Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How does requiring all employers to offer a standard insurance plan violate any person's religious freedom?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 9, 2012, 6:18 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is employment law – pure and simple. No one is forced to use contraception – even though over 90% of Catholic women have. And 28 states already have similar laws. Our country is not based on the religious freedom of CHUCHES. Our country is based on the religious freedom for PEOPLE.
Aren’t these the same fanatics who insist that their religion’s definition of marriage should be law?


The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
__"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."__


Where were the fanatics when the 28 non-Obama governments passed the state laws?
You may not agree with the supreme court’s decision – but no sane person can say this has nothing to do politics, elections, and the crazy anti-Obama fear of the “other”.

242 Comments

242 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

The Catholic Church has been against birth control and abortion forever. Requiring these church leaders to provide services that they consider a sin violates their moral code. They obviously feel that means the government is making a law which prohibits them form the free exercise of their beliefs. I disagree with the position, but can certainly see where it could be covered by the first amendment.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

You may "see where it could be covered by the first amendment"
BUT IT IS NOT You may not believe the constitutional expert, David Boise, but can you quote ANY constitutional expert who disagrees with him or the 1878 court decision - not from the point of belief or opinion - but from the po int of view of law.

If my religion requires me to torture a cat every week, can I do that because my religion requires it? Or do animal crelty laws protect all animals?
We are a nation that protects people - NOT churches.

[-] 5 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Boise is an excellent lawyer, but he's not the supreme court, if he were we'd have had a president named Gore. He offers a good argument, but only the Supreme Court's opinion actually counts. We'll probably never know if this would have truly been a violation of the first amendment or not. If Obama's new position is acceptable to the Catholic church's bishops, the issue will fade from the public's mind and never be decided.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I think it will be very interesting - and telling -
will the Rs now drop this ?

My bet is NO
They will push this like they are still doing with the birther and Moslem lies.

[-] 5 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

Can't believe Obama messed that up, both the VP and Secretary of Defense are catholic and tried to head this off. I just can't believe he didn't realize how seriously the Catholic Church takes the issue of abortion. It pushed the primary follies right out of people's mind and makes Obama look inexperienced again. Of course it will be used, a compromise now will let the details fade and the whole issue can be exaggerated.

Fringe callers to radio talk shows my keep the Moslem and birther thing going. I think that kind of ignorance pushes independents back to the Democrats.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Did you ever see the West Wing episode about the President playing multiple simultaneous chess games with his staff. Of course, over the period of the show, he won all of the games and "played" the Chinese military.
I have no doubt Obama is a brilliant gamesman.

Lets face the ultimate result-
Obama looks like a brilliant compromiser
Rs look like dogmatic fanatics
How could that happen?


Are you sure that he did not pre-plan his every move - his AND THEIRS?

[-] 4 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I don't know how brilliant he is, only that at present he looks like he's out of touch with how deeply religious people feel about this. Apparently his compromise isn't acceptable to the bishops. My understanding from the article I read is that their position goes beyond just Catholic institutions. They see them selves as taking a moral stand for all employers that have a personal religious objection to the procedures in question.

I don't watch much TV so I never saw West Wing, I hope Obama didn't and visualize himself as that fictional character. This chess game is going to drag on, exciting the opposition and peeling off support for him. As long as it drags on it gives a big issue to the opposition. What are his moves now? To dig in and have a constitutional question dog him through the campaign or to offer a better compromise (new headline, Obama Caves)?

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (22351) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If you look at it in this perspective it might make some sense.

The government is not truly working for the people. Why? Manipulation by the greedy/corrupt = Corporations, Fossil Fuel, Stock Market etc.

Some religious organizations operate in the same or similar fashion. By not representing their congregation but their monied concerns.

The Powers that Be love this infighting because it distracts from their agenda and manipulations.

It keeps us all from finding and supporting common cause.

[-] 5 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I'm not sure what you're saying. You think somehow this current conflict with the church has a hidden purpose behind it?

I do agree that the government is dysfunctional, but I don't see the cause simply as the corporate world or capitalism. I feel powerful interests fill the vacuum created when people stop paying attention, fail to stay informed, and fail to participate. Essentially we get the government we deserve and need to hit bottom occasionally to wake up and take it back.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (22351) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

To your question: ] 1 points by ChemLady (147) 0 minutes ago

I'm not sure what you're saying. You think somehow this current conflict with the church has a hidden purpose behind it?

In a word "yes".

Everyone fears infringement on their religious beliefs. This latest is not an attack on religion. It was an attempt to keep Business practice just that "Business practice".

Now you have not the people of the Catholic Church crying out unfair, you have the Catholic Church and it's corporate officers crying unfair.

Big difference.

Then you have politicians supporters of the staus-quo chime in to stir-up the divisiveness.

[-] 5 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

You have the people that are being told to violate what they consider a moral imperative speaking out. In an election year both sides always take advantage of any controversy. You're not very clear on just how this might be some convoluted plan or even who is behind it.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Well it's sort of funny. Now the right is pinning Obama as a secular lefty, does this mean they're dropping the whole Muslim/birther thing? I mean, how can one be an atheist Muslim (sort of contradiction in terms, although maybe republicans skipped logic class)?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

why can't the issuance be handled by the government?

money is wasted on private profit

[-] 0 points by libtards (7) 2 years ago

Because we don't want to live under government control and freedom still means something. Many of us understand what happens when government runs things, that it isn't just freebie celebration time because we're the ones paying for it. We watch things like the Post Office that still can't comprehend the meaning of email and understand that we don't want healthcare run the same way. We watch government run healthcare already in practice at the Veterans Administration and don't like that either. We understand that an unresponsive and inefficient bureaucracy is trouble for healthcare. If you want to see money wasted, wait until the government does it "not for profit". Profit dear boy can simply mean that what was produced was done so efficiently as the value of what was produced nicely EXCEEDED what it cost to create. Not for profits can be non-profit simply because they're run badly and no one really values what they create.

Smarten up. It's better just to earn things yourself. I know it's hard at first, but it's a better life.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

The VAdmin has the best healthcare in the USA. Agree or not, it's the truth and pretty darn scary when you consider that the rest of us are receiving substandard care that is based on industry funded science. I know personally many VA doctors and healthcare workers and they will tell you that if they had to practice in the conventional system they would not be happy at all and probably leave medicine altogether. I also have veteran friends who tell me about their visits to the VA and I'm always amazed at how thorough the care is and how much time they spend with their doctors during a visit. I take no issue with single payer medical systems for many reasons but on a very personal level, I don't think anyone should be paying ANYTHING for the quality of care ( or lack of) that is provided in this country and this is why I voluntarily cancelled my insurance in '01 even though I could ' afford' it.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Just because you don't like the post office doesn't mean others can't like it. My mother for example, never touched a computer, has no comprehension what an email is. Your solution is for her to have no recourse. There are millions of people in America who do not have access to the internet, I guess because they don't have access it's ok for them to not have other forms of communication over long distances.

For that matter, Military personnel, mail call, the best part of the day, especially when there is a letter! A letter that is often folded up and carried throughout the day and often until a new one comes.

Prisoners...unless it's to scream about them, most folks like to forget them. Still they are there and they are human, no access to the internet, mail for them too is important.

Single payer healthcare or National Health as it is known in some places is generally handled very well. It helps keep the economy flowing, no one is filing for bankruptcy over disastrous health issues, it may take longer for elective procedures to occur, yet elective aren't life threatening issues either.

It's amazing at how many not for profit hospitals and clinics manage to make a healthy profit, and how many of them send not only a bill for services but also turn those bills over for collection, even when receiving payment.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

it compared health to mail

ok well lets look at the USPS they are going to default on everything going from 660,000 to 220,000 employees. This sound like a government i can trust. Um no

the same thing would happen in health care the government would insure health for everyone but in the end people wouldn't get it. The people who want better health care would still pay for it and get better than the poor. Its like public schools some parents want their kids to have a better education so they pay for a better one. so no i don't want a single payer yes they should have help but i shouldn't be punished for peoples mistakes around me.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Mr. Bush kicked the USPS in the balls as he left office.

The worst part of that is the USPS is actually one of the most efficient in the World.

The (R)epelican'ts just HATE it when a government system works, so they work even harder to destroy it, in any way possible.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/postal_service/index.htm

[-] 1 points by GreenMonster (8) from Atlanta, GA 2 years ago

USPS only lost $3.3 billion dollars last fiscal quarter.

Only in the world of government could something be deemed the most efficient in the world and lose billions of dollars. Imagine how "efficient" Fedex or UPS could be if the could afford to lose $10 billion a year.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They didn't lose money, they were forced to pay 75 years of retirement in advance, thanks to Mr. Bush and his (R)epelican't ways.

Try and force that on Fedex, and listen to them scream.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

You do realize that the Post Office is an independent government subsidized company right?

Happened over 30 years ago.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

Yeah bad example then, ok lets look at police, firemen and teachers underpaid and overworked just like the doctors and nurse will be.

No one will want to be a doctor anymore if we go to a single payer mean worse doctors. cheaply made medical equipment will happen since if you ever been in a government building you notice they buy cheap and ride things till they die.

There wont be as many hospitals. in our government eyes they will set a number of hospitals per number of people living in the area.

Motivation is a big one people need motivation and it could turn to USSR, in the fact that people may just not work anymore or see the need to do anything.

Then we will have the druggies and that group trying to get as much drugs as they can since it is free.

killing all medical manufactures and innovation studies. Why make a product when your aren't going to be paid more than what it is manufactured for. Pills will be the big one since the government will buy cheap and large amounts most of the pills wont be precise or good quality companies that do a lot of good will be destroyed. Those who make equipment will move their businesses other places since no money to us.

You want something free and nothing is free in this world nothing the law of conservation of energy shows us that.

