I just figured out this whole hooplah over contraception and the religious right

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Seaward**

biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:And to fall back to my standard response: so what?
Just because the free market is inefficient, broken, and doesn't do a very good job of providing for the financial means of most of the population doesn't mean that the financial needs aren't there or that these people are any less deserving.

Well, you're wrong. The free market does do a good job providing for the financial means of most of the population. You're taking the worst off and arguing that since they aren't provided for then everyone isn't provided for.

The free market is far more efficient and effective at creating and distributing wealth than government.

Seaward wrote:If you pay taxes, you're already paying for someone's birth control pill, or their, to use the Republicans' new favorite word, abortifacients.

I'm also already paying for Egyptian arms. Does that mean the government can (or should) require me to buy an M16 and ship it to some guy in Cairo?

Birth control pills aren't abortifacients (depending on how you define the term I suppose). The original proposed regulation would require coverage of both traditional birth control and abortifacients.

I'm aware. That's why I used the term "or." It's indicative that what follows is not the same as what preceded.

What's amusing to me is that you guys probably could have made more traction on this issue if you hadn't knee-jerked to religious liberty. It's of course not a religious liberty issue at all, but the inaccuracy of the claims isn't what's going to turn people off; it's the far right playing victim yet again.

**biccat**

Seaward wrote:I'm aware. That's why I used the term "or." It's indicative that what follows is not the same as what preceded.

You may have also been using "or" to refer to an alternative word choice.

For example, I like to eat chicken, or to use the scientific term Gallus gallus.

Seaward wrote:What's amusing to me is that you guys probably could have made more traction on this issue if you hadn't knee-jerked to religious liberty. It's of course not a religious liberty issue at all, but the inaccuracy of the claims isn't what's going to turn people off; it's the far right playing victim yet again.

What on earth is the argument if not religious liberty: "We don't think health insurers should have to pay for contraceptives"? Given current state and federal insurance mandates, the only basis for that claim is religion.

In fact, how is this anything other than an issue of religious liberty?

**Melissia**

Seaward wrote:Well, you're wrong. The free market does do a good job providing for the financial means of most of the population.

*looks at population statistics, especially income and poverty levels*

No, it doesn't.

**sourclams**

So where else in the world woudl you like to live?

Again, get out of the minority.

**Mannahnin**

I prefer that we (collectively) provide for the minority. You could consider it a charitable desire, but IMO my life is better when we provide for the poor. Enlightened self interest.

And I dispute that it's just the poor, anyway. A lot of folks who are well above the poverty line still don't have a lot of choices when it comes to available work.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:
Seaward wrote:Well, you're wrong. The free market does do a good job providing for the financial means of most of the population.
*looks at population statistics, especially income and poverty levels*

What statistics are you looking at?

**Melissia**

sourclams wrote:get out of the minority.

What the fething hell are you smoking that you think this makes any sense?

What, are you suggesting I go pay for a sex change or something?

This is stupid.

**alarmingrick**

sourclams wrote:So where else in the world woudl you like to live?

Again, get out of the minority.

Not picking a fight, but the whole if you aren't happy leave America arguement makes no sense to me.
Why wouldn't I want to stay and improve my birthplace?

And getting out of the minority isn't as clear cut, black and white as your letters are.

**Melissia**

Next he's gonna be arguing that I should bleach my skin white if I wasn't already pale

**sourclams**

Mannahnin wrote:I prefer that we (collectively) provide for the minority. You could consider it a charitable desire, but IMO my life is better when we provide for the poor. Enlightened self interest.

Already do. Both personally and on a societal level. It's virtually impossible to starve to death in this country, for example.

The poor are provided for. It's the degree of provision. A poor person should be fed. No disagreement. Poor people don't necessarily need iPhones. It was months ago, but I remember watching on one of the more left-of-center news networks (MSNBC or something like it) a self-described poor person waiting for the first-of-the-month government checks to hit so that she could go buy food for her family. Except that she was monitoring her bank account via iPhone. No amount of subsidization is going to make up for misaligned spending priorities. And no, I'm not using that one individual as 'proof' that the poor can't manage money, but I simply believe that the level of provision overall is adequate.

