|
On March 03 2012 05:31 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:29 Chargelot wrote:On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment. I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'.
The free exercise clause of the first amendment has case law stating that you can't restrict religions ("unduly burden the practice of religion") without "compelling interest", that is, strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Comparing suicide cults and Catholics because they don't like condoms is silly (ritual human sacrifice, really?).
If Catholics claim that it is against their religion to use or provide contraceptives to others, you, and everyone else, needs to listen to why, and there needs to be judicial review into the case if they are forced to pay for contraceptives of others. That's a part of the first amendment, whether you or I like it.
|
On March 03 2012 05:35 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:31 OhNeverMind wrote:
I think Catholics get hit the hardest in terms of being forced to financially support something that violates their moral beliefs. I don't wish to attempt to defend this belief but I respect their right to adhere to it.
The thing I most dislike is the move to mandate insurance coverage of a relatively inexpensive product. Many contraceptives are inexpensive and widely available... I don't see how requiring insurance companies will do anything but hurt competition and eventually drive up total cost. You don't see dental insurance covering your everyday toothpaste... It really depends on the type of birth control that you are talking about. Condoms are inexpensive yes, but without insurance it would not really be possible for someone on a low income or even just a moderate income to buy oral hormonal contraception.
Condoms and the pill are both used as birth control, but some people can't pay for the more expensive one so lets let insurance premiums go up on everyone?
|
On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on.
Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere.
Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line?
|
On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that.
Cuz the big book o' righteousness said so. Also, Republicans are uneducated(just in general, no offense intended to any on the forum) and believe that everything resolves itself without the government.
|
Rush is just an entertainer out to shock people. I wouldn't get so worked up over what he says.
|
On March 03 2012 05:40 Dark Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:30 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:28 Dark Templar wrote:
This is ridiculous. Few on the political right in the USA cares if you use birthcontrol or not. The issue regards if others should be made to pay for your choice of lifestyle.
It also telling that you respond with outrage and self-righteous indignity over Rush impyling that the student is a slut but you do not mention much more severe insults thrown from the left side of the isle. You asked me not to resort to namecalling, but you're making that awfully difficult. Id would like you to clarify that with some evidence? I didnt call Rush Limbaugh a name, nor would I. I disagree with how he handled the situation and if someone on the left is resorting to name calling I would disagree with that as well. That is not how progress gets made You made the assertion, don't you think the burden of proof should rest on you? Show me that the Republican party is at war against the pill.
I never used the word "war" or other melodramatic phrases like that. I never said Republicans either. I mentioned one man- Rush Limbaugh- who was making offensive comments about an individual who was in the debate. I am questioning political discourse in general, not just right wing. And you have yet to give any evidence of whatever it is that you are trying to say.
But here you go:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201202290020
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm past the abortion debate, we need to start focusing on legalizing retroactive abortions. 61 would be a good cutoff.
|
On March 03 2012 05:42 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on. Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere. Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line?
There is no line. Nobody should be forced to cover any health care services. If employees don't like it, they won't work for the employer.
|
The US always gives me such mixed feelings. On one hand it's the great country who put a man on the moon and improved science so much. But it also has a highly religious part who are so influential it's scary. If you're aiming to be a politician better not tell anyone you're an atheist or you can forget about your career.
As an outsider it seems most people on the east and west coast are very broad minded and liberal, but some states in the center... it just feels that too many weird cults and religious groups fled there when Europe had enough of them back in the day.
To come up up with shit like this in this time and age :/
Still happy to see the bill didn't pass though
|
On March 03 2012 05:39 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:29 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. I can respect that argument, but what I wonder is if most women are in fact using some sort of birth control and it has essential health benefits, then isnt it worth the very small if not inconsequential increase in price? With women currently paying for birth control pills the cost is $15-$50 month. Once women cannot choose to be economical, insurance companies will need to charge enough make a profit even after many women choose the move convenient and expensive options. This means the total cost could exceed $50/month which is not inconsequential. The bill in question would not have affected most women, so they would have been forced to pay for expensive contraception whether they wanted it or not. It would have only affected religious institutions where the religion was morally against birth control. I personally think being morally against birth control is silly at best and potentially dangerous, but I am not going to force someone to pay for that which they do not want.
