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?
|
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 01:19 AM. |