Job creation at it's finest !!!
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
For f*&K sake....has he nothing better to do ??
Please tell me we will be seeing the tail end of some of these guys. Pandering fools !
Please tell me we won't talk about politics here. Politics is everywhere on the WWW, whereas there are relatively few good book sites. . . .
From the front page:
Pro and ConLet's talk politics here.
So you don't think it's a judicious use of time for Congress to defend the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom?
As always, the thorniest issues are those in grey areas.
When a church chooses to eschew volunteer labor from within their ranks, and pay for labor, they enter the public arena. There have been (and are) churches that preach all sorts of things. If the Westboro Baptist Church started a recycling business, should they have a right to exclude ex-military people from applying for a job, because such people were fighting to uphold a Godless society?
And 'religious freedom' is also a interesting area. If a majority of any group, be it a business, a school, or a government office, believe one thing, should they have the right to deny access to information forbidden to members of their faith to others?
Of course, in this case, it's being claimed that the churches are being forced to pay for something they don't believe in. Of course, if a pacifistic church (Quakers) refused to pay their taxes because it supported an unjust conflict, would that be oppressing their religious freedom?
First and foremost this is not "freedom of religion" this is lunacy of religion. When 98 % of the women practicing the Catholic faith are using birth control, it would make sense if the men in the flowing robes were to be checking out as to why this is so.
Perhaps the dictates are out dated. Families of children are no longer wiped out by the Black Plague, or a flu epidemic. They do not die of sepsis when the break a bone, nor on assembly lines in some miserable factory (although Mr Gingrich wouldn't mind culling the herd in this manner). The "be fruitful and multiply" decree is out dated, impractical and putting women in a crappy position (of course)
98% of Catholic women are not "living" their faith. They are picking and choosing. With that large of majority I believe that the Church has lost the right to dictate birth control issues for anyone.
The law does not apply to the Church itself. It is meant to cover women who work for Catholic universities, hospitals and charities, all of which employ many women who are not Catholic. Many of these institutions make use of government funds in various ways. If you take you better be able to give.
Nobody is forcing Catholics to TAKE birth control, although it doesn't look as if they need any forcing. It would seem that there is plenty "freedom" of religion....it is the wishy washy hypocrisy of this issue and the willingness of some lawmakers to make a talking point of it that is so disturbing.
So in answer to your question:
"So you don't think it's a judicious use of time for Congress to defend the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom"
I do not think this is judicious use of time for Congress. This is a BS issue.
I do not think this is judicious use of time for Congress. This is a BS issue.
Given the rather amplified reaction of the Church, I think they would beg to differ. Not to mention that there are a number of Catholics who are against the Church's stance on contraception who have spoken out against the government's position here. I think labeling it as a "BS issue" is greatly underestimating how important a fairly high proportion of the population considers this issue to be.
Really ? A high proportion of the population considers this issue important ? Going to have to try to find some statitics on this.
" Catholics who are against the Church's stance on contraception who have spoken out against the government's position here."
The church is exempt. If Church run institutions want to make use of government funds, they should have to comply with that government's laws.
The Catholic church should have dealt with this issue themselves before this even came up....we don't live in the dark ages. They look foolish taking a stance on something that is almost totally disregarded by it's members.
Yes and some States had laws in place already. This is a BS issue and Boenner is wasting time pandering to tiny bit of his base. This is election year garbage. Has absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of religion"
The church is exempt. If Church run institutions want to make use of government funds, they should have to comply with that government's laws.
But what if, as in this instance, there is a way of dealing with the situation that does not violate the religious freedom of the religious institution in question? The government itself could provide the coverage for contraceptive use.
7> You pass right by all the thoughtful points in posts #5 and #6 and take that as the piece you want to respond to? I don't believe that you want to have a serious discussion at all.
Forget the religion thing. Whose idiotic idea was it for contraception to be a health insurance mandate? What next? Mandatory coverage of oil changes by auto insurers? For the love of rising prices...