To have cheaper health care we should have a free market unlike the limited one we have now. let us get health care from other states this will fix most problems it will also drive down cost in a healthy fashion.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

The doctors you actually see are over worked more by tradition than any other thing, residents do 24 hour shifts, interns do also, the reasoning is that they need to be able to make sound decisions under stress, so they are stressed by sleep deprivation.

Everyone claims this utopian free market will cure all ills, that is just bunk.

A free market is just that, no regulations, no standardization, the claim that people won't buy from those that 'cheat' is also BS. Look at small towns, where there is just one store, one clinic, one of anything. They won't have a choice to not buy because the nearest place they can make a choice is over 30 miles away. A bit far to go for a gallon of milk.

We need regulations, we need standards. For crying out loud, the free market argument just kills my drug regulation argument, standards, so get what you think you are paying for.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i completely agree we need regulation but not control from them. a free market doesnt mean anarchy it just means no government money into the system so when a business fails it fails. Since this is the land of the free

watch this video it has good info on why we should be free

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EExVqkbSwFk&feature=plcp&context=C3c87360UDOEgsToPDskI5TIW4aMf17ddwoboOSOW7

Government is bad but regulation is wonderful.

this is about the quality of health care is rising so the price should also go up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icOYv4MqDt8&feature=relmfu

really i would just go to this website and watch their videos

http://www.learnliberty.org/

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I don't think so, I sorta like the Library of Congress better.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we live under corporate control

when to work? where to work? and for how much >

the government is the actual financial institution where we are allowed to have a vote

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Absoultely - medicare for all - like it is in most of the "first" world. Our system is this way for one reasin - money flowing from ins companies to politicians. Do you know how to stop that?

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

When a religious organization goes into the business of healthcare they are rightfully subject to all the laws and regulations that others in the business of healthcare are subject to.

OSHA regs cannot be dismissed by any hospital or healthcare provider. Neither can HIPPA regs. Why then should healthcare regs be treated any differently? If the Catholic Church doesn't like "the rules of the road" sell the car and quit driving. Go back to being strictly engaged in religion.

No one is holding a gun to any Catholic's head and demanding they take birth control. If they subscribe to the dogma, then they won't take the pill.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You are kidding right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If you force someone to provide a service or product whose use is against their religious belief you are violating the first sentence of the first amendment to the constitution.

Personally I think being against the use of contraception is silly however it is not my religion. The first amendment should be upheld regardless of what I or anyone else thinks.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Actually that's not how that works. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.

The religious people asking for the law to be changed due to their religious beliefs is asking the government to change a law based on religion. For the government to make that change asking them to respect a religion would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Laws passed by the government can not be made with any religion in mind. Doing so would be in direct violation of the first amendment.

I actually made a post about it too - http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-contraceptives-and-catholics/

Get your religion out of government. No one is stopping any religion from practicing their beliefs.

Your argument is invalid.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

It is not FORCE. It is an option. Get it straight!

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You get it straight. Before Obama made a change this week it was not an option it was forced.

The change itself is a play on words. You have to provide a policy and the policy has to cover contraception if the employee wants it.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

The key is what you wrote, " if the employee wants it", that is called an option. So if your religion says no so can the person. It is an option for the person that is offered by the employer. To offer me an option is to offer me a solution. Wake up and join the rest of humanity.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

First of all this has nothing to do with my beliefs on humanity or my opinion on contraception. I am not a Catholic. I am actually an atheist. I think the concept that contraception is a sin is silly.

I do believe that with 77 million in America (24%) that they are part of humanity. The point is about forcing a person or group of people to go against their beliefs. That is what I have a problem with.

You say that it is the employees choice however the church is still forced to make it accessible. It is like saying I don't have to buy heroin fro my daughter but I have to make the option available. Similarly it's like telling a Muslim or Jewish temple or school they have to make pork available or a Hindu school they have to offer meat because it is one of the four food groups. They don't have to serve it but they have to offer it on the lunch plan in case their employees want it.

The silly thing about this whole issue is that condoms cost $0.56 and the pill costs 0$50 a day so there is really is no need to cover them on an insurance plan. I think is is an Obama power play that is backfiring.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

Your extreme analogy is not helping your case IMO. It only shows how far you are off. It is an option not force. Move on to something matters like the destruction of the planet. I feel we will never agree, so I leave it at that. Solidarity.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

How does providing contraception as according to law prohibit the free exercise of religion?

Did you read the original post? It is accurate. Sorry but health care 1 -catholics 0.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If you force someone to provide a service or product whose use is against their religious belief you are violating the first sentence of the first amendment to the constitution.

There is no need to force the Catholic church to provide it. Especially when you can buy a condom for $0.56.

I personally do not believe the use of contraception is a sin. I do not even believe in God. I do however believe in someone's right to believe that preventing conception is against their god's will. I do believe in people's right to organize in their beliefs and from churches, temples, or spiritual communities.

I also believe that when we allow the state to dictate that we must do something that is contrary to our belief system we are opening a door, a door to state control.

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Birth control pills can be very expensive without insurance covering it. I know women who had to spend a significant chunk of their income for them because they were uninsured. Something like 8%. Sometimes they just could not possibly afford that and would have to go off for awhile. This is much more important than thinking about it as just 50 cent condoms. Women use birth control pills for important health reasons not just contraception. For many women they use them to prevent seizures or relieve extreme menstrual problems.

I still fail to see how the health care law prohibits free exercise of religion. Catholics are still welcome to continue to believe whatever they like about contraceptives and nobody is making them use them or even touch them or provide them to catholics who don't want them. It is about giving access to people who don't share their beliefs. The law grants certain rights to workers and the church does not have the legal grounds to obstruct those rights.

The bill was passed years ago and I think this is only becoming a huge issue because it is an election year.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Birth control pills cost about $15/month. They do not however reduce the chances of transmitting STDs so they should not be covered either.

I am not sure why you "fail to see how" requiring the problem. The state is requiring the Catholic church to provide financial support for something they believe is a sin. It is really not that hard to see.

As for the law, while passed a few years ago, certain provisions became effective this year. Other provisions do not take effect until 2013 and 2014.

Yes it is an election year and yes there are 77 million Catholics in the US (24% of the population) That pressure did cause Obama to announce yesterday that he has changed his position on the issue. http://tinyurl.com/7yvuvpv

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Maybe this is no longer the case but a few years ago where I live birth control pills cost $60-$70 a month. Reducing STDs is not contraception and don't see what that has to do with this. That is why people use the pills with the condoms.

The free exercise of religion does not mean that any and all religious practices are protected. That is what the supreme court decision the original post was about. It protects beliefs and opinions.

I understand if Obama changes his position but that is from political pressure not because the law is unconstitutional.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

As I said the supreme court is not infallible. That much power in 9 people was never intended. In fact the founders wanted to contain the power of the supreme court.

The decision they made was based on a religious belief. Monogamy only exists because of the bible. They based their decision on a moral practice based on religion which is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Polygamy should be illegal why? Because the God of Abraham said so???

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

How many wives did David have again? And his son, Solomon? Was their God the God of Abraham?

Does anyone know what they are talking about? Didn't think so.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I was talking about the new testament which most Christians follow. One man one woman, two become one...

Polygamy is expressly forbidden 1 Timothy 3:2) Again one man one woman (1 Corinthians 7:2)

Remember it was Puritans, Quakers, and Protestants that founded this country not Jews.

There is not scientific or biological reason for monogamy.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Monogamy exists outside of the bible. Many cultures older than the bible practiced monogamy. Even band societies that never reached the size of a tribe practice monogamy more than polygamy.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

So that makes polygamy immoral because....????

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

I didn't say that it did I was just pointing out that monogamy doesn't necessarily derive from the teachings of the bible and that it is in fact much much older than the bible.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Since 90% of Americans believe in God and 82% are Judeo Christian (probably 90%+ at the time) the decision was most likely based on that.

The main point is that it was an fundamentally flawed decision and is an example of why the founders wanted to severely limit the power of the judicial branch.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Actually what I believe it says is that Congress shall make no law... it doesn't differentiate between belief and practice.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

But the supreme court is who interprets the constitution is it not?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Exactly - the Church needs to run it up, don't you agree?

Forget religious freedom; the whole "equal opportunity" analogy is also really startling here; if I go work for Joe the Electrician and he decides on a policy that does not cover prescription drugs, do I have the right to cry foul because other employers do provide this coverage?

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

Yeah my religion doesn't think Black people should be allowed in hospitals, I hope the government doesn't say that all hospitals have to treat black people that would infringe on my religious beliefs. Yeah whatever a religion believes should always be upheld before any rational law.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Who cares? The religious beliefs of all are protected under the Constitution; you want to add a retart slant to that, knock yourself out...

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

The Church does have the right if they are paying the bill. And the pill is at most what, $100. a month? Relatively cheap considering the alternative. Can't afford them either abstain or use condoms.

This was intended as a political statement - the "rights" of non-Catholic women who desire contraception from the Catholic Church outweigh the rights of the Church to be discriminating in both belief and services provided.

Introduce this, enforce it, and what we have is a Catholic Church that is no longer an equal opportunity employer - they will discriminate against non Catholics and under the First Amendment they will be fully within their bounds to do so.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

If providing insurance to employees of a Catholic hospital which does not specifically include contraception, but which gives the employee access to another source of that contraception, how is that any different than paying an employee money with which to buy the same thing?

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

so if we have a christian science hospital they can force all their workers to play by their rules?? or let's say the catholics like aids - maybe they think it is god's punishment for poor behavior - they can force the insurance companies that cover their workers not to pay for that illness? the church is not being forced to do anything except provide the same coverage that all employers are forced to provide to employees

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The current argument between the bishops and the administration isn't over disease. The bishops specifically state that in their view pregnancy is not a disease, so a comparison to aids or hiv isn't relevant here. It's also their belief that you forgive the sinner, not force him or her to suffer.

