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.

dogma wrote:

agnosto wrote:Maybe you just haven't grasped the whole separation between Church and state thing.... You can believe what you want but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the creation and/or enforcement of law.

Short of specifically forcing Catholics to pay for birth control, anyway.

Granted, it's a touchy subject but when the bulk of Catholic organizations already pay for insurance that includes birth control. States like NY already have a mandatory piece in place and the Catholic church complied without a whimper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/nyregion/catholic-institutions-reluctantly-comply-with-ny-contraceptives-law.html

Compromise can be made if people put their pitchforks down and step off of the soapbox long enough to talk about it rationally.

It doesn't need to be so prickly a subject; it's been inflated because of all the right-wing angst and anti-obama rhetoric espoused by people that supported much the same bill when the republicans tried to pass it back in the Clinton era.

Here's some info. from the National Women's Law Center:
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/faq_contraceptive_coverage_accommodation.pdf

agnosto wrote:
Granted, it's a touchy subject but when the bulk of Catholic organizations already pay for insurance that includes birth control. States like NY already have a mandatory piece in place and the Catholic church complied without a whimper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/nyregion/catholic-institutions-reluctantly-comply-with-ny-contraceptives-law.html

Compromise can be made if people put their pitchforks down and step off of the soapbox long enough to talk about it rationally.

It doesn't need to be so prickly a subject; it's been inflated because of all the right-wing angst and anti-obama rhetoric espoused by people that supported much the same bill with the republicans tried to pass it back in the Clinton era.

Oh, no doubt, the issue isn't some sudden sympathy for the "Catholic plight". The issue is drumming up support for the Republicans as opposed to Barack the Magic Tyrant, which is largely centered on the healthcare reform bill.

I was just noting that if the law specific stated that Catholics, as a group, must carry health insurance that contains birth control coverage, then there would be a first amendment issue. But passing a law that says all American citizens must carry such insurance escapes that.

agnosto wrote:I am also sufficiently abreast of current events to know that their objections were noted and addressed in as fair a manner as possible with even a good number of that group stepping forward to commend Obama for opening the whole thing to dialog.

WTF? No, you haven't been paying attention if you think this is what happened.

agnosto wrote:Maybe you just haven't grasped the whole separation between Church and state thing.... You can believe what you want but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the creation and/or enforcement of law.

You're missing a second important component to the separation of church and state: free exercise. Government can't enact a law that impinges on your religious freedom, which is what they are trying to do here (using the term "law" loosely).

Separation of Church and State is not a one-way street.

Polonius wrote:They just don't like the idea of women having sex as they choose.

This comment would make sense if Republicans were trying to outlaw contraceptives. They're not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:If you're going to intentionaly misconstrue what I said-- after I specifically clarified my intention even-- I'm just going to put you on ignore so that I don't break the first rule of dakka. You wouldn't be worthy of that rule.

I'm not misconstruing what you wrote. The current medicare/medicaid system is a mind blowingly stupidly designed medical system.

Unless you think sarcasm is offensive. If so, I don't think there's any help for you.

dogma wrote:I was just noting that if the law specific stated that Catholics, as a group, must carry health insurance that contains birth control coverage, then there would be a first amendment issue. But passing a law that says all American citizens must carry such insurance escapes that.

The law previously didn't require Catholics to carry birth control insurance. Catholics were by and large the only group who didn't do so. The law has been changed so that insurance is now mandatory - which effectively only impacts Catholics.

If the government passed a law requiring everyone to eat pork, would that be a violation of religious liberty?

biccat wrote:
The law previously didn't require Catholics to carry birth control insurance. Catholics were by and large the only group who didn't do so. The law has been changed so that insurance is now mandatory - which effectively only impacts Catholics.

Actually, I imagine most Catholics that carry insurance carry insurance that covers birth control. Even Georgetown's (the Catholic university in question) current policy covers it for faculty and staff, just not for students. Clearly the issue isn't necessarily a moral one.

biccat wrote:
If the government passed a law requiring everyone to eat pork, would that be a violation of religious liberty?