My initial response was to faceinbook's original contention that dealing with this is a waste of time, so those other points, which deal with the positive or negative aspects of the policy itself, are of no consequence to me. There are many people, including myself, who take freedom of religion to be a very serious matter. And there are many people who believe that this issue falls squarely in the realm of religious freedom as an issue. As such, I, and numerous others, don't think it's a waste of time.
A law requiring contraceptive coverage has been on the books in Arizona for years. The Dignity Health group of three Catholic hospitals has provided such coverage since 1997. No one filed a free exercise claim about that law. (Note; the Dignity Health group recently disassociated itself from the Catholic Church, but operated for years as Catholic hospitals and provided the required coverage).
Twenty-seven other states have similar laws. In 2004, the California Supreme Court rejected a challenge to their version of this law brought by Catholic Charities concluding that the state can enact employment laws to protect workers, even if these laws conflict with the employers' religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Catholic Charities' appeal.
New York's highest court rejected a similar claim by Catholic Charities on grounds that the law didn't target religious beliefs and that a broad public interest is served by addressing gender disparities in medical costs. This is not a new question, and has been tested many times already. If a law is generally applicable, then the free exercise clause does not allow you to avoid its application. See, for example, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
What is the insurance aspect of covering contraception with health insurance, if insurance is designed to pool funds of many to cover the costs of a catastrophe that will happen to a few.
" And there are many people who believe that this issue falls squarely in the realm of religious freedom as an issue. "
That is what they want you to feel. They've done their job well !
This is just such a foolish point to use to "cry" about. Do the statistics mean anything to you ?
The Church receives money from it's members, the members are not following this particular dictate of the church at a margin of 98 to 2. Is it not a bit hypocritical to decide that the few at the top can decide that the 98 are wrong and that they can make the decisions what to do with the funds, provided by the 98 %, no matter what the majority is doing ?
The Catholic church takes government funds....those funds come from everyone in this country Catholic or not If the Catholic church hires people to work in places that benefit from those funds....who are they to deny the workers birth control care ? look at it like this : the Church is going to have to give some of the funds, taken from tax payers, back in the form of a pill.
Personally, I don't want any of my tax payer dollars going to any religious organization, especially private schools, and most especially to a religion that insists on operating on principles founded in the dark ages, against my principles. Where is my freedom ?
If you do not believe in birth control, well then do not use birth control. When you continue to support something that you do not believe in (the Catholic church as it opposes birth control) as is evident by the fact that 98% do not believe in the birth control hooey, then you have to be prepared to run into situations such as this......a situation that makes the church look foolish.....which they are "free" to do.
When I was young, very few insurance companies covered birth control...of any kind. Paid for all of my own.
Not sure why the change was made but it makes sense if insurance covers pregnancies, it is far better covering birth control than not. Birth control pills are not that expensive. It makes fiscal sense.
Can't get going on this subject as I get steamed a bit.....Viagra came out, somehow I believe that insurance had to cave on the birth control issue due in part to this. How could insurance continue to deny women care pertaining to sexual conduct when they covered Viagra for men ? Makes my head hurt to think it took something like this but I believe it to be part of the answer.
Wonder if the Catholic Church insurance covers Viagra ? That would be meddling in the will of God I would think.
The statistics don't matter to me in terms of whether or not this is an important issue that would possibly necessitate the use of Congressional time and resources to address it.
Your original post was that the issue was not important to you, ergo, Congress should not be addressing it. My point is that there are others in this country who think differently than you do. Perhaps knowledge of that fact might lead you to have a greater understanding of why there are members of Congress who feel that it is a judicious use of their time to address this issue. Calling such members of Congress "pandering fools" is unwarranted and only feeds into the poisonous discourse that has already lowered the level of civility in this country to a dangerous level. Perhaps being able to see the issue from another person's point of view would give you an appreciation for why such members of Congress feel a need to deal with this.
Disagreeing with a policy is one thing, but attacking the motives of those one does not agree with is what has gotten us to the point where the two parties in Washington cannot agree on anything for fear of being labeled as sell-outs.
The point of view is control, of course. And since there are people who want that control, and are willing to both vote on control and donate money towards promoting that control, Congress will at least look at the issue. Depending on how many people are against the issue, Congress may not follow through; but it's hardly 'pandering' to look at an issue that some of your constituents (and, more importantly, campaign contributors) are concerned with. (It's definitely self-interested; but it's unreasonable to expect any people, elected or not, to fail to consider their own interests.)
If you believe that Boenner really cares about this matter.....than you are deserving of the government we have.
This is blatantly a political ploy ! Another shot in the "war on religious freedom". Did you read the links ?
Sorry, but you seem to be ignoring most of the facts and focusing on one small aspect of this debate that "the government is trying to tell the Catholic Church what to do" (excuse me but 98% of Catholic women are already telling the Catholic church what to do)...forgetting that this is a "hot button" issue, a deeply flawed stance for life in the 21st century and it has been brought to light just prior to an election.
By becoming out raged, one feeds into the "fear" mongering political postering we call "leadership" today.
>20: I think you may have turned the 98% thing into its own meme that you are exploiting as a blatantly political ploy. But I will let a Catholic woman offer her own take on it: http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2012/02/that-98-thing.html
"I think you may have turned the 98% thing into its own meme that you are exploiting as a blatantly political ploy. But I will let a Catholic woman offer her own take on it:"
Her "own take on it" is basically just a big "no true Scotsman" argument.
Just because people take an issue seriously does not mean that they are "outraged" or that they have been whipped up by "fear mongering."
My suspicion is that you only believe that to be the case because you don't agree with the stance that's being taken. The ability to step into the shoes of those who hold contrary views to yours is not just important for civil discourse, it's absolutely vital. Without it, respectful disagreement cannot exist, and democracy cannot exist without respectful disagreement.
For crying out loud. My mother in law is a devout Catholic, had six kids bing bang boom..... She told me she is a sinner....bound for hell because after the sixth child she had a break down and snuck off to a doctor who wasn't Catholic to get herself some birth control pills.
This is sick....this is not about God ,compassion, love, or the well being of her family or any family for that matter...this is about power and control. This is also about sexism, veiled but prevelent...men made up the rules, women must follow.
Put the 98% number aside......doesn't matter. Women are using birth control against the dictates of the church, they do this for a reason and since I believe MANY of them do so, there just might be a valid reason.
Something the church should address before our politicians turn it into a "hot button" issue. Oh dear...too late !
Such hogwash is beyond my comprehension.
>22: I see. So if a Roman Catholic woman argues against the whole 98% meme, she's just wrong and shouldn't be listened to. Because obviously, non-Catholics who are just repeating a statistic they read somewhere know more about the Catholic religion than a practicing Roman Catholic woman does. Right.
I didn't want to have to go on the record about this, but it seems that, for the sake of the discussion, I must. While I think that having sex willy-nilly, outside of marriage and with any person who comes along and strikes your fancy is wrong and sinful; I do not think that contraception is a sin if used responsibly and within the bounds of marriage.
There will be many circumstances where the most responsible action for a married couple is to wait to have children or to stop having children. On the one side, if a couple is not financially ready to take care of a child, they should wait. On the other side, there may well come a point where continuing to have children becomes too risky, either financially or medically. I do not think that using contraception in these limited circumstances is a sin.
In other words, if you're a college student who uses contraception so you can sleep around without getting pregnant, I think you are committing a sin, because you are abusing your sexuality. But if you are a married couple trying to be responsible with your child bearing, then using contraception can be a responsible choice, not a sin.
All of that being said: I still think it's a violation of a Catholic's free exercise of religion to force them against their conscience to provide insurance coverage for something they think is a sin. The HHS mandate isn't about whether artificial contraception is sinful or not; it's about whether the government is going to violate a Catholic institution's conscientious objection to paying for it.
Again. One point and one point only.
To my way of thinking, you are being used for political purposes.
"My suspicion is that you only believe that to be the case because you don't agree with the stance that's being taken. The ability to step into the shoes of those who hold contrary views to yours is not just important for civil discourse, it's absolutely vital. Without it, respectful disagreement cannot exist, and democracy cannot exist without respectful disagreement"
The stance in part, is about birth control, let those who do not and have never used it, speak out.
