It's an INTRAVAGINAL probe stuck all the way up inside a women for the purpose GUILT TRIPPING a woman who is seeking her constitutional rights...

It's NOT up to the state to influence and/or PUNISH women seeking their rights UNDER the law.. If the state wants to CHANGE the law, change it they should - IF they can.

I looked at the law in Virginia... I couldn't find the words "vaginal probe" in the law... The SECRET hidden in the law, is the PARTICULAR ultrasound the law calls for can ONLY be accomplished by INTRAVAGINAL probing.

excon

Oh come on ex, you just lost your argument when I showed that these ultrasounds are standard operating procedure before the abortionist performs an abortion. The ONLY difference is the abortionist doesn't want the woman to see what she's about to abort is alive.

Did I read correctly, that you think this is a pre-op DIAGNOSTIC procedure??

Correct and I stick by that .It is a common practice as Steve has detailed.

Correct and I stick by that .It is a common practice as Steve has detailed.
Let's do a survey. I never had that done when I KEPT the kid. Is that standard procedure in normal, uneventful pregnancies?

No ;and there is no need to because a regular delivery is not surgery .

Edit.. what I want to know is why PP is not "raping " (Ex's words ) the women when they perform the procedure prior to an abortion ?

No ;and there is no need to because a regular delivery is not surgery .
I didn't have it done with a normal delivery that turned into a c-section.

edit.. what I want to know is why PP is not "raping " (Ex's words ) the women when they perform the procedure prior to an abortion ?
You know this is routine as part of an abortion procedure?

You know this is routine as part of an abortion procedure?

That's what I said, so what's the problem with the law?

That's what I said, so what's the problem with the law?
What's the medical reason for it?

I just looked at the PP web site. There is no mention of this being done before an abortion.

According to the link provided ,this was on the VIRGINIA PP phone message :
“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we're able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”

Besides all there has been a whole lot of misinformation about this bill..
1. It does NOT specify an invasive ultrasound . It does not recommend which one to use.
2. The women is not FORCED to view the results . She can opt out with a written waiver (she still has that CHOICE thingy)


B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community in determining gestational age. When only the gestational sac is visible during ultrasound imaging, gestational age may be based upon measurement of the gestational sac. A print of the ultrasound image shall be made to document the measurements that have been taken to determine the gestational age of the fetus.

C. The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B shall offer the woman an opportunity to view and receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and hear auscultation of fetal heart tone and shall obtain from the woman written certification that this opportunity was offered and whether it was accepted. A printed copy of the ultrasound image shall be maintained in the woman's medical record at the facility where the abortion is to be performed for the longer of (I) seven years or (ii) the extent required by applicable federal or state law.

It sounds like an extra procedure done internally (vs. only an external ultrasound) to determine the fetus's age.

From VA Del. David Englin's office:

… only an invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound can effectively determine gestation age during much of the first trimester, which is when most abortions occur. Englin offered an amendment to require the pregnant woman's consent prior to subjecting her to a vaginal penetration ultrasound, but House Republicans rejected the amendment by a vote of 64 to 34.

Englin, who represents parts of Arlington and Alexandria, issued a statement in response to the bill's passage:

This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions.

That is just not so.

Transabdominal ultrasound cannot reliably diagnose pregnancies that are less than 6 weeks gestation. Transvaginal ultrasound, by contrast, can detect pregnancies earlier, at approximately 4 ½ to 5 weeks gestation. Prompt diagnosis made possible by transvaginal ultrasound can, therefore, result in earlier treatment.

Ultrasound Sonogram Scans week by week first trimester month 1 2 3 months weeks 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 early scan - Baby2see (http://www.baby2see.com/development/ultrasound_sonogram/first_trimester_scans.html)

Transvaginal is more reliable for detecting pregnancies only at the earliest stages of a pregnancy So it is NOT true that only transvaginal ultrasound can detect a 1st trimester pregnancy... and there is nothing in the bill that requires it.

This is just outrage for the sake of outrage. You guys have no argument left.

So there is nothing different about the VA law? This has always been the procedure? All the talk of transvaginal probing is hogwash?

You yourself said "You know this is routine as part of an abortion procedure", so what's the beef?

You yourself said "You know this is routine as part of an abortion procedure", so what's the beef?
I asked that as a question, and didn't say it as a statement.

Sorry, my mistake. However the link I furnished this morning (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-34.html#post3036047) does state the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood states an ultrasound is standard procedure prior to an abortion. I believe tom already quoted it.


“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we're able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”

So again I ask, what's the beef?

Sorry, my mistake. However the link I furnished this morning (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/churches-633427-34.html#post3036047) does state the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood states an ultrasound is standard procedure prior to an abortion. I believe tom already quoted it.
There are ultrasounds and there are ultrasounds.

Right, if it happens to be a transvaginal ultrasound (which again is not specified in the law) so the woman will have information on what's actually inside her it's "rape". If it's required before killing the baby it's "treatment". Either way, the woman consents to an ultrasound when she has an abortion, so what's the beef?

Pro-Abortion Rape Myth Debunked, 99% of Abortion Clinics Do Ultrasounds (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/)


Abortion advocates in Virginia have come under heavy criticism for equating the ultrasound legislation there would allow women to see before an abortion to rape. Yet, while abortion backers say having an ultrasound is like getting raped, a 2003 study shows 99% of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities do them beforehand.

Published in the medical journal Contraception in 2003, researchers with the pro-abortion group IPAS, the University of North Carolina, a consortium of Planned Parenthood clinics and the National Abortion Federation surveyed staff at 113 Planned Parenthood affiliates and independent abortion businesses between February and April 2000.

The study specifically concerned the use of the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 (mifepristone) and the survey indicated the drug could be given to women at Planned Parenthood centers and abortion clinics because of vaginal ultrasounds.

Surveying 72 of the abortion businesses that sold the abortion pill to women, the researchers found abortion facilities frequently use vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion to determine the gestational age of the baby or afterwards to determine if the abortion was complete. In fact 99 percent of the abortion facilities surveyed always or sometimes performed an ultrasound in association with the surgical abortion — while just one percent did not.

“Vaginal ultrasound was always performed before the early surgical abortion at 59 (83%) sites, under certain conditions at 11 (16%) sites, and never at one (1%) site,” the study noted. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early surgical abortion at 18 (26%) sites, under certain conditions at 46 (66%) sites, and never at 6 (8%) sites.”

Similar numbers were seen regarding vaginal ultrasounds before a mifepristone abortion.

“Vaginal ultrasound was very common before the medical abortion, with 37 (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it,” the study continued. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early medical abortion in 35 (87%) sites, performed under certain conditions in 4 (10%) sites, and never performed in 1 (3%) site.”

The research report’s authors also noted that the frequency of the use of vaginal ultrasounds before abortion is not limited to the abortion centers surveyed, but common practice in the abortion industry.

“Almost all sites offering early medical abortion always performed a vaginal ultrasound before and after the abortion, consistent with common practice in the US,” the study said.

The study also indicated some abortion centers will not actually perform an abortion without first performing a vaginal ultrasound.

“If there is a positive pregnancy test but no gestational sac visible on the vaginal ultrasound, only 15 (22%) of the sites will perform a surgical abortion. If no gestational tissue is seen in the tissue examination, 55 (76%) of the sites usually follow with serum -hCG, 46 (64%) usually send for pathological examination, 26 (36%) usually repeat the aspiration and 53 (74%) usually perform a vaginal ultrasound,” it said.

Moreover, the study indicated abortion facility staff cited a need for more staff trained in performing vaginal ultrasounds so the RU 486 abortion drug could be used at a higher frequency.

The study said, “Respondents were asked whether their site had experienced each of 13 obstacles to initiating early surgical abortion services (listed in Fig. 2). The majority of sites [50 (69%)] reported one or more major obstacles to start-up of early surgical services. Among these sites, the three obstacles most often cited were the challenges of providing additional staff training in the areas of vaginal ultrasound [27 (38%)]…. Table 4 describes the sites’ current experience of providing early surgical abortion services. Fewer than half of the sites [31 (43%)] reported experiencing one or more major obstacles to current service provision. The three most commonly named obstacles were providing additional staff training in vaginal ultrasound techniques [14 (19%)].”

If Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates truly believe giving women an ultrasound is similar to rape, they should be up front about the fact that women are “raped” before virtually every abortion performed in the United States. The real question is whether women will be allowed to see an ultrasound, not whether they will be required to have one — Planned Parenthood and independent abortion facilities already essentially require it.

I'm not moved by the empty protests.

Right, if it happens to be a transvaginal ultrasound
Was this done in the past?

That's why we take this out of the hands of loony tune right wing white guys, and put it between a FEMALE, and her DOCTOR. Insurance companies don't even cover a transvaginal ultra sound so who pays for this? But of course who expects a guy to know the difference between one form of ultra sound and another.

From what I read of the guidelines, its only recommended for high risk pregnancies by physicians and is an unnecessary procedure for abortions when a topical ultra sound is sufficient. Its still up to the discretion of the physician when a pregnancy is at high risk, and the medical communities agree.

So right wing politics/religion is completely wrong, and is more than an insult to women, it's a complete reject of her rights to choose under law and hypocritically as usual puts the big government they hate between a doctor, and patient.

If you were serious about stopping abortions you wouldn't subject people to jumping over obstacles, you would make contraception an easily available option to having an abortion. But of course we know that the only people who can be right, is the right. Facts and science be damned.

Transvaginal Ultrasound - Tests, Test Results & Diagnosis - NY Times Health Information (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/test/transvaginal-ultrasound/overview.html)


Why the Test Is Performed

Transvaginal ultrasound may be done for the following problems:
Abnormal findings on a physical exam, such as cysts, fibroid tumors, or other growths
Abnormal vaginal bleeding and menstrual problems
Certain types of infertility
Ectopic pregnancy
Pelvic pain

Transvaginal ultrasound is also used during pregnancy to:
Evaluate cases of threatened miscarriage
Listen to the unborn baby's heartbeat
Look at the placenta
Look for the cause of bleeding
Monitor the growth of the embryo or fetus early in the pregnancy
See if the cervix is changing or opening up when labor is starting early

No mention of it being necessary for abortions. Let the doctor make the call, not a politician.

Tal, I've already posted two links that show vaginal ultrasounds are commonly done prior to an abortion. From the one just above:


Surveying 72 of the abortion businesses that sold the abortion pill to women, the researchers found abortion facilities frequently use vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion to determine the gestational age of the baby or afterwards to determine if the abortion was complete. In fact 99 percent of the abortion facilities surveyed always or sometimes performed an ultrasound in association with the surgical abortion — while just one percent did not.

“Vaginal ultrasound was always performed before the early surgical abortion at 59 (83%) sites, under certain conditions at 11 (16%) sites, and never at one (1%) site,” the study noted. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early surgical abortion at 18 (26%) sites, under certain conditions at 46 (66%) sites, and never at 6 (8%) sites.”

Similar numbers were seen regarding vaginal ultrasounds before a mifepristone abortion.

“Vaginal ultrasound was very common before the medical abortion, with 37 (92%) sites reporting that they always performed it,” the study continued. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early medical abortion in 35 (87%) sites, performed under certain conditions in 4 (10%) sites, and never performed in 1 (3%) site.”

No mention of it being necessary for abortions? Hogwash. Next lame excuse?

The ironic thing about this appears to be the left complaining about government mandates.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_denounces_va_legislation_requ iring_invasive_transvagi


If enacted, SB 484 and HB 462 would ensure that women seeking to exercise their court-sanctioned right to an abortion would be treated as if they were suspects and forcefully subjected to an invasive technique in violation of the Fourth Amendment. “No medical actor, doctor or otherwise, should be coerced by the state into probing a woman's body, especially not without informed consent,” said Whitehead. “While all of us who value the sanctity of life hope to see the day when life at all stages is protected, this is not the solution. Compelling women to undergo invasive and unconstitutional ultrasounds in order to have an abortion will only further politicize and polarize an issue that has little to do with politics and everything to do with human rights.”

What part of consent are you not familiar with, and rape is defined as penetration without consent. As McDonnell is finding out from his female constituents. That's what has people wacky. You cite 72% of abortions have this procedure, already, so what's the point in making it 100%, and taking the choice away?

Makes no difference now as McDonnell has caved to the power of female choice, public sentiment, and GOP moderates with common sense.

Va. House passes amended transvaginal ultrasound bill - WTOP.com (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2758082)

Of course this has not a thing to do with religious freedom, but another example of the right wing trying to dictate morality to everyone else.

Lets just call it part of the due process before a life gets snuffed .

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_denounces_va_legislation_requ iring_invasive_transvagi



What part of consent are you not familiar with, and rape is defined as penetration without consent. As McDonnell is finding out from his female constituents. Thats what has people wacky. You cite 72% of abortions have this procedure, already, so whats the point in making it 100%, and taking the choice away?

Makes no difference now as McDonnell has caved to the power of female choice, public sentiment, and GOP moderates with common sense.

Va. House passes amended transvaginal ultrasound bill - WTOP.com (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2758082)

Of course this has not a thing to do with religious freedom, but another example of the right wing trying to dictate morality to everyone else.

And it appears its so bad that it is being push by women as part of the routine check ups. Gimme a break. It's a more accurate measurement of pregnancy cycle. As well as a tool for checking other problems.



Early Ultrasound - Transvaginal Ultrasound - Ultrasounds or Sonograms in Early Pregnancy (http://pregnancy.about.com/od/ultrasounds/f/transvaginal.htm)


Yahoo! Video Detail for Transvaginal Ultrasound.flv (http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=transvaginal%20ultrasound&tnr=21&vid=1441231798960&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumb nail.aspx%3Fq%3D1441231798960%26id%3D7d921d1b9c6bf c1476d89a208ce1bf2d%26bid%3DwUY7eRWGrx0JCQ%26bn%3D Thumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.youtube.com%2 52fwatch%253fv%253dCInkqxLD_Kg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCI nkqxLD_Kg&sigr=11ad7dcq5&newfp=1&tit=Transvaginal+Ultrasound.flv)

I take your point, but we are not talking about a pregnancy, or even one at medical risk. The law they are pushing is specific to those woman seeking an abortion, and what ever procedures to be taken have to be with the consent of the female, on the advice of a doctor.

Not a male bureaucrat pushing his beliefs! Now if a lot of females were pushing this, then I would have no problem with it. That's NOT what's happening.

Deal with your own female, and leave mine alone!

we are not talking about a pregnancy, or even one at medical risk.
Not talking about a pregnancy ? Umm wrong. An abortion is an invasive procedure that has risks . Doctors performing such a... um.. procedure.. have the same liablilities as other surgeons.

Not talking about a pregnancy ? umm wrong. An abortion is an invasive procedure that has risks . Doctors performing such a ...um.. procedure ..have the same liabilities as other surgeons.

Its up to the doctor and patient to assume any risks, and liabilities of invasive surgery, NOT some ill informed law maker with a moral agenda. Don't you think they, the doctor and patient, are qualified to make that decision? What makes you think a government is? For what other purpose than put obstacles in front of a doctor performing a legal procedure would a legislature mandate a totally unnecessary, invasive procedure? And what's up with the moral testing clause in the rewrite of the transvaginal bill, and what's up with the person hood legislation if not to outlaw contraception?

You right wing conservative Christians look more like fundamentalist Muslims every day, thinking you can just outlaw a females rights and subjugate them to your own moral will. What's even more hypocritical, is that was the argument against affordable care by the right, a bureaucrat was going to get between a doctor and a patient. Didn't take long to see the true colors of the right did it?

Hello men riding high horses,

How long are you going to stick with that medically necessary BS, or are you going to admit that the REAL reason for ANY of this crap is to GUILT TRIP women into NOT seeking a legal procedure??

excon

We're the ones pointing out that what you're objecting to is already being done by the abortionist and you call us "men riding high horses"?

And as tom noted, you're objecting to this mandate (obviously for conscience reasons) while telling us our constitutionally enumerated right to religious freedom being violated by the Obamacare mandate is without merit? You can't be serious.

You right wing conservative Christians look more like fundamentalist Muslims every day

Yesterday the Iranian theocrats sentenced a minister to death for the crime of converting from Islam. There is a Saudi on the run for making tongue in cheek comments about Allah on Twitter . The Afghanis are having deadly riots over the burning of some Korans .Perhaps you might want to rethink your over the top hyperbole.

We're the ones pointing out that what you're objecting to is already being done by the abortionist and you call us "men riding high horses"?

And as tom noted, you're objecting to this mandate (obviously for conscience reasons) while telling us our constitutionally enumerated right to religious freedom being violated by the Obamacare mandate is without merit? You can't be serious.

What's being done by abortionist is what's called advise and consent. What you are trying to do is take away the advise, and the consent. How does the law take away YOUR freedom? I say it doesn't. How does it take away from the churches freedddom? It doesn't, you just say it does.

It does stop the church from denying others THEIR freedom though.


Yesterday the Iranian theocrats sentenced a minister to death for the crime of converting from Islam. There is a Saudi on the run for making tongue in cheek comments about Allah on Twitter . The Afghanis are having deadly riots over the burning of some Korans .Perhaps you might want to rethink your over the top hyperbole.

You may be more sophisticated as opposed to barbaric, but no less driven to control others, but to be fair, all you guys think your religion should be the law for everybody, and that's what qualifies the comparisons.

And what you want is for the women to be denied an informed choice. You want them believing the lie that it is nothing more than a bloody lump of tissue to be discarded ,like so much chum .

Perhaps you might want to rethink your over the top hyperbole.Hello again, tom:

I don't know. Religious repression ALWAYS results in WAR and MAYHEM... If you don't Christians are capable of it, you ain't been paying attention..

excon

Ancient history. The only repression I see here is the rights of consciencious Christians and their institutions.

No different tal, the entire purpose of the ultrasound is "advise and consent". It just adds balance to the scale being weighted heavily in favor of infanticide. Babies should have rights, too.

and wat you want is for the women to be denied an informed choice. You want them believing the lie that it is nothing more than a bloody lump of tissue to be discarded ,like so much chum .Hello again, tom:

This is MORE of your right wing arrogance. You BELIEVE that women don't know that they're ending the life of their baby... You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that they don't know that. So, MEN have to TEACH women about it...

There's nothing that can be said about that - NOTHING..

That's why this election has turned around dramatically in the last few days. The country is getting a looksee at who you guys REALLY are, and it scares them to death.

excon

I think after THOUSANDS of years, females know what an abortion is! I know they do! Its insulting to think that they don't. Its insulting to think that YOU, or anybody thinks that making a choice between you, and your doctor, is anybodies business.

The hypocrisy of such a position is you want to make a choice in the name of life but offer nothing after a child is born. Then you wash your hands of any responsibility, and put it on the mother who didn't want that responsibility in the first place.

Now it only affects poor, and those who have no power, or resources, because a female with money can/has/will do as she pleases any way.

I think after THOUSANDS of years, females know what an abortion is! I know they do! Its insulting to think that they don't. Its insulting to think that YOU, or anybody thinks that making a choice between you, and your doctor, is anybodies business. .

Brother, it's the left that keeps telling us we're too dumb to know what to eat, what to feed our kids, how to prevent overdraft fees, that coffee is hot and coming soon, a symposium on how evil Coke is, but that teenage girl knows everything she needs to know about an abortion. Dude!


The hypocrisy of such a position is you want to make a choice in the name of life but offer nothing after a child is born. Then you wash your hands of any responsibility, and put it on the mother who didn't want that responsibility in the first place.

Um again, we're not the ones regulating us out of the business of being able to care for children, the sick, the homeless, the hungry, etc. etc...


Now it only affects poor, and those who have no power, or resources, because a female with money can/has/will do as she pleases any way

And Planned Parenthood is all too eager to provide those services, even without parental consent if they have to. Cry me a river, there is no lack of access - this is still a cure in search of a disease.

but that teenage girl knows everything she needs to know about an abortion. Dude!Hello again, Steve:

So, you're going to punish ALL the women in order to teach some kids. Dude!

excon

PS> (edited) By the way, "teach" isn't what you're about.. It's INTIMIDATION so that you get the outcome YOU want.

Look. I don't know WHY you don't want to admit that you're TRYING TO CHANGE HER MIND. You're not being MEDICALLY correct.. You're not trying to INFORM kids. You're trying to CHANGE THEIR MINDS from seeking a LEGAL procedure...

WHY WON'T YOU ADMIT THIS?

Who said I won't admit I'm trying to change her mind? Darn right I want to change her mind, but you and I both know the abortionist isn't going to INTIMIDATE her into changing her mind.

So we've established a transvaginal ultrasound is not required by the law, 99 percent of clinics perform ultrasounds before an abortion already, I do want to change her mind but the abortionist isn't going to intimidate her into doing so. Again, what's the beef?

This is MORE of your right wing arrogance. You BELIEVE that women don't know that they're ending the life of their baby.... You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that they don't know that. So, MEN have to TEACH women about it...

Just a little correction here, the bill was introduced by Kathy J. Byron. Blame her for wanting to TEACH women about it.

I do want to change her mind but the abortionist isn't going to intimidate her into doing so. Again, what's the beef?Hello again, Steve:

Uhhh, you forgot, a mandatory waiting period, making her LOOK at the sonogram, making her LISTEN to the fetal heartbeat. You also forgot about the FAKE abortion clinics where they FOOL young girls...

These tactics are utterly DESPICABLE.

The beef I have, is abortion is a LEGAL procedure... In this great nation of ours, we should be INCREASING access to legal stuff, NOT restricting it. Like you always tell me about pot, if you don't like the law the way it is, CHANGE it.

Now, if you want to stand outside an abortion clinic and YELL at the women, go for it... That's legal. But, to get the state to do your dirty work for you is VERY Un-American... It won't stand.

excon

PS> (edited) Oh, yeah.. I forgot about the wanted posters and the murders... I suppose because they were abortion doctors, their murders were justified...

(edit 11) Yeah, that's right Un-American and Un-Constitutional... It's not the state involving itself in the church as YOU allege... It's the church involving itself in the state, as I allege. You're not going to deny that your disapproval of abortion is based upon your religion, are you?

Nahhh, because that's exactly where it comes from, and the state is constitutionally prohibited from aiding you in your religious cause...

Uhhh, you forgot, a mandatory waiting period, making her LOOK at the sonogram, making her LISTEN to the fetal heartbeat.
What's the waiting period... 2 days ? Seems reasonable if you want to snuff the life of a baby. There are no requirements to look at the image... they can sign a waiver... choice baby! Where is the baby's choice to choose life ?


The beef I have, is abortion is a LEGAL procedure... In this great nation of ours, we should be INCREASING access to legal stuff, NOT restricting it. Like you always tell me about pot, if you don't like the law the way it is, CHANGE it.
It is only the law of the land because the unelected for life black robed oligarchs decided it was . The people have not had their say.

It is only the law of the land because the unelected for life black robed oligarchs decided it was . The people have not had their say.Hello again, tom:

I added edits above that I'd love you to comment on.

The only say you're going to get is a Constitutional amendment... That's the way it's done in this fine country of ours... I know you don't agree. I don't agree with a lot of our laws either.

excon

You're not going to deny that your disapproval of abortion is based upon your religion, are you?

I will deny it .The founders recognized the unalienable right of life in the Declaration of Independence. Sorry if I place that at a higher value than the 'persuit of happiness" . Certainly you must agree the 5th amendment due process clause is violated when a baby's life is snuffed .

when a baby's life is snuffed .
Why is there a baby there in the first place?

By the way ex, you should know better than to throw the radical tactics argument at me, you know I don't agree with such tactics. I'm not for the murder of an abortionist any more than I am for the murder of a baby. I don't scream at women, I listen and love. I don't fly banners showing pictures of dismembered babies and I don't do wanted posters, like your regime posts ghastly pics on packages of cigarettes.

Heaven forbid someone smoke a cigarette without being warned of the potential ugliness, but let's not ask women to consider the life inside of them before snuffing it out.

Why is there a baby there in the first place? I don't understand the relevance of this question .If you have dominion over whether a baby lives or dies in the womb then why not after birth ? Oh I know your President voted in Illinois to snuff out babies who survived botched abortions... but I mean if it's a parent's power to kill in the womb then why not outside ?

