A different way of looking at things...

inmytree

Monster Rain wrote:

inmytree wrote:

the church is not "supporting" anything here...they are being mandated and they can opt out from what I understand...

and the "sin" argument is silly and totally subjective...

for me, health trumps religion...

They can opt out of it now, but it was originally going to be mandated with no exceptions until there was an outcry about it. You think the sin argument is silly because it's not your religion but to many Catholics it is a serious issue--especially to those within the church itself. To them, artificially and intentionally taking steps to prevent pregnancy other than abstinence is a sin. You and I may not believe it, but it's not up to any of us to tell them what to believe. Why should they have to pay for someone to do something they consider a sin just to save that person $9 or $10 per month? I wouldn't ask the church to pay for my condoms so why would I expect them to pay for someone else's birth control pills?

Also, this isn't a health issue (in terms of illness) as much as it is a convenience issue. In this case, insurance would cover birth control if it was prescribed for a medical reason beyond simply not wanting to get pregnant (and there are situations where that happens), so women working for churches wouldn't be denied medical treatment for an illness or other medical issue if birth control is what the doctor prescribes as treatment. For example, a women suffering from ovarian cysts who is not on birth control might be prescribed birth control pills in order to help treat the condition. I know women who have been in that situation and it's a situation that would be covered by any health insurance plan regardless of whether or not birth control pills were normally covered under that plan.

you are not being asked to pay anything...you know that...

it's funny to me that your notion of sin is more important than reality...

it's nice that you "know women who have been in that situation"...do you know all women and all situations...?
again, you're thinking is self centered...there's a big world out there...not everyone is the same..

but I still go back to your constitution argument...this mandate (which should have remained mandatory) does not prevent anyone for personally practicing there beliefs...

I suppose of a religious organization is so upset by this, they have the option to not provide insurance for employees...that would make god happy...

Monster Rain

I never said I was being asked to pay for anyone else's insurance. I said I wouldn't ask the church to pay for my condoms. Those two things aren't even kind of close to being the same. Also, it's not MY notion of sin. It's the religions that view it as a sin--and I don't belong to any of those religions, nor do I believe birth control is a sin. However, that doesn't mean that I can't understand and tolerate their views and defend their rights. You say that it's not a Constitutional violation. I'm not sure how you can view it that way but I don't think I'll change your mind. It doesn't matter, though, because I'm certain that it would have been overturned had it gotten to the point that the Supreme Court was asked to rule on it and I think that's the only reason why the President backed off his initial insistence that churches not be excluded from that rule.

I'm not sure what you're trying to attack in my example where I stated that I know women who have been prescribed birth control for medical reasons other than simply using it as birth control. Obviously not all women need it for more than birth control but pointing that out doesn't prove your argument in any way. If anything, it weakens it because saying that acknowledges that not everyone needs it for anything more than an easy way to avoid pregnancy, but if that's all it's needed for then there's no medical reason why condoms can't be used instead of the pill. I'm simply pointing out that there are situations where women covered under a church's insurance would be able to have birth control covered even if it is not normally covered so if you're argument for forcing churches to pay for it as part of their health plan is that not offering it is somehow a risk to women's health, then your argument isn't very strong because any medical condition requiring those pills as treatment would be covered.

Also, it's misleading and oversimplifying to say, "I suppose of a religious organization is so upset by this, they have the option to not provide insurance for employees...that would make god happy." They don't have the option of not offering health insurance anymore. They only have the option of not covering birth control in their insurance plans. That's a big difference.

inmytree wrote:

you are not being asked to pay anything...you know that...

it's funny to me that your notion of sin is more important than reality...

it's nice that you "know women who have been in that situation"...do you know all women and all situations...?
again, you're thinking is self centered...there's a big world out there...not everyone is the same..

but I still go back to your constitution argument...this mandate (which should have remained mandatory) does not prevent anyone for personally practicing there beliefs...

I suppose of a religious organization is so upset by this, they have the option to not provide insurance for employees...that would make god happy...

markin ball

Tax the churches, please.

EdsonNascimento

markin ball wrote:

Tax the churches, please.

I am not religious.

But, should we tax all Non-profits? Or, are you just choosing the one you don't like?

You see? This is the problem with gov't intervention. Where do you draw the line?