It doesn't necessarily raise premiums.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The one bit of news I read a while back was that religious organizations were complaining about being forced to buy plans that contained conception and birth control and the such, in theory paying for extra for coverage they objected to on religious basis. Obama offered a "compromise" where religious organizations were not forced into buying the coverage, but health insurance organizations had to offer "free" coverage, in theory making coverage of the objectionable service zero cost. Is that what this bill is about?
|
On March 03 2012 05:42 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:28 mastergriggy wrote:
I don't get why Republicans are so against birth control...less children in poorer areas = less welfare needed = less government intervention needed. But this wouldn't be the first time Republicans have done something this ridiculous.
Edit: As someone else earlier pointed out, birth control really isn't all about sex. One of the girls I used to date had periods that would black her out. BC really helped her with that. Cuz the big book o' righteousness said so. Also, Republicans are uneducated(just in general, no offense intended to any on the forum) and believe that everything resolves itself without the government.
Do you know who Milton Friedman is? By your logic, he's a very uneducated man.
On March 03 2012 05:44 Jibba wrote:
I'm past the abortion debate, we need to start focusing on legalizing retroactive abortions. 61 would be a good cutoff.
I went to go report that post but then....
|
On March 03 2012 05:45 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:42 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on. Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere. Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line? There is no line. Nobody should be forced to cover any health care services. If employees don't like it, they won't work for the employer.
So then what would be the point of health insurance?
|
On March 03 2012 05:45 Zandar wrote:
The US always gives me such mixed feelings. On one hand it's the great country who put a man on the moon and improved science so much. But it also has a highly religious part who are so influential it's scary. If you're aiming to be a politician better not tell anyone you're an atheist or you can forget about your career.
As an outsider it seems most people on the east and west coast are very broad minded and liberal, but some states in the center... it just feels that too many weird cults and religious groups fled there when Europe had enough of them back in the day.
To come up up with shit like this in this time and age :/
Still happy to see the bill didn't pass though
I'm an atheist. I can't stand religious interference in politics. But come on, man.
Europe hadn't "had enough" of them...The people who fled wanted religious freedom. They weren't leaving secular governments behind in Europe. They were leaving religious institutions so they could practice their religion freely.
You know that the vast majority of European history is the history of religious influenced war? And you know those "weird cults" that fled and developed the American state ended up coming back and saving Europe, including the Netherlands, from Hitler?
Again, as an atheist, I can't stand religious politics in america. But don't dump on the whole country. There's a lot of good stuff here.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On March 03 2012 05:45 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:39 meadbert wrote:
With women currently paying for birth control pills the cost is $15-$50 month.
Once women cannot choose to be economical, insurance companies will need to charge enough make a profit even after many women choose the move convenient and expensive options.
This means the total cost could exceed $50/month which is not inconsequential.
The bill in question would not have affected most women, so they would have been forced to pay for expensive contraception whether they wanted it or not. It would have only affected religious institutions where the religion was morally against birth control.
I personally think being morally against birth control is silly at best and potentially dangerous, but I am not going to force someone to pay for that which they do not want. It doesn't necessarily raise premiums.
If it doesn't raise premiums then employers have an active interest in getting their employees on these plans - if money is all that they cared about. I suppose they'd be actively pressing their male employees to get vasectomies and female employees to get their fallopian tubes tied and all other methods of population control.
Clearly that is not the case with religious organizations.
All off this begs the question: Why in the world are the employers involved in their employee's health decisions?
|
On March 03 2012 05:41 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:31 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:29 Chargelot wrote:On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment. I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'. The free exercise clause of the first amendment has case law stating that you can't restrict religions ("unduly burden the practice of religion") without "compelling interest", that is, strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Comparing suicide cults and Catholics because they don't like condoms is silly (ritual human sacrifice, really?). If Catholics claim that it is against their religion to use or provide contraceptives to others, you, and everyone else, needs to listen to why, and there needs to be judicial review into the case if they are forced to pay for contraceptives of others. That's a part of the first amendment, whether you or I like it.
So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, it's something that requires strict scrutiny and the highest level of judicial review. Interesting and thanks for the insight, but again not something you can just call unconstitutional and have any legitimacy unless you're part of the highest judicial levels.