I don't understand the relevence of this question .If you have dominion over whether a baby lives or dies in the womb then why not after birth ? Oh I know your President voted in Illinois to snuff out babies who survived botched abortions ... but I mean if it's a parent's power to kill in the womb then why not outside ?
Again, why is there a baby there in the first place? If it is being aborted, it isn't wanted. Not all unwanted pregnancies are due to rape. Is this elective birth control? Why aren't we teaching our daughters to honor themselves and have the ego strength to say no to your sons who want sex and cooperatively create babies?

Again, why is there a baby there in the first place? If it is being aborted, it isn't wanted.

That's not necessarily true, I want it.


... Why aren't we teaching our daughters to honor themselves and have the ego strength to say no to your sons who want sex and cooperatively create babies?

I don't know about you but a lot of us are, and again you infer that it's men's fault.

A HUGE part of the problem is the chief protagonist (http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/28/planned-parenthood-texts-sex-information-to-teenage-kids/) - Planned Parenthood - is actively subverting parents in their efforts to teach their daughters and sons to say no. So you tell me, how are we supposed to raise girls to have the courage to say no when the people that promote abortion are on a campaign encouraging them to say yes?

That's not necessarily true, I want it.
No, you don't. You don't have the resources to raise it. It should not have existed in the first place.

again you infer that it's men's fault.
I did not. The girl has to be self confident enough to say no. The boy has to swallow his desire and sublimate--and not even ask.

PP has nothing to do with how we raise our children.

No, you don't. You don't have the resources to raise it. It should not have existed in the first place..

Who are you to tell me I don't want that child? Really? That's a pretty ballsy statement, you know nothing.


I did not. The girl has to be self confident enough to say no. The boy has to swallow his desire and sublimate--and not even ask.

You did so, "Why aren't we teaching our daughters to honor themselves and have the ego strength to say no to your sons who want sex." I got news for you, girls want sex, too.


PP has nothing to do with how we raise our children

Really? I teach my kids abstinence and then they infiltrate the schools with their message to kids that they SHOULD explore sexuality. They flat out instruct them on the methods from anal to vaginal intercourse and beyond on the internet. They send our kids text messages and then do their damnedest to furnish abortions without parental consent for crying out loud. Don't tell me they have nothing to do with how we raise our kids.

That's rich, the left whines about soda makers and hamburger joints marketing to children, interfering with the parents' ability to properly raise their kids and all that rot, but when it comes to PP marketing sex they defend them. "Why, PP has nothing to do with how we raise our kids". Hogwash.

Well let me tell you, I'd rather my daughter have a Happy Meal and a Coke without my knowledge than rimming the boy next door.

Who are you to tell me I don't want that child? Really? That's a pretty ballsy statement, you know nothing.
"It" is generic and represents hundreds, even thousands. Your house and paycheck aren't big enough.

You did so, "Why aren't we teaching our daughters to honor themselves and have the ego strength to say no to your sons who want sex." I got news for you, girls want sex, too.
Back when rocks were cooling, we knew how to control ourselves and sublimate. Wanting doesn't mean doing.

Really? I teach my kids abstinence and then they infiltrate the schools with their message to kids
They tromp over school personnel to get in the door? Their voice is louder than yours?

They send our kids text messages
The kids initiated texting by asking questions.

They tromp over school personnel to get in the door?


What forcing, they're welcomed in with open arms (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/sex-education-schools-15142.htm) by the school systems. They provide the material in MANY school districts.


Their voice is louder than yours?

Why do we have so many teen pregnancies? Oh that's right, it's the boys fault.


The kids initiated texting by asking questions.

That makes it right how?

What forcing, they're welcomed in with open arms (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/sex-education-schools-15142.htm) by the school systems. They provide the material in MANY school districts.
Send your kids elsewhere, like I did.

Why do we have so many teen pregnancies? Oh that's right, it's the boys fault.
I said in the beginning to instill self respect in your daughters so that will override male pleadings.

That makes it right how?
Why do the kids have cell phones?

Why are the kids asking in the first place? Insufficient info from parents?

Hello again,

So, we're off contraceptives, and we're onto abstinence?

In addition to not understanding WOMEN, wingers don't understand CHILDREN either.. They think if they just talked LONG enough, or said the right things, kids will stop screwing...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

So, we're off contraceptives, and we're onto abstinence?

In addition to not understanding WOMEN, wingers don't understand CHILDREN either.. They think if they just talked LONG enough, or said the right things, kids will stop screwing...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon
Why do you think I went along on all my sons' dates? :D

Hello again,

So, we're off contraceptives, and we're onto abstinence?

In addition to not understanding WOMEN, wingers don't understand CHILDREN either.. They think if they just talked LONG enough, or said the right things, kids will stop screwing...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Do you really think Kids are the problem Ex? Like it's kids who perform abortions? No Ex it is adults who perform abortions and for profit. If the kids were taught to do something productive with their time much of this problem would go away

If the kids were taught to do something productive with their time
If the kids were taught by their parents...

If the kids were taught by their parents....

Yes that would be a revolution instead of abdicating it to teachers

Why do we have so many teen pregnancies? Oh that's right, it's the boys fault.
Girls are mostly looking for love and romance. Sex is not at the top of their list.

Ok, so girls want love and romance so bad they're too dumb say no. Kind of paints a different picture than that of the "woman power" image we're supposed to have.

Hello again,

Just trying to keep up.. We're OFF abstinence and on to the woman's movement? Ok...

excon

Sorry, I have to quote Limbaugh. "I love the women's movement, especially from behind".

The right's view of women is as demeaning as I thought it was.

And the left's sense of humor is as non-existent as I thought it was.

P.S. Unless you're gay I'm sure I'm supposed to believe you've never ogled a woman.

Gay people "ogle" women too. But I'm pretty sure it's not related to political policy.

Ok, so girls want love and romance so bad they're too dumb say no. Kind of paints a different picture than that of the "woman power" image we're supposed to have.
Aren't you reading all the questions that come in to this site from teen girls who are looking for love and romance and end up pregnant with the bio-father having disappeared? Again, what are the parents teaching their daughters--and [added, thanks to Tal] their sons?

Takes two to tango. They both should be taught better.

Aren't you reading all the questions that come in to this site from teen girls who are looking for love and romance and end up pregnant with the bio-father having disappeared? Again, what are the parents teaching their daughters?

No I'm referring to your words.

Gay people "ogle" women too. But I'm pretty sure it's not related to political policy.

When I admire a pretty woman it has nothing to do with political policy either.

When I admire a pretty woman it has nothing to do with political policy either.Rush does have some other great quotes (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/rushlimbaugh/a/limbaughquotes.htm) that you likely admire and find funny as well.

You don't pay attention very well. I said I admire a pretty woman, not everything Rush says.

Hello:

I LOVE Rush Limprod. Is that who we're talking about now?

I'm just saying... We covered the whole gambit, and didn't solve a damn thing. But, it WAS fun.

Let's do gay's and guns now.

excon

Hello:

I LOVE Rush Limprod. Is that who we're talking about now?

I'm just saying... We covered the whole gambit, and didn't solve a damn thing. But, it WAS fun.

Let's do gay's and guns now.

excon


Did someone mention guns??





:)

What do guns have to do with churches?

what do guns have to do with churches?

Its obvious you have never heard of a shotgun wedding before.

what do guns have to do with churches?Hello clete:

Ask anyone. Our rights were endowed upon us by our creator.. Looks to me, therefore, like our gun rights are God given...

excon

Yes but until the 20th century... dating back to the Magna Carta , our rights were what the King couldn't do to you . Now apparently our rights have changed to what the benevolent king deems you should get from the government .(even JFK said 'ask not what your country can do for you').

As you should know ,those are rights that can be easily taken by the king at the king's will ,and also rights granted to you at the expense of someone else since the king's treasury is completely dependent on revenue collect in fees and taxes or other confiscations .
In the Obama world an administrator (czar ) is given the task to decide what is "the appropriate balance " between an absolute right ,and a welfare plan .

According to the Senate Budget Committee those freebies in our system under Obama's plans will generate an obligation of $75,000 per person in the country (from the already swollen $44,000per person) . Greece is belly up at $39,000 per person .Spain is on the ropes at $18,000 per person . All these "free "rights are unsustainable .You know it and I know it.