The issue isn't about what the employee does it's about forcing the employer to provide morally objectionable procedures and drugs. The latest statement from the bishops indicates their concerns go beyond Catholic institutions and include any employer, with a moral objection, that happens to own a business. You're correct, the church is being asked to do what every other business is being told to do and the church feels that bureaucratic dictate is morally wrong.

The position of the Catholic Church, in it's simplest form, is that the government shouldn't have the right to force any employers to provide for services they consider morally objectionable. The Catholic position on contraception and abortion isn't some new thing, it's been basic and fundamental since the issue arose.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

it may be fundamental but it is also a sham as we all know - catholics practice birth control and have abortions. now the question is who will pay for those services. the church (one of the richest institutions on the planet - what would jesus think of that?) can get out of the business of providing health ins or business all together - it can give their employees the money instead of paying for the ins but that won't change the facts on the ground now will it? the church - those piggish men who want to control women's bodies - can go back to the old days if it wants. let them burn women as witches and see if people want to sit in the pews then! you are right that this is an old issue - 1000 yrs and more - read the history of the church and then defend their stance on women! while you are at it look up sede stercoraria,

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sure the individual members of the church have broken the rules. Part of what the church does is forgive what it sees as sin, this asks the church to facilitate that sin, very different in their eyes.

I'm not defending what the church's beliefs are, only its right to those beliefs. Their wealth, power, past wrongs don't play a role in the constitutional protections of the first amendment. The protection isn't offered only to the people and groups we agree with. If the administration pushes the issue it may have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

The whole Pope Joan thing is widely considered a myth by scholars. I don't see it fitting into this much at all.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

they certainly have a right to their beliefs - now they shouldn't infringe on the rights of women who work for them

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

When you asking someone else to pay for something for you, you give them the right to have a say in how that money is spent. The church doesn't infringe on women's rights though. Catholic women use birth control and some have abortions. The issue is who providing the support for what the church considers a sinful practice. Buy your own birth control pills and go to confession, the church is in the business of forgiving sinners. Asking the church to provide the financial support for it forces them to participate in the sin. They would apparently prefer not to sin in the first place.

This one of the few issues that is almost completely ideological. It's not really a matter of cost. The pill can cost you as little as $15 a month, cheaper then two trips a week to Starbucks. Abortions are done for anywhere between $300 and $900, depending on when in the pregnancy you do it and the woman's health.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The bible does not call for employees. They made the choice to run it like a business and they are free to end that practice at any time, it will not be in conflict with the bible to end such employment. As an employer, they must follow the law, NOBODY is above the law.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

They make the choice to run a business but have the first amendment right to follow the teachings of their faith while they do so. Which may allow them to avoid helping someone commit what they see as a sin. I agree no one is above the law. When a regulation is created that may run counter to the constitution we have courts to determine just what the law will be.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The bible does not call for employees. Sounds like the church is the institution with a choice to make, not the courts. The days of having it both ways are over, for Everyone.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I don't think you get to tell any religion how to follow their interpretation of god's will. The Catholic church has consistently been opposed to birth control and abortion. It isn't limited in this case to Church institutions. Their position is that no individual person (in this case an employer) should be forced to buy something that violates his or her religion. The bible doesn't enter into it as far as the first amendment is concerned.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Because of their religion...

Their position is that no individual person (in this case an employer) should be forced to buy something that violates his or her religion.

Has nothing to do with their religion...

The bible doesn't enter into it as far as the first amendment is concerned.

You really did just try to have it both ways. Too funny dude. Tell you what, fire one up in front of a cop, then tell him you're covered under Genesis 1:12, see what he says. It's an absurd idea. As far as I'm concerned, If they didn't want the law in the church, maybe they should have considered that every time they tried to pass their religion off as law. Live by.... you know the rest.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sorry you've lost me with non sequiturs and incomplete thoughts. In the end someone will offer an acceptable compromise or SCOTUS will decide what the amendment covers. In the end your opinion or mine isn't going to be relevant.

[-] 0 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

spoken like someone who has never been short of money - jerk - and for your information health insurance is part of a workers pay - idiot!

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Abortion isn't a service used by many women, and the cost of the pill is minimal. The people with employer provided insurance have jobs. We're not talking about denying services to the poor. Yes it's part of what employers figure into the cost of doing business, it's an untaxed benefit for employees. I mention the cost because in terms of medical procedures it's small, this is one of the few times it actually isn't about the money.

The rights of the women employees are not being infringed upon, they can get their birth control services on their own, no one is stopping them or even trying to. This is about any employer's right to follow the teachings of their religion.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

sounds more to me like the employers right to follow their employee into the bedroom!

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

In the end it doesn't matter what our opinions are. There may be some compromise position, one side will cave, or SCOTUS will eventually get the final opinion on it.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The Catholic church is not forcing anyone to do anything. The government is forcing the Catholic Church to provide a product that is against their belief.

A better comparison would be the government saying that Jewish schools have to serve pork and shellfish.

[-] 2 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

All I'd like to point out is that, unless I missed something, that no one must take the contraceptives. Only that they are available.

[-] 2 points by MoneyBad (20) 2 years ago

Not quite, Mr. Farmer. They don't have to provide it, they have to make it available.

And it's nothing like saying that Jewish schools have to serve (or just make available) pork and shellfish. It's a critical health service, not a lunch option.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

It is certainly not a "critical health service". Mr Money.

You argument does not hold water. It is like saying they don't have to provide the ax for the executioner, they only have to make it available.

[-] 0 points by MoneyBad (20) 2 years ago

You clearly like analogies. It's not so clear whether you like - or recognize - good analogies.

As for it not being a "critical health service": I'm not sure if you're aware of the many, very significant health implications pregnancy does hold for all women, and potentially holds for many women. Ask your female friends, tho. They'll tell you.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Contraception is not a critical health service. It just isn't

Let's get real,,,,, A condom costs $0.56

http://tinyurl.com/7qpxdzj

End of story.

[-] 1 points by MoneyBad (20) 2 years ago

Maybe our Woman is wise enough to grok how risky it is to rely on using condoms on every single occasion of intercourse (whether sober and calculated or drunk and impassioned). Maybe she knows that men sometimes balk at using condoms, and doesn't want that to be an issue (who wouldn't avoid that situation if they could?). Or that men sometimes sabotage condoms. Or that they sometimes just break.

There's a kind of freedom a woman can enjoy if she knows she doesn't have to worry about such issues. The freedom to just enjoy sex, even to go out seeking it.

A small percentage of religious people may be uncomfortable knowing that others enjoy that freedom. They may want to curtail it. But they probably don't want to financially compensate women for unwanted pregnancies, and that's just one reason why they shouldn't be allowed to interfere in the woman's decisions. (They shouldn't be allowed even if they were willing to compensate her.)

You seem to believe in individual responsibility. Good. And a woman who recognizes that relying on a thousand condoms is very risky would be responsible to get an IUD or The Pill. Or simply to have sex only when sober and careful, providing her own condoms and not taking any excuses about how condoms dull sensitivity (hopefully not thereby ruining the moment).

But (again - you didn't answer the first time) if an employer is going to make decisions about their employees' non-work lives, shouldn't they take responsibility for the very predictable consequences? (Again, they are absolutely predictable on a societal/statistical level, tho not individually.)

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Not if they believe that contraception is a sin.

[-] 1 points by MoneyBad (20) 2 years ago

Well, Joe, I doubt we're gonna sing harmony on this one, you & me. As I see it, if contraception is a sin, it's between the user and her (or someone else's) God, no bizniz of anyone else. And the Gov't should ensure that she has the choice - perhaps levying a surtax on the religious employer for exercising the right not to provide contraception-inclusive insurance, and using the money to pay for the service.

In a different key . . . it's a poor state of affairs where employers have any responsibility at all for providing health insurance - or where a "health system" is run by insurance companies at all, for profit. Single-payer? Yeah, or at least a Public Option.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I already said I do not believe contraception is a sin. I do not even believe in God. I do however believe in someone's right to believe that preventing conception is against their god's will. I do believe in people's right to organize in their beliefs and from churches, temples, or spiritual communities.

I also believe that when we allow the state to dictate that we must do something that is contrary to our belief system we are opening a door, a door to state control.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Why do you think the govt should be involved in your sex life?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Of course you don't mention the risks of cancer and other problems from taking birth control pills. And the employer is not making the decision for the employee. Since when is an employer responsible for your sex life?

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

i don't think that is correct - i think (not sure on this issue) that the government is saying that they must provide insurance that covers birth control. the church or the catholic hospital does not have to have those services at all but the ins they use must. more like saying that a jewish school must allow it's employees to eat pork

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

A condom costs $0.56

No person or group should be required to provide an insurance plan that covers contraception if they believe it is a sin.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

This is a tax exempt transnational organization; Congress can't make them do anything that violates their long established religious belief. This is not a case of equal opportunity - they deny everyone equally because they believe these acts are wrong - more, the Fourteenth lacks the energy to force them to pay for anything, either equally or unequally; and they are protected under the First.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

as we all know the constitution is not relevant - just ask the citizens who were killed without due process so... they are trans national for sure but if they want to run a business here they must treat their employees the same way ge does - badly!

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

fine - then don't quote the document - did your mommy give you that line

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@flip - Religious entities would be forced to pay a private entity directly for something that they find morally objectionable. Even Oblahblah seems to have gotten the message. What are you missing?

[-] 2 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

that is your opinion - i don't share it but you have not responded to anything that was said - just offered a silly opinion - i should not be forced to pay for anyones execution or any bombing but i am - next?

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@flip - Taxes to the government on the one hand, and mandatory payments to a private insurer on the other, are apples and oranges. Surely even you can understand the distinction?

