Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

WaveRyder · February 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

and i was just starting to think you were a man of integrity.

bjo1015 · February 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

—'s profession clouds her judgement.

I would have to say her profession gives her argument validity.

Just a question for those of you saying that contraception without insurance costs as little as $30 a month...do you pay for birth control such as the pill, IUD, or any other form out of pocket without insurance? I pay an average of $25 a month WITH insurance.

Here is a cost comparison of contracptive methods on total cost and monthly. Yes, some may be as little as $30 a month, but methods such as the pill are less effective and still lead to unplanned pregnancies compared to more effective methods such as an IUD.

http://avoidthestork.com/get-a-quote/cost-comparison/

_ · February 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

—'s profession clouds her judgement.

gimmesometruth27 · February 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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.

and i was just starting to think you were a man of integrity.

what about me wanting to keep religion out of the public policy arena makes me lack integrity??

:?

mickeyrat · February 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

the government should protect religious freedom, not oppress it.

thats the one part of the healthcare bill i cant defend.
ill leave it at that.

umm, it still does protect religious fredom. But as an employer there shouldn't be a different standard.

im not clear as to what you mean.... sincerely. Are you meaning that the government and employers should be held to the same standard?

what this provision is stating is that a church as AN EMPLOYER must offer/cover BC in its insurance package.IS it not? Same as any other business entity. THATS what I was refering to. IT has nothing to do with exercising ones religious freedom. Should the employee chose to not excercise that provision based on ther beliefs, so be it. In my view it should be offered as a possibility.

_ · February 2012

mickeyrat wrote:

what this provision is stating is that a church as AN EMPLOYER must offer/cover BC in its insurance package.IS it not? Same as any other business entity. THATS what I was refering to. IT has nothing to do with exercising ones religious freedom. Should the employee chose to not excercise that provision based on ther beliefs, so be it. In my view it should be offered as a possibility.

Quick point of clarification: Actual churches are exempt.

SweetChildofMine · February 2012

An person has a right to refuse that particular service. But denying those their right based solely on your belief is not your problem nor for you to judge. Religious groups limiting someone on their choice is still oppression but you still have to give people choice to use the option. It is not up to a person to decide what another does with his or her life unless it is directly effecting your life in a serious negative manner. Even at that, the choice they make can still be out of your control.

Thats the magic term "control"...

If you are not using birth control then why worry if others do and are adverse to them using it. You cannot prevent a person's personal choice. Are you prepared to take care of the all children whom are unwanted? I would say no you are not, high rates of child abuse and lack of foster homes tells me you cannot have a say for other people on what should be allowed in bringing more children into this world with or without use birth control.

Teaching responsibility is key.

Also demanding abstinence is failure.

_ · February 2012

How is this requirement any different than any other requirements placed on employers for the welfare of their staff? Are all those other requirements unconstitutional too? Perhaps the whole labor movement is unconstitutional.

WaveRyder · February 2012

‎"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." – Milton Friedman

_ · February 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

‎"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." – Milton Friedman

"I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells."
- Dr. Seuss

Jason P · February 2012

I was watching coverage of this issue on the news last night. After about ten minutes, I had to get up and check my calendar to confirm it was indeed the year 2012.

mikepegg44 · February 2012

Jason P wrote:

I was watching coverage of this issue on the news last night. After about ten minutes, I had to get up and check my calendar to confirm it was indeed the year 2012.

cincybearcat · February 2012

_ wrote:

Perhaps the whole labor movement is unconstitutional.

Now here is a great topic. Start the thread, I'm in.

WaveRyder · February 2012

_ wrote:

And I don't know a single other person who thinks it's a bad policy, so your coworkers opinions are moot.

apparently you dont know anyone IN the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/policy-politics-c ... -news.html

josevolution · February 2012

http://www.drudge.com/news/153276/walsh ... traception

WaveRyder · February 2012

‎"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other." – Voltaire

iamica · February 2012

inlet13 wrote:

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

Sorry, I have to respond to this one, I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, but around here, packs of some birth control pills can run anywhere from $50-80 a month, depending on what kind you're getting. They're not that cheap.

_ · February 2012

iamica wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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

Sorry, I have to respond to this one, I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, but around here, packs of some birth control pills can run anywhere from $50-80 a month, depending on what kind you're getting. They're not that cheap.

I think your signature (the first part) is quite relevant to your post.

SweetChildofMine · February 2012

http://mediamatters.org/research/201202080008

New Polls Show Catholic Support for Contraceptive coverage

Dumb is as Dumb gets further on the same page RWNJ "Comparing forcing Jews to Eat Pork."

C'mon. nobody is forcing the pills down your throat. If I am covered by insurance and refuse treatment for my cancer, I reserve that right to refuse that part of my service from my healthcare provider.

Propaganda scam. Wish this over blown delusional Right wing fucking nightmare would stop.

_ · February 2012

SweetChildofMine wrote:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201202080008

New Polls Show Catholic Support for Contraceptive coverage

Dumb is as Dumb gets further on the same page RWNJ "Comparing forcing Jews to Eat Pork."

C'mon. nobody is forcing the pills down your throat. If I am covered by insurance and refuse treatment for my cancer, I reserve that right to refuse that part of my service from my healthcare provider.

Propaganda scam. Wish this over blown delusional Right wing fucking nightmare would stop.

I think a better analogy would be if Jewish employers forbid their employees from using their paychecks to buy pork.

Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

Comments

Categories