You guys are going to have to stop whatever it is you are doing and get to work, aren't you? I suggest you start with abstinance, if you get my drift, it will give you more time to worship the holy dollar

Yeah there's plenty to do like converting that abundance of algae into gasoline.It's time to leave reality and enter Obama's virtual Farmville .

yes but until the 20th century....dating back to the Magna Carta , our rights were what the King couldn't do to you . Now apparently our rights have changed to what the benevolent king deems you should get from the government .(even JFK said 'ask not what your country can do for you').

As you should know ,those are rights that can be easily taken by the king at the king's will ,and also rights granted to you at the expense of someone else since the king's treasury is completely dependent on revenue collect in fees and taxes or other confiscations .
In the Obama world an administrator (czar ) is given the task to decide what is "the appropriate balance " between an absolute right ,and a welfare plan .

According to the Senate Budget Committee those freebies in our system under Obama's plans will generate an obligation of $75,000 per person in the country (from the already swollen $44,000per person) . Greece is belly up at $39,000 per person .Spain is on the ropes at $18,000 per person . All these "free "rights are unsustainable .You know it and I know it.

Hi Tom,

This is a misunderstanding. There is no balance "between an absolute right and a welfare plan. There are no "free rights". All rights under this heading are classified as rights men OUGHT to have. They are not interpreted as rights in any universal sense.

Tut

If that is so then why justify welfare spending in the context of rights ? I keep hearing on this page about 'women's reproductive rights ' which for the purpose of this discussion is that they have access to "free " contraception that trump the right of free exercise of religion.

Rights that are 'ought ' instead of natural rights are not rights at all in the real world ,but only in the mind of the utopian idealist.

I keep hearing on this page about 'women's reproductive rights ' which for the purpose of this discussion is that they have access to "free " contraception that trump the right of free exercise of religion. Well a quick bit of googling would have helped: Reproductive rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights)

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.Hope this helps!

I am fully aware of what you think reproductive rights are .They include such remedies of snuffing out a babies life .

It is not a right if it has to be paid for by someone else. It becomes a benefit then . Hope that helps .

From a legal standpoint I have no problem with contraception or that there is access to it. . When the state can impose by decree that a church has to pay for it then it violates a real right.

if that is so then why justify welfare spending in the context of rights ? I keep hearing on this page about 'women's reproductive rights ' which for the purpose of this discussion is that they have access to "free " contraception that trump the right of free exercise of religion.


Some people would argue that all rights are in fact 'ought' rights. It is just than some rights are given special status. That is, a universal right.

If someone can show that an 'ought' right is really a universal right then it becomes an 'is' rather than an 'ought'. For example, if someone could show that universal health care really is a natural right then it would be a trump card for those who support universal health care.

However,recent history has shown this very difficult to do. Hence we have health care in your country taking a different direction.

Are repoductive rights an 'is or an 'ought'? I guess that depends on how good your constitutional lawer is.




Rights that are 'ought ' instead of natural rights are not rights at all in the real world ,but only in the mind of the utopian idealist.



Tom, that's a bit rude isn't it? This is the basis of most of our rights.

Not at all . All your so called 'positive rights' are ought rights because they depend on someone else's dime . Positive rights are better defined as entitlements .Entitlements as you know come and go at the whim of the next decree or election... they are constantly subject to refining ,additions ,subtractions ,modifications . They are not rights. Negative rights are the boundries between subject to the will of the sovereign and liberty .Are you saying that natural rights are only in the mind of the idealist ?

not at all . All your so called 'positive rights' are ought rights because they depend on someone else's dime . Positive rights are better defined as entitlements .Entitlements as you know come and go at the whim of the next decree or election ....they are constantly subject to refining ,additions ,subtractions ,modifications . They are not rights. Negative rights are the boundries between subject to the will of the sovereign and liberty .Are you saying that natural rights are only in the mind of the idealist ?

Hi Tom,

Pretty much means the same thing. For example in our country welfare is a postiive right. Yes, in this case what the parliament gives it can take away.

There are many things that I could object to in terms of my taxes going to projects and things I find reason to object. We generally don't worry about where our dime is going. For example, I don't object to my taxes going to pay for universal health care. Yes, I don't mind paying for other people's health care. Some people in this country might have an objection but it is not an issue.


Am I saying that natural rights are only in the mind of the idealist?

No, I am not saying this. What I am saying is that some people would say this.

Tut

We generally don't worry about where our dime is going.

I didn't think you Aussies were so trusting . Here is the problem . All these promises or and entitlements to deliver these ought rights are not sustainable .

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government)

Again I look to the constitution and I see nothing that charges the government with the responsibility or power to distribute the wealth of the nation or to coercively champion 'fairness' .

To be clear your premise is from the Heritage Foundation,


The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense".[1]

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[2] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.[3]

They drew there own conclusions which is the shrinking tax base, as they cite the growing number of people who pay 0 taxes, which is growing, but do not address the WHY a growing number of people pay 0 taxes, nor account for the ones who do pay, but get a refund. Nor does it account for those who pay NO TAXES or get a refund after loophole deduductions.

That's the error in the premise you make, because though there are many who are to poor to pay any taxes at all, either no wage or a poverty level wage, they pay a payroll tax, which government deducts before they even get there wages, or account for the millions who make middle class wages, have payroll deductions, and loopholes who gets a refund. THEY ALL PAY Through PAYROLL TAXES.

Yet never mentioned are those who pay NO payroll deductions at all, yet make millions and pay NO taxes because of their corporate or individual loopholes.

So if welfare for the poor is a bad thing, so is welfare for the rich, and welfare for corporations. Over the last decade or so, this has contributed to government spending and deficits as much as anything else, as traditional revenue streams for those that need it have been eliminated, as the economy has made MORE people need it. A situation that can be adjusted to in the tax code, and while it seems unfair for your rich gods to pay more, to help more, was it not unfair that they benefited the most during good times, and even through the current situation that they have caused now?

That's what makes the conservative view so erroneous, and hypocrital in that they not only corrupt the whole system, make it unfairly balanced, but also make the criticism, solutions and responsibility unfair, and unbalanced.


Again I look to the constitution and I see nothing that charges the government with the responsibility or power to distribute the wealth of the nation or to coercively champion 'fairness' .

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Making laws and policy is not coercion, even if some don't like it and rather not do it. But the JOB of government. And it's the conservatives who believe that power should be weak, and is why they scream so loudly about there rights, while the rest of us have to fight for OUR rights, that you don't seem to WANT to recognize.

I keep telling you Tom, that while you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Nor your own solutions that benefit the few, not the many.

Tal take your class warfare rhetoric to Europe where you can see 1st hand where policies such as the ones you advocate are close to bearing their logical outcome. You say that I have my own facts when you completely distort the preamble to the Constitution to make it seem as a preamble to the Communist Manifesto .
I'll say it again. If "your rights " are dependent on picking my pocket ,they cease being a right and become at BEST an entitlement granted by the government .

The Heritage Foundation is stating facts .Don't tell me about the money shuffling bs games the government plays. The fact is that fewer people are paying for increasing levels of largess. And as my signature states.. That is the death of democracy.


"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. "Alexis de Tocqueville

LOL, its evident that we disagree on what facts are. My interpretation doesn't fit yours but I agree that not everything the government does is fair or equitable. Where we disagree is that you see to think its okay for corporations to corrupt the government and extract whatever they can get their greedy mitts on, make policy and rules that favor that greedy behavior, and make poor people and ordinary workers pay for it.

No doubt that you would defend the RIGHTS of business to have slaves and whip them into submission also. I say this because of your rhetoric that others have rights that some others do not.

Its pretty simple when you see where the levels of largess is most manifested where the inequities are, that create the inequality that you so conveniently ignore and defend. I agree with your signature quote though, NOT your interpretation of it.

The answer to wealth distribution is fair wealth distribution. But of course that's the conflict the left and right has as to what's fair. The shame that makes resolution, and solutions is the right unwillingness to meet in the middle and go forward. Indeed its evident when ever you guys open your mouth its about doing it YOUR way or no way, so there can never be an OUR way, until we the people take back our country from the GODS you worship, Corporations, religion, and the so called free market of slavery created and controlled by a few elites.

You cry class warfare of those that want fair to hide the fact that you practice class warfare YOURSELF, and don't want it to stop. Your fear, and hate is showing, rendering your facts suspect, and your opinion misled.

You speak of my facts when in fact you have NEVER heard me say anything close to this diatribe .

