Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Oh oh!; Justice Blocks Obamacare Birth Control Mandate
Topic Started: Jan 2 2014, 07:51 PM (1,491 Views)
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yes he does.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
The ACA mandates what basic coverage must be. If an employer objects to things in the basic coverage than he/she can discontinue providing the insurance and pay the fine/fee. Picking and choosing coverage base upon your own religious beliefs can get crazy. Jehova Witness' don't believe in blood tranfusion. If they employ someone and furnish insurance should they be able to carve out an exception for payment for a blood transfusion? And, what about those who subscribe to faith healing? Here is your faith healing policy employee, just keep praying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Employers are not mandated to do anything at this point, only individuals and Obi extended that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Jan 3 2014, 03:26 AM
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.

:teeth: 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.
What word would you use instead of "forced." Under Obamacare law, it was mandated that contraception was to be provided for in health insurance coverage by such institutions (Georgetown). "Contraception" includes "birth control."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Jan 3 2014, 02:17 AM
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
Neal,

Of course we want to practice out religion and in doing so we, the church, established schools and hospitals across North america. And these schools and hospitals have been open to those who do not share our faith, we do so in following the leadership and example of our Savior Jesus Christ. I could argue that if the government wants to build new hospitals, schools and universities and fill the niche that the church has filled... then it is free to provide as a sectarian function, any benefits it feels meet those standards.

This situation is not something that the employees considered insurmountable when they sought employment, it became an issue when congress passed a law that extended mandates that are objectionable to our belief. I'm quite confident that the supreme court will uphold the injunction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Everyone should keep in mind in this discussion that we are talking about doctor prescribed medications, not over the counter items one can pick up at the grocery store.
Edited by colo_crawdad, Jan 3 2014, 06:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
colo_crawdad
Jan 3 2014, 06:16 AM
Everyone should keep in mind in this discussion that we are talking about doctor prescribed medications, not over the counter items one can pick up at the grocery store.
I would add to that statement Lowell this...if an insurance policy excludes a prescription drug, that the policy must state such. Not all prescription drugs are required to be included in the Affordable Care Act.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I realize that I posted this on another thread thinking that it was on topic followig a post by another member concerning covering birth control pills and condoms. It is more appropriate on this thread.

Perhaps a medical explanation of the benefits of birth control pills will serve to be helpful in this discussion.

Quote:
 
The Pill isn't just for birth control: Did you know that it can also protect against certain life-threatening cancers, plus help relieve some painful period symptoms? Here, experts explain the top seven health benefits of taking the Pill and how to make them work for you.


"protect against certain life-threatening cancers?" Boy, that should never be covered by health insurance policies. :sarcasim:

WebMD: Better information. Better health.
Edited by colo_crawdad, Jan 4 2014, 07:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I do believe that the religious affiliated institutions are concerned with the birth altering affects of "contraception."

"Contraception" definition:

"the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. The major forms of artificial contraception are barrier methods, of which the most common is the condom; the contraceptive pill, which contains synthetic sex hormones that prevent ovulation in the female; intrauterine devices, such as the coil, which prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus; and male or female sterilization"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Ban,

Surely you are not suggesting that ALL religious institutions are concerned with the birth altering affects of "contraception."

It seems to me that to make legislation based on one specific religion would , at the least, border on violating the Constitutional ban on recognizing a State Church.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis