|
Oh oh!; Justice Blocks Obamacare Birth Control Mandate
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 2 2014, 07:51 PM (1,494 Views)
|
|
Banandangees
|
Jan 3 2014, 12:30 AM
Post #41
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 20,839
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Mar 14, 2008
|
But I can see that I got your blood circulating a little. That's a good thing. You don't want to become stagnant.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Jan 3 2014, 12:57 AM
Post #42
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Banandangees
- Jan 3 2014, 12:27 AM
I rest my case.
All the rest you libs created were "strawmen." You didn't make a case. What you did was post an opinion related to a judge who granted temporary injunctive relief to a plaintiff. I'm not a psychic, so I don't know your motivation for sure, but I suspect it relates to your own personal opinion that the law includes contraceptives for the purpose of birth control only. We've debunked that several times.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mike
|
Jan 3 2014, 12:58 AM
Post #43
|
- Posts:
- 23,868
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Feb 15, 2008
|
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 12:21 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:14 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 2 2014, 10:59 PM
- Banandangees
- Jan 2 2014, 10:57 PM
What's untrue about it?
It's not forced contraception coverage. It's medically necessary drug coverage. You know that, but continue to post the untruth, knowing it's untrue.
From my perspective, if a person has a medical condition that requires an ingredient in a birth control capsule and that ingredient has been prescribed, then provided the birth control pill had been altered in such a way... that it does not artificially prevent pregnancy... there should be no reason to deny coverage. If the doctor prescribes a normal birth control formula, then the woman and her doctor should not expect those individuals or organizations who oppose clinical methods to prevent pregnancy, to participate in any manner.. including providing insurance polices that cover the purchase of the methods. I'm confident that any appeal of this decision will be turned back by the higher court.
That's the typical religious argument against providing contraceptives to people who are students or work for a religious institution. IMO, it constitutes discrimination against the non-religious or anybody who wants the birth control. If the church groups want to discriminate, then they should give up their "non-profit" status", pay taxes like every other entity and do as they choose. What it boils down to, imo, is hypocrisy. And those of faith believe that 1. the less among us need protected and 2. if you want to consider the evils of discrimination.. then who is more discriminated against, an unborn whose life is in peril or one who walks among us? Who in those relationships between a mother and unborn child is discriminating?
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:00 AM
Post #44
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:58 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 12:21 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:14 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 2 2014, 10:59 PM
- Banandangees
- Jan 2 2014, 10:57 PM
What's untrue about it?
It's not forced contraception coverage. It's medically necessary drug coverage. You know that, but continue to post the untruth, knowing it's untrue.
From my perspective, if a person has a medical condition that requires an ingredient in a birth control capsule and that ingredient has been prescribed, then provided the birth control pill had been altered in such a way... that it does not artificially prevent pregnancy... there should be no reason to deny coverage. If the doctor prescribes a normal birth control formula, then the woman and her doctor should not expect those individuals or organizations who oppose clinical methods to prevent pregnancy, to participate in any manner.. including providing insurance polices that cover the purchase of the methods. I'm confident that any appeal of this decision will be turned back by the higher court.
That's the typical religious argument against providing contraceptives to people who are students or work for a religious institution. IMO, it constitutes discrimination against the non-religious or anybody who wants the birth control. If the church groups want to discriminate, then they should give up their "non-profit" status", pay taxes like every other entity and do as they choose. What it boils down to, imo, is hypocrisy.
And those of faith believe that 1. the less among us need protected and 2. if you want to consider the evils of discrimination then who is more discriminated against, an unborn whose life is in peril or one who walks among us? I'm not going to argue abortion with you Mike. That's a no-win situation. What I'm arguing is the hypocrisy of the church when it wants the government to act in its favor (no taxes) and wants the government to butt out when it doesn't ( birth control).
|
|
|
| |
|
Mike
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:09 AM
Post #45
|
- Posts:
- 23,868
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Feb 15, 2008
|
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 01:00 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:58 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 12:21 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:14 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 2 2014, 10:59 PM
- Banandangees
- Jan 2 2014, 10:57 PM
What's untrue about it?
It's not forced contraception coverage. It's medically necessary drug coverage. You know that, but continue to post the untruth, knowing it's untrue.
From my perspective, if a person has a medical condition that requires an ingredient in a birth control capsule and that ingredient has been prescribed, then provided the birth control pill had been altered in such a way... that it does not artificially prevent pregnancy... there should be no reason to deny coverage. If the doctor prescribes a normal birth control formula, then the woman and her doctor should not expect those individuals or organizations who oppose clinical methods to prevent pregnancy, to participate in any manner.. including providing insurance polices that cover the purchase of the methods. I'm confident that any appeal of this decision will be turned back by the higher court.
That's the typical religious argument against providing contraceptives to people who are students or work for a religious institution. IMO, it constitutes discrimination against the non-religious or anybody who wants the birth control. If the church groups want to discriminate, then they should give up their "non-profit" status", pay taxes like every other entity and do as they choose. What it boils down to, imo, is hypocrisy.
And those of faith believe that 1. the less among us need protected and 2. if you want to consider the evils of discrimination then who is more discriminated against, an unborn whose life is in peril or one who walks among us?
I'm not going to argue abortion with you Mike. That's a no-win situation. What I'm arguing is the hypocrisy of the church when it wants the government to act in its favor (no taxes) and wants the government to butt out when it doesn't ( birth control). The church has not cherry picked Neal, the constitution has been the root of both questions. The government has been expected to separate out religion and faith based beliefs from secular concerns and governance. The wisdom of the founding fathers saw value in the autonomous nature of religion and the good it brings to the nation and world.
On several occasions here I presented in detail why I oppose abortion, for those that disagree I hope one day their minds and hearts are changed. This discussion is centered on a constitutional question not theological or faith. I'm willing to keep to those boundaries.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:11 AM
Post #46
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 01:09 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 01:00 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:58 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 12:21 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:14 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 2 2014, 10:59 PM
- Banandangees
- Jan 2 2014, 10:57 PM
What's untrue about it?
It's not forced contraception coverage. It's medically necessary drug coverage. You know that, but continue to post the untruth, knowing it's untrue.
From my perspective, if a person has a medical condition that requires an ingredient in a birth control capsule and that ingredient has been prescribed, then provided the birth control pill had been altered in such a way... that it does not artificially prevent pregnancy... there should be no reason to deny coverage. If the doctor prescribes a normal birth control formula, then the woman and her doctor should not expect those individuals or organizations who oppose clinical methods to prevent pregnancy, to participate in any manner.. including providing insurance polices that cover the purchase of the methods. I'm confident that any appeal of this decision will be turned back by the higher court.
That's the typical religious argument against providing contraceptives to people who are students or work for a religious institution. IMO, it constitutes discrimination against the non-religious or anybody who wants the birth control. If the church groups want to discriminate, then they should give up their "non-profit" status", pay taxes like every other entity and do as they choose. What it boils down to, imo, is hypocrisy.
And those of faith believe that 1. the less among us need protected and 2. if you want to consider the evils of discrimination then who is more discriminated against, an unborn whose life is in peril or one who walks among us?
I'm not going to argue abortion with you Mike. That's a no-win situation. What I'm arguing is the hypocrisy of the church when it wants the government to act in its favor (no taxes) and wants the government to butt out when it doesn't ( birth control).
The church has not cherry picked Neal, the constitution has been the root of both questions. The government has been expected to separate out religion and faith based beliefs from secular concerns and governance. The wisdom of the founding fathers saw value in the autonomous nature of religion and the good it brings to the nation and world. On several occasions here I presented in detail why I oppose abortion, for those that disagree I hope one day their minds and hearts are changed. This discussion is centered on a constitutional question not theological or faith. I'm willing to keep to those boundaries. I don't see how you can keep theology or faith out of a discussion about matters that are based in theology and faith.
|
|
|
| |
|
campingken
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:15 AM
Post #47
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 11,506
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2008
|
It would not surprise me if Viagra type drugs are covered for men. In Con Land men are supposed to spread their wild oats and their women are required to remain virgins until well after they are married.
No wonder Cons are confused...LOL
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:19 AM
Post #48
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
To want a discussion a bout abortion would certainly be a diversion to this thread. No one, including ms, Fluke has asked for any church or faith related institution to support abortion. The question is whether or not medically approved mediation should or should not be covered in the law.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mike
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:24 AM
Post #49
|
- Posts:
- 23,868
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Feb 15, 2008
|
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 01:11 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 01:09 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 01:00 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:58 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 12:21 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 12:14 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 2 2014, 10:59 PM
- Banandangees
- Jan 2 2014, 10:57 PM
What's untrue about it?
It's not forced contraception coverage. It's medically necessary drug coverage. You know that, but continue to post the untruth, knowing it's untrue.
From my perspective, if a person has a medical condition that requires an ingredient in a birth control capsule and that ingredient has been prescribed, then provided the birth control pill had been altered in such a way... that it does not artificially prevent pregnancy... there should be no reason to deny coverage. If the doctor prescribes a normal birth control formula, then the woman and her doctor should not expect those individuals or organizations who oppose clinical methods to prevent pregnancy, to participate in any manner.. including providing insurance polices that cover the purchase of the methods. I'm confident that any appeal of this decision will be turned back by the higher court.
That's the typical religious argument against providing contraceptives to people who are students or work for a religious institution. IMO, it constitutes discrimination against the non-religious or anybody who wants the birth control. If the church groups want to discriminate, then they should give up their "non-profit" status", pay taxes like every other entity and do as they choose. What it boils down to, imo, is hypocrisy.
And those of faith believe that 1. the less among us need protected and 2. if you want to consider the evils of discrimination then who is more discriminated against, an unborn whose life is in peril or one who walks among us?
I'm not going to argue abortion with you Mike. That's a no-win situation. What I'm arguing is the hypocrisy of the church when it wants the government to act in its favor (no taxes) and wants the government to butt out when it doesn't ( birth control).
The church has not cherry picked Neal, the constitution has been the root of both questions. The government has been expected to separate out religion and faith based beliefs from secular concerns and governance. The wisdom of the founding fathers saw value in the autonomous nature of religion and the good it brings to the nation and world. On several occasions here I presented in detail why I oppose abortion, for those that disagree I hope one day their minds and hearts are changed. This discussion is centered on a constitutional question not theological or faith. I'm willing to keep to those boundaries.
I don't see how you can keep theology or faith out of a discussion about matters that are based in theology and faith. I wouldn't suggest that religious beliefs are not what is behind the ruling, but the ruling itself is of a secular nature and based on sound constitutional grounds. It's not only this case that raises my awareness but any case where the separation which leads to an assault on my beliefs is in progress. Which was the case in this area of the healthcare law.
The president and congress embraced a belief that was codified and which trampled on my rights and beliefs. The government never took a neutral position, which would have resulted in no requirement of insurance coverage for artificial birth control..but rather established into law their belief over mine.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:27 AM
Post #50
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
An additional question. I hvae a young lady on the debate team whose family, on the basis of faith in their Pentecostal religion reject all forms of medical care. Should that exempt all employers who are Pentecostal to be excluded from all health insurance regulations?
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|