No doubt that you would defend the RIGHTS of business to have slaves and whip them into submission also. I say this because of your rhetoric that others have rights that some others do not.

And with that line I am finished discussing this with you.

I didn't think you Aussies were so trusting . Here is the problem . All these promises or and entitlements to deliver these ought rights are not sustainable .


In that case our government will modify or take them away.




Again I look to the consitution and I see nothing that charges the goverment with the responsibility or power to distribute the wealth of the nation or to coercively champion 'fairness' .




I look at our constitution and see very little. Our 'fairness' is derived from our early history. Australia was going to be a paradise for working class people. It didn't take too long to work out that was going to be utopian and just plain wrong. What it do however, was to create a belief in equity and fairness that has extended through time up until the moment.

I have sometimes thought about a constitution that guarantees various rights and freedoms for the individual. I am against this being applied to to Australia. Why? Because in this day and age I see your natural rights being challenged by smart constitutional lawyers who are following a recently established tradition. That recent tradition is to try and turn 'is' rights into 'ought' rights.

When Ex asked the question , "Can the government take away our rights?" My asnwer was "no", but they can change the status of your rights.

Tut

I didn't think you Aussies were so trusting . Here is the problem . All these promises or and entitlements to deliver these ought rights are not sustainable .

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government)



Interesting set of statistics Tom it demonstrates your country is out of control. What is the problem?you have maintained all these programs without being willing to pay for them, because the only way you can pay for them is through taxation. A situation where there is increased government dependence while the burden falls on fewer and fewer people is not only unsustainable it is stupid. For all the money you have invested in education you have not gotten any smarter. You have correctly identified these things are unstainable. Like your inalienable rights these things are self evident, okay now be part of the solution, how do you fix a system that is broken?

You criticise us aussies but no welfare program was put in place without the corresponding revenue measures to pay for it, so unlike the Greeks and dare I say it your own country, we are not faced with a crisis although we have noted the same trends as yourself. One great difference we have is the taxation powers belong to the federal government and so there is a single coordinated approach to funding. Big government maybe, but it has advantages. The other is structure, no government can stay in office if its budget measures are not approved and there is no stapling appropriation bills to other legislation.

It may be a few more election cycles until we get the right wing ultra conservatives to negotiate again. We have to wait and see what happens with the republican war. I mean presidential primaries. Over the years they have gotten rid of moderates and called them bad names (rino-republican in name only), so only the most ultra conservative will do.

Tal I think the war is decided only a few skermishes left. You will move towards the middle so there will be nothing to distinguish between the opponents but the name on the door. We had the same problem a few years ago and look at the mess we are in now.

Clete it's not just the US at 100% debt to GDP ration .Across the globe there is way too much debt . The Europeans are a basket case at over 100 % . The Japanese are at 200% . God knows what the real China debt is with their Potamkin economy . There is no growing out of it with the most optimistic Keynesian fantasies. What is needed is the shrinking of the size and power of national governments . Let the private sector work and recovery will begin.
You Aussies aren't immune either even if you think you are in a better position . The world is too interconnected to not be affected .
I am sure of one thing... giving more "freebies " will not get it done.

Clete it's not just the US at 100% debt to GDP ration .Across the globe there is way too much debt . The Europeans are a basket case at over 100 % . The Japanese are at 200% . God knows what the real China debt is with their Potamkin economy . There is no growing out of it with the most optimistic Keynesian fantasies. What is needed is the shrinking of the size and power of national governments . Let the private sector work and recovery will begin.
You Aussies aren't immune either even if you think you are in a better position . The world is too interconnected to not be affected .
I am sure of one thing ..........giving more "freebies " will not get it done.

Not suggesting freebees Tom they have to be paid for so they are not free, it's the learning of that that is hard for these economies that have been on the government teat for too long. I think you could say we have experiemented with many things and along the way we have found a balance, but there has been pain, we had a great deal of pain twenty years ago but we have transformed our economy from a manufacturing based economy. You see if our government decided that it needed say an additional 0.5% to fund Medicare there might be some debate but it would happen. They decided they wanted a 1% levy for disaster relief, it went through without a murmur. Even in the GFC we didn't really have a recession. We might even see a resurgence of european migration. I don't doubt we will see more pain as we have to deal with the loss of Aluminium, motor industries and a number of others particularly agriculture but we have a government that is focused on bringing the budget into surplus in the short term so you could say our policy is "don't ask" like the other day someone wanted $5 billion for education and the answer was not now, but come the election we will see if it remerges. We might dig minerals and it's a big export earner but it isn't that big an employer, our mining industries are the most efficient in the world and they are now talking of robot trains, etc

What I know Tom is the old capitalist theorums aren't working right now and that is because there is surplus capacity, so no reinvestment and innovation has stalled so no new industries. But even if you have a great idea, can you get backing to develop it. I doubt it. We shot ourselves in the foot by thinking that low cost is good for business, that shutting down a factory and building a new one offshore is a great idea, ultimately you kill demand

Let the private sector work and recovery will begin.

That's the problem, it's the private sectors that are creating the global economic crisis in the first place. They are the ones with the surpluses.

The private sector is focused only on profits and right now all they see is reduced margins so no recovery. They are also gun shy when it comes to new investment, they want assured returns in an uncertain world, so the return on leaving your money in the bank looks pretty good, you can earn more that way right now and little risk, why would you invest.

I wonder what the overnight return on short term notes is? It is probably pretty good

That's what the right wing middle class fails to understand about a weakened government, corporations and banks can fill the vacuum while the government cannot act, or act swiftly enough, and have effectively blocked those short term fixes that call for that .05% tax increase on 300, 000 people who make above a million bucks, that can fund an infrastructure program that employees millions.

Mind you these are the guys that have benefited most the last 10 years, and were bailed out, and have made even more during the down turn that has made all those poor people even poorer, and dependent on the government that they want to weaken.

What do you call someone who works against there OWN self interest? I call then crazy conservatives. They government that freed the slaves is their enemy, so they themselves have become the slaves.

The government that freed the slaves is their enemy, so they themselves have become the slaves.

The government that freed the slaves did so out of self interest, if the Democrats had seen sense and did so first they would have won hands down, but that is 150 years ago and this is now. We are talking about self satisfied conservatives sitting back and watching and obstructing while they do so. The idea that a government has a right to govern has eluded them

Governments have no rights .They only have power.

It's there JOB, that's what they are supposed to do. Empowered by the people they represent, but some want that power deluted so they can legally do as they please with impunity.

The result is a stagnant economy, and more and more poor people, stuck in debt, and joblessness, and a rising child poverty rate.

Evidently the powers this administration takes in the name of the people is to impose the President's ideas of what he thinks a religion is ;but also his pseudo-Christianity ;on all the people even despite the clear unconstitutionality of his dictates.

What I see is a fair balance between the church, state, and the people that are affected. It's the republicans especially at a state level that's pushing the religious argument, and many of the local, and regional religious organization are fine with his accommodations.

Its just the right thinks we are so dumb not to recognize the end run around settled law that affirms the right of a woman to have a legal abortion. Its obvious and absurd, and the push back has been eye opening. But the right would rather we go back to the days of abortions done in a dark kitchen. They cannot recognize that the best ways to reduce abortions is with contraception, and NOT aspirin.

As crazy a notion as giving more loot to the robber corporations and rich guys to create jobs. That's why they have trillions and the number of poor grows everyday. Republicans have proved to be the party of RAPE, PILLAGE, and PLUNDER. None of which has a darn thing to do with religious freedom, the constitution, or freedom to practise. If the states statues have held up, the federal ones probably will too.

The state deciding what a "fair balance " is between the state's power and the free exercise clause is an unconstitutional role for the state to assume. Who is running the country ? King Henry VIII ?

The states are the ones whoo have the exemptions for religious institutions already, many stricter than what the president has proposed and its already passed constiutional muster, and so will the federal version.

Nothing has changed except the noise on the right, you know, the ones who always feel attacked and persecuted, and outraged by one thing or another. And for the last four years that's all we hear is how this Christian president isn't really a Christian. Now Santorium is railing against the liberal college snobs, while holding 3 freakin degrees himself! Unreal!

I mean it never ends with the right wing gloom, and doom and end of the world rhetoric. They are afraid of themselves I think.