This is also about the Church losing it's dictate in favor of a dictate from the government. Both dictating an issue that is hypocritical since the followers of the Church in question ignore the dictate from the church.
Nothing wrong with democracy but there is a great deal wrong with hypocrisy !
Then the church should refrain from taking funds from the government to support the various businesses in question. In a small way, my money is funding these businesses, I am not Catholic and I believe that women should have the right to use contraceptives. Where does my say come into this arguement ?
Fine...make your own rules but use your own money to implement them not mine !
27: So if 75% of all people started cheating on their taxes, would that all of a sudden make it right? The government "dictates" that you are not allowed to cheat on your taxes; but since a supermajority of people thinks it's okay, the government's dictate has now become "hypocritical", right?
Just because most people do something that's wrong, does not all of a sudden make it right.
Does anyone recognize how sexist this is ? Anyone ??? This is the 21st century !
>30: Can you please explain your point further? What, precisely, is sexist about it?
So this means that you believe that birth control is wrong and that people using it are doing so wrongfully ?
>33: For my views on contraception, see my post 26 above. In short, I think that contraception can be sinful or responsible, depending on the circumstances. If you are using birth control so you can sleep around without consequences, then it is sinful, because you are abusing your sexuality. If you are a married couple trying to be responsible about when you have children, then it can be a responsible choice.
But my point in 29 is that, just because a majority of people think something is okay, doesn't mean that it is, in fact, morally right. Moral right and wrong are not determined by votes. Otherwise, the majority of people in Germany who supported the Nazis thereby made their actions morally correct. Likewise, the majority of Americans who supported slavery in the first half-century or more of this country's existence would have thereby made slavery morally correct. By your argument, Kennedy and LBJ were hypocrites for trying to enforce civil rights legislation in parts of the country that were vehemently opposed to it.
All of it, the whole shee bang. The Catholic Church is guilty of sexism in so many ways.
True story :
Friend not Catholic, married a Catholic. Upset the priest but he was satisfied when she "converted". Five kids and one abortion. Man was an alcoholic, friend worked hard to feed and cloth five kids. Begged her husband to seek help. They finally went to see the priest....his advice ? Tells the husband to annul the marriage and find a nice Catholic girl, If he had done that in the first place he wouldn't be having problems now.
This is not made up ! No birth control, no abortions, no where for a woman to go but to a man whose advice is to make her children bastards in the eyes of the church.
What about that little story is not sexist....there are tons of these stories...the Catholic sex scandal is all about sexism, only far sicker than what they perpetuate against women.
Catholics and religions in general would do well to look at why it is they are so interested in the sexual lives of their followers. Faith should provide a set of morals and standards but it seldom stops there, seems some religions feel the need to micro manage this aspect of peoples lives.
Oh and I checked....the insurance that doesn't want to cover birth control, does cover Viagra. of course it does.
"So if a Roman Catholic woman argues against the whole 98% meme, she's just wrong and shouldn't be listened to."
No. Her argument boils down to "those people you're counting aren't really Roman Catholics because they aren't pure enough for me". That's the "no true Scotsman"argument.
I don't think the 98% figure has much content, or that it matters in any event. But her "reasoning" is specious at best.
>35: And when I respond with an anecdote about a Planned Parenthood clinic failing to report that a teenager's pregnancy that they terminated originated because she was being sexually abused by a family member: does such an anecdote "prove" that Planned Parenthood is entirely and thoroughly corrupt?
There is a vast difference between the actual teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals and the despicable behavior of fallible and sinful priests like the one in your story. Has the Church had problems with sexism and abuse? Of course; but so have most non-ecclesiastical institutions. Witness just this week the sexual abuse scandal in the L.A. public schools, or Jerry Sandusky at Penn State.
But there are very good reasons, far apart from sexist and abusive behavior, for the Catholic Church's teaching on sexual morals. Sexuality is a gift from God with two intertwined purposes: procreation (in which we literally follow His image within us in creating new life) and the union of souls (like procreation, a reflection of the union between Christ and the Church). As such, it is only and properly exercised within the bounds of marriage, as an act of love that communicates love between husband and wife and, eventually, shares that love in producing a child.