[-] 2 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

forcing someone to pay for something they do not agree with - surely you can understand the similarity?? i live in the real world where we all have to make choices and compromises to live together in a society - even a shitty one like this one - do you?

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

No, I live in the world where the Bill of Rights still applies and ensures religious liberty, not where religious freedom is subject to the left's balancing test to support its sex obsession.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

do you now - how many dead us citizens do we have on obama's watch - assassinated by your gov't ! no due process - no trial by jury -not even and indictment! which bill of rights includes that! you may have to do some reading to find the answer - go back to bed and read your porn mags - you are the sex obsessed one

[-] -2 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Wow,you are really out there aren't you? Did you even notice your use of the word "forced"?

[-] 2 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

no i did not and you need to try to counter the point i am making or go back to bed - it is saturday!

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Why should the govt be allowed to force someone to pay for your sex life? Why do you think the govt should be involved in your sex life at all? They are forcing a religion to do something that is against the doctrine of that religion. I suggest you write the 1st amendment 1,000 times on the chalk board. Employers are NOT required to provide any kind of medical insurance. If they choose to do so what gives the govt the right to tell them what they must provide. You obviously don't believe in personal responsibility and would prefer to have your life dictated by the govt,a stance I have never understood.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Ever hear about the social contract?

Do have any empathy for your fellow man?

Reading too much Ayn Rand?

Perspective, you don't have to answer, but how old are you?

Your opinions around here (I've seen quite a few) do seem very immature.

The Puzzler (digging away at the truth, because it matters big time!)

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

There's a social contract to cover fully-paid contraception for all? That's hilarious. A real debate-stopper!

Brush up on the Bill of Rights before offering your airy views of the 'social contract'.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

I think we have mixed up Perspectives pearl of wisdom here:

"You obviously don't believe in personal responsibility and would prefer to have your life dictated by the govt,a stance I have never understood."

with what is known as the social contract, since this is where we begin to give a crap about each other. You know that empathy thingy.

Are you a Libertarian BonTon?

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

nope, but one needn't be a libertarian to agree wholeheartedly with Perspective's statement in this context.

[-] 2 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

stop your childishness and don't tell me what i believe in - apparently lots of things you do not understand! jerk - we can disagree and neither be wrong - have you ever considered that possibility! fool! the government is not involved in anyones sex life - they are making rules for what ins should provide - i think that is legit and want my daughters health covered - that includes her reproductive health issues - fool! she has two kids and cannot afford them - should she take the chance of having more?? Employers are NOT required to provide any kind of medical insurance. - you are correct that they are not required to provide ins (the system is completely broken in any event!)- but those that do - should they be required to provide ins that covers cancer? or heart disease or should they be able to cover only those things that ins wants to cover so they can make more money??

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Perspective is not very well informed and wow does he/she have opinions too big to fit through doors it seems. What he's missing in his head right now is without those pesky little things called facts no one will ever have enough FAITH to believe his rants. Sadly, he has wasted ALL his time. He/she only serves as an example of what you can appear as when you obviously have no idea of what it is you propose and a general disregard for truth seeking using the methods of facts and evidence.

[-] 2 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

agreed!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Well I call it as I see it. The truth is my goal. And I know the difference between truth and opinion.

Thanks Flip!

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

i assume you know the line - "you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts!"

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@puzzlin, why do you clutter comboxes and waste your time with such drivel?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago



Only you do as I have evidenced.

But that's only my opinion. I will let others decide for themselves.




[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

That is entirely up to the employer I'd say.

[-] 1 points by flip (7542) 2 years ago

you are a fool but i guess smart enough not to engage in a real back and forth so go back to bed or say something of substance. you are entitled to your opinion - that is all you got

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Perspective----"You'd say." ..Oh enlightened one! Say more!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

The gov't, I believe, can mandate contraceptives for the same reason it can outlaw pot, regulate cigarette promos, outlaw polygamy, dictate age of drinking, govern speed limits, regulate profanity on television and govern the age of consent, all of these fall under public health concerns. Contraceptives being provided by health insurance providers and religious organizations does not violate the Free Exercise Clause, nor the precedents governing said clause. And for you to interpret it differently, justifies my attempt to interpret the Commerce clause and the General Welfare Clause differently.

[-] 1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Contraceptives have not been outlawed last I heard. You can get a box of a dozen condoms for $5. Nobody is preventing anyone from purchasing contraceptives.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

It is the fact that through insurance the product is discounted and is seen as more socially excepted. The controversy is about the employees who are insured through the Church.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@JesseHeffran, You're confused. The gov't can't force religious entities to pay for an item that's contrary to their moral teachings. And while it can "outlaw pot" generally, it can't prohibit a church from importing drugs for use in sacramental rituals. (That ain't me talking-- it's a unanimous Supreme Court in 2006 in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.) Or did you think that Prohibition in the 1920s also applied to religious use of sacramental wine?

There's still something called the Bill of Rights, as the Prez seems to have only recently discovered. (Maybe.)

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I understand that in certain cases Religious organizations are exempt, pot smoking in certain religions and peyote consuming in others, but there are also times when religious organizations have to bite the pill just like the rest of us, such as when Mormons were forced to give up polygamy, and discrimination. The free exercise Clause gives you the right to practice religion, but when your ways have negative effects on the society as a whole, then there is precedent to regulate behavior. You just have to hope your lawyer is better than your opponent's. :) Besides, i believe President Obama gave the church exemption status, he being more moderate than I, though I'd have liked to see what SCOTUS would have said. Underage pregnancy is not only a economic liability for our nation, it also has social ramifications. And I'll be kind and not spout out my theory for why I believe religious organizations are dead set on abortions and Contraceptives, and let me just say that it don't have anything to do with heaven and hell.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Oh please. The left is obsessed with sex. And they like to say it's the right! Look no further than Oblahma's astounding statement yesterday --

But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services just like other women and they’ll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.

Get that?? We need to pay for contraceptives, so women will be able to afford food and shelter! If that isn't so obviously, completely ass-backwards policy to you, then I don't know what else to say.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

That policy, considering I was raised by a singe mother, makes perfect sense. I would like to believe the chasm between left and right is not that great, but because you have contempt for that quote, and yours and my President, I am left believing partisanship will continue to be the norm. You want to ensure working class women don't have to decide to use birth control, help us raise the minimum wage. If not, then you are just being selfish and tyrannical to those you know nothing about. If a women knows her income is not enough to sustain a child, then she should have the right to be responsible, and no snooty do gooder should stand in her way. Whether a person uses contraceptives is between the family and the individual, not some third party institution, IMO.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Between the family and the individual?? Ha! You're the one who wants to make contraception the responsibility of "some third party institution" -- religious employers -- not me.

I want to raise the standard of living for women and children. Your one-size-fits-all policy -- "raise the minimum wage" -- isn't necessarily the way to do it, and there are good arguments that it definitely isn't the way to do it. Anyway, if you agree with "your and my President" that the government's higher calling is to ensure payment for birth control over food and shelter then you've proven my point about the left's sex obsession.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

If an employer gives a person an option to use contraceptives and the person is piously Catholic, do you believe that person would use the services? Now, say an average run of the mill atheists decides to work for a Catholic Institution, should she or he be given the option in their health care plan to use contraceptives? Also, do you really believe that the Gov't will stop supporting other poverty programs once it implements the new services?

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

If you choose to work for a Catholic institution, then you accept the ben plan it offers. Period.

Your 2nd question betrays some naivete. It's not a question of "stopping" support; there are finite resources. Obama's statement crystalizes the left's sex obsession, placing contraceptive access on a higher plane than food and shelter.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I use the language of the right even though I do find the term deplorable. Because my mother was a welfare recipient and she educated her self out of poverty, I use the term knowing there is nothing wrong with being a recipient of welfare. I can call my mother a recovered welfare mother because it is true, but when others use the term I'm offended and the fact that the term was coined by the right, is another reason I am not too fond of the right. We all got to eat and the fact that my nation ensures that those who made foolish choices are not left out in the cold is a reason I respect my nation and her leaders. But for you to say that giving someone a choice to have an affordable service is pushing the service onto them, is you showing how naive you are. Just as we all have a choice and a means to go to college does not mean everyone will choose to got to college. I believe the same would hold true in this instance. It is not the lack of contraceptives that the bill addresses it is making birth control more affordable. Condoms do not work all the time and are not always there when needed. You never met a person who had been out parting and having one thing lead to another and boom they are a parent. If some one has to choose between an electric bill and a prescription of birth control, what do you think they will choose?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

But the argument goes: If you offer contraceptives, poverty programs will decrease. It cost less to offer contraceptives than it costs to provide services for their mistake. Would you rather pay for a welfare mother or pay to ensure she don't become one, to be blunt.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

That's the argument. Do you think its true? Do you not find it morally repugnant to push contraceptives on the underclass? Easier to limit their reproduction than actually feed, clothe and educate "them," right? How about the fact that the paternalistic pushers are generally elite whites and the recipients black? (Surely you recognize that even your language - "welfare mothers" - has racial overtones and is a classic Repub. stereotype of poor people.) And what "mistake" are you referring to? You can't seriously be arguing that births to poor single mothers are primarily due to lack of access to contraceptives. There's plenty of access. After all, in the US of A, we'd rather control the poor's births than have to feed them -- you said it yourself.

[-] 0 points by MoneyBad (20) 2 years ago

SCENARIO: A woman wants an IUD or a prescription for The Pill, but can't afford the out-of-pocket expense. Her insurance is adequate, except it has a special exclusion for birth control because her employer believes that the use of birth control is contrary to their religion.

The woman ends up pregnant. Does the employer bear any responsibility, on the grounds that they effectively denied the woman a critical health service that is accepted as uncontroversially useful and good by all but a small sliver of society that happens to include the employer?

