Dude you were already paying for it anyway. We all pay for whatever insurance covers as a collective through our premiums. That's the free market you righties love so well. That's not charity, you have to give them money for their services, and they get to make a profit, and pay taxes. That too is a choice.

And don't preach to the choir as I am against abortion also, but that's my choice. Contraception is not abortion. Since I am a guy who can't get pregnant, I would look stupid telling a female what to do with her choice wouldn't I? Or yours even.

Bottom line is that no one can dictate what a private company does because the laws does that. So don't buy insurance, but oh, you have to because you actually employ people don't you, just like a business. Hmm not bad, no taxes and can do what you want with the money.

Churches have to obey the law of the land. Like every citizen, corporation, or group. So don't worry you will still get what you want, but not at the expense of anyone else. Like the janitor that cleans the church, or the hospital. I know, I am just a heathen like Obama right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Dude you were already paying for it anyway. We all pay for whatever insurance covers as a collective thru our premiums. Thats the free market you righties love so well. Thats not charity, you have to give them money for their services, and they get to make a profit, and pay taxes. That too is a choice.

And don't preach to the choir as I am against abortion also, but thats my choice. Contraception is not abortion. Since I am a guy who can't get pregnant, I would look stupid telling a female what to do with her choice wouldn't I? Or yours even.

Bottom line is that no one can dictate what a private company does because the laws does that. So don't buy insurance, but oh, you have to because you actually employ people don't you, just like a business. Hmm not bad, no taxes and can do what you want with the money.

Churches have to obey the law of the land. Like every citizen, corporation, or group. So don't worry you will still get what you want, but not at the expense of anyone else. Like the janitor that cleans the church, or the hospital. I know, I am just a heathen like Obama right?

---

Contraception is a choice. In most cases, engaging in sexual intercourse is a choice also. It is not health care. You are free to accept our charity or not, it's a choice. And when someone walks into the BSA ER, being Baptist or Catholic is not a prerequisite for treatment. But if they want an elective abortion they can go next door to Northwest Texas Hospital. BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience and murder children. Everyone wins. Why change that?

At the end of the day, we can all wrap ourselves in this quote:

"I don't want to overstate or understate our level of concern," said McQuade, the Catholic bishops' spokesperson. "We consider [birth control] an elective drug. Married women can practice periodic abstinence. Other women can abstain altogether. Not having sex doesn't make you sick." (quote easily found by Googling)

I hope males will remember that when she [always] says, "No, thanks. I don't want to get pregnant."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience ...

---

But yet they advocate birth control. Odd that.

Quote:

---

Contraception is a choice. In most cases, engaging in sexual intercourse is a choice also. It is not health care. You are free to accept our charity or not, it's a choice. And when someone walks into the BSA ER, being Baptist or Catholic is not a prerequisite for treatment. But if they want an elective abortion they can go next door to Northwest Texas Hospital. BSA chooses NOT to violate their conscience and murder children. Everyone wins. Why change that?

---

Nobody changes the services you render to those that needs it, quite to the contrary, only the way you treat your EMPLOYEES!! Nothing to do with patience or clients whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

BS!

I'm as left as you get, and I'm DEMONSTRABLY for MORE liberty than you fellows are. Have been since the get go, and STILL am. WHO amongst us, creates LISTS of people who DON'T qualify for LIBERTY??? It's NOT me!!!!

This is really a simple matter of calling a church a church, and a hospital a hospital...

excon

---

OK ,I'll give y'all the benefit of the doubt and say that the President tried to strike a balance between religious liberty ,and so called "reproductive rights" ,and again blundered badly . He could easily step down from this decision and have religious exemptions so all he would have is the fight about unconstitutional mandates in Obamacare that SCOTUS will hear without having another one about his blatant violations of the 1st amendment.