Thus, decreeing that artificial contraception destroys the balance of those intertwined purposes (by denying the procreative essence of sexual union) is not "sexist". Rather, it is an attempt to understand and practice, rather than abuse and deceive, the proper love between man and woman.
"I still think it's a violation of a Catholic's free exercise of religion to force them against their conscience to provide insurance coverage for something they think is a sin. The HHS mandate isn't about whether artificial contraception is sinful or not; it's about whether the government is going to violate a Catholic institution's conscientious objection to paying for it."
It's funny that DePaul, Georgetown, and numerous other Catholic universities disagree with you. As do a number of Catholic hospitals that already offer their employees such coverage.
>36: I will state again (since I think I've stated it twice already): just because my own views on the morality of contraception within marriage do not match those of the Roman Catholic Church (since I agree with them on sex outside of marriage), does NOT mean that I therefore support the Obama administration running roughshod over the conscientious objections of the Church. To paraphrase Rousseau, "Though I do not agree with your faith, I will defend to the death your right to believe it."
39: I don't know how much you have followed over the years the IMMENSE battles that have raged between the Catholic Church proper and Catholic educational institutions, but it's nothing new, nor is it particularly surprising. I'm reminded of the outcry over the "Notre Shame" incident a few years ago when the University had President Obama speak at commencement. I was a graduate student at Notre Dame, living on campus, at the time; and the buzz of the airplane that circled overhead for a month dragging an anit-abortion banner behind it nearly drove me crazy.
It was also well-known amongst the graduate students that the Notre Dame health center would prescribe birth control pills, but only for actual medical conditions (i.e. for women whose health was at risk from overly heavy periods, etc.), and that "acne prevention" could at times qualify.
41: Which is a clear indication that this whole brohaha isn't really about the outrage of Catholics about their institutions being forced to provide contraception. It is about the Catholic hierarchy making a fuss over a battle they lost already. And a battle in which the Church's own members by and large seem to have taken the opposite side from the hierarchy.
Or to put it another way; it's a control issue. (As I stated before.)
And control issues, by their nature, are political. Understanding why someone wants control, and the methods by which they seek to retain (or regain) control are, I think, important, even if (or rather, especially if) you oppose that control.
The Catholic hospitals employ people who are not Catholic. This is the Catholic church seeking to impose their belief system on people who are not of their faith. It should not be an issue -- the employees who are Catholic would either obey their church, or not, as their conscience dictates. As would the non-Catholic women employed by the hospitals. No one is forcing anyone to use birth control.
This reminds me of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". People instantly began referring to "the homosexualization of the military" as if being gay were somehow now required of military personnel.
If you are a Catholic woman, you will not be forced to use birth control. You still have the right to freely practice your religion.
>44: But take the argument one step further. If HHS were to mandate that all health insurance plans must cover abortion, would you thus require Catholic institutions to pay for insurance coverage of abortions?
Next thing you know, they're going to say that you can't discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of race. We're on the road to ruin.
The true colors of the Catholic church. They want everyone exempted from the rule.
"In short, Catholic bishops are saying that federal laws shouldn’t apply to anyone who claims to have a religious objection to them."
That, I think, is the most relevant passage from the link above.
I wonder if the Catholic Church would be so sanguine about that position if the Ku Klux Klan decided to support that interpretation as well.
>40 " does NOT mean that I therefore support the Obama administration running roughshod over the conscientious objections of the Church."
Going to ask you again did you read any of the links in this thread ? Please see post #8
Nobody is running roughshod over anything or anybody except the three Republican candidtates who seem to be making up stuff, inventing a President who does not exist and then running roughshod at the mouth with trumped up indignation...all three of them have dropped the issue of the economy like a hot potato and jumped on this issue like rabid dogs. Do you think this is an accident ?
People such as yourself jump on the bandwagon which only serves to deflect from the real problems of this country. Do not let people use you in this manner. Read the links.
Your faith based stance on birth control and sexual conduct is admirable but it is YOUR opinion. I should not have to pay tax dollars to support your religious beliefs.