Health care in the 21st century includes access to contraception. Individuals who don't believe in contraception shouldn't use it. People who wish to use it should have access to it. It's nobody's business to force it upon anybody, or to deny it to them.

Back to our unhappily-pregnant employee: she doesn't want a child. Should her employ be liable for the abortion? Or, perhaps they should pay her a reasonably handsome compensation for delivering the child into their care (more acceptable to their religion, surely)?

If they're going to make decisions that have major effects on others' lives, shouldn't they accept some major portion of responsibility for the predictable outcomes? (And they are totally predictable - not in every case, but statistically: if you deny women access to birth control, there will be unwanted pregnancies as a result.)

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Question: How did the woman get pregnant?
Answer. By choice.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

WTF

Joe, your no farmer. Don't even call yourself one.

You seek simplistic answers for big questions like most conservatives.

Your no Farmer. Opposite.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

ROFLMAF, what is the opposite of a farmer?

I am not a conservative.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Ok. Got me. I thought you would tell me about the true opposite. Anyway, I suppose it is a good sign your NOT a conservative. That's a good place to start as any. Call me a puzzler who is also very skeptical and doesn't like short over simplified answers, they breathe blow-back.

Good Luck on the Farm, Really!

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I guess you did not read any of the 23 long answers I gave on this very page.

[-] -1 points by MoneyBad (20) 2 years ago

No, that's explicitly contrary to the realistic scenario I gave. She didn't want to get pregnant - tho we may assume that she wanted sex, and that's her choice to make.

Or, should we expect women whose insurance excludes contraception to practice celibacy? Should we expect her employer's influence in her private affairs to be that far-reaching? In America, in the 21st century? (Well, her having sex may be contrary to her employer's religion, after all.)

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

She made the decision to engage in intercourse. She allowed a man to put his penis in her vagina and ejaculate. This allowed the sperm to fertilize the egg. There are many ways to have an orgasm that does not allow fertilization of the egg.

I don't expect anything. I think contraception is a great invention. I just don't think the church should have to make it available if they believe using it is a sin.

Even though I myself am an atheist, I believe that allowing the state to force people to go against their religion is one of the worst things we could do.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Your not the right kind of Atheist Joe! >

That's my sacred belief which I am completely entitled to as you say. and here's how you said it: "allowing the state to force people to go against their religion is one of the worst things we could do"

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

What is the right kind of atheist? I did not know there was a right kind.

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Thomas was ahead of his time, almost a truly timeless essence he was. I will go to Monticello in the spring once more to re-breathe that air Jefferson so enjoyed on his mountain.

Back to your question, it's a belief of mine to categorize an Athiest just as well as I would a Christian, Buddhist, or an Agnostic. I think it's a mistake to generalize and say all Atheist are alike. The beliefs will always vary within these sub-groups. For example: A person who calls them self a Christian but yet believes whole-heartily in reincarnation. They still believe in their own view that they are Christian regardless of whether they obey the creed or not.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

So why do you say I am not the right kind of atheist? Because I defend the rights of believers?

[-] 0 points by MoneyBad (20) 2 years ago

In 21st-century America, a woman has a right to engage in intercourse when/however she pleases with consenting others of age, and without significant risk of pregnancy if that's her choice.

If her employer wants her not to use contraception, they may use scary stories, or preaching, or reasoned appeals. Persuasion - it's the American way.

Coercion - even the passive coercion of an insurance exclusion - is not. You're concerned about the government actively coercing religious organizations to provide adequate modern health insurance (which includes contraception), but not about such institutions passively coercing women to take greater risks wrt pregnancy than they want to (assuming a normally active sex life, not a matter for debate).

Ultimately, it's about choice. Religious people must choose for themselves alone, on questions of sexual activity and contraception. Women - even those employed by religious organizations - must be allowed to make such choices for themselves, just the same.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Since when do we have a right to pleasure? That is the craziest thing I have heard on this forum. The Catholic church must ensure that a woman's pleasure is maximized?

I suppose we should be paying for massages also since they bring pleasure.

[-] 2 points by MoneyBad (20) 2 years ago

Since when do we have a right to pleasure? That is the craziest thing I have heard on this forum.

That is a crazy thing to say, awlright. But it's not clear who's supposed to have said it, who you're replying to. I assume it's me but, if so, you've so badly butchered what I said that I don't recognize it, and disagree with the result just as you do.

A straw man, perhaps?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Contraception is not a "critical health service"

Women - even those who CHOSE to be employed by religious organizations ARE allowed to make such choices for themselves,

A condom costs $0.56

There is not reason to force the Catholic church to make them available.

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The bible doesn't call for employees of god either. They chose to operate as an employer. It has nothing to do with religion.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You are missing the point.

Nobody is forcing people to work for the church.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

hmmmm.... Expand, I may not understand.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Who are you to say what a religion must do? Why do you feel the need to impose your value systems on someone who doesn't believe in them? Rather arrogant aren't you?

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Maybe she could buy a $5 box of condoms. Now there's an idea huh?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Catholics in Texas are constantly required to pay for executions, where were the Bishops?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The state is not asking Catholics to pay for executions HOWEVER

Among the major nations of the Western world, the United States is singular in still having the death penalty. After a five-year moratorium, from 1972 to 1977, capital punishment was reinstated in the United States courts. Objections to the practice have come from many quarters, including the American Catholic bishops, who have rather consistently opposed the death penalty. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1980 published a predominantly negative statement on capital punishment, approved by a majority vote of those present though not by the required two-thirds majority of the entire conference.{1} Pope John Paul II has at various times expressed his opposition to the practice, as have other Catholic leaders in Europe.

Some Catholics, going beyond the bishops and the Pope, maintain that the death penalty, like abortion and euthanasia, is a violation of the right to life and an unauthorized usurpation by human beings of God's sole lordship over life and death. Did not the Declaration of Independence, they ask, describe the right to life as "unalienable"?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Whenever they pay taxes, this is the exact agrument used to keep the feds from paying for aboration, forcing people to pay for it through taxes.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Good point however it appears that the Bishops and the Popes have been protesting capital punishment for more than 40 years.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I heard nothing from them when Rick Perry was the front runner, and where was the letter telling Catholics how to vote?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

ALL you NEED to do is LOOK IT UP

Sept 21 2011,

Catholic and other groups mourned the executions Sept. 21 of Troy Davis in Georgia and of Lawrence Brewer in Texas.

“The Catholic Mobilizing Network was hopeful those in positions of power and leadership would honor the dignity of all persons yesterday and exercise mercy for Troy Davis and Lawrence Brewer,” said a Sept. 22 statement issued by the group.

In Texas Jeffery Patterson, executive director of the state’s Catholic conference, said the Texas Catholic bishops “have strenuously opposed the death penalty because it violates the Catholic faith regarding the sacredness of human life.”

“The most recent execution underscores our commitment –– and that of our partners –– to advocate and educate policymakers and the public about the morally objectionable use of the death penalty in Texas,” he said.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't doubt and am well aware that many Catholics as well as other individuals have spoken out for decades against the death penalty. What I'm referring to is how on all the 24/7 news networks it was widely reported about Bishops letters warning Catholics not to vote for "pro choice Kerry" but come forward to Rick Perry and there is no high profile newly issued letters describing his death penalty record. Indeed, the reality is that if one holds a religious/spiritual standard, well I believe the general consensus is “we all fall short”. A purely religious group would tend to the sick; teach the children, feed the hungry without expecting any payment, but in the real world commerce allows the work to continue and concessions are made. I believe that one must be very careful when deciding which concessions you make a big deal out of, so as not to be political in your actions. I believe there is evidence that the Catholic bishops have been rather political in which concessions they complain about.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The Catholic bishops did not "come forward to Rick Perry"

"A purely religious group would tend to..."

They are standing up for what they believe in. They believe that the use of contraception, especially the day after pill is a sin. They are pretty consistent. They are against capital punishment, abortion, and contraception.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you could referance the letter they wrote about voting (or not voting) for people who support capital punishment your position would be more convincing. Like most people, including Catholics, I don't really care that much what the bishops say but it seems to me they tend to protect the powerful at the expense of the weak at times like in the case of the child molesters.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

the bishops were re-assigning molestor

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

another good point didn't think I needed to go there, I guess this isn't even a close call

[-] -3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I'm glad you support the first amendment
I assume you support the rest of the constitution-
and the body of law created by the supreme court


THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND FOR 134 YEARS:
The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."


This is why most of religion’s “blue” laws have been ruled unconstitutional.
If you are a sincere Catholic who disagrees with this decision,
I respect your opinion.
But please do not site political hacks and liars to support your position.
The law of the land is the law of the land.
America is a nation of people, not churches.


from DAVID BOIES, one of America’s leading constitutional experts:

There isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this issue.
First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion.
That is you can’t have the government saying you are going to have to follow certain religious beliefs, and it guarantees free exercise. That means everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer. The minimum wage, safe working conditions, workman’s compensation, age restrictions.
You could have a religion that says we believe that everybody when they are 60 years old must retire. That doesn’t give that religion an exemption. This is just simple labor law. There are all sorts of laws that apply to every employer in this country, and you don’t exempt religious employers just because of their religion.
You are not asking anybody in the Catholic Church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal laws that every employer has to comply with. The law wouldn’t say to a Catholic hospital, that you have got to do these acts that are contrary to religion, perhaps an abortion or something like that. They would, however, say to that hospital, you’ve got to treat your employees consistent with the law. And you’ve got to give him health insurance like you’ve got to give him workman’s compensation.
The NY law, for example, has the same exemptions as the federal law, that is the exemption for church employees, not hospital employees. If a Catholic Church owns a restaurant, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a hospital, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a university, those employees aren’t exempt.