Sure, and this is a violation of religious liberty too, but we violate religious liberty all the time. Its not a bedrock principle, claiming a religious belief does not mean the state can't work to prevent you from acting on that belief. So long as the state makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, ie. "Catholics must carry insurance that covers birth control." or "Muslims must eat pork.", there is no issue.

Now, if the state mandated the consumption of pork, there would be a significant issue as it is a much more intrusive violation of religious liberty; impacting the lives of the faithful on a daily basis. Forcing people to carry insurance that covers birth control is not comparable, as you don't have to use birth control, or engage in the casual sex that is the root issue.

I mean, if you really really object to birth control, then you shouldn't have any insurance of any kind, because your money almost certainly supports the policies that cover birth control held by other people.

dogma wrote:Now, if the state mandated the consumption of pork

OK, instead of mandating consumption, how about mandating that everyone carry "food insurance," and that food insurance must cover bacon.

dogma wrote:I mean, if you really really object to birth control, then you shouldn't have any insurance of any kind, because your money almost certainly supports the policies that cover birth control held by other people.

You should also avoid having to pay taxes, because the federal government funds a lot of objectionable issues. But most people don't think going to jail is a necessary precondition for being Catholic.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:They just don't like the idea of women having sex as they choose.

This comment would make sense if Republicans were trying to outlaw contraceptives. They're not.

that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense now.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.

You know I was going post a whole thing about how religious people seem the cherry pick certain parts of their "beliefs" in order to make a fuss about laws. But than you added this bit at the end. The way I look at it your beliefs are the same thing, humans live just fine without em so you do not NEED them. You wanna live your life with em fine, but do not tell others to do as I say not as I do. Health vs 'Faith' is a no brainer, one you need to live and one is a luxury.

biccat wrote:
OK, instead of mandating consumption, how about mandating that everyone carry "food insurance," and that food insurance must cover bacon.

Its a violation of religious liberty in the same sense that making the killing of a random person a criminal offense is. That is, any possible person of any possible faith is not free to exercise that faith if their faith requires that they kill a random person.

Having to carry insurance does not require that you eat religiously objectionable food, it requires only that you carry food insurance. Catholics don't have to use contraception, and I doubt very much that the issue is really about supporting the use of contraception. If it were, then there would be pronouncements from Holy Mother Church regarding the evils of Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Now, there is an argument that the Bishops constitute the Catholic faith (Many people will argue against this vehemently.), but without explicit evidence that carrying insurance is against a religious proclamation you're not going to have a very good case. And, to be clear, what is an is not a religious proclamation is dodgy at best. There are plenty of fatwas that criminal law prevents the free exercise of.

biccat wrote:
You should also avoid having to pay taxes, because the federal government funds a lot of objectionable issues. But most people don't think going to jail is a necessary precondition for being Catholic.

All issues are objectionable, that's why they're issues.

Though, so far as I know, no one is under threat of incarceration for not carrying approved insurance policies.

There's also the, how to put it delicately, "don't jerk us around" rule that gets applied to matters of religious principle.

Let's not pretend contraception is really anathema to Catholics.

biccat wrote:
WTF? No, you haven't been paying attention if you think this is what happened.

I'll refer you to my previous post with links to information that clearly shows a large number of Catholic institutions that have no problem with paying for contraceptives...they already are, this is not a new issue as states already have existing laws that require it.

biccat wrote:
You're missing a second important component to the separation of church and state: free exercise. Government can't enact a law that impinges on your religious freedom, which is what they are trying to do here (using the term "law" loosely).

Separation of Church and State is not a one-way street.

Conversely, the separation of church and state does not give religious institutions carte blanche to run hither and yon ignoring existing law. The Catholic church exists in most countries in the world, many of which mandate coverage of contraceptives regardless of religious disposition; why they think they're special in America is beyond me when it's the case in Rome.

Look at it this way, the Pope supports Universal Health Care:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/19/131348/pope-universal-healthcare/

1963-1968 two commissions of Bishops were convened to discuss contraception, all voted that the use of contraceptions is not against any tenants in the faith but Pope Paul VI didn't heed their recommendations. Even more recently, Pope Benedict XVI stated condom use to be "a lesser evil" than the spreading of disease; he even wrote a book about it.

