It didn't take any more balls than it did for you to manufacture your mythical war on women.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
It didn't take any more balls than it did for you to manufacture your mythical war on women.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That isn't a church either.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I know what temporary means, the significant part is the court granting it all. And by the way, I don't recall the contraceptive mandate has been ruled constitutional. Could you point me to that ruling?Quote:
Get your facts straight. And to be clear the injunction is temporary pending a final ruling. It delays the inevitable, for profit businesses must obey the law. The mandate has already been ruled constitutional so good luck trying to overturn it.
The only mandate ruled constitutional was the requirement for everyone to have insurance or to pay a penalty... ooops I mean tax. The Sebillius HHS decision has not been decided in court except a series of preliminary calls in the lower courts and one ruling by Sotomayor .Get your facts straight.Quote:
The mandate has already been ruled constitutional so good luck trying to overturn it.
My apologies guys, you have been losing so many arguments on the right, I jumped the gun and ASSUMED you would lose this one two.
My bad... for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yes, I think they are winning this one.
Tut
I don't, but they have enough lawyers and cheerleaders to make it look interesting. But do they have facts and the rule of law on their side? I am not as sure as they are, and so far all you have heard is their side. What about the female workers affected by what the beliefs of the boss are? Or their unions, if they have one? What if they don't want the bosses or the churches insurance, do they have to pay for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I mean churches and companies generally get a lot of push back when they make workers feel descriminated against. We all are waiting for a final decision and hollering and posturing will mean little.
As Speech said he is just happy for a temporary injuction by a lower court not to be fined while this case is decided. I doubt that has anything to do with the final outcome though.
I've spent the past week in California trying to help my daughter navigate government incompetence, apathy and flat-out lies. Seems to me they're waging a war on her but then, I don't know nuthin' about women and the benevolent nanny state being forced on us...
Just sayin'
We do have a law board (shameless plug) and we are there to help if you should need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nothing wrong with a shameless plug now and then. I just may be asking a question or two...Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Hello again,
New Mexico bill criminalizes abortions after rape as 'tampering with evidence'.
A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial. House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."
But, there's no war on women... If this wasn't so outrageous, I'd give you a bwa, ha ha ha. But, it's ANYTHING but funny.Quote:
Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says. Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.
Excon
Meanwhile, what the hell is government doing for my daughter besides lying through their teeth? Nothing.
Hello again, Steve:
I wish you well with your daughter. And, I don't blame you for changing the subject.
excon
Not changing the subject, dealing with reality as I have been. If you knew it all you would see how laughable this war on women crap has been.
All I can say is if she were a black woman with six kids from several baby daddies or just needed some free birth control the government would be tripping over themselves to help. But a sick, single white woman doesn't stand a chance. All we get are lies and kicking the can to the next bureacrat. But these are the solutions you support.
P.S. I do appreciate the concern my friend. Now I need a drink.
All I know is 40 years of Roe... 55 million babies killed .
Steve your daughter is in my prayers .
I add my prayers, and support too my friend.
Thanks guys.
To try to counter the number of lawsuits that have been filed ,that will eventually bring the Sebillius contraception decision to a SOTUS ruling ,the Obots have made new proposed changes to the mandate .
Under the new proposed rules, employees who work at " non-profit religious hospitals or institutions of higher education, that object to contraception on religious grounds", and want "free" contraception and abortifacients will be able to get " stand-alone coverage" from a third party.
This is still bs because the insurance company is not going to give it away for "free" the coverage will still have to be paid by the provider .Despite their claim to the contrary ,there is no such a thing as 'free " when they are forcing providers to participate. The Obots falsely assert that this coverage could be provided for free because the cost of the contraceptives would be offset by the “tremendous health benefits” that women enjoy from using contraception.
This proposal still leaves for profit companies, like Hobby Lobby (a company that does provide contraception ,but strongly objects to abortion pills) , who object to the mandate on religious grounds, out of luck . Don't forget ,it's the Obots who decide who can be afforded true protection of their religious freedom and the ability to live and act according to their beliefs.
It's the same gimmick in a different package. What is still even more outrageous is the administration redefining what qualifies as a religious organization. They'll exempt First Baptist Church but not the Sister's orphanage.
Its really simple, employees of a for profit business is not subject to the whims of the boss, and the church doesn't pay for, or have to have anything to do with contraceptives for there employees. Now if it's the goal of the religious right to impose their religion, well this preserves the individual rights workers to practice as they want no matter what the boss practices.
If the goal is to limit what services an insurance company can provide you lose. And my understanding is this will have no bearing on any religious group, and no one has redefined the Sisters orphanage. Unless they have defined themselves as a for profit business.
It's really simple, we have a right to freedom of religion and if you don't like your benefits you are free to find an employer that suits you.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And yes absolutely Obamacare redefines the church as ONLY places of worship. Any other church ministry is NOT exempted, soup kitchen, orphanage, homeless shelter, clinic, ANYTHING not exclusively a place of worship. That my friend is a blatant violation of the first amendment.
Show me where this is true? And why can't employees have outside benefits to go along with the insurance the boss/church gives you?
Hello again:
Abortion is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.. IF right wingers SUPPORT the Constitution, like the SAY they do, then they would be expanding access to MORE women. Instead, they're doing the opposite.
Personally, I support the ENTIRE Constitution.. I don't pick. People who pick really don't like the Constitution at all. How could they?
excon
So when Slavery was Constitutional ,the abolitionists were really anti-Constitutionalists ?and the Suffragettes were anti-Constitutionalists too ?
Abortion is NOT a constitional right. It is a right supported by the constitution but it is not specifically written into the constitution by amendment like other rights have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" according to William O. DouglasQuote:
It is a right supported by the constitution
Hello again,
I'm NOT a hair splitter. The right to counsel is NOT written into the body of the Constitution. But, the Supreme Court said it's a right, and they SAID it BASED on the Constitution. Therefore, it's a CONSTITUTIONAL right.
A women's right to choose is a Constitutional right in the very same manner...
Now, I agree with your right to challenge the law. But, laws that RESTRICT the physical buildings where abortions are provided, and laws putting onerous requirements on the providers, is NOT challenging the law.. It's VIOLATING it.
excon
It is written into the connstitution. Look at the 5th amendment and how it applies to court proceedings. Without representation then self incrimination is eminent.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Also about splitting hairs. The constitution holds abortion legal but it does not create all encompasing law when it comes to the right of choice. Both State and Federal law can be created and regulate for your protection (cough) and be upheld by the courts.
Lets say a woman wants to have an abortion (the law says she has a choice) but on the way home from the clinic she gets pulled over and a ticket for not wearing a seat belt (her choice at the time).
So why do you split hairs on our SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED RELIGIOUS RIGHTS? When you come out against HHS redefining the church and FORCING people and institutions to violate their faith I'll listenQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
What's your problem with church employees dealing directly with an insurance company?
Why can't a Catholic non-profit have ABC Insurance Company that covers contraceptives for the non-Catholics who work there? Sister Jameson doesn't have to buy contraceptives.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The Catholics just haven't got the point that catholics use contraceptives whether the hierarchy like it or not
Why can't a Catholic ministry be free from government imposing on their faith as guaranteed by the first amendment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
These aren't questions regarding faith and religious practices within a church but matters regarding the provision of health care insurance by an employer. They are matters of individual conscience between and individual and their health care insurer
It's irrelevant what the members do, the church has a standard and is protected by the constitution from being forced by the government to violate that standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Wrong, the church is paying the premium. What do you not get Clete?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The church pays PART of the premiums. The employee pays a greater share. Ask a church employee to show you his check. Or any employee for that matter.
What you think employeers provide health insurance for FREE?? Do your own investigation. And you never answered the question of what's wrong with employees talking directly to the insurance company about their contraceptives? Separate from church provided insurance?
Some pay part and some pay all, but regardless none would be available without the church/employer providing and subsidizing the benefit. That makes it THEIR choice what to buy. You like choice don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Choice is great, but if it doesn't meet your needs then its useless. Then the employee must make a choice to meet THEIR needs. That's why a supplemental insurance to cover those that don't have their needs met was the compromise.
Why would you deny an employee going outside the church to make their own choices? It no longer matters what choices the church offers does it, when you can have your own.
You are saying church employees have no right to look beyond the choices the church makes for them. You say the church pays for these extra insurance policies, I say they don't. It's the same as any special rider you get, beyond your employer provided insurance.
You have this all twisted and so do they. That they want to take an ethical stance is commendable but not constitutional. The members of the church are not being forced to use contraceptives and the provision of health care insurance is not a matter covered under the provisions of the constituition relating to the establishment and conduct of a religion. The church is not being forced to violate any standard, since, as I said before, the use of contraceptives is not forced or enforced by the provisions, the members of the church are simply being placed in the same status as any other human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We all have to be protected from the thought police and the inquisition in all its forms, this is a case of the inquisition in action, dealing with private communication between a health insurer and its client to enforce a church doctrine. If you allow them to get away with this they will be interrogating the members to determine whether they have used contraceptives next
Why is tal editing my posts?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 PM. |