We had a religious-based practice outlawed in this country.
Polygamy was outlawed in the 1878 by the United States Supreme Court because the Constitution has never prohibited Congress or the state legislatures from imposing limits that applied to everybody. In other words, you may have religion that believes in sacrificing animals - that doesn’t mean you are going to get an exemption from the anti-cruelty to animals laws.
As long as you have laws that apply across the board, and they are reasonable related laws the state has the right to impose those and you don`t get a pass just because you form or have a religion that has a sincere belief to the contrary.

Now, this is not a question of freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraception.


THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND FOR 134 YEARS:
The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."


[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

That is the problem when you move from constitutional law to case law. A small body called the "Supreme Court" decided it was wrong.

In fact I believe if a religious group chooses to allow it it should be allowed. On what grounds should it be illegal? It should never have been outlawed!

Why do you say polygamy is religious based practice??? I would say the opposite. Monogamy is a religious based practice! Do you not find it ironic that we had a non religious-based practice outlawed in this country based on a religious belief? ? ? ?

I believe that is the epitome of irony!

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

So, you are going to say I don't have any respect for the body of law if I say I disagree with citizen's united?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

what a great point, let me just say, its against my belief to enter into polygamy, but if I believed otherwise, as our forefathers, Abraham, isaac, jacob, david, solomon, and many other biblical great polygamists did, thank god i have modern christians in all their divided churches and doctrines to interpret what my religious practices should be to the point they have made their interpretations of religion into law over me because as we all know other men can see the path to God clearer than we can see it for ourselves. (Anyone else see the contradiction in this) ?

[-] 2 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

The real contradiction is that monogamy is based on a religious belief.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

oh interesting turn of view.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Do you not agree that monogamy is based on a religious belief?

Where else whould an idea like that come from?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

well i believe that there is a time and a place that the lord allowed polygamy, it could be to populate, or to take care of widows after their husbands died from wars, i know this was a factor for alot of mormons when they were forced out of america when the fathers carried their wives and children across frozen streams they ended up dieing from hypthermia and there was alot of widows who needed help being taking care of. it seemed that alot of prophets, or the preisthood leader as they were, including more modern times, did have multiple wifes although one thing that puzzles me is why joseph smith though he was married to several wives why he only had children with his first wife, I wonder if he ever consumated the other marriages. Having said that, I believe the Lord would rather us be one man married to one woman under normal circumstances.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

OK, So you do agree that monogamy is entirely based on a religious belief.

There is really no other reason for the concept.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i think so, though in nature we find that one man can impregnate several women, if not hundreds, whereas a woman can only be impregnated by one man in one pregnancy term.

[-] 1 points by votersway (15) 2 years ago

It's not a religions problem. The government has no business mandating sales policy to anyone. This is oppression.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

id fire my employees before i paid their way, they sure aint paying my way, hell i lose money every year i have employees, so for me when i have employees its all for charity.

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

There is no such thing as free birth control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U73xKgbXh68&feature=g-u-u&context=G29182c1FUAAAAAAANAA

THIS is not about religious beliefs...this is much more them that..

[-] 1 points by judy (61) 2 years ago

Just curious, but a serious question, does anyone know if the church-religious institute employer insurance covers Viagara or other ED medications? If it does, that changes some of the debate points.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

This issue relates to the pathological belief ( as in many religions ) that "you must believe as I do" and the catholic belief that God wants a raped 13 year old girl to give birth. The ED matter has nothing to do with this.


THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND FOR 134 YEARS: The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that "laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."


The question is - should all EMPLOYEES have the same medical coverage?


The Obama solution is brilliant - for many reasons including - the insurance companies that pay for birth control will be spending much less than paying for a birth.

[-] 1 points by judy (61) 2 years ago

I agree with you. The ED meds issue is in response to those who argue the pro Catholic Church side saying birth control is not a critical medical need and that they should not have to be funding someone's sex life choices. IMO ED meds would fall under that category, too.

[-] 1 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 2 years ago

I am forced to take insurance . If I do not I am penalized by my state via taxes. My health insurance costs 105 a paycheck. My problem is that if poor and lower middle class individual is forced to take insurance, they may not be able to eat

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

you should not be forced to take insurance
America should act like ANY OTHER CIVILIZED country
medical care is a human right
and "insurance" companies get nothing

[-] 1 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 2 years ago

It is one of many things that keep me living check to check What is middle class? A definition that means that you can keep food on the table but little else.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

all the mandated laws by government regulations is the reason i wont hire ever again, even when my phone is ringing off the hook for work. I remember when local gov put a judgement on me for 200 bucks for workers compensation insurance, without a court hearing mind you, that destroyed my business credit so that i couldnt finance over 100k of contracts the next year, never mind the fact that one guy got one week of pay, i lost a year of potential income and job creation. (This type of government over regulation can best be described as, "they swallow a camel and strain at a gnat") And creditors are hounding my door to this day, due to credit reportaing agencies being in bed with banks, who raised all my ontime credit card monthly payment's credit card rates in one grand general sweep to the point i couldnt afford payment on any of them anymore. (or how about this, the real world expects perfection in everyway or else they come down hard on you like the hammer of Thor) The real world operates in a way that is hostile to small business and I can prove it! Fact.

[-] 1 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 2 years ago

Aye. Religious freedom is about individual freedom, not the rights of religious fiefdoms

[-] 1 points by flamingliberal (138) 2 years ago

Seperation of church & state! We will not have religious fascism in America.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

yeah......you fools believe in separation of church and state (which doesn't exist) but not separation of state and church....

More tyrannical leftist nonsense..

[+] -4 points by libtards (7) 2 years ago

Agreed, the government has no business commenting on what's in a health insurance plan and certainly shouldn't be treading on the church. Keep things separate.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

We are the government. It is our tool to police criminals from preying on the people, no matter what club, gang or cult they belong to. It's also the role of our government to provide needed services to us the people, like health care. Keeping people healthy protects the general public, even more than fighting bogus wars for oil. Religion has no business getting in the way of our government, keep your private perversions to yourself.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Having a “public option” would solve many of these problems, I would have like to have seen a single payer, not just because it’s the most effective way to deliver health care, but because it would have been the best way for all America to wrap it’s arms around each other and say, “We’re in it together”. We always give lip service to this idea that we all want to help each other, but when we need it the most, when we’re sick, we as a nation say NO and that’s sad. BTW, why aren’t all these religious defenders up in arms about the 1878 court?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Interesting-I could not agree more strongly about single payer. My biggest complaint about Obama is not that he did not get single payer - he did not even fight for it. The medical "insurance" system is a money sucking scam. ON THE OTHER HAND We a nation of laws, and I submit to you that the reason this issue blew up now is not based on religion. It comes from the same sewer the birtherism - death panels - muslim - garbage comes from - the "not like me" president that so many bigots are afraid of.

[-] -2 points by libtards (7) 2 years ago

AKA, the "someone else but me payer" option. LOL

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Nothing new about that just like a chicken hawk going to war...a.k.a. Bush Cheny

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

that is not wrapping our arms around one another by choice....it's the government handcuffing us together by force...

do you understand the difference....are you familiar with the words "individual liberty", and in the free expression clause of the first ammendment......

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

NONE of these 28 states are forcing the Catholic church to freely provide contraceptives.

This is a violation of the First Amendment; it seems we have an American President who feels he knows what's best for Roman Catholicism in America; so there ya go BENNIE, it's in yer face and whatcha gonna do about it?

An American President whose reign spans at most a mere eight years versus a Pope whose reign spans all in perpetuity.

It's just Unbelievable.

It violates the rights of those Catholics who oversee these services... and how much do you want to bet the pharmaceuticals are not behind this as campaign contributors?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The supreme court ruled - you are wrong - read the opinion. It is also why the "blue" laws pushed on us by religions were ruled unconstitutional. Of course, you may have your own constitution. "the pharmas" bribes - consider how many people work in Catholic hospitals, etc. The market is very tiny

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey I think I mostly agree with you but we still have "blue laws" right now today, so it must have been a narrow ruling, ( my full name is "factsrfun for liberals") so I guess I want all my good buddies to always be correct, anyway if you got a link to the ruling I'll look at it but it's no biggie on the larger point your still right

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I am not aware of any Supreme Court ruling concerning blue laws; in fact many states still have blue laws.

Again, I would say to you that the Fed has exceeded its authority; the question is, will the Church be forgiving?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Ok, now explain to me the need to make such a political statement. If few are effected, and so few concerned, why legislate at all? Who is getting paid here and why?

The Catholic Church is saying no to Gay marriage; they are saying no to Gay employees and representatives; they are saying no unwed mothers, to contraception and abortion, and somehow the Fed seems to feel it can legislate belief? Are you kidding me?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

There is no legislating belief.
There is only legislation action.
You can't legislate a white bigot to like other races
But you can legislate racial equality under the law
You can't legislate a Catholic's opinion on birth control
But you can protect ALL Americans FROM narrow minded people
who want to force their beliefs o n everyone else.
IMHO: When God sees how religion is used to hate and hurt - He weeps

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

A church by its very nature IS narrow minded; it's discriminating in belief. What the church is saying is that none of these things should be permitted as the norm; they are detrimental to our society and the future of our faith.

Forget the Catholic Church; forget that they don't want women to have sex out of wedlock; forget that they don't want to pay for a morning after pill or abortion - what of safe sex?

What we have here are a bunch of pseudo intellectuals flouting their superior intelligence; they are not "grounded" anywhere; there is nothing critical or analytical; their heads float about in a perpetual fog like those of children, and they certainly do not belong in positions of authority.

You cannot regulate/ legislate/ ANYTHING in this country without voluntary compliance.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Yes, exactly! Its about time that someone stood up for the non-theists and other people who aren't brainwashed by a book of fiction!

All I see from Christians these days are people trying to force other people to live a certain way. How about they leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone, OK? Stop hating people for who they want to love, and stop hating women for wanting control over their own bodies. We're not breaking into your churches and telling you that you can only prey from 5-8pm, and you have to have parental consent first.