Not to mention being required to provide birth control is likely stretching the use of "unduly burden the practice of religion" since anyone practicing the religion is free to not take birth control.
Besides aren't churches exempt from this anyways?
|
On March 03 2012 05:47 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:45 OsoVega wrote:On March 03 2012 05:42 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. On March 03 2012 05:14 Aeres wrote:
Why is this even up for discussion? It's not right to govern a woman's body in that manner just because one's personal beliefs conflict with how that woman chooses to live her life. It's ridiculous that religion plays such an integral role in how America determines policy.
Also, hi Ashley. :3 What's stupid is when people don't differentiate between religious freedom and making a law based on religion. Government forcing religious entities, private entities, to go against what they believe is wrong and goes against everything America was founded on. Ahh yes what America was founded on argument. Please do tell what was America founded on. I believe it was on not wanting to pay higher taxes for a war that the British had to go into because of the American colonists expansions into the French territories. But then again it's been awhile since I took US history so it's possible that I'm forgetting that call to arms sounded by our founding fathers to protect the rights of a minority religious organization to limit women access to essential healthcare everywhere. Of course the beggest problem with this whole limiting healthcare coverage based on what one believes to be "morally" right is the fact that it goes far beyond contraceptives. Jehova's witnesses wouldn't cover blood transfusion and Christian Scientists wouldn't cover anything whatsoever besides prayer. I mean where do you draw the line? There is no line. Nobody should be forced to cover any health care services. If employees don't like it, they won't work for the employer. So then what would be the point of health insurance?
I'm not saying that insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover things they have agreed to cover. I'm saying employers should be able to offer/not offer whatever health plan/insurance they want to their employees.
|
On March 03 2012 05:54 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 05:41 Chargelot wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:29 Chargelot wrote:On March 03 2012 05:27 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 05:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2012 05:16 Yergidy wrote:
You can already get free birth control from the government and it is not expensive anyway. Forcing religious entities to do something that is against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. What happened to women wanting to take care of themselves? If you want birth control either find an insurance policy that covers it, buy it yourself, or (hey here's a novel idea) DON'T HAVE SEX! It is as simple as that, I don't even know why we are even having a debate on something as stupid as this. What constitutional amendment is being broken? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Basically they are trying to force religious entities the right to exercise freely by imposing it's idea of what is wrong and right on them. They're not restricting the exercise of any religion. The members of religious entities are free to not take birth control. That's like saying a law against ritual human sacrifice is unconstitutional. Not all actions are speech. The first amendment is not "the freedom of speech the end". Please don't over simplify it like that. Hell, the religion part and the freedom of speech part are two entirely different rights granted by the first amendment. I wasn't? I'm saying that it is more complicated than freedom of speech the end. Likewise exercising a religion is not just 'all religions can do anything they want'. The free exercise clause of the first amendment has case law stating that you can't restrict religions ("unduly burden the practice of religion") without "compelling interest", that is, strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review. Comparing suicide cults and Catholics because they don't like condoms is silly (ritual human sacrifice, really?). If Catholics claim that it is against their religion to use or provide contraceptives to others, you, and everyone else, needs to listen to why, and there needs to be judicial review into the case if they are forced to pay for contraceptives of others. That's a part of the first amendment, whether you or I like it. So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, it's something that requires strict scrutiny and the highest level of judicial review. Interesting and thanks for the insight, but again not something you can just call unconstitutional and have any legitimacy unless you're part of the highest judicial levels. Not to mention being required to provide birth control is likely stretching the use of "unduly burden the practice of religion" since anyone practicing the religion is free to not take birth control.
So we agree then, any law forcing someone to do or support something which their religion, whatever it may be, is against the first amendment in accordance to the current interpretations, and any law regarding such things need to be individually picked out by the supreme court and allowed on a law-by-law basis, in much the same way any law forcing an atheist to subscribe to or support a religion would have to be implemented.
I'm glad we understand the first amendment now.
|
besides rape, no abortion period.
^^my opinion might not be yours.
Though companies can't say the supply health care coverage(considering tax returns for the company are had for providing healthcare) if they deny part of health care. And really religion and belief of morally wrong? Thats bullshit.
|
On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception.
This is so fucking insulting, and you clearly know nothing about women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