If a major portion of Catholic women are not following the decree of their faith, the Catholics have a problem. The Obama administration is not fighting a war on their religion, the Catholic faith is being attacked from within. One would think that this is a problem of far greater importance than what they perceive to be attacks from the government. Until they deal with the fact that what they proclaim to BE and what they really are, they look foolish.
How is it so many people are standing up for something they are not willing to do ? Because trumped up BS is what the current Republican party is running on.
" But take the argument one step further. If HHS were to mandate that all health insurance plans must cover abortion, would you thus require Catholic institutions to pay for insurance coverage of abortions?"
First of all, contaception is a great way to protect against unwanted pregnancies. The use of contraception is a sure fire way to keep down the number of abortions in this country.
Another aspect of this whole anti-birth control brew ha ha that makes my head hurt.
Secondly this post sounds about as credible as the NRA members who proclaim that Obama is going be knocking on you door to take your guns away.
THANK you ! What they do is "fear monger". Nobody has addressed the fact that the Catholic church is taking taxpayer money and using their faith to define who can be medically covered and for what.
Where exactly do you want this extended? Can the Thrift Store of the Church of the Aryan Brotherhood buy health insurance that doesn't let its holder go to non-white doctors? Nathan has repeatedly told us that being popular doesn't make you right; let's beat that drum on behalf of organizations that aren't the largest church in the world.
Not that I support the Church of the Aryan Brotherhood, but I don't support the Catholic Church's moral stance either.
#49: all three of them have dropped the issue of the economy like a hot potato and jumped on this issue like rabid dogs
Well, yeah. It's not easy pandering on the economy. People find it easier to become excited about either promoting or bashing religion.
Insurance is not just about catastrophes that happen only to a few. and indeed I hear american health insurance often fails in the case of cats trophies.
That something with obvious health implications should be covered by health insurance does not strike me as odd.
Or perhaps you believe condoms don't prevent infections that hormone treatments have no other effect other than stooping reproduction, and inserting foreign objects into the uterus is simple and risk free.
Today....at this point in time.....with this particular issue....given the information provided in post #8 and from various other sources....the Right Wing Party of this country is using the Catholic church to push an agenda. If I were Catholic I would be more outraged about this than anything else. They are "creating" another war. Iraq is over, Afghanistan is amost done, the war on the upper class is a bunch of buffoonery so they are going to create a war on religion.
PLUS this is such a hypocritical hill to choose to die on !
Yeah....who cares if one is broke, homeless, jobless and hungry .....the "Right" of a congress of Higher Ups, in a faith based organization, have the authority to decree that we must not protect ourselves from producing more humanity to suffer homelessness, joblessness and hunger, at all costs. Never mind that this is a decree that is generally ignored anyway.
Could have at least picked something that made sense......Oh wait, there really are no other issues....no war on religion, we pratice pretty much how and where we want, we benefit from taxpayer dollars and for the most part, ignore the fact that we live in the 21st century. Will have to use this stupid point to stir the pot.
Typical....what is sad is the fact that many people will follow like a herd of sheep.
Well there you go....he caved. A victory for freedom of religion in this country. Now all Catholics can continue to pay outrageous health care premiums AND secretly pay an additional amount for your birth control.
Sadly, so can the rest of the women who happen to work for any business owned by the Catholic church. What a crock !
56: Sort of. Health insurers are required to provide contraceptive coverage to employees directly at no additional cost over their normal premiums. In effect, this is an end-run around the Catholic church and other anti-contraception groups that achieves the same result but avoids the objections they raised to the original policy (they have raised new objections, but the nature of the new objections makes them look bad).
"...how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith..."
Does that mean if I run a Protestant hospital, I can refuse care to Catholics because I find providing services for servants of the Whore of Babylon morally objectionable?
How about a hospital that refuses to provide care to 'mud people' because of their strong faith?
It appears that we have "freedom OF religion" but often lack "freedom FROM religion".
I am not an nonbeliever....but have felt that the religious Right in this country are crowding my space lately.
Conversely, it feels a bit "war like" but contrary to the verbal cries of "war on religion" just the opposite seems to be happening.