Christian healthcare = Hatecare, because Christians do NOT care about women! Your ultimate goal is to ban all abortions, to the point where women would have to get them done in back alleys by untrained persons, potentially killing BOTH people in the process! Next thing you know they'll try to ban AIDs treatment in their hospitals to keep the homosexuals out, LOL.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Brother - PLEASE. I know some very good Christians -
and we all see some very disgusting Christians spouting their lies in the media - especially from the Rs candidates.

Blanket generalizations, accusing all members of a group, is not only wrong, it is simply incorrect.
Last time I looked it up, MLK was a Christian
Many southerners are racist - but not all - google Morris Dees.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It is true that providing “free” contraceptives is an innovation within “Obamacare” (he doesn’t mind me saying that now I guess) which has shown to be an effective way to control costs, like “free” cleanings with dental care, sometimes we get caught up in the “something for nothing” thought process and miss things that are cost effective. This does bring out just how far wages have dropped in this country when someone with a good hospital job needs help getting the pill. Anyway this thing about providing them for “free” vs. just “in plan” is a fig leaf; the Catholic Church has been paying for contraceptives for a long time. These Bishops gave up any pretext of being anything other than cheerleaders for the GOP when they started sending out letters about how Catholics couldn’t vote for a candidate that supports choice but voting for a death penalty lover like Rick Perry was just fine. Perhaps if they had any moral principles one might be inclined to listen to them.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

And granting life and comfort to murderers and rapists while snuffing out the life of the unborn is what, the moral high ground? You idiots really need to listen to yourselves once in a while. You know it could be that some of us just aren't buying it; that we don't respect your analysis and never will, have you considered that?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

it's the Pope's position on the death penalty that they trun their backs on, I'm just saying they got no principles so who cares what they say

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Among the major nations of the Western world, the United States is singular in still having the death penalty. After a five-year moratorium, from 1972 to 1977, capital punishment was reinstated in the United States courts. Objections to the practice have come from many quarters, including the American Catholic bishops, who have rather consistently opposed the death penalty. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1980 published a predominantly negative statement on capital punishment, approved by a majority vote of those present though not by the required two-thirds majority of the entire conference.{1} Pope John Paul II has at various times expressed his opposition to the practice, as have other Catholic leaders in Europe.

Some Catholics, going beyond the bishops and the Pope, maintain that the death penalty, like abortion and euthanasia, is a violation of the right to life and an unauthorized usurpation by human beings of God's sole lordship over life and death. Did not the Declaration of Independence, they ask, describe the right to life as "unalienable"?

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

An interesting concept, the right to life. Let's carry it one step farther: The death penalty, without exception, is given to someone who has murdered and proven to be guilty by courts. Please do not give me the old saw that the courts make mistakes. Of course they do!

I ask only of the right to life of their victims? Did they, too, not have the right to the life that was taken?

The ONLY reason for NOT having the death penalty immediately is to study to determine whether the crime could have been prevented. Only THEN will we have learned something about the cause. Other than that, get rid of them.

[-] 1 points by TheirLyingPropaganda (54) 2 years ago

How? You ask.

It fits right in with Right Wing Lying Propaganda, that's how.

[-] 0 points by reckoning (53) 2 years ago

I feel discriminated...where are my free condoms!!

I want that in my free goverment healthcare!

I already got my free foodstamps/freehousing i no longer want to work. I want it NOW Obama!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Despite what you have been preached -
this is equal protection health INSURANCE
two details-
1
insurance companies would rather pay for birth control than a birth ( its cheaper )
2
If we wanted to save 20%-30% of our entire healthcare bill - we would do what almost every other similar country does and not have insurance companies profiting on our backs


but as long as they can contribute to bribe politicians - they will have their "pound of flesh"

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Employers should have the ability to shop insurance - not all can afford the standard plan.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22246) 2 years ago

Having universal healthcare provided by the government on a very basic, maybe even just a catastrophic level, would end all of this. Removing health insurance from the realm of employers and having affordable plans available to all citizens to purchase the insurance they personally want, to compliment the basic universal plan, would end all of this.

[-] 0 points by libtards (7) 2 years ago

Why should they be telling ANYONE what to do? It's none of their business what healthcare insurance does or doesn't cover. So, for some reason, other policy holders should be subsidizing birth control? Why should gays pay higher premiums for the birth control of others? Why? Can't people buy this for themselves? If not, how the fuck are they buying healthcare insurance? Don't libards know that buying things via healthcare insurance costs more than buying it yourself because of overhead?

Let's just make healthcare insurance pay for toothpaste. It's preventive, you know. And besides, if healthcare insurance pays for it, it makes it free, right?

Mandates drive up the cost of coverage. Healthcare insurance should cover possible costs, not routine costs. What's next, forcing auto insurance to cover car washes and gasoline. Geeesch, liberals are stupid.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

not true.. if they refused to cover cancer treatment the government would force them to do so.. how is this any different? and so insurance shouldnt cover vaccinations and doctor visits? those are preventative. if they sold birthcontrol over the counter., like toothpaste . this wouldn't be a problem but the big pharmaceuticals and the medical association would never allow that!

[-] 1 points by libtards (7) 2 years ago

Buy or not buy the insurance that you like. The only business the government has is in enforcing the terms of what you bought, not in forcing something on both parties. What the fuck is the government doing making some lesbian buy birth control buried in her healthcare insurance? And if you want to buy a policy that doesn't cover cancer, knock yourself out, it's no one else's business and certainly not the government's.

These idiot liberals think that if they make the insurance company pay, that it some how just made something free. It doesn't. It makes it cost more because now it's the thing PLUS overhead.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

that sounds absurd.. why are women buying insurance with prostrate exams buried in their policies. why does insurance cover viagra? if these can be in insurance coverages then why not birth control? why arent they opposing these coverages? its just a prescription.. there are a lot of prescriptions covered that no one ever uses.

[-] 1 points by libtards (7) 2 years ago

They shouldn't be. Routine expenses shouldn't be in healthcare insurance policies and politicians should leave it all alone. Insurance is for bigger ticket worries, not everyday expenses. Piling everyday expenses into healthcare insurance is inflationary. It needlessly adds admin costs and people grow careless about the costs because someone else is seen as paying. Think of the absurdity of adding gasoline and oil changes to auto insurance. How about lawn care and painters for home insurance? But people can't see how stupid it is for some reason when we do that with healthcare. Why not add toothpaste to healthcare insurance? Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi or Patty Murphy don't read this, it might give them another crazy idea.

[-] 1 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

They do refuse to cover certain cancer treatments. They aren't required to cover vaccines without copays. Just one class of medication for fertile women.

The legal requirement for Catholic institutions to fund something the Church holds to be gravely sinful is monstrous overreaching on the part of government.

I'm a Catholic. Like 98% of other Catholics, I have gone against My Own Church's teaching a time or two. However, I'd never expect them to pick up the check.

There are some absurd gaps in logic with those groups demanding Catholic institutions fund this stuff. For starters, your legal right to use it is guaranteed by your Constitutional right to privacy. Get your boss to pay for it, and it's no longer private. The same folks wanting to make the morning after pill more accessible worked to get it available over the counter, where I agree it ought to be. Insurance has never covered OTC drugs. Will the government reverse course and require a prescription?

Speaking of things available without a prescription........condoms are susidized by NO health plans. And Big Pharma loves to move safe and effective drugs OTC. More people buy them that way. Claritin used to be prescription only, so was Alleve.

I have a secular employer, whose insurance has always covered BC pills. Not that it really matters to me as I don't use it. But even if I did, coverage kicks in only after I reach my $10,000 deductible. I think the compromise the Church will be forced into will be to either make every employee a part timer and drop their coverage or force employees into High Deductible plans and give them a contribution to a Health Savings Account.

How many who are insisting that the Catholic church pay for BC pills actually believe we ought to have a single payer plan?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

maybe im not understanding correctly but it is the insurance companies that provide the coverage not the employer. i dont think you have to pay a deductible to get prescriptions and it is because the employers do not pay for any service.. are you saying that an employer is the one paying for your office visits.. your surgeries and what ever other healthcare you get? if so why do they have insurance companies when they are paying these out of pocket? of course they dont and they would not be paying for birthcontrol either. it is just a coverage for a prescription. same as penicillin or vicodin or anything else. and it is for all the employees that do not hold to same religious beliefs . what do they care?

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Geez, gesto, we've talked about this on other posts. When are you going to get it? It's HR101. Employers generally split the costs of health care premiums with their employees. The greater the coverage, the higher the premiums, so if you add coverage, the employer pays more. If you deduct coverage, the employer pays less. So yes, increasing health care coverage will indeed increase costs to the employer, and yes, in that case, the employer is paying for part of what is offered in the coverage. This policy will force catholic institutions to not only offer, but to pay for, services they consider to be immoral. It's time to stop hiding from that fact.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i would only agree if they only employed catholics.. as they are public organizations that offer services to the public i dont think they should use thier religion as reasoning for allowing or disallowing anything that pertains to employees that are not in agreement with that religion. it is a reality that 99% of women use birthcontrol. it should not matter what they believe when it comes to what insurance will cover it makes no sense whatsoever perhaps this is really just a money issue to them and they are using thier religion to cut cost as churches are known to do. i do agree it will increase cost to the employer and cut cost to female employees. im all for it.

[-] -1 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

99% of women are not using BC. Fewer than half have any need for it at all. Of those that do use it, roughly 40% use a prescribed drug to suppress ovulation.