Workers at Catholic institutions will not be denied contraception.The Church isn't stopping them from getting contraception. They won't be fired for taking it. The church just won't provide it . All they need to do is go to one of them Saint Margaret Sanger eugenics clinics to get it. The number of people affected is small . Having freely chosen their employer, they have a dubious case for grievance against institutions that choose not to offer contraception coverage.

But if he continues on this line then I have no choice but to conclude that he ,and those who support this position indeed do not like religious liberty .Because this violates a very basic fundamental tenent of religious freedom. If they can be forced to pay for the "right " of contraception ,what is to prevent them from being forced to pay for the "right " of snuffing out of the life of babies ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

what is to prevent them from being "forced " to pay for the "right " of snuffing out of the life of babies ?

---

Birth control pills don't do that. They keep the babies from happening in the first place. Like abstinence.

And I asked what is to prevent the government from mandating free abortions if they can consitutionally mandate free contraception ?

You found a quote on the web before. So here is another one easily found .

Quote:

---

I accepted one branch of this philosophy, but eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands. It could not stand against the furious winds of economic pressure which had buffeted into partial or total helplessness a tremendous proportion of the human race. The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.

---

That was Margaret Sanger ,the hero of the women's rights movement .

They would rather you practice abstinence, than have YOUR doctor write a script for the pill. Remember the congress wanted them to have the RIGHT to let a female die if she showed up at their hospital with complications from a pregnancy, planned or not, wanted or NOT, that required them to take an action to terminate the pregnancy.

They also want to require females to get counseling, and ultra sound before having a LEGAL abortion, and the nuts think its justice to kill someone who performs these abortions. Now if we lived in the perfect world where a female can take some time off, and earn as much as a man, and needed less medical care on average than a man, I might be persuaded, but since that's not the case, it sure seems like discrimination to me, and historically, the government has always stepped in to stop blatant discrimination.

That's what we have here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That was Margaret Sanger ,the hero of the women's rights movement .

---

She most certainly is not!!!
Geez, if you need to make stuff up like this it means you have nothing left to argue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And I asked what is to prevent the government from mandating free abortions if they can consitutionally mandate free contraception ?

---

Come on, there are no mandates for free abortion. All preventive medical procedures, exams, and medicines are free, with no co pays. That includes regular check ups. At least under my insurance.

Abortions are LEGAL, and hardly free unless you are poor, and then there is a sliding scale or subsidy from charitable organizations. Rich woman can get one in any state they can get to. Always have, always will. Its just the right is creative in limiting the choices of others, mostly the poor who cannot travel or afford insurance.

Mostly men, who think they can control the choice of others, because of there principles. That's the part that sucks to me because the ones hollering the loudest about life don't holler for the kids that are molested, but they sure settle those lawsuits to keep it quiet. How about mandating something for those that have suffered abuse, for FREE!

Hypocrisy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Mostly men, who think they can control the choice of others

---

Others, which includes women. Why not also hand out clean burqas every morning after we shower or bathe?

Quote:

---

Come on, there are no mandates for free abortion

---

Didn't say there was... I asked what's to prevent the mandate if they can mandate "free " contraceptives ? Answer nothing .

Quote:

---

All preventive medical procedures, exams, and medicines are free, with no co pays.

---

I'll take your word that a check up is "free" under the insurance policy you pay for . Others have different terms . But am I reading correctly that you consider the distribution of contraceptive drugs ,and abortifacient drugs (which are also classified as contraceptive aids ),the same as a visit to a GP ? Amazing ! Tell me what other medical device or drug is "free " under your plan ? Bet you can't think of one .

I have 3 devices that cost me nothing out of pocket. They are mine now. But all my union brothers have the same benefits under our contract. Dental, and vision. Discount prescriptions. Don't you have the same thing? No union? Oh that's right, righties don't believe in unions. They are evil creations of liberal bleeding hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I asked what's to prevent the mandate if they can mandate "free " contraceptives ?