The fact is, people are hiding behind their faith to take political advantage of a sensitive situation. Meanwhile, nations around the world laugh at us as we squabble over this silliness.

Johnny-Crass wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.

You know I was going post a whole thing about how religious people seem the cherry pick certain parts of their "beliefs" in order to make a fuss about laws. But than you added this bit at the end. The way I look at it your beliefs are the same thing, humans live just fine without em so you do not NEED them. You wanna live your life with em fine, but do not tell others to do as I say not as I do. Health vs 'Faith' is a no brainer, one you need to live and one is a luxury.

True, but I don't ask you to pay for my church. Don't ask my church to pay for your "sin". (Disclaimer: I am not actually Catholic, nor do I think birth-control is a sin... but I do see their side of the story on this.)

So if the 2 sides stay out of each other's way, then this problem is resolved. If you want treatment, go get it! Just don't ask Father O'Mally to foot the bill if he thinks you are doing a moral wrong.

One of many things to argue and postulate about till the big asteroid comes Dec. 21st 2012 and then Whoops Apocalypse.



Pay for your own birth control. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't be a brood mare for the state.

Zakiriel wrote:
Pay for your own birth control. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't be a brood mare for the state.

Wait, how exactly does advocating that insurance policies include contraception coverage make someone breeding stock?

You didn't really think that through, did you?

dogma wrote:
You didn't really think that through, did you?

Welcome to half the posts on off topic

I do pay for your church. Because it enjoys tax exept status my taxes are slightly higher. And because churches are apparently not subject to zoneing laws I now have homeless drug addicts walking around my nieghborhood waiting for the soup kitchen or what ever. this has had a marked effect on the value of my home, as though it needed help getting any lower.
All the special accomedations made for your fantasies carry a price.

Yep thats what I want, a President stooping to getting into an argument with radio blah blah guy. I guess now that he's solved the economy, the budget crisis, driven up gasoline prices to desired levels, the Euro crisis, and Iran he can now get around to the more mundane things. Oh wait...

thatdudefilthy wrote: I do pay for your church.

No, actually you don't.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:True, but I don't ask you to pay for my church. Don't ask my church to pay for your "sin". (Disclaimer: I am not actually Catholic, nor do I think birth-control is a sin... but I do see their side of the story on this.)

This.

I don't know why people have such a problem with "don't make me do stuff I don't want to do" (at least until it comes to sex).

biccat wrote:
I don't know why people have such a problem with "don't make me do stuff I don't want to do" (at least until it comes to sex).

Its not so much that people have a problem with the idea, as much as it is they don't care, or find the argument in opposition to be weak. We make prospective murderers not murder, after all. We also make you pay taxes, be born as a citizen, live under a democratic government, and do numerous other things.



By the way, conflating rape with sex is probably not a thing you want to do.

thatdudefilthy wrote: I do pay for your church. Because it enjoys tax exept status my taxes are slightly higher. And because churches are apparently not subject to zoneing laws I now have homeless drug addicts walking around my nieghborhood waiting for the soup kitchen or what ever. this has had a marked effect on the value of my home, as though it needed help getting any lower.
All the special accomedations made for your fantasies carry a price.

Not sure if you are serious here...

So you think churches paying no taxes = you paying for chuches (since you pay taxes).

So all the 50% (roughly) of people in the US who do not pay Federal Income taxes are being paid by you? Any of their less desirable activities, such as drug use, rape, etc are therefore funded by you?
I disagree with that.

I also like the argument that we should be compassionate to human dignity and provide birth control... But those damn homeless people need to go away! So very compassionate...

My Karma ran over my Dogma.

It's worth noting that the insurance companies are much happier providing birth control as it saves them money.

All these "I shouldn't have to pay for you to have sex" arguments are bs for the simple fact that these women PAY for health insurance and the insurance companies would much rather save money by not having them "pump out a unit" as George Carlin would say .

I really hope santorum wins the nomination, I wonder how many people are going to jump ship as this weirdo stands at the podium arguing how we should abolish contraception and abortion for all while also tossing away any social programs designed to mitigate the negative effects of out of wedlock children who's parent or parents have no viable way of supporting them.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I also like the argument that we should be compassionate to human dignity and provide birth control... But those damn homeless people need to go away! So very compassionate...