OK. Let's talk politics here. Let's start by asking a question: How many of those who post on this thread are women? How many are men?
#55: Yeah....who cares if one is broke, homeless, jobless and hungry
That's exactly my point. Some people would rather get on their soapbox about how churches must be forced to buy condoms. Whether you're pro or con, it's like one big joke. Also in the news is a scientist who thinks that there should be a drinking age for soda pop. I guess any good idea can become a stupid law.
Nothing has united the Republican Party as much as the injustice towards employees who apparently want to have health insurance coverage that only covers procedures their employers agree with.
to paraphrase something read on the interwebz.
Moving the obligation from the employer to to the insurance company. That Obama is a player.
The proportion is politically incorrect.
Very few women.
being impervious to "foot IN mouth" disease, I tend to think that if you do not speak up, than you have little to complain about when things are not to your liking. Not that things will necessarly change but no risk no gain.
There are a few of us who take the risk and no matter how far apart our beliefs may be.....one from the other, the ones who speak out are the only ones who can make a change. It would be remiss not to point out that by our mistakes and gaffs we are providing those , who stay mum some valuable learning material.
Obvious example.....if every single Catholic woman who took birth control would open her mouth, this issue would be done and over with. Instead they openly "submit" to the dictates of the church, while doing the opposite in private.
Hence we see the church looking foolish as it protects it's "Rights" to tell women that they have no "Rights" to protect themselves. Not a peep, no bally hoo from the ranks.....think of it....every woman with her mouth flapping non stop ! It would change !
there is a bright spot in all of this....the women, having been programed to do things in a rather sneaky fashion, may just up and vote for Obama as they are sick and tired of some man in a tall hat telling them what they can and can not do.
But take the argument one step further. If HHS were to mandate that all health insurance plans must cover abortion, would you thus require Catholic institutions to pay for insurance coverage of abortions?
Absolutely. The people covered by that insurance would have to examine their own consciences and decide whether or not to have an abortion. I would not have one. For me, it would be morally wrong. I do not, however, feel it appropriate to tell other people what their consciences should dictate. I would hope that with birth control being available to as many women as possible would dramatically reduce the number of abortions, but maybe that's not the point? Maybe the Catholic Church uninterested in practical and effective measures to reduce the necessity of abortions.
Incidentally, the state I live in provides its students with an abstinence only sex education. We also have one of the highest teen-age pregnancy rates. We very much value grandstanding over efficacy.
#64: if every single Catholic woman who took birth control would open her mouth...
Why? A woman's choice to use birth control has nothing to do with whatever freebies you want to force churches to provide.
Would you rather have the freebie be a 5 dollar pack of birth control pills or would you prefer to pay for neonatal care, new baby care, free formula, diapers and the likely hood of food stamps for the unforseeable future ?
The point is about the hypocrisy of the whole thing. A Republican friend of mine came up with this solution "Why don't they go to Planned Parenthood and get free birth control ?" The same Planned Parenthood that should be defunded according to the exact same group of individuals who don't want to provide birth control through their insurance.
It doesn't make sense. Used to be called "Cutting of your nose to spite your face" That is what this looks like to me.
How long do we fight over little picky details in regards to our "freedoms" when the results of not dealing with these things are potentially damaging to our "freedoms" in a much bigger way ?
Birth control makes sense on so many levels. OR do we want to wait till we have a "one child" law ? Do we "give up" and do what makes sense or do we dig in our heels till the "fix" has to be drastic.
>65 "Incidentally, the state I live in provides its students with an abstinence only sex education. We also have one of the highest teen-age pregnancy rates. We very much value grandstanding over efficacy."
Just wait till all the "abstinence only" babies reach school age, then they are going to need a job AND healthcare of their own. Just ignorant. So many people in this country cling to ways that are very self destructive. These very same individuals are also the one's who seem to feel that "everyone" should be clinging to those ways just as tightly...if not, they want a government that will force them to. Although they also claim to want government "out of their lives"
#67: How long do we fight over little picky details in regards to our "freedoms" when the results of not dealing with these things are potentially damaging to our "freedoms" in a much bigger way ?
