Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
OR, the workers who AREN'T Catholic will have the Catholic religion FORCED upon them... Tell me HOW that's religious freedom??
excon
|
Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
OR, the workers who AREN'T Catholic will have the Catholic religion FORCED upon them... Tell me HOW that's religious freedom??
excon
You find me one instance of that and then we can talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Isn't the whole thread ABOUT the Catholic church REFUSING to provide insurance that will cover contraceptives?? Their employee's CAN'T get them BECAUSE the religious beliefs of the church PREVENT it...
If that's NOT the Catholic religion being FORCED down the throats of their NON Catholic employees, then I don't know what is..
excon
Oh come on, when did you become such a drama queen? It's simple, they don't have to work there and they can buy all the contraceptives they want. There is no policy in place forbidding employees from using contraceptives. NOT Paying for birth control pills is not forcing your religion down someone's throat.
When the church employs private companies that are regulated by law, they have to obey. If they employ private citizens, as workers, they must comply with the labor laws. Insurances must obey the LAW, it's that simple. So it seems to me that the solution between conscience and law is to not employ insurance companies OR private citizens. Indeed the decision is the churches, to modify their religion to comply with the law, or take the steps to be exempt from it.
I gave my examples before of how other religions, Mormons, and Muslims, being kept from following THEIR religion to the letter of THEIR convictions, so expect ALL religions to respect the LAWS of the land. Now you can be against a mandate to what's allowable under the LAW, but the mandate that has been taken up by the bishops clearly gives them all the choices they need to both practice freely under the LAW, for the good of ALL the citizens.
Now since there is an exemption that lets them off the hook, for PAYING for things they don't believe in, then the only argument is with dealing with private companies that do offer things they preach against. They won't have to stop that, nor stop their charity, nor stop the rights of others from having access to health care. Some will choose to do what the church tells them, some will not. and that's no
We all win, and are not harmed so its between the church and insurance companies how they get there. Sorry but no way do I see the rights of the church being more important than my rights, even if I sweep the halls for pay, maintain church property, or do the books. I mean the church purchases all kinds of services for private people and pay for those services, be it practicing good Catholics or a Muslim small business man right? Insurance is no different, and the only things that limit the practice of its religion by the church is the church itself when it makes a choice to be an employer or insurance company. Both things regulated by LAW!!
Tal, if the church is forced in any way to be a party to furnishing birth control or abortifacients, we lose religious freedom. Some churches are self-insured, where is their escape clause?
And the bigger issue anyway is what I pointed out earlier, this gives the federal government the power to define what constitutes a ministry and what doesn't.
But Steve, that's my point, they are already a party to firnishing birth control, and abortifacients. Have been for decades. Under state law. Look it up, its true, now it's the same under federal law, but nothing has changed at all except federal law.
The state laws has been to court over this, and was upheld. The federal law is the same, and even more favorable for the churches, but changes nothing that's been done over the last 20 years.
Seems your arguments is based more on your perception than reality. And I don't agree that the government is defining a ministry, just saying if you act like a private company, you will be treated like one. You seem to think the church can do business any way they want in the name of their religion. They cannot, that's why all ministries, and businesses, and companies have to be clear as to what they are and what they are taxed, and regulated by.
Or else the rights of the individual will mean nothing, if indeed there is a law for you, that doesn't apply to me. No church, religion, or company in this country is above the LAW! Or shouldn't be. The government doesn't define a ministry, the ministry defines itself, but all actions in the public sector be they charity, church, non profit, or for profit MUST be defined for tax purpose.
You can always do what some have done, moved to their own land, made their own rules, and enforce them themselves. Sorry Steve, but the church has already cosen the path they take, preach, but not prosecute, and forgive those who are flawed. They have choices, and options, and the opportunity to practice what they believe without screwing those that don't.
Maybe its not as perfect as we want, but it's the way it is, and that's equal, and fair treatment under the LAW! That's the goal at least.
Tal, I'll have to find the text again but it does define what counts as religious and what doesn't. It's basically if doesn't specifically matters of faith/doctrine they don't consider it religious. That's the whole point of the post I just linked, ministry is helping people. If helping people is no longer a religious activity then the church is effectively done in the feds eyes.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nahhh... The APPLICATION for tax exempt status GAVE them that power a long long time ago.
excon
They should get the same exemption to opt out of Obamacare that the unions and Obama cronies gets one would think.
Look ;what is really scary about this is that the Obamacare law is chock full of language that gives power and authority to the head of HHS to make similar type decisions. We isn't seen nothing yet. There is no doubt that if they get away with this then mandatory coverage for "free " abortion won't be far behind . If they can force a Catholic Hospital to give coverage for something morally objectionable then what's to stop them from mandating that they perform a medical procedure . What ? You think that can't happen ? They already force Pharmacists to sell abortifacients or lose the privilege of being licensed to do their job.
Tal ,I don't care if all 50 states mandate it (or is it 57 states ) . This is Federal Law and the Constitution is clear about Federal law .
Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968Quote:
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Pharmacists and the "duty" to dispense emergency contraceptives | Issues in Law & Medicine | Find Articles
It's a long read but hits the good points.
Here it is, Obama redefining religion:
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.Quote:
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)
(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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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=TUT317;3030166]Ni Tut,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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. 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?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 to invade a females body 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.
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 ?Quote:
fair rules we all follow.
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.]
In other words they have no expenses? Dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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?
Those would be the same "fair" rules that give $100 million of taxpayer money to assist the 1 percent in buying an electric car.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 just the opposite as its well documented and a common practice to prevent many diseases particular to women by the use of contraception.Quote:
I would argue in court that there is absolutely no compelling state interest to force this mandate of a preventive waiting for a disease.
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.
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.Quote:
And the only justification I can see for this is the hostility to religious institutions this administration has... it is clearly politically motivated .
Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones
Quote:
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."
.
So yet again you righties blame this on Obama tyranny but this was long before he even though of being president.Quote:
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."
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!!
Hi Tom Nice try, but this particular aspect is not a faita accompli.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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=speechlesstx;3030575]Hi Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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?
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 ?Quote:
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.
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 ?
Actually yes .The constitution has very few restrictions on what a state has the power to do.Quote:
So its okay for states to make a law, but not okay for the federal government to have the same law.
Maybe so... what changes here is the religious exeptions . That is unchartered territory .Religious liberty precedes any state interest in this instance .Quote:
Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
In fact Pelosi's idea of "compromise" or "accommodation" is even self-insured Catholic organizations need to get over their "conscience thing" and be forced to violate their beliefs.
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.Quote:
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
Now about that constitution thingy again, where is that free contraceptives civil right found?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 AM. |