It isn't just a money issue to the Catholic church. The teaching on this has been consistent.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and churches are exempt from this mandate.. the organizations are only 'affiliated' i dont know the numbers of course but i would bet that 80% of the employees are not catholic. include the fact that the orginizations accept government money(my money) and they have no argument. if it isnt money.. they can opt out of receiving government money and perhaps use that to try to come to a compromise

[-] -1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Ok, so you are in favor of the government forcing institutions to go against their conscience because you think women are entitled to have their employers pay for their birth control. You have a right to that opinion, however scary I think it is. But stop pretending like you do above that this is not what is happening. Frankly, it makes you look stupid.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

now your name calling. whos stupid. yes it is scary if they can ban smoking for the sake of society.. they can force the option of birthcontrol for the sake of society.. you cannot have it both ways. people who think the government should not be able to dictate behavior should have thought of that a long long time ago.

[-] 0 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Again, you are free to believe that this coercion is in the best interest of society, just as I am free to believe that it's not. Bt you aren't free to pretend as you do above that there is no cost to the employer and thus no coercion in this policy, when you know that there is. It lacks integrity. We had this conversation yesterday, and you ultimately admitted that the policy would cost the catholic institutions money, and that you thought that was a good thing in light of the needs of women. We shouldnt be having this conversation again today. Be more up-front, and don't play games.

[-] -1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Just what do you not understand that some religions like Catholics teach birth control is wrong. Don't agree with them but The Catholic Church teaches this and trying to force them to give out contraceptives makes their religious beliefs and teachings worthless. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people can be by not seeing this is a violation of their teaching. Nice try but your prejudice is obvious.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Can you cite ANY ( non-fox) source that proves this debate is about GIVING OUT birth control to anyone. My prejudice is in favor of the law. Your prejudice is against the truth.
Go ahead - make my day - prove I'm wrong by posting any government press release or document with this in it.
This is not about a war on religion
It is about a war of racists against an "other" who is smarter than than they are

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Here you go

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/10/pruden-condoms-are-only-part-of-it/

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8538957&rss=rss-wls-article-8538957

Washington Times and ABC news. I could find source after source after source. By the way I'd take Fox News over any other news network. I've watched enough slanted CNN and NBC news to turn my stomach.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

you said it - I love fox - boiled stewed or fried
your first "source" is the sun mung moon "paper"
your second "source" is a catholic cardinal


As I asked before Go ahead - make my day - prove I'm wrong by posting any government press release or document with this [ give out contraceptives ] in it.
This is not about a war on religion
It is about a war of racists against an "other" who is smarter than than they are

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

As reported by ABC news. The fact is the Catholic Church would be required to offer insurance that would cover birth control and this is against their religious beliefs. Your obvious bias towards Fox News is evident. Just another reason for me to lose respect for the trust fund and the lazy bums that seems to be so prevalent in the OWS movement.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I'm not biased "towards" fox news - there is no such thing.
I'll try to make m y question clearer-
As I asked before Go ahead - make my day - prove I'm wrong by posting any government press release or document with this [ give out contraceptives ] in it.
FYI- insurance is not contraceptives
As I asked before Go ahead - make my day - prove I'm wrong by posting any government press release or document with this [ give out contraceptives ] in it.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

You're not very good at reading and listening are you? The government wants to force every employer including churches that object to contraceptives to provide insurance that will cover said contraceptives. This is the equivalent of telling a Church that they have to allow a homosexual to be a Priest if said Church teaches that such behavior is sinful. You don't have to agree with their teaching to see that it is a violation of their beliefs.

Obama is in the process of modifying his requirements based to the uproar of the people. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/breaking-white-house-releases-contraceptive-mandate-compromise

Please don't reaffirm that you are so dense that you just don't get it.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

DAVID BOIES, one of America’s leading constitutional experts:

There isn’t a constitutional issue involved in this issue.
First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits establishment of religion.
That is you can’t have the government saying you are going to have to follow certain religious beliefs, and it guarantees free exercise. That means everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose.
There isn’t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer. The minimum wage, safe working conditions, workman’s compensation, age restrictions.
You could have a religion that says we believe that everybody when they are 60 years old must retire. That doesn’t give that religion an exemption. This is just simple labor law. There are all sorts of laws that apply to every employer in this country, and you don’t exempt religious employers just because of their religion.
You are not asking anybody in the Catholic Church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal laws that every employer has to comply with. The law wouldn’t say to a Catholic hospital, that you have got to do these acts that are contrary to religion, perhaps an abortion or something like that. They would, however, say to that hospital, you’ve got to treat your employees consistent with the law. And you’ve got to give him health insurance like you’ve got to give him workman’s compensation.
The NY law, for example, has the same exemptions as the federal law, that is the exemption for church employees, not hospital employees. If a Catholic Church owns a restaurant, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a hospital, those employees aren’t exempt. If they own a university, those employees aren’t exempt.

We had a religious-based practice outlawed in this country.
Polygamy was outlawed in the 1878 by the United States Supreme Court because the Constitution has never prohibited Congress or the state legislatures from imposing limits that applied to everybody. In other words, you may have religion that believes in sacrificing animals - that doesn’t mean you are going to get an exemption from the anti-cruelty to animals laws.
As long as you have laws that apply across the board, and they are reasonable related laws the state has the right to impose those and you don`t get a pass just because you form or have a religion that has a sincere belief to the contrary.

Now, this is not a question of freedom of religion. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use contraception.


THE ESTABLISHED LAW OF THE LAND FOR 134 YEARS: The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."


This is why most of religion’s “blue” laws have been ruled unconstitutional. If you are a sincere Catholic who disagrees with this decision, I respect your opinion.
But please do not site political hacks and liars to support your position.
The law of the land is the law of the land. America is a nation of people, not churches.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Why do you say polygamy is religious based practice??? I would say the opposite. Monogamy is a religious based practice!

I find it ironic that we had a non religious-based practice outlawed in this country based on a religious belief? ? ? ?

I believe that is the epitome of irony!

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Romney's great-grandfater had many wives - as his Mormon faith allowed. But when American law said no - he fled to Mexico

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Monogamy is a religious based concept.

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

You're right. All opposition to Obama is based on racism. And all opposition members (You are free to refer to them as "them", it helps with identity politics) think alike. I, being someone who opposes the bill, would also oppose it if my state passed the same law. Also, I do not think my version of marriage should be law. But you do, since you said you think the government should stop bigamy and sexual promiscuity.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

There is a simple solution. I would suggest no company provide insurance for their employees. SIMPLE. Give them the a pay increase to allow the employee to purchase their own insurance.

[-] 5 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Or give health care to all; paid for through taxes; and remove the "for profit" component and save 30%+ right out of the gate. Some of the things you do need to spend money on to supply health care to someone is doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs, medical equipment, clinics, etc. The one thing you don't need is insurance companies. They offer no service except to jack-up the costs and provide a return for their investors at patients expense.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Exactly! Our "best in the world" heallth care system is the most expensive by far - and our longevity is tied with Cuba's at 36th longest

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Think about it. The only way an insurance company can make money is to collectively overcharge their customers the percentage of profit margin, over and above their expenses. The expenses include the paying of claims, but also include, executive pay and bonuses, employee pay, benefits, taxes (maybe not), Marketing and Administrative Expenses ( you even have to pay for their TV ads), utility costs, maintenance costs, and much, much, more; that are passed directly to the patient on top of already high actual health care costs.

A 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce costs by more than $400 billion a year "despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans." I'm sure that figure has increased since then.

I think the cartoon at the bottom of this page says it all -

http://www.healthcare-now.org/whats-single-payer/

Cheers :)

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

Can you explain how medical care has been paid for for over 230 years? Did your great grandparents live without free health care? Have you investigated how they did it and you cant? I think you are lazy and I would bet your great grandparents think they wasted time on having whining and lazy great grand kids. The would slap you.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Don't twist my words. I clearly stated "paid for through taxes" - not free. The money can be saved by cutting out the middle man - insurance companies. Do you enjoy paying 30 - 40% more for your health care; for insurance that contributes no medical services .............. or is it that you work for an insurance company? It appears that you would rather live in the past; than to proceed into the future. Would you also suggest that we return to horse and buggy and read by candle light? Besides; hospital and medical expense policies weren't introduced until the first half of the 20th century. Prior to that, medical costs were low enough not to warrant insurance and none existed.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

Medical costs were low enough not to warrant insurance,,,,, REALLY? So in your mind,,,, you think that people made the same amount in salary then as they make today and therefore getting medical care was very cheap? Really? For some reason,,,, in my mind,, cars were cheaper, a loaf of bread was cheaper, rent was cheaper, and salaries were less then. But according to you medical costs were not an issue back then with medicall problems. Interesting.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

And you call me lazy? Take some time, read, and do some research for yourself. Facts trump ignorant babble .................. REALLY !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance

http://www.neurosurgical.com/medical_history_and_ethics/history/history_of_health_insurance.htm

Medical Expenditures Initially Low

Given the rudimentary state of medical technology before 1920, most people had very low medical expenditures. A 1918 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of 211 families living in Columbus, Ohio found that only 7.6 of their average annual medical expenditures paid for hospital care (Ohio Report, p. 116). In fact, the chief cost associated with illness was not the cost of medical care, but rather the fact that sick people couldn't work and didn't get paid. A 1919 State of Illinois study reported that lost wages due to sickness were four times larger than the medical expenditures associated with treating the illness (State of Illinois, pp. 15-17). As a result, most people felt they didn't need health insurance. Instead, households purchased "sickness" insurance -- similar to today's "disability" insurance -- to provide income replacement in the event of illness.1

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. Thomas Jefferson

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

Crap,,,, I had no idea. You just told me something I didnt know. In your previous post you said cut out the middle man, insurance. WAY COOL. Cutting medical costs by ending health insurance. That is great news. So YOU,,,, will save huge amounts of money by ending any insurance. Let me know how that works for you. (print out some report from 1917 if possible,,, that was a great wine year.

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

bensdad, I feel sorry for ben