When you acquire your "freedoms" via forcing someone to buy something for you against their will, you have no reason to expect that freedom to be secure. You've crossed over from "Live and let live," to living at someone else's expense. It's a disempowerment of one's own making.
I understand your point. However, because we do not live on this planet alone, we are forced to deal with others in some fashion. That "fashion" would be government. The less the majority are willing to self govern the more government we have. Unfortunately, recently we as a country have been showing an extreme lack of "self governing" from the top to the bottom.
If an insurance company decides not to cover someone, that someone most likely goes for "free" care somewhere. Since we all know that nothing is "free".....who pays for this ? If we do not have a "fair" system, the financial burden falls on those who are still able to cough up the dough. Do you see anyone within the system working on this issue ? If you do, I would like to hear about it since my husband and I are coughing up predigious amounts or money for the healthcare system....just hoping to reach Medicare age before the money runs out. It is a "free market" and we should protect that ? This attitude will come at a cost.....the money WILL run out.
Would rather see birth control pills provided with out cost thanpregancies that will be in part funded by those who are still coughing.
#69: The less the majority are willing to self govern the more government we have.
It's the other way around. I realize that misanthropy is a popular ideology, but whatever flaws there are in humans have only been exacerbated by government intervention. The present mess is a prime example. Back during the Depression employers wanted to be able to pay their employees decently but the government didn't like that. Hoover and FDR decided to slap on some wage controls and so the only workaround was for the employers to offer non-monetary perks, like healthcare coverage. BAM! Now we have the uniquely American oddity of employer-based healthcare (which even Obamacare intends to prop up via tax incentives). Yes, the money will run out. The more you squeeze, the more you lose.
So presumable a school run by Jehovahs Witnesses will not provide Blood Transfusions as part of its healthcare package?
I would hope so; but I suspect that the Catholic Bishops wouldn't consider Jehovah's Witnesses as a 'real' religion, and so would insist that the rules applied to the JWs.
oh don't worry Senetor Roy Blunt cares about that Jehovahs witnesses schools rights he has offered an amendment.
(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES —
“(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because —
“(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or
“(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.
Its not about people. Its about organisations, Thats why corportations have rights.
My, it certainly wouldn't pay to be a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon in these Forums.
or christian science stoping just about every thing or scientologists stopping well you get the idea with a few carefully chosen qualms an employer could negate all their obligations under the affordable carer act.
75: I believe you have found the reason why as a rule we don't allow religious choices to trump laws of general applicability.
Not that an employer's choice needs to be religious in nature in order to count. I should hope that an atheist institution would be able to refuse coverage for that homeopathic crap.
77> As long as an employer whose staff follows a homeopathic regimen will be allowed to refuse coverage for those who wish to poison their bodies with drugs, I see no problem with this idea at all.
#78: You forgot to mention the islamo-fascists. No bit of fearmongering BS is entirely complete without mentioning those guys.
Would the Republicans have been a quick to scream "freedom of religion" had it been a Muslim-owned company saying that their female employees could not be treated by male doctors and that their male employees could not see a female specialist?
Garry Wills is pretty good on the question in the current NYRB:
By a revolting combination of con men and fanatics, the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office. Take the controversy over contraceptives. American bishops at first opposed having hospitals and schools connected with them pay employee health costs for contraceptives. But when the President backed off from that requirement, saying insurance companies can pay the costs, the bishops doubled down and said no one should have to pay for anything so evil as contraception. Some Republicans are using the bishops’ stupidity to hurt the supposed “moderate” candidate Mitt Romney, giving a temporary leg up to the faux naïf Rick Santorum; others are attacking Barack Obama as an “enemy of religion.”
Well, you can't depend on the ladies to make reasoned decisions. Better make their choices for them.
The next debate will be about whether women have souls or not.
> 82 -- My ex could never make her own decisions and always nagged until I made them for her. If it turned out to be a good decision, she always took credit for it. If it turned out to be a bad or ineffective decision, I always got the blame.
So I strangled her. Now we're both happy (She doesn't have any more decisions to make; I get to drink all I want). It all works out.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.