And I dispute that it's just the poor, anyway. A lot of folks who are well above the poverty line still don't have a lot of choices when it comes to available work.

And...? Ultimately, your life decisions culminate in some level of financial status, if that is important to you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Next he's gonna be arguing that I should bleach my skin white if I wasn't already pale

I'm an ethnic minority. I find that race is virtually meaningless as a sole determinent of success.

**Melissia**

Yes, I'm sure people choose to be born in to a poor family or a rich one.

**sourclams**

I am less than 30 years old. My family growing up was, at best, middle-middle income, but probably endured in low-middle income for the formative years of my life, as my Dad was a gradeschool teacher and my Mom a homemaker. That would be roughly a high 2nd or low 3rd quintile.

Currently, with my wife a homemaker as well, my family is either a high-fourth or a low-fifth quintile. I've still got my peak earnings years well ahead of me, so I ultimately expect to be solidly within the top 5% at some point in my life.

Opportunity is what you make of it.

**Melissia**

sourclams wrote:Opportunity is what you make of it.

The term "opportunity" is just another term for luck. IE, you just got lucky.

Nothing more.

The most determinate factor in your financial status when you are an adult is your family's financial status when you were a child. The amount of effort you put in to life is less important than this statistically speaking.

**Dakkadan**

sourclams wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I prefer that we (collectively) provide for the minority. You could consider it a charitable desire, but IMO my life is better when we provide for the poor. Enlightened self interest.

Already do. Both personally and on a societal level. It's virtually impossible to starve to death in this country, for example.

The poor are provided for. It's the degree of provision. A poor person should be fed. No disagreement. Poor people don't necessarily need iPhones. It was months ago, but I remember watching on one of the more left-of-center news networks (MSNBC or something like it) a self-described poor person waiting for the first-of-the-month government checks to hit so that she could go buy food for her family. Except that she was monitoring her bank account via iPhone. No amount of subsidization is going to make up for misaligned spending priorities. And no, I'm not using that one individual as 'proof' that the poor can't manage money, but I simply believe that the level of provision overall is adequate.

This is Ronald Reagan's welfare queen arguement. One person on TV with an iPhone does not represent the thousands of people who benefit from those first of the month checks. Every person you've ever seen on TV waiting for thier check added together isn't even 5% of them. Further, can you say what circumstances she came by that phone? Perhaps her husband bought it before he got fired by Mitt Romney. Or maybe they bought it before their second child was diagnosed with cancer and they where dropped by their insurance company. But to see a woman on TV waiting for her government check who had an iPhone and use that as an example for why a safety net is adequate is a bit off to my mind.

As far as starving to death goes there's several large organizations that disagree. Feedingamerica.org says 1 in 8 Americans are dealing with a lack of good food. That seems like alot.

**Easy E**

This is not a Rule #1-compatible way to participate in Dakka. -Mannahnin

**biccat**

Easy E wrote:Don't worry, SourClams, psychologists have proven that everyone makes up self-myths about their life to justify where they are. Too bad you just don't realize your own "I'm a self-made man" myth yet.

I'm interested in this "psychologists have proven" bit. Do they use induction, direct, exhaustion, or some other proof? How was the proof established?

**Melissia**

biccat wrote:
Easy E wrote:Don't worry, SourClams, psychologists have proven that everyone makes up self-myths about their life to justify where they are. Too bad you just don't realize your own "I'm a self-made man" myth yet.

I'm interested in this "psychologists have proven" bit. Do they use induction, direct, exhaustion, or some other proof? How was the proof established?

Here's one article on it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201006/the-myths-the-self-made-man-and-meritocracy

**Tun_Tau**

It isn't free, someone has to pay for it. The question is: who pays?

