Contraception Coverage Mandate

That's exactly right. Just another example of too much government run amok. The LWers want the government to control EVERYTHING. Why don't they just move to Cuba? I wish they would.

 

Would either one of you two care to define "church environment"?

 

Facilities (church, school, hospital,etc) funded and/or run by the Church?

 

I see. So your church environment doesn't include public schools, the courthouse, or my bedroom. Nor does it include the use of legal medical procedures, methods of contraception, etc by people not of your cult, sect, or denomination. For starters anyway. Just want to make sure I understand you.

 

Not really, you're avoiding answering the question of just which religious belief trumps the other's. If one religion doesn't want the mandate, but another one does, which of the two is catered to under the law? The answer is neither, as in seperation of religion and state.

If you mean the pope says so maybe, but if you mean all catholics you're dead wrong. Individuals make up a religion, and there is always a range of beliefs within any large group belief. The leaders of a religion may want one thing from their "flock", but the "flock" may tell them to go "flock" themselves.

Now, instead of whining like little babies all the time, you people wanting no part of the mandate could be successfully fighting for an "opt out" provision to be included. But nooooo, you people just want to whine instead. Babies.

One thing though, while I'd have no problem with people being able to "opt out" of the mandate, I wouldn't want to see them allowed to "opt back in" without paying a penalty, such as a fee or fine, and/or a waiting period ...say half a year or more... where they pay for a period of time before they can get the benefit.

See how working towards a solution for a problem is better than being all whiny about it is? I know it's not a characteristic of republicans, but instead of whining and stamping your feet, why don't you figure out a soution that both sides can compromise on? Is it that freakin' hard?

 

I avoided answering your question? The only way you can believe that is because you did not read post #98.

OK, so it is the Catholic Church that does not believe in contraception. Whether of not the member choose to follow the Church's lead is absolutely totally immaterial. The members belong to the Church willingly and follow at their discretion. Again, you are the one mandating that they change their religion to suit your desires. The Constitution was written specifically to prevent the government from controlling or even attempting to influence any religion - exactly what Sebelius is trying to do. Again, you really need to listen to/watch (whichever floats your boat) that video. You might honestly learn something. Just because you do not believe in, like, agree with, condone, or even understand the practice is not make an exception to the Constitution.

 

Misconceptions abound in your argument. I did read your post. It didn't answer the question IMO. The question dealt with law. I'll put it another way: Which religion should law abide by? Again, the answer is the law doesn't abide by either. Another misconception is you are assuming a church is an individual, as only individuals can purchase the insurance, Yes, a group may get together and purchase insurance at a cheaper rate, but the insurance itself is applied individually. Not all members of every religion agree to follow their leaders without protest, that should be obvious since you are protesting against your leaders. I am not mandating anyone change their religion, to even say so is ridiculous.

Again, I'd support a provision within the law to allow those who wish to opt out of the contraception prevention mandate under certain restrictions.

It is an individual choice to use contraceptives, and what you are demanding is that certain religious people who use contraceptives be prevented from having it covered by their insurance.

So the question is: If an exemption were allowed in the law so that people belonging to religious organizations would not be covered, would you support an "opt in" clause for those religious people who may want the coverage, or are you adamant they can't have it?

 

OK, which part of that neither did you miss?

Yes, there are misconceptions here. No one is forcing (yet, at least) anyone to USE contraception. However, the Church is being forced to buy contraception for all of its employees. And your plan mandates that the Church do so. That is the government forcing religious beliefs on a Church. PERIOD!

 

Any impartial observer would agree with this. If the government is forcing a mandate on a religious institution, then the government is, therefore, regulating religion. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Sebilius, for one (along with the rest of the Obama Administration) doesn't adhere to that philosophy.

 

Holy crap, are you nuts lol ...I try to give you the chance at being reasonable and you ignore it! You made no mention what-so-ever on my suggestion of including an opt-out and/or opt-in clause in the law. That suggests to me you aren't interested in compromising, just like your republican counterparts in Congress.

What? I'm sorry, but that sentence isn't making much sense to me. I'd hazard a guess, but the last few times I have you dissed me afterwards, even though I consider those responses to-the-point.

Agreed. The argument is about law versus religious rights. Your point-of-view is that religions have the right to not be covered by laws they don't believe in. My point-of-view is that religious people must follow the law. I go further to say that the law can include specific exemptions for religious people if they bring their case to Congress and successfully argue their case, something you have not yet commented on. I believe that would be a fair solution to the issue.

"yet"?

I am leaning towards saying you believe contraception also implies abortion, since people on this site like you have confused the two in the past. Just to be sure though, the fact is that contraceptives help prevent the need for abortions.

In any case, it's obvious you fear government intrusion. I've seen enough crazy beliefs from all manner of people to understand that it is not a unique occurance to have fear for just about anything. Yet, the "fear" of government intrusion into our daily lives tends to be a republican quirk, as it's much more frequent amongst righties than in most other groups.

One trait fear breeds is a reduction in the ability to reason, which explains a lot of republican behavior.

Untrue. That's your fear talkin'. No one is being forced to buy contraception.

Again, you're letting your fear of government intrusion cloud your ability to reason. For one thing... it not my plan. Secondly, the law mandates that all people pay into a plan that allows people who wish to use contraceptives have them paid by the plan.

The government isn't forcing anyone to believe anything. What you (or coin) should be whining about is it's "socialism!" aspect. Instead, you can't distance yourself from the religious angle...which is even more pointless than the socialism aspect.

