Hello:

Really???? (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/12/gop-congressman-introduces-amendment-to-allow-any-employer-to-deny-any-medical-coverage/)

excon

Seems to me your link is stretching the truth. This was a bipartisan amendment to establish a conscience clause, not to deny coverage for any whim.

Maybe Blunt will "compromise " ,walk it back a bit... and only allow religious institutions that exemption.

Why?

Apparently according to a Georgetown student, college girls are completely unable to control themselves - they're having so much sex they're going broke (http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/sex-crazed-co-eds-going-broke-buying-birth-control-student-tells-pelosi-hearing). I guarantee I can find them some oral contraceptives for a lot less than that, or she can easily buy over 5000 condoms (http://www.amazon.com/Trojan-Ultra-Lubricated-Latex-Condoms/dp/B00014UKS2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1330462828&sr=8-2) for $3000. That's a lot of sex in one year.

The conscience-free Democrat-controlled Senate dutifully killed the Blunt amendment that would have given religious organizations a conscience clause and you know, made the first amendment relevant again. Frank Lautenberg takes top prize irresponsible over-the-top rhetoric during the debate.


“The Republicans want to take us forward to the dark ages again… when women were property that you could easily control, even trade if you wanted to,” said Lautenberg. “Its appalling we are having this debate in the 21st century.”

What's appalling is Lautenberg making such absurd remarks in the 21st century. I'm betting some of you will agree with him and I find that appalling, too.

The conscience-free Democrat-controlled Senate dutifully killed the Blunt amendment that would have given religious organizations a conscience clause and you know, made the first amendment relevant again.Hello again, Steve:

If that was the bill, then those Democrats are lousy...

But, it WASN'T the bill. It was CLOSE though. It wasn't just for religious organizations. It was a conscience clause for EVERY organization, including the one you work for..

That would have meant, ANY CEO in the country could decide, on a moral basis, WHICH health care he'd pay for. That means if I, as a job creator, have a MORAL objection to guns, I could refuse to cover gun shot wounds. If I was a teetotaler, I could refuse to pay for alcohol treatment. If I had a moral objection to using fossil fuel, I could refuse to cover auto accidents... If I believed, like Rick Santorum does, that sex outside of marriage is bad, I could refuse to cover STD'S or AIDS...

No, it was a PREVIEW of the right wing wish list that I've been asking about... Good thing we defeated it.. It's only a warmup, though. It was reaching for the fences, I got to admit...

excon

In other words, you don't think anyone deserves the right to NOT violate their conscience. That's just appalling, too. I think everyone DOES have the right to decline paying for someone else's guilt-free sexual encounters in violation of their conscience. And remember there is NO access to contraceptives issue, especially in New York City. This is still a cure in search of a disease.

My Contraceptive Haul (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292202/my-contraceptive-haul-charles-c-w-cooke?pg=2)

In other words, you don't think anyone deserves the right to NOT violate their conscience. That's just appalling, too.Hello again, Steve:

As long as their conscience doesn't bang up against our laws. I think people ought to BELIEVE what they like and SAY what they like. That's the glory of our First Amendment...

But, when it comes to the WORKPLACE, I have NO PROBLEM with laws that PREVENT him from discriminating against ANY protected class of worker... Women ARE among those protected... He may NOT deny health coverage based on sex. That's SETTLED law. Been that way for a long time. How come you haven't complained before now?

Frankly, I don't think it's appalling at all. Being able to DISCRIMINATE is appalling... We spoke earlier of where we were in the 60's. In 1963 I was in Charleston, S.C, where men of CONSCIENCE believed black people shouldn't eat at the same table as whites, drink from the same water fountains, or ride in the front of the bus. The law supported these men of CONSCIENCE...

The law, if passed, would have taken us back to those times.

excon

speechless:This was a bipartisan amendment to establish a conscience clause, not to deny coverage for any whim.

The same argument could (and was) made about the DRI laws that recently were killed by public opinion. The need for the laws were not denied, but the application could have been onerous. This was clearly a poorly conceived and too widely open [iece of legislation that should have been killed.

Ex, why is anyone a PROTECTED class? What makes their rights trump mine? We're not talking about equal pay for equal work or hiring discrimination, we're talking about BENEFITS. Employers don't have to provide ANY benefits, so who are you to tell me what extras I MUST provide my employees. They are free to find employment elsewhere, because see I still believe in the right to VOLUNTARY associations.

You're tossing around the same straw man arguments you have been and playing the race card to boot. This has nothing to do with eating at the same table or riding in the back of the bus. This is plain and simple government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, EXACTLY as you argue about ultrasound laws.

The entire argument for justifying the mandate is fallacious, there is no lack of access to contraceptives and the Catholic church and others have refused to pay for someone's guilt-free sexual escapades all along and we're not in the dark ages now because of it.

Really ex, this is utter nonsense. Our first amendment rights are at stake and you think forcing others to buy birth control pills is more important. I'm really quite shocked you feel that way.

ex, why is anyone a PROTECTED class? What makes their rights trump mine? We're not talking about equal pay for equal work or hiring discrimination, we're talking about BENEFITS. Hello again, Steve:

I think it IS an equal pay issue... Imagine you and the lady next to you at work. She is paid the same as you, but you have health benefits that she DOESN'T. If she wants them, she has to BUY them separately.

Uhhhh, you don't think that's an equal pay issue?? Dude! Now, if they paid the women 25% MORE to equal it out, I wouldn't have a problem.

By the way, this would be handled with single payer. I agree, health care coverage should NOT be dependent on your job, your employer, or your gender.

excon

By the way, this would be handled with single payer. I agree, health care coverage should NOT be dependent on your job, your employer, or your gender.

I see you are beginning to see the light Ex, that little piece of social engineering that had employers become responsible for employees health coverage is seen for the flawed vehicle it is. A government abrogating its responsibility to others. Single payer works very well and doesn't mean doctors loose their independence. You do need to think about the next step which is regulating medical pricing so benefits are uniform