Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

1…68101112

Comments

  • inlet13
    inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    How about this example... what if a super-right leaning religious Republican (like Santorum but even more religious) got elected (I know, a huge leap)...

    ...and he banned contraception from being covered by organizations like Planned Parenthood and the like. Would that be bad? Why?
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    inlet13 wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:

    the constitution says that congress should pass no law infringing on expression of religion, but i do not interpret that to mean within policy.

    No offense, but this is one of the funniest posts I've read on here.


    That's exactly what I was thinking.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    bgivens33 wrote:
    _ wrote:
    I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.

    Perfectly fine with that. I certainly wouldn't work at a place like that, but I see no reason to force them to offer benefits they don't want to offer.

    If their benefits are sub-par, nobody is going to want to work there. Should we force businesses to cover OTC drugs? Or are you saying a business can choose not to offer a health benefit due to financial reasons, just not religious reasons? If it is the latter, I do understand your position and it might even have be the more legal side. I still disagree wholeheartedly.

    The policy is about preventive services, not just about contraception. There's a national preventive services task force of medical professionals that has existed for years to recommend which preventive services are most important & effective. This administration is simply requiring most employers to cover the services already recommended. And it DOES allow religious employers to opt out; some people are just saying it doesn't because they don't like the definifition of "religious employer". So it's not really about opting out for religious vs financial reasons. (There isn't a good financial reason to opt out of covering preventive care anyway.)
  • whygohome
    whygohome Posts: 2,305
    WaveCameCrashin wrote:
    All of you libs are nothing but damn hypocrites. You were all up in arms screaming freedom of religion over the mosque at ground zero. But now the gov is forcing catholic churches,hospitals,and colleges to provide contraceptives when in fact Catholics do not believe in contraceptives. This is a complete attack on the constitution and you leftist could care less bcos none of you believe in our constitution unless it supports your beliefs. What next freedom of speech?

    This isn't even about healthcare, it's about forever changing the relationship between the federal gov and us. It's about controlling us. Most of you are to damn blind to see it.

    Disagree.
    1. I was opposed to the Muslim Cultural Center because 9/11 will be a difficult event for New Yorkers and Americans to recover from. We are still dealing with the consequences of that day today, and will be for decades to come. I simply thought that those who wanted to build the cultural center could have understood that this was a delicate issue, and that they could have chosen another spot for the building. Both sides could have acted like adults, but I think those that wanted to build the center---even if it wasn't really right on top of ground zero--could have understood the desires of New Yorkers. Maybe, it is different for some, but as a new Yorker, and as someone who used to walk past Ground Zero everyday on my way to work, I would have appreciated some consideration. This has nothing to do with right or wrong (do they exist?), but simply human compassion and understanding

    2. I am an agnostic. Religion has no role in my life, and I do not feel that any ONE religion that deems itself the "official" religion of a nation that is tolerant of all religions, should play a role in government policy. That being said, I can understand that this is not the best political move. But, if the Catholic church does one of three things, shouldn't it have to comply with federal law?:
    1. run a secular business or institution
    2. receive federal money for health insurance
    3. if the church is involved in the health insurance marketplace, the insured, not the church
    should have the freedom to choose what is covered.
    I do not feel that this is about "controlling us."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,082
    inlet13 wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:

    the constitution says that congress should pass no law infringing on expression of religion, but i do not interpret that to mean within policy.

    No offense, but this is one of the funniest posts I've read on here.
    kind of like you predicting the collapse of the economy, as you did in the other thread...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    inlet13 wrote:
    _ wrote:

    Catholics use contraception at the same rate as non-Catholics, and I think in all the discussion about the free will to not use contraception people are forgetting about the free will of Catholics (and everyone else) TO use contraception.

    No offense, but this shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue. This is the Catholic institutions as employers who are not able to choose what they will and won't cover due to their religious beliefs. They are a private enterprise that should be permitted to do as they please, as they have for decades. No one is forcing anyone to work there or use their goods/services. People have known for years that they weren't covered there. Like they have for years, if they choose to use contraceptives, they may have to pay the twenty-five cents for a condom or hand over the roughly $30 for birth control pills.... Wowweee.

    No offense, but I think THIS shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

    1. Religious employers are exempt. (Some people just don't like the definition of "religious employer". Most people, though, just believe all the bullshit headlines they read & actually believe that there is no exemption.)

    2. Many of them are NOT private enterprises. Many receive taxpayer funding and tax exemptions - because, when it suits their agenda, they claim that they are NOT religious organizations. They can't have it both ways.

    3. People can't just quit their job (and possibly have to move out of town) every time a new person takes over & wants to impose their religion on everyone. That's not realistic.

    4. No, oftentimes people have not known for years that they weren't covered. How can they know for years if the policy can change on a whim?

    5. Your last sentence demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of contraception as a public health issue. First of all, condomns are a shitty form of contraception. The best forms of contraception cost upwards of $1000. Secondly, regardless of how you want to trivialize it (typical attitude though :roll: ), studies have shown time & time again that lack of insurance coverage of contraception is prohibitive to contraceptive use. That's just a fact.
  • whygohome
    whygohome Posts: 2,305
    WaveCameCrashin wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:

    the constitution says that congress should pass no law infringing on expression of religion, but i do not interpret that to mean within policy.

