[Wondergirl]

Thank you for finally coming around to my side. So the insurance company doesn't pay for them after all, the policyholder does.

And Lutherans want and use contraception -- and even abortion when necessary -- so they are willing to pay the premiums to get them.

So it's a good thing I decided not to teach at a nearby Catholic school (there was an opening and I was qualified, had already talked with the principal about it). I wouldn't have been adequately covered as I had been under the Lutheran plan.

[NeedKarma]

And Lutherans want and use contraception

pssst... many catholics as well. ;-)

[talaniman]

Lets correct a misinformation here. The policy holder doesn't pay for contraceptives either. They pay a co premium with the employee for a policy. The insurance companies is billed by the pharmacy, doctor, or hospital for all covered benefits under whatever benefits the policy covers. The law says every policy but those grandfathered and exempted must have the minimum that covers the needs of men, women and children.

Churches and affiliated organizations are exempt, but church corporations are not. The church balked at their employees dealing with the churches insurance carrier for a separate policy, but they can enter the exchange and get a separate rider, often a whole policy under the exchange, so may not have a need for church health insurance but churches have so far balked at that too.

Fact is all churches are not suing, nor are all church groups balking at this exemption controversy. Its been a long held fact that 99% of the female population use BC and want to have them as part of a health plan, and don't want either the church, or government making that choice for them. That will be an interesting battle, as even catholic women have done what they want despite the pope being against it.

Don't the American female population have a right to make their own choices like everyone else? I mean would a church really allow a female with endometriosis to suffer because doctor prescribes BC pills? The answer appears to be yes. I just don't think its very fair to get between a patient and a doctor, by government, church, or the insurance company.

Churches rights end with the individual rights begin, and no religion can trump the law of the land. A young female nurse in a church run hospital shouldn't have to give up her right to equal protection under the law to have a job should they?

SCOTUS will decide where that line is.

[speechlesstx]

Tal, after your last few posts I wouldn't be talking to others about misinformation if I were you. Whatever the insurance pays is only possible by the policyholder paying the premium. And the church corporation is still the church.

[talaniman]

The church has many options, and often at great saving to the church. Giving females the ability to plan their own family, and make their own health care choices with their doctor is what everyone wants except some churches who decide to enter into the consumer domain of the private market.

I think church employees should have the option to skip the church insurance myself, which is a private insurance any way, closed to the public, and be part of the exchange market. What's wrong with that?

[speechlesstx]

What's it to you what the church does? Employment there is voluntary, if you don't like it you go elsewhere. Contraceptives are not a right, religious freedom is.

[cdad]

Lets correct a misinformation here.

Don't the American female population have a right to make their own choices like everyone else? I mean would a church really allow a female with endometriosis to suffer because doctor prescribes BC pills? The answer appears to be yes. I just don't think its very fair to get between a patient and a doctor, by government, church, or the insurance company.

Churches rights end with the individual rights begin, and no religion can trump the law of the land. A young female nurse in a church run hospital shouldn't have to give up her right to equal protection under the law to have a job should they?

SCOTUS will decide where that line is.

The answer to the first part of your statement is NO !. They dont have the rights of choice like you think they do or should. It is your side that seeks to strip freedom of choice through making mandates on behavior. You can plead your case to those girls in California that have to pee and find themselves with a male in thier bathroom. Some choice that is. You side hides behind the truth and tries to disguise it as something else while attempting to crush opposing views with lies.

The chuch has already stated that for medical reasons they would allow bc pills to be perscribed but not for the sole purpose of birth control. You can run duck and hide but the truth is going to catch up.

[talaniman]

Fact is all churches are not suing, nor are all church groups balking at this exemption controversy.

I have acknowledge that!

[speechlesstx]

But you think all of them should choose to bow to the state.

[talaniman]

Working within the law would be my words. We ARE a nation of laws and the church has every right to have its day in court and make it's case.

SCOTUS has it in their hands and we are bound by whatever decision they make. Some will like it, some won't. That's just the process we have chosen as a nation.

[speechlesstx]

You have no problem creating laws that impose on our rights and dictate our choices.

[talaniman]

I don't always like the outcomes of the decisions SCOTUS makes, but respect the fact of duly elected officials doing their job, and that includes the rights of it's citizens to handle disputes through the court rather than other means.

That right applies to all of us, and that's as fair as it get's for ALL of us.

[paraclete]

You have no problem creating laws that impose on our rights and dictate our choices.

perhaps you are making the wrong choices, or trying to circumvent existing laws

[tomder55]

I don't always like the outcomes of the decisions SCOTUS makes, but respect the fact of duly elected officials doing their job, and that includes the rights of it's citizens to handle disputes through the court rather than other means.

That right applies to all of us, and that's as fair as it get's for ALL of us.

So you oppose the emperor's attempt to get around Citizen's United through bureaucratic end runs ? Glad you see it my way.

[talaniman]

My reference was to SCOTUS hearing the churches case. I don't believe in secret donors, or tax exempt political groups. Do you?

[tomder55]

I don't believe in tax exemptions for anyone . But the biggest problem is the tax code itself . Flat tax for everyone ! I'm all for transparency. What I oppose is limits on campaign contributions and political free speech.

[paraclete]

What I oppose is limits on campaign contributions

Now that's where you have the bull by the tit, there should be limits on campaign contributions so the rich can't buy influence and a president, a senator, a representative or a governor. we just had the rediculous situation where a billionaire tried to buy an election

[NeedKarma]

What I oppose is limits on campaign contributions

Then you need to shut up about what the government is doing because you will have absolutely no say in it.

[speechlesstx]

Then you need to shut up about what the government is doing because you will have absolutely no say in it.

You first.

[NeedKarma]

You first.

It's not my position to allow unlimited campaign contributions. Try to keep up.