 

You have a whole bunch of words there and you have totally missed the point. And, yes, I made mention what-so-ever on my suggestion of including an opt-out and/or opt-in clause in the law. I is;

It mandates that the Church pay for someone else's contraception. That is the government forcing their religion on another Church. Now, if you would go back and listen/watch that video, you might actually have an intelligent comment. "My point-of-view is that religious people must follow the law." - go to the video. Until that sinks in, we cannot communicate on two entirely different subjects especially when you are advocating violating the Constitution. I cannot condone that. And, despite your apparent beliefs, that is exactly what you are doing. Listen to the tape even if you don't want to watch it.

 

Want to know a major flaw in your argument? If the government cannot enforce laws on religious people what do you get? The answer is chaos. Under your assumption, that the government cannot dictate law to religious people, anyone can claim anything under the guise of religion. As an example: Say a person kills someone, but claims it's his/her religious belief that allows for him/her to do so and the government has no right to interfere.

The government has the right to make law. All people under it's jurisdiction are bound by that law, although there are some exceptions, and those exceptions are stated. Religious people have the right to contest all or portions of a particular law. Congress has the ability to add certain exemptions to the law to satisfy religious people. Another route may be to have a judge declare the exemptions, if he determines they have merit during a trial.

Bottom line, if you want the law changed to account for your religious belief write your congressman/woman and ask him/her to bring it up in Congress. Social networking sites are a good tool to help bring awareness to the issue, but make sure your accusations are correct, otherwise your chances of successfully including the exclusions in the law will be diminished.

Basically, get your facts right, and then lobby to have an exclusion added to the law. Right now, you are not getting your facts right.

 

I don't see it that way.

Not really, unless your argument is that the church itself is an individual. I consider most "churches" to be organizations and businesses. As such, an organization may provide insurance to it's employees, but I don't consider it an individual entity... although the law might. If the law of the land does consider a church to be an individual, there are options the church can pursue to lobby for an exemption in the law.

The government isn't a religion. Religions must follow the laws created by the government (with exceptions).

Don't be a penis.

You could always post the relevant points you want to make that are in the video, a short description of the point would suffice, a sentence or two... instead of being so vague about it.

 

OK, you refuse to listen to it, try reading it. Especially, note the part I bolded - and teh courts vote.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/04/video-sebelius-gets-schooled-on-health-care/

 

Thank you. I saw some of this on TV.

Steps have been taken to address religious concerns over the issue:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...blunt-amendment-to-kill-birth-control-mandate

Three months ago, the White House stated churches will be exempt: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012...reventive-services-and-religious-institutions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

So...why is this an issue?

 

You do not understand how insurance works. The churches have been exempted from directly paying, but they still must have insurance that covers contraception. Problem is, any company of any size self insures. Therefore, the churches are still paying for the contraception let alone paying for insurance that pays for the contraception. So actually they have been exempted from nothing and, in effect, no steps have been taken.

 

Do you really have to resort to vulgarity all the time? When you're not calling someone a name like this, you're referring to having sex or how easily you're sexually aroused. You, Moen and Takiji aren't the only ones reading your posts (believe it or not) and I doubt anyone but the three of you are getting a thrill out of reading them. There are family members and youngsters here who read these, too. Why do you find it necessary to be so vulgar? If you don't already know (and I'll presume you don't), vulgarity bespeaks a lack of intellect of which you are quite capable of revealing without resorting to vulgarity.

 

I think the point the RW'ers here can't seem to argue against is one I have brought up many times but they just seem to ignore it because they just have no answer. As I've said, sure the Catholic Church is against contraception, most likely because they want to create as many little Catholics as possible. Good for them! However, 98% of Catholic women seem to ignore the position of their Church and use or have used contraception in spite of what their religion of choice dictates.
OK, now we as a country are in a position of either backing 98% of American Catholic women that choose to use contraception or we can enforce the Catholic Churches dictates and withhold coverage from our citizens. Hum? Tough choice....I say that we go with the choices of our citizens and say to hell with the backwards Catholic Church and their pre-enlightenment philosophies. Are we American first or Catholics first? The answer seems simple.

 

This highlights the problem with RW'ers. While comparing people’s behaviors to any sex organ is never to first course of action we should take, the anatomically correct word for the male genital is "penis" and while there are plenty of vulgar words for that organ, penis isn’t one of them. You look over that long post and pick out the one word that offends you, repost it, and then jump on your soapbox to protect “the family members and youngsters”. I think that the RW’er personal discomfort with any sexual or sexually related topic like gays, women’s contraception issues, abortion, or just simply using the correct word to describe any sex organ automatically sends them flying atop their moral soapboxes to lecture the rest of us and of course to save “the family members and youngsters”. Maybe it is really your own discomfort with sexuality that you guys should be dealing with instead of lecturing the rest of us about our quite normal comfort with topics of sex. You guys are like adults that never matured past the giggly 17-year old awkward pubescent stage and now we have to listen to your moralizing as a result. Grow-up, bend forward, pull open your pants and look inside your panties, it’s called a penis and you should either get used to it or consider transgender surgery.

 

On the public airwaves and on games scenes of people getting shot, blown to bloody pieces, dismembered, raped and maimed are not vulgarity in the RW mind. But when it comes to things like uncovered boobs, sex of any sort, esp same sex, or someone saying c*nt or f*ck or even penis or vagina on the screen or in print there is outrage. And how could it be otherwise? We have our priorities. We're not like other places. This is a Christian country after all.