Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HPV testing for women age 30 and older, well woman exams, breastfeeding support and supplies, domestic violence screening and counseling, testing for gestational diabetes, HIV and other STI testing and counseling, and FDA-approved contraception
Because women can get pregnant, they get free HIV testing and counseling?
Less than half of the mandates have anything to do with getting pregnant. And note that a post-menopausal woman or otherwise sterile woman still gets it all free.
So try again.
Why don't you look up what preventive services are available for all men, just as a comparison?
Here, I'll do it for you:
•Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
Looky here, for men as well as women:
•HIV screening for all adults at higher risk
•Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
Plus many services for men AND women. http://www.healthcare.gov/news/facts...ices-list.html
Read my post again, and this time try to comprehend it.
Sorry, I don't comprehend why being able to become pregnant entitles you to free services unrelated to pregnancy. Especially when even women who cannot become pregnant are entitled to those same services. Simply being patronizing and nasty doesn't win you an argument, kshe95girl. You need relevant points.
No one should have to pay for someone else's birth control - or children.
-Nothing about my choice to uphold the catechism is being impeded when insurance covers services I personally choose not to use. Insurance covers male colleagues for testicular cancer that I will never succumb to, therefore, I ought to animate myself to abolish that coverage? I ought to decide if another employee has vitro procedures or not??? If I'm past child bearing years I ought to take it upon myself to impede those who are of child bearing years?
There's a bottle of drano under my sink and I choose not to drink it. No one forced me to use services available, but religion does attempt to force me to not choose them when educating why is their TRUE job description. It is THEIR lesson plan that is grievously flawed and they refuse to believe it. It is not anyones place to forcibly take or by proxy prohibit by writ that choice from them. That is not what REAL religion is about, but it is a behavior of CULTS the Church themselves warn against. Abusing the pretense of employment to conscript others by writ into a religious beliefs they don't support is offensive to me personally, and offensive to free society. Rather than doubling their efforts squarely in their hands & jurisdiction on the lesson plan, they're in congress demanding grace and favor at the expense of liberty, and in court rooms demanding judicial review therapy.
-Seriously flawed methods of BC have been practiced since Christ was a child but few ever spoke of them historically because western civilization culture is very squeamish about the subject of sexuality even to the point of oppressing the speech of happily married couples who are in a much better position to explain how to go about a healthy marriage.
-"Because I'm the Daddy and I said so" does not work in the ministering of the Catechism, in a family, extended into governance, or imposed on free society. Operating these principles is a corruption of the mission statement. The laundry secular America is looking at is the dysfunctional philosophy of individuals passing itself off as sound universal theology. This dysfunction is what impedes the true teachings and set up an attractive climate for pedophiles. Administrative failures are not remedied by pointing bony fingers of denial around, nor by ratcheting up use of force on all others.
-Insurance policies are not religious articles or religious institutions. They are secular tools. If orthodox religious are offended by secular tools, they ARE 100% free & unimpeded by anyone in free society to refrain from participating in secular life as Amish have done.
-No one should have the right to decide what insurance another may or may not have when need and demand are the primary criteria.
-Women should not be permitted to make the decisions applicable only to the male body, and neither should males be permitted to make the decisions applicable only to the female body. There is your war on women threatened by my existence for the crime of being female and speaking to me in such a manner as to imply genders ought to engage in sibling rivalries and zero sum games where only one half of the species may exist, and the other, may not.
-No employer should be allowed to compel and employee not of the faith to uphold THEIR religious beliefs.
- No employer has the right to dictate how and on what an employee spends their earned wages. Is an employer morally responsible for every purchase I make as consumer?
-The logic you are operating on permits sharia law to be applied universally to employees whether or not they are Muslim. It also permits an employer to enforce Kosher on employees who are not Jewish, and an Amish dress code far outside the bounds of an Amish community by virtue of being 'an employee' providing a service for an 8 hr shift.
-Let us not forget the Noodly appendage religion that could have a herd of prophets come along at any time dictating their terms to be universally applied. The terms and conditions of employment for them might be aiding and abetting pedophiles.
-Should this secularized religious example they're attempting to enforce through my government mean that refusal to participate in evil ought to translate to monetary deprivation to the Church because of the actions of some criminals which are in no way a reflection of Christian beliefs or legitimate practices of Catholics? Because, you see, the money paying restitution to abuse victims for the disgusting behavior of rogue priests came from innocent people in the flock putting bills in a basket every Sunday. Bad apples, or what people wrote license to do beyond Church teachings, ought to mean wholesale abandonment of Christianity to uphold purist principles? That would mean every episode of rogue Papacy throughout recorded history should result in the abolishment of the Vatican on "purist" principles.
-Your attitude fundamentally corrupts commercial employer- employee relationship to placate religious orgs subject to personal whims & delusions. They themselves are not perfected Christians. Like crime cannot be predicted until it is perