|
Oh oh!; Justice Blocks Obamacare Birth Control Mandate
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 2 2014, 07:51 PM (1,493 Views)
|
|
Mountainrivers
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:38 AM
Post #51
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 01:24 AM
- 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. Why do you think that an assault on your beliefs is any more important than an assault on my beliefs. And, isn't using the term "beliefs" tantamount to admitting that we are talking about religion? It seems to me that you are making your beliefs superior to those of Ms. Fluke and others who believe differently than you.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mike
|
Jan 3 2014, 01:45 AM
Post #52
|
- Posts:
- 23,868
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Feb 15, 2008
|
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 01:38 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 01:24 AM
- 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.
Why do you think that an assault on your beliefs is any more important than an assault on my beliefs. And, isn't using the term "beliefs" tantamount to admitting that we are talking about religion? It seems to me that you are making your beliefs superior to those of Ms. Fluke and others who believe differently than you. I'm not doing anything to you or the lady, I'm demanding that the government defend the constitution. The government failed and now the judicial interceded.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Jan 3 2014, 02:10 AM
Post #53
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
No comments about employers who are Pentecostals?
|
|
|
| |
|
campingken
|
Jan 3 2014, 02:15 AM
Post #54
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 11,506
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2008
|
Should they be allowed to follow their faith and refuse life saving medical care for their children? Currently the answer is no and the state will take custody of and treat their children.
Why should their religious beliefs about modern medicine be any less important than ones that oppose abortion?
|
|
|
| |
|
Neutral
|
Jan 3 2014, 02:16 AM
Post #55
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 61,888
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
Obi is going to have to spank Sotomayer. lol
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Jan 3 2014, 02:17 AM
Post #56
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 01:45 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 01:38 AM
- Mike
- Jan 3 2014, 01:24 AM
- 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.
Why do you think that an assault on your beliefs is any more important than an assault on my beliefs. And, isn't using the term "beliefs" tantamount to admitting that we are talking about religion? It seems to me that you are making your beliefs superior to those of Ms. Fluke and others who believe differently than you.
I'm not doing anything to you or the lady, I'm demanding that the government defend the constitution. The government failed and now the judicial interceded. If you and your church want to practice your religion without any interference from government, I would suggest that you not participate in anything other than religious practices, meaning not operating hospitals and universities with the express purpose of promoting your religion. When churches operate hospitals, for instance, and prohibit certain procedures that are medically approved otherwise, the hospital is forcing its religious beliefs on their patients. You can argue that the patient can go to a different hospital, but that is rarely available, because doctors generally only practice in certain hospitals and the churches own most of the hospitals today. The judiciary has only issued a temporary injunction. We will have to wait to see what the Supreme Court decides. In the meantime, here's an article that reveals the heave handed way church owned hospitals deals with its patients.
Here
|
|
|
| |
|
Neutral
|
Jan 3 2014, 02:19 AM
Post #57
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 61,888
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
I don't understand your problem with this Mike, you voted for the guy who approves of it.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Jan 3 2014, 02:19 AM
Post #58
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
I agree, Ken. Neither should trump good public policy. That is why I ought up the subject.
|
|
|
| |
|
Banandangees
|
Jan 3 2014, 03:15 AM
Post #59
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 20,839
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Mar 14, 2008
|
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 12:57 AM
- 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.
You are exactly right (the bold). That's all I did in my first post. I posted a linked article (that appeared in many news sources), added some of my own opinion regarding the fuss Fluke and the news media made which resulted in here in paranoia, strawmen cases, and name calling from the liberal world on this forum. Nothing I wrote in that original post has been shown to be untrue.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Jan 3 2014, 03:26 AM
Post #60
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Banandangees
- Jan 3 2014, 03:15 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Jan 3 2014, 12:57 AM
- 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.  You are exactly right (the bold). That's all I did in my first post. I posted a linked article (that appeared in many news sources), added some of my own opinion regarding the fuss Fluke and the news media made which resulted in here in paranoia, strawmen cases, and name calling from the liberal world on this forum. Nothing I wrote in that original post has been shown to be untrue. You said it was forced contraceptive coverage, which it is not. It serves that purpose as well, but Ms. Fluke's argument was not about birth control, although you won't let that go.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|