---

Are these the same "they"s who will eventually take away our small arms if we let them ban AK-47s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I have 3 devices that cost me nothing out of pocket. They are mine now. But all my union brothers have the same benefits under our contract. Dental, and vision. Discount prescriptions. Don't you have the same thing? No union? Oh thats right, righties don't believe in unions. They are evil creations of liberal bleeding hearts.

---

Oh I get it ! You think because it's called "free" that no one pays for it! No wonder you favor universal "free "care ! If contraception is such a necessary service that it should be "free " then don't you think there are many other services ,products more crucial that should also be "free" ? How about food,shelter and clothing ? Why shouldn't those be "free" too ?

Sad to inform you that in reality someone pays for all that "free"stuff. The church morally opposes being the one to pay for it . The church correctly believes that being forced to pay for it is a violation of their 1st amendment rights . I'm pretty sure that most of the church will realize that this sleigh of hand compromise where the church pays a 3rd party to cover it does not answer their concern.
Hope that clears it up for you . Calling it "free " doesn't make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Are these the same "they"s who will eventually take away our small arms if we let them ban AK-47s?

---

Not really . It's more like the President's betrayal of Bart Stupak.The problem is not the contraception, it's the unconstitutional dictates. If there were no dictate, this would not have erupted into an issue. If birth control pills are "free", and help prevent cancer, why not require women to take them ? Once the Rubicon is crossed there is no telling where the line is drawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I already brought up the poor and worngly decided case regarding the Mormon's right to exercise polygamy .I have also been clear in my opinion of the court in general . The fact that they dodged the cases brought up at the state level proves their inconsistency on this and other issues .(a panel of 3 Federal judges in the 9th circus court of appeals just decided that the people of California don't have the right to amend their constitution).

I have also argued on this op that this goes well beyond past cases where the government restricted activity to where now the state mandates that the church engage in activity of which it has moral objections .

---

Tom, you are saying that you know better than the judges. There is a good chance that you do know better. In fact in some decisions handed down we could say that any idiot can see they have made a mistake.

But this is not the point. Flexibility is the issue when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause. Historically, the Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted differently depending on the time. Check out Wikipedia on this. Sometimes it has been interpreted in a broad fashion and sometimes its definition has been narrowed.

Are you ware wanting to say there is only one interpretation of this clause and that said interpretation apples at all times and in all places?
I hope not because this is an elitist position.

If you are then you would be saying that it makes no difference whether there are 2 people, 20 people, 200 people 200,000 thousand or 2 million people( whatever the number) who are privy to correct interpretation. We/they understand the 'real' meaning because it is based on, original intent, original meaning, semantics, or whatever.

This only amounts to saying the interpretation should reflect a particular sections of the political communities views.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Oh I get it ! You think because it's called "free" that no one pays for it !! No wonder you favor universal "free "care !

---

You don't favour it because, as someone else said, you believe in minimal services and minimal taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder

If contraception is such a necessary service that it should be "free " then don't you think there are many other services ,products more crucial that should also be "free" ? How about food,shelter and clothing ? Why shouldn't those be "free" too ?

---

In a system where everybody pays, there a need to prioritize. Some services are more urgent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Sad to inform you that in reality someone pays for all that "free"stuff.

---

In your country it is the so called 47% Is this way you object so much? It is possible to learn and adopt ideas from other countries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The church morally opposes being the one to pay for it . The church correctly believes that being forced to pay for it is a violation of their 1st amendment rights . I'm pretty sure that most of the church will realize that this sleigh of hand compromise where the church pays a 3rd party to cover it does not answer their concern.

---

I'm sure your are right, It doesn't address their concerns. If you believe something violates your rights then it it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hope that clears it up for you . Calling it "free " doesn't make it so.

---

True, but we can always make it equitable.

Tut

Quote:

---

If you are then you would be saying that it makes no difference whether there are 2 people, 20 people, 200 people 200,000 thousand or 2 million people( whatever the number) who are privy to correct interpretation. We/they understand the 'real' meaning because it is based on, original intent, original meaning, semantics, or whatever

---

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'