    No offense, but this is one of the funniest posts I've read on here.


    That's exactly what I was thinking.

    I believe he was distinguishing between public and private.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    inlet13 wrote:
    _ wrote:
    No one is forcing anyone to use contraception against their will. But by refusing to allow contraception to be covered, these quasi-religious institutions - you know, the ones that want to be considered religious when it comes time to impose their religion on others but not when it comes time to take taxpayer funding - are forcing their religious beliefs upon all the people who do want to use contraception.

    First... they aren't the one's changing anything. Your boy, Obama is trying to change what they've done for years.

    Second, they are private. They aren't forcing anything upon anyone. They are selling a good/service and people "choose" (are NOT FORCED) to buy it. And those who are employed there CHOOSE to work for a religious institution. What you say here is the equivalent of saying that a seller of any good or service is forcing their beliefs upon buyers who may believe otherwise. It's a really poor argument.

    No, that's not at all what I'm saying. We're not talking about the goods & services sold by a company; we're talking about the healthcare of the company's employees.

    What's been done for years simply is not working. We absolutely have to change it. I can't believe anyone could actually defend the status quo.

    Again, they are not religious institutions, and they are mt necessarily private. Let me ask you this: should employers who are supported by taxpayer funding be exempt?
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    inlet13 wrote:
    _ wrote:
    I know, I know, in theory, people can get contraception even if it's not covered by these institutions. But in reality, that's not the case; lack of insurance coverage is quite prohibitive.

    Umm... condoms are cheap as shit. And birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. Don't exaggerate.

    I'm not exaggerating. This is my field of expertise; I know what I'm talking about. Educate yourself. There are mountains of data to support my claim.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,082
    whygohome wrote:

    2. I am an agnostic. Religion has no role in my life, and I do not feel that any ONE religion that deems itself the "official" religion of a nation that is tolerant of all religions, should play a role in government policy. That being said, I can understand that this is not the best political move. But, if the Catholic church does one of three things, shouldn't it have to comply with federal law?:
    1. run a secular business or institution
    2. receive federal money for health insurance
    3. if the church is involved in the health insurance marketplace, the insured, not the church
    should have the freedom to choose what is covered.
    I do not feel that this is about "controlling us."
    i'll do you one better. the church enjoys tax exempt status. if they want to enter into this fray and claim free expression of religion, i demand that they do what all citizens whose rights are protected under that same bill of rights do, and that is pay taxes.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,082
    whygohome wrote:
    WaveCameCrashin wrote:


    That's exactly what I was thinking.

    I believe he was distinguishing between public and private.
    thank you.

    :D
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    inlet13 wrote:
    _ wrote:
    I want to know whether everyone would be so supportive if all companies owned or operated by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow any of their employees to receive blood transfusions under their health coverage. Or if someone bought the nation's largest employer and suddenly decided no one could circumcise their babies, or whatever. Who here would defend the "rights" of the employers to impose their religious beliefs on people when it's not "just" women's reproductive rights at stake? Or when they, themselves, suddenly had a major health care need that their employer was exempt from covering, and thereby had to face the real world.

    First, let's break down your example. So, you are comparing lack of contraceptives being covered to blood transfusions? Are you even serious? A condom that costs roughly 25 cents, or a pill that costs MAYBE a little north of a $1 each.... to a $10-$100 thousand dollar operation? Seriously?

    Second, let me point out something incredibly obvious... there's a distinction between something being permitted, and then being outlawed... and something being outlawed and then permitted. In other words, this is the way the Catholic church has operated (not covering this). Now, because Barry O. instituted a new law, and you and he think the Catholic church should be forced to change their existing approach. Don't confuse the two. Each example you provided was the opposite where someone within the company comes in and changes their own companies approach. Barry O is trying to change the Catholic church's approach. An approach that is not the equivalent of any of the examples you provided.

    Third, my final point... he will lose here. This is like awakening a sleeping political giant. He's stupid politically for picking this fight. That was my point. Not only will this be overturned, he's going to be losing folks left and right (who do use contraceptives or don't) due to his infringement upon the private sector. This public tentacle stuff is exactly what people fear about him.

    Your argument here is completely illogical & inconsistent with everything you've been saying. Do you or do you not believe that employers should be able to dictate what is covered by their employees' health insurance based upon their own religious beliefs?? If so, you can't just decide when to appl this rule & when not to. My experience is that Jehovah's Witnesses are seriously opposed to blood transfusions, much mre so than Catholics are supposedly opposed to contraception. And if you think it's unjust to impose those religious beliefs on yur employers, you can't seriously say that injustice is acceptable jus because it was already happening. (Wow, that's a new one.)

    Again, no one is saying the Catholic church should be forced to change anything. We're talking about employers that are not churches. Don't confuse the two.