The fact that you ask this is scary. The person who is working is paying for it with their labor. The price for labor was just increased by the cost of contraception.
Simple as that.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:
Easy E wrote:Don't worry, SourClams, psychologists have proven that everyone makes up self-myths about their life to justify where they are. Too bad you just don't realize your own "I'm a self-made man" myth yet.

I'm interested in this "psychologists have proven" bit. Do they use induction, direct, exhaustion, or some other proof? How was the proof established?

Here's one article on it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201006/the-myths-the-self-made-man-and-meritocracy

Conclusory articles are not generally accepted as proof of some statement.

I could say that 1+1=2 because 2=1+1, but that's doesn't rise to the level of 'proof.'

Tun_Tau wrote:
It isn't free, someone has to pay for it. The question is: who pays?

The fact that you ask this is scary. The person who is working is paying for it with their labor. The price for labor was just increased by the cost of contraception.
Simple as that.

Could you guarantee everyone a free Ferrari? Why or why not?

**Melissia**

What, do you expect me to go and scan and upload something from a book?

Several books and papers were cited in that article.

**biccat**

Melissia wrote:What, do you expect me to go and scan and upload something from a book?

You profess to be a scientist, certainly you know what "proof" means.

**hotsauceman1**

Mannahnin wrote:This whole "religious freedom" angle seems a bit absurd to me, as you can look at it from either perspective.

In addition, birth control pills have other rather significant medical uses, like in the treatment of endometriosis. IIRC the studies which supported the recommendation of universal coverage of birth control were based in part on its other uses, and in part on statistics about how children and families are healthier and better off when mothers have the capacity to space out their pregnancies by using birth control.

Dont people also take Birthcontrol pills or make periods more regular?

**Manchu**

According to CNN,

The president announced a compromise last week in the dispute. Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals would not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to women who work at such institutions. Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage-- a continuation of current law.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced Obama's compromise last week soon after the president's announcement, saying the proposal raises "serious moral concerns," according to a statement posted on its website.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/17/politics/contraception-dispute/index.html

The Bishops had this to say on February 10 (presumably the denouncing that CNN reported above):

Today, the President has done two things.

First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.

Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details. As far as we can tell at this point, the change appears to have the following basic contours:

It would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate.

It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider.

[...]

But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

Emphasis added.

http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-026.cfm

I'm having difficulty with this: on the one hand, the President says that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not have to offer contraceptive coverage BUT on the other hand insurers must offer the coverage free of charge to their employees. The Bishops, meanwhile, seem to understand the compromise as forcing the institution to pay for the coverage if the employee and the insurer agree to the coverage. Can anyone who has been following this more closely speak to this apparent contradiction? If I understand what the Bishops are saying, and if that is true, then it appears that President Obama's compromise is no compromise at all.

Also, the Bishops' position seems to be that no one at all should have to pay for an insurance plan that covers contraception if they have moral objections to contraception. Personally, I think this goes too far. How is the argument different than saying any religious objection (I wonder if atheistic moral objections apply?) on the part of employers should estop the requirement to provide certain coverage to employees? What about Christian Scientist employers (religiously affiliated or secular), for example? Beyond that, how about an employer who morally objects to the mandate of any employer-provided healthcare?

**Easy E**

@Sourclams- My apologies.

@Biccat- Nice subject change. I'm impressed. I have a feeling you are a good lawyer.

All- Since the US Health Care system is based "mostly" on employer sponsored group plans, than it makes sense that all "employers" be asked to cover contraceptives. What I want to know is why churches as employers were getting a special exemption in the first place?

**Vulcan**

helgrenze wrote:My problem with the whole lot of this nonsense is two fold...

One: Most of these "Christian" Sects use the King James Version of the Bible. King James 1 of England was the second monarch after Henry the 8th and was thus head of the Church of England, a.k.a the Anglican Church.
By default these modern sects should be considered factions of the Angican Church, which has no restriction on the use of contraception.