I have not read the details of the constitutions of all 50 states . All I know is what is unconstitutional at the national level. It may well be that the people of some of the states have given the states that power. It is a fact that the people of the United States have not given that authority to the national government .

Speaking of churches, Santorum is being criticized for his comments on JFK's remarks on separation of church and state, "where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote..."

Apparently it's absolute for thee but not for me to the left these days. Obama has his "congregational captain program" to drum up votes for him.


Congregation Captain Program (http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/a-community-wide-effort-programs-to-get-involved/)
Congregation captains will take the lead on educating others about the importance of participating in this campaign and how to get involved. Working in your individual capacity, you’ll reach out to key community members and mobilize your personal networks with house parties and other outreach activities, as well as provide assistance in conducting voter registration drives.

I think it would be fun to organize a Caucasians for Santorum or Romney campaign and put our our own "congregation captains" to work. Whaddya think?

Obama has his "congregational captain program" to drum up votes for him.


I think it would be fun to organize a Caucasians for Santorum or Romney campaign and put our our own "congregation captains" to work. Whaddya think?Yea, that doesn't belong; Obama should delete that page.

Why don't you just hire the KKK, they are probably looking for something to do

Actually, the KKK is busy. They took their hoods off, and are running for public office. They caught one in Arizona, and recalled him. More to come.

Shucks foiled again!

The left never believed in the separation. Politics conducted from the pulpit in the 1960s was instrumental in the Civil Rights movement. Before that ,the abolition movement was originally a religious movement . As you recall there was a lot of discussion in the 2008 about liberation theology which breaches that wall . AND just last month ;the President went to the National Prayer Breakfast and used pseudo-Christian justifications for his domestic policies. There is only a selective 'Wall of Separation' .

The left never believed in the separation. Politics conducted from the pulpit in the 1960s was instrumental in the Civil Rights movement. Before that ,the abolition movement was originally a religious movement . As you recall there was alot of discussion in the 2008 about liberation theology which breaches that wall . AND just last month ;the President went to the National Prayer Breakfast and used pseudo-Christian justifications for his domestic policies. There is only a selective 'Wall of Separation' .


Hi Tom,

Historically you can make exactly the same types of claims about the right.

Tut

That is because there is no such thing as a "wall of separation" . It's a term Jefferson used in a letter to a Baptist church that a black robed oligarch took out of context and applied it to a court decision . Now most Americans ,who have not studied the history think there is some line in the Constitution that establishes a separation .
For the record.. . The State can't establish a church ;and the state can't make laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion . THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS on the churches and there are no restrictions on politicians who wish to profess their faith. The reason the President's mandate is wrong ,and unconstitutional ,is because he forces the churches to act in a manner their faith says is immoral .

Actually, the KKK is busy. They took their hoods off, and are running for public office. They caught one in Arizona, and recalled him. More to come.

In fact, the most prominent KKK member I know of served in Congress as a Democrat for 57 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd).

THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS on the churchesHello tom:

It's really simple. You guys don't LIKE it simple, but it is. I've been saying it for quite some time... Tom, my right wing friend, you're absolutely right. The state cannot restrict a church. But, it can DEFINE a church. It does that when it grants them a tax exemption - or not... I know. I applied for one, and the government told me I WASN'T a church...

That same government has defined a hospital AS a hospital, and NOT a church. I promise you, the hospitals in question are NOT tax exempt like a church is.

excon

Yeah and those same hospitals have been taking care of sick people long before the government complicated it.

Yeah and those same hospitals have been taking care of sick people long before the government complicated it.Hello again, Steve:

Yeahhh... Hospitals do good work. But, they're NOT churches. Therefore, this is NOT 1st Amendment issue. It's a labor law issue.

Look. We cannot do EVERYTHING we'd like under the guise of freedom of religion... I PROMISE you, the government won't let me smoke pot no matter HOW many times I see God when I'm high.

Now, if you want to make the First Amendment ABSOLUTE, then we can talk business.

excon

Big difference between prohibitting activity and mandating activity .

Hospitals do good work. But, they're NOT churches. Therefore, this is NOT 1st Amendment issue. It's a labor law issue.
So if the hospitals connected to a church body invited me to come in, treated me, then asked only for a donation which I could give or not, would that make them churches?

Mandating rules for businesses to follow is the governments job. Has nothing to do with the church, just when the church does business in the realm of the government regulation.

Sure they do good works, and when they charge for them, or pay workers for their services, then they have to follow the law, or not do it. Just like everyone else. They should have gone further and mandated child molesters be turned over to the law, but whose perfect?

But I guess churches are people too?

big difference between prohibitting activity and mandating activity .Hello tom:

It's true.. The government tells us how to behave.. I don't like it either.

But, as an employer, I am prohibited by law from discriminating against women. It seems to me, that not covering women's health care, while covering men's is a violation of LOTS of laws, including the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment...

Plus, how can you support the government interfering with MY religious liberty by NOT allowing me to smoke MY sacrament?

excon

Ex ,I already stated that I would support that .It is no different than the exemption for peyote.

The answer to your original question is yes, according to... Michelle Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/michelle-obama-cites-jesus-model-citizenship-155359755--abc-news-politics.html).


“It’s kind of like church,” Obama said. “Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well, especially in those quiet moments, when the spotlight’s not on us, and we’re making those daily choices about how to live our lives.

“We see that in the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn’t limit his ministry to the four walls of the church,” she said. “He was out there fighting injustice and speaking truth to power every single day. He was out there spreading a message of grace and redemption to the least, the last, and the lost. And our charge is to find Him everywhere, every day by how we live our lives.”

But wait, her husband and his HHS Secretary ruled that only what happens within the confines of “the four walls of the church” is all Jesus should be concerning himself with, not getting out into the world and ministering to "the least, the last and the lost" - that's the government's job. Maybe they should talk more and get their message straight.

ministering to "the least, the last and the lost" - that's the government's job. Maybe they should talk more and get their message straight.
I thought I am the government. It's my tax dollars at work doing some of that ministering to the "least among us."

No ,if you compel others to do what you define as their share of good works then you are not doing God's work .When Mary M poured expensive perfumes on Jesus' feet Judas was outraged and made a judgement on the social injustice of the waste of the expensive perfumes. Jesus did not take his bait . He told Judas what many would consider and inconsiderate ,and uncompassionate statement . He told him that there would always be poor people .
You see human definititions of injustice really don't cut it. I think as an example that the government allowing the systematic slaughter of babies by the 100s of thousand a year is NOT social justice.. Yet I find that progressive Christians who speak loudest about social justice rarely agree with me .

You see human definititions of injustice really don't cut it.



Tom, human definitions of justice and injustice have to cut it-we have no choice in the matter.

We all know virtue has its own rewards. Following the moral law defines the character of the person, but when we apply the moral law to specific social situations we are forced to implement secular solutions.

Age old problem going back to the Ancient Greeks.

Tut

Tom, human definitions of justice and injustice have to cut it-we have no choice in the matter.

We all know virtue has its own rewards. Following the moral law defines the character of the person, but when we apply the moral law to specific social situations we are forced to implement secular solutions.

Age old problem going back to the Ancient Greeks.

Tut

Yes ,however Jesus did not teach to society or to government . He taught to the individual .He gave individuals a blueprint for their own salvation.

Yes ,however Jesus did not teach to society or to government . He taught to the individual .He gave individuals a blueprint for their own salvation. You're not going to have us believe that you follow the teachings of Jesus are you?

I certainly don't follow your 'humans are god 'views.

I certainly don't follow your 'humans are god 'views.

I think the quote goes something like this:

Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and give unto God the things that are God's.

That would include taxes.

Yes ,taxes are a legitimate function of government. Being taxed by the government for charity does not make that person virtuous.

yes ,taxes are a legitimate function of government. Being taxed by the government for charity does not make that person virtuous.


But, the government isn't a person- is it?

yes ,taxes are a legitimate function of government. Being taxed by the government for charity does not make that person virtuous.

Hang on, Or do you mean the person paying the taxes is not acting in a virtuous manner?

Tut

Governments are given authority to establish laws that govern humans on earth. Jesus' message was for individual salvation .Being taxed to contribute to a top down redistribution doesn't encourage giving from the heart out of love. It replaces the savior with the government as the savior. We individually give charity and await the return of the savior ;where only then perfect justice will be restored.