He was making an argument from compassion?

I am tired of those slutty old people in Florida getting paid by the government to have sex. All that Viagra and such.

Of course my family likes to argue that Viagra covers a medical problem, so it's okay even though the end result is the same "paying for the ability to have sex."

I then asked them if Grandma Smith with vaginal dryness should get reimbursed by medicare for her Astroglide since that is a medical condition as well, but that didn't go anywhere.

Go figure.

I used to carry Viagra with me, but that was mostly to give TSA agents a pleasant surprise....

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Do you want to share how or why she lied?

I know you enjoy argument over debate, but I'd actually be interested to see why you think she lied.

She said that a woman at Georgetown would spend $3000 for birth control while attending law school.

Annual checkup (assuming she doesn't go to a free clinic) - $100.
Monthly prescription - $10-20.

For 3 years, that's just over $1000 for birth control.

If she's in a 4-year program, less than $1500.

Are you quoting from the university health program's fee schedule? Do you have the card or a brochure showing their prescription co-pays? IME they can be significantly higher than your numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Yep thats what I want, a President stooping to getting into an argument with radio blah blah guy.

He didn't. He's made a point of not getting into arguments with these idiots and scumbags. Even when O'Reilly interrupted or talked over the President nearly fifty times in a conversation, the President kept his cool.

The President called and gave his support to a young woman who testified before Congress on a matter of national policy which is personally relevant to her, and was vilified and abused in the media by a hypocritical degenerate of a man, who depressingly has a massive national audience. Being supportive of Fluke is a nice gesture; telling her that her parents should be proud, and thanking her for her efforts to serve her country despite public abuse. If Genghis Connie someday went up before Congress to testify re: legislation, and some scumbag called her nasty names on the radio for an audience of millions, do you think you as a parent would appreciate a supportive word from the President?

It's disgusting that Rush Limbaugh called this girl a slut- especially when she had to have at least some courage to testify. Courage is something that Rush Limbaugh has never had. He's an Unamerican, cowardly draft-dodger, who should have no place in American politics. He should never, ever call himself a patriot. If he can't do his duty when Uncle Sam calls him to, he shouldn't call himself an American. It's even more pathetic that by dodging the draft, he sent another man to die for America in his place, so that he could continue to spew his bs.

Black Knight wrote:He's an Unamerican...

The world would be better if this were not considered a reasonable descriptor.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:biccat's people would actually be able to end this argument pretty easily.

What the hell do you mean "my people"?

Far right social conservatives.

People who oppose a tyrannical government?

Certainly not. I would never dream of saying social conservatives stand opposed to tyranny.

It's not the Republicans who are pushing this issue, it's the Democrats. I find their rampant disregard for individual and religious liberty offensive.

Your religious liberty is perfectly safe. If you work for an employer whose faith dictates that contraceptives are the spawn of Satan, said employer will not have to provide contraceptive coverage. The insurance company will.

LoneLictor wrote:

Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.

Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.

And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!

Yeah, I'm allergic to latex and it sucks. Let's have a list of things that have latex in them:
Band-aids.
Condoms.
Balloons.

That's all I can think of right now, but it still sucks. I CANT EVEN HAVE BALLOONS AT MY BIRTHDAY!

You would think if you were allergic to latex you would have figured out they make balloons out of Mylar and sell them at the 99c store.

Seaward wrote:

biccat wrote:What the hell do you mean "my people"?

Far right social conservatives.

I'm a far right social conservative?

Interesting.

Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?

Seaward wrote:Certainly not. I would never dream of saying social conservatives stand opposed to tyranny.

Must be an interesting world you live in then.

Seaward wrote:Your religious liberty is perfectly safe. If you work for an employer whose faith dictates that contraceptives are the spawn of Satan, said employer will not have to provide contraceptive coverage. The insurance company will.

You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.

d-usa wrote:I am tired of those slutty old people in Florida getting paid by the government to have sex. All that Viagra and such.

The funny thing is, old people in Florida do get paid to have sex. Social Security and Medicare are basically the government paying people to stay out of the workforce.