Two: Having read both the KJV and the Catholic Bibles, I have yet to find any reference to using medicinal, herbal or other means to avoid pregnancy.

Apparently there is a line that says 'go forth and multiply.' If I recall correctly, it was said to the Jews when they took Israel awafy from the Caananites by military force (i.e. murdering them). How that relates to people in the modern and getting-quite-overpopulated world I'll never know.

But then people have been misinterpreting the Bible for... pretty much ever. Take the whole Sin of Onan thing. Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his dead brother's wife according to tribal tradition (after taking advantage of said tribal tradition to have sex with her, he pulled out to avoid knocking her up in defiance of said tradition). How that got roped into prohibiting masturbation I just don't get. The circumstances of the Sin of Onan are totally not applicable to the modern world, but there's that 'don't spill your seed into the dust' line that everyone fixed on, ignoring the whole rest of the story.

And let's not forget the big one, "Love thy neighbor." THAT'S the one where us Americans REALLY fall short. The more we have, the more we despise the unfortunates who have not...

**biccat**

I don't know about you guys, but I prefer taking my religious interpretation from anonymous atheists* on the internet over people who study religious texts all day and have dedicated their lives to the cause of their religion.

* assumption. Apologies if incorrect

**Vulcan**

People who spend their lives studying a religion often do so after 20 years of religious indoctrination, limiting their desire to ask the difficult questions.

Case in point: Bad people go to Hell. EVERY preacher says this.

Go look in the Bible and tell me where it says this. The closest I've found is the bit about the righteous living eternally in the Kingdom of Heaven while the sinful suffer eternal death. Hell is only mentioned as 'the place where Satan and his minions fell to.'

Theorectically, all Christian religious doctrine goes back to the Bible. In practice, there's a lot of extra garbage that has been added on because of the politics of religion. Look at the Baptist's ban on alcohol. And yet, Jesus' first public miracle in the Bible was to change water into wine, an alcoholic beverage. So... where did the ban come from, when Jesus obviously thinks it is okay? I can see an argument about overindulgence and drunkeness, but that certainly doesn't mean a total ban is necessary! When the Moslems ban drinking, at least they can point back to the words of Mohammed to justify it. Just... don't ask about mead, okay?

**LordofHats**

Well, for one thing the King James Bible is probably the worst one you can read. It has a large number of inaccuracies and textual flaws (shared with other Revisitus based Bibles). Although I'll also point out reading King James doesn't mean you subscribe to being Angelican. In the US it's just popular because of British roots and its actually quite pleasant to read compared to some translations.

people who study religious texts all day and have dedicated their lives to the cause of their religion.

There are three kinds of Theologians. Religious fanatics who care less about scholarly study and more about justifying their own actions. Religious folk who legitimately want to study their faith. And Athiests who seem more interested in insulting the religious than actually studying them (defined loosely). Generally the only ones worth listening too are the middle group as the other two are too busy grinding axes to produce anything worthwhile. Just cause someone is a theologian doesn't mean they know anything about what their talking about.

**Manchu**

Straying a bit afield there. As I understand it, the topic is that certain religious people are overreacting to a proposed law because that law will not actually apply to them rather than because their religious beliefs are somehow invalid.

Based on (how I've understood) what I've read, it seems like even given President Obama's compromise, many religiously affiliated institutions will still be subject to the proposed law. I'm still asking for clarification if anyone would care to discuss the topic at hand rather than dumping on religious beliefs.

**biccat**

Manchu wrote:Straying a bit afield there. As I understand it, the topic is that certain religious people are overreacting to a proposed law because that law will not actually apply to them rather than because their religious beliefs are somehow invalid. Based on what I've read, it seems like even given President Obama's compromise, many religious-affiliated institutions will still be subject to the proposed law.

I think it's been well established by now that the OP was incorrect.

I agree that the President's "compromise" was no such thing, but the President gave the appearance of defering to the demands of the Church so, as far as most media outlets are concerned, the issue has been resolved.