    I can't say whether he'll lose here or not, but I'm sure he'll get extra votes from people who appreciate that he's putting our healthcare above his desire to win an election. If he does lose on this, it'll be a victory of media spin ove reason.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    inlet13 wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    Obama better be real careful here. The Catholic vote is really important. And despite the fact that plenty of Catholics use contraceptives, they do so under their own power and free will. Although they don't follow this rule, these Catholics respect the church's thoughts on the matter - or most likely, they wouldn't be self-proclaimed "Catholics". I think it's pretty logical to see that this is setting up a framework which would forbid Catholics from following their own beliefs. Catholics who use contraceptives and Catholics who don't won't look fondly upon this... especially as this plays out. They understand the difference.

    Obama and Democrats would be best to alter this in any way they can, or they risk losing a ridiculously large demographic.

    Afterall, why forbid Catholic institutions from this? What exactly is gained? When you go to a Catholic institution, you do so under your own free will. No one forces you to.

    This is a huge threshold that's being crossed that steps well beyond religion.
    i don't think obama has to worry about losing the catholic vote from this alone. the church threatened to withold communion from john kerry and catholics still voted for him even though they were warned against it from the catholic church.

    I do. This is the President of the United States actively altering private religious enterprise with public tentacles. This is not a random MA senator running for President. This is happening.

    My point all along is - for what? Really, is this that important? That's my point. He should just back down here. It's not worth the fight. He will lose this fight and it will provide the religious right with the tools they need to to increase turnout, regardless of the Republican candidate. I keep coming back to... why?

    Yes, it really is that important. The United States has THE HIGHEST unintended pregnancy rate in the developed world - and this leads to all kinds of increased negative health outcomes & costs. It's shameful. Conservatives should be happy that this policy will decrease abortion & save money. But instead they'll just spin anything so as to slam Obama. The outrage over this has nothing to do with religion or healthcare; it's purely political partisanship at its worst: Fuck the people as long as I makes the other side look bad. Sad.
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    WaveCameCrashin wrote:
    All of you libs are nothing but damn hypocrites. You were all up in arms screaming freedom of religion over the mosque at ground zero. But now the gov is forcing catholic churches,hospitals,and colleges to provide contraceptives when in fact Catholics do not believe in contraceptives. This is a complete attack on the constitution and you leftist could care less bcos none of you believe in our constitution unless it supports your beliefs. What next freedom of speech?

    This isn't even about healthcare, it's about forever changing the relationship between the federal gov and us. It's about controlling us. Most of you are to damn blind to see it.

    No, no, no... This is just straight up NOT TRUE! (Ugh! I swear, people just belief anything they're told; it's so frustrating.) CHURCHES ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS POLICY.
  • inlet13
    inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    _ wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:


    Umm... condoms are cheap as shit. And birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. Don't exaggerate.

    I'm not exaggerating. This is my field of expertise; I know what I'm talking about. Educate yourself. There are mountains of data to support my claim.

    Prices are your field of expertise? Are you an economist?

    Condoms are max twenty-five cents and birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. As I said. You don't need to be an economist to figure that out.

    I can see you're passionate about this issue, but no offense... you're coming across as a hot head in this thread.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • whygohome
    whygohome Posts: 2,305
    inlet13 wrote:
    _ wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:


    Umm... condoms are cheap as shit. And birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. Don't exaggerate.

    I'm not exaggerating. This is my field of expertise; I know what I'm talking about. Educate yourself. There are mountains of data to support my claim.

    Prices are your field of expertise? Are you an economist?

    Condoms are max twenty-five cents and birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. As I said. You don't need to be an economist to figure that out.

    I can see you're passionate about this issue, but no offense... you're coming across as a hot head in this thread.

    No he's not, dude. I actually think you are both presenting good arguments. I think this is a good conversation to follow.
  • WaveRyder
    WaveRyder Posts: 1,128
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    it just reinforces my position that religion has no business in any policies, business or political, or otherwise...

    From what you wrote here, you probably have a big problem with the first amendment.
    no, but keep it the fuck out of public policy and keep it out of business.

    do you have a problem with my using my first amendment right to say that? :? :?


    are you saying the first amendment shouldnt be considered when making public policy?
    RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,082
    WaveRyder wrote:

    are you saying the first amendment shouldnt be considered when making public policy?
    if religion is involved and it is forcing religious doctrine onto a secular society in that public policy then yes absolutely.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • _
    _ Posts: 6,657
    inlet13 wrote:
    _ wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:


    Umm... condoms are cheap as shit. And birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. Don't exaggerate.

    I'm not exaggerating. This is my field of expertise; I know what I'm talking about. Educate yourself. There are mountains of data to support my claim.

    Prices are your field of expertise? Are you an economist?

    Condoms are max twenty-five cents and birth control (without coverage) is roughly $30 a month. As I said. You don't need to be an economist to figure that out.

    I can see you're passionate about this issue, but no offense... you're coming across as a hot head in this thread.

    My field is reproductive health, including access to birth control and how financial barriers affect use (and also including which methods are more effective, and condoms aren't one of them).

    Thanks for you perspective on how I'm coming across.
  • WaveRyder
    WaveRyder Posts: 1,128
    —'s profession clouds her judgement.
    RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2

Categories