Being taxed to contribute to a top down redistribution ...But that's exactly what ALL taxes do.

And ? Yes that is true and completely irrelevant .The issue is this notion that taxing authority at any level can be justified as a Christian act.
The President and the First Lady have both invoked it recently .Speechless linked to Michelle Obama's comments .
The President went to the National Prayer Breakfast and claimed he would raise taxes on the rich because rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,”
So in his view ,forcing the rich to pay more is the Christian thing to do . He thinks it's a WWJD thing to compel charity. Well no where in the scriptures do I read Jesus forcing anyone to do anything. As much as the President thinks he is doing the Christian thing ;he is wrong.

and ? yes that is true and completely irrelevent .
No it isn't - you're just picking and choosing the taxes you don't like and finding some excuse for it. Which is basically the very definition of Cafeteria Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafeteria_Christianity)

I don't think you fairly represent his views, nor do I agree that being forced to pay more taxes is accurate either. I think a good person in position of authority would govern for ALL the people and not just the few.

We sure don't want one church or another to govern people, but we don't want the people to be separated from the church of their choice. Charity comes as the spirit moves you, and is self defined, but governance comes from the collective consensus of all the people.

Taxes are but a vehicle to work for the collective good, and when circumstances change the taxes must change, and when things are good taxes should be lowered, but in times of crisis or need, they must go higher to meet the need.

It's the inflexibility that slows down the need to make proper adjustments that benefit us all. And its in times of need that the church plays its greatest role. The church can't govern, but it can administer good. The government can't minister, but they can govern equally to its people. It's the balances that are out of wack!

That's where the president sits as he weighs the needs of the few, against the needs of the many.

The social justice Christians aren't ? I'd say they are worse because they distort the scriptures. But primarily my stance on taxes comes from the Constitutional restraints ,and that to me is the indicator if a tax is valid. As for me being a cafeteria Christian... maybe I am... but not on this issue.

I don't think you fairly represent his views, nor do I agree that being forced to pay more taxes is accurate either. I think a good person in position of authority would govern for ALL the people and not just the few.

We sure don't want one church or another to govern people, but we don't want the people to be separated from the church of their choice. Charity comes as the spirit moves you, and is self defined, but governance comes from the collective consensus of all the people.

Taxes are but a vehicle to work for the collective good, and when circumstances change the taxes must change, and when things are good taxes should be lowered, but in times of crisis or need, they must go higher to meet the need.

Its the inflexibility that slows down the need to make proper adjustments that benefit us all. And its in times of need that the church plays its greatest role. The church can't govern, but it can administer good. The government can't minister, but they can govern equally to its people. Its the balances that are out of wack!

Thats where the president sits as he weighs the needs of the few, against the needs of the many.

Oh I think it is a very fair depiction of his views .He couched his views in WWJD language when in fact ,his philosophical basis is closer to Marx. Just find any scripture where Jesus admonishes the government to be charitible . You can't find it .

Jesus admonishes the government to be charitible . You can't find it .
You and I are the government, and there are verses admonishing us to be charitable.

The bible does not address government responsibility . It addresses personal salvation.

The bible does not address government responsibility . It addresses personal salvation.
It addresses personal responsibility too. Note the second of Jesus' two greatest commandments.

The constitution says we the people are equal. Not some of the people, or the rich, or those that think they are right.

We elect those that govern us, and re elect those that govern well. Not everyone will like everything, but we can all benefit. You Tom will benefit too.So will the ones who chose to be taxed under its guidelines.

Can a church decide to be an insurance company and demand to be treated like a church?

Sure they can demand. But the law is the final arbiter of whether their demands are met or NOT! The church has no authority to write the law. Only the people we elect can!

You Tom will benefit too.So will the ones who chose to be taxed under its guidelines.
Don't do me any favors ;and if you pick my pocket ,don't tell me I should be happy about it because of my faith. I'll debate the political aspects of it no problem ;but to couch it in terms of it being my Christian responsibility is a dishonesty reading of the scriptures ;and frankly reeks of hypocrisy knowing what the President really thinks about religious separation.

Can a church decide to be an insurance company and demand to be treated like a church?

Sure they can demand. But the law is the final arbiter of whether their demands are met or NOT!! The church has no authority to write the law. Only the people we elect can!

Well there is that complication of the 1st amendment''s free exercise clause.

It addresses personal responsibility too. Note the second of Jesus' two greatest commandments.

Yes that is part of personal salvation unless you can tell me where Jesus admonished Rome to be charitible .

Hard for any of us to separate our beliefs from our actions, it's a great balancing act. Now you can judge the motives of others harshly, and use all the adjectives we want, but in the end, the debate is about expression of opinions, and we are a nation of laws, and we are free to debate our opinions.

If you want to elect the POPE, or a RICH business man as president, that's fine (just start a SUPER pac). I chose to elect the community activist as the leader of the free world.

We will see what happens next in November.

Yes that is part of personal salvation unless you can tell me where Jesus admonished Rome to be charitible .
We aren't saved because we are being responsible for others. We are responsible for others because we are saved.

We are the government in this country. Rome's government was mainly in one person, was a monarchy during Jesus' time.

Well there is that complication of the 1st amendment''s free exercise clause.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/A-history-lesson-on-religion-Founding-Fathers-3656014.php


Perhaps it's time to put the whole of George Washington's Farewell Address back into primary education: "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."

Works for me.

Churches should be left alone to do their own thing not be made to conform to a secular agenda that is what the amendment means

As long as they act within the law, not above it!!

Got it backwards . The law cannot violate the free exercise clause . If a law is crafted that violates that provision it is an unconstitutional law.

No one is above our laws Tom, and that includes the churches all of them, even the Coptic's, catholics and the Muslims. If it were not so, then sharia law could be practiced, and the catholics could bring back the inquisition. As individuals, we can worship whatever church we please, but cannot sacrifice on church holidays.

Both states and federal governments agree to these limits as a part of freedom to worship any institution. Now I know you small government types want the church to be bigger than the law, but it ain't happening, because a small government, weakens your institutions as well as everyone else's. HOW?

Because the church would write the rules for business, and government, and its just to many of them to get equality. Would that be fair to the NON Christian religions? Or would the corporations become the authority for the churches? Or could the churches have authority over the corporations?

No the law is the final authority over ALL the people, and that's how it should be in a country of we the people, and not some of the people! Have you forgotten how we started this country, or what?

If it were not so, then sharia law could be practiced, and the catholics could bring back the inquisition. As individuals, we can worship whatever church we please, but cannot sacrifice on church holidays.


Hate to tell you but Saria Law is already here and being practiced in some lawsuits. Its been going on for awhile already.

You mean they are chopping off hands for stealing, or stoning woman for adultry? Tell me more. Links please?

Yeah sharia law like they are bombing churches in Kenya and Nigeria and they say sharia law allows them to do it, so expect that sometime too

You mean they are chopping off hands for stealing, or stoning woman for adultry? Tell me more. Links please?

Way too much to post. So lets start here.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?page_id=305

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/03/27/florida-judge-defends-decision-to-allow-sharia-law-to-decide-civil-case.php

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/federal-appeals-court-considers-sharia-law/

http://www.thenation.com/article/168378/true-story-sharia-american-courts#

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/



So far it has been kept on lower levels like arbitration. But as we all known we all need to keep an eye on things as they progress.

Why?


The true story of Sharia in American courts is not one of a plot for imminent takeover but rather another part of the tale of globalization. Marriages, divorces, corporations and commercial transactions are global, meaning that US courts must regularly interpret and apply foreign law. Islamic law has been considered by American courts in everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, and the awarding of damages in commercial disputes and negligence matters

I am sure stoning some one is against the law no matter what religion they are from. Settling disputes in court, or by an approved arbitrator is the way we all have to go, if we chose to, but physical harm is against the law.

So far it has been kept on lower levels like arbitration. But as we all known we all need to keep an eye on things as they progress.

I am more concerned with Christians who deny birth control to women than I am about stoning, but I do know of Americans who have killed because their religion gives them that right, or so they have alleged, but thank god they ended up in jail for murder.

http://www.orato.com/world-affairs/texas-father-main-suspect-murder

I think we should be vigilante for anyone who breaks the law regardless of religion.