[speechlesstx]

QUOTE by talaniman;
The nuns don't buy contraceptives, they don't make them, pay for them, or provide them. That's just right wing fantasy.

Aren't you done with this fantasy? The fact is the law would require them to furnish insurance that covers contraceptives or pay a fine, you cannot deny that. Give it up Tal, we're not fooled by this convoluted thinking of yours... and note my previous post, the courts agree with me so you can drop the charade.

[talaniman]

Before you take a victory lap lets see what the final compromise looks like.

[speechlesstx]

Before you take a victory lap lets see what the final compromise looks like.

The admin admitted it infringes on religious liberty and the courts agree. What are you missing?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

The admin admitted it infringes on religious liberty and the courts agree. What are you missing?

Uhhh, that there are HIGHER courts than that.

And, I don't think it's us. It's YOU.

Excon

[talaniman]

Nowhere in any of your links has such an admission been made nor has it been proven that the mandate does indeed violate the freedom of religion. The only thing the courts have enforced is a promise not to enforce a mandate, and put in writing an exception/exemption for religious employers. (Churches and schools, NOT businesses)

This already exists in many states already including Texas. Just as many religious employers allow for insurances that cover birth control for women already and have no objections to the mandate.

Some religious groups agree and some don't. I suspect the issue will be between the employees and the church that hires them.

Hello again, Steve:

Uhhh, that there are HIGHER courts than that.

And, I don't think it's us. It's YOU.

excon

Yes the government can apeal to a higher court... if it has too! SHHHH.Don't tell the right wing, because they think they have won something other than an accommodation. Notthing is in writing yet.

[speechlesstx]

And both of you missed the link within my link to the decision. I stand by my post with one correction, the government "in effect" admitted the mandate infringes on religious freedom. If the government makes such a concession a higher court is just going to send it back and remind them of their obligation.

It's not the end of it but religious employers have gotten a victory here.

SHHHH.Don't tell the right wing, because they think they have won something other than an accommodation. Notthing is in writing yet.

And you can dispense with the condescension, Tal.

[talaniman]

You have no sense of humor or the nuance of sarcasm. That's no fun. Rise above the sense of thrill at watching the grass grow. That not condensation, just an acknowledgement.

Good luck to YOU and Tom this week!

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know where you been.. But Every right we have is BALANCED by EVERY other right people have. The question at hand ISN'T whether the government infringed on somebody's right's. It's a matter of WHO'S rights take precedence.

It's a problem you guys have. You're looking for SIMPLICITY where NONE exists.. For example, you home in on the rights of the unborn, but NEVER, never, EVER consider the rights of the mother. I suppose if you did, you wouldn't be able to disregard them like you do..

excon

[NeedKarma]

It really is just an accommodation:

“The Departments intend to propose that, when offering insured
coverage to a religious organization that self-certifies as qualifying for the
accommodation, a health insurer may not include contraceptive coverage in that
organization's insured coverage. This means that contraceptive coverage would not be
included in the plan document, contract, or premium charged to the religious
organization.” 77 Fed. Reg. 16,501, 16,505 (Mar. 21, 2012). (The ANPRM went on to
State: “Instead, the issuer would be required to provide participants and beneficiaries
covered under the plan separate coverage for contraceptive services . . . without cost
sharing .. . ” Id.)

[NeedKarma]

your for forcing celibate nuns to buy birth control

can you show where the nuns are being forced to buy birth control, I missed that part.

[tomder55]

If they are forced to provide insurance for their employees ,and they are forced to provide birth control in that plan ;then ipso facto ;they are forced to buy birth control to their employees . There is no other way to spin it .

[NeedKarma]

if they are forced to provide insurance for their employees ,and they are forced to provide birth control in that plan ;then ipso facto ;they are forced to buy birth control to their employees . There is no other way to spin it .

Nah, nice try. They only need to have the rider in the offerings. If absolutely no one will be using it then there will be no need to stock any. No one is forcing nuns to buy birth control, that's just hyperbole to misrepresent a position so that you can easily criticize it - the exact definition of a strawman argument. That's a dishonest way to have a discussion.

[speechlesstx]

You have no sense of humor or the nuance of sarcasm. Thats no fun. Rise above the sense of thrill at watching the grass grow. That not condensation, just an acknowledgement.

Good luck to YOU and Tom this week!

I'm an authority on sarcasm. I should put that in my profile.

Tom is going down!

[tomder55]

AP is going to tweek a hammy

[tomder55]

Nah, nice try. They only need to have the rider in the offerings. If absolutely no one will be using it then there will be no need to stock any. No one is forcing nuns to buy birth control, that's just hyperbole to misrepresent a position so that you can easily criticize it - the exact definition of a strawman argument. That's a dishonest way to have a discussion.

Would they have birth control in the plan they offer if they were given a choice ? Nope . So by forcing them to provide the coverage ,you are forcing them to buy birth control .

[speechlesstx]

Nah, nice try. They only need to have the rider in the offerings. If absolutely no one will be using it then there will be no need to stock any. No one is forcing nuns to buy birth control, that's just hyperbole to misrepresent a position so that you can easily criticize it - the exact definition of a strawman argument. That's a dishonest way to have a discussion.

As I said before, "the fact is the law would require them to furnish insurance that covers contraceptives or pay a fine." That is no straw man, it is not hyperbole, it is a fact that this mandate as it stands requires the nuns to violate their beliefs or pay a fine. No amount of spin will change that fact.

[Wondergirl]

As I said before, "the fact is the law would require them to furnish insurance that covers contraceptives or pay a fine." That is no straw man, it is not hyperbole, it is a fact that this mandate as it stands requires the nuns to violate their beliefs or pay a fine. No amount of spin will change that fact.

Do the nuns say that even though non-Catholics work for our organization and use birth control, we will not allow our insurance plan to include it and thereby refuse to provide it for our fellow employees?

[tomder55]

That's the way it had been when the church ,schools etc had their private plans .

[Wondergirl]

that's the way it had been when the church ,schools ect had their private plans .

So non-Catholic employees were out of luck for birth control coverage and then paid out of pocket?

[talaniman]

So female employees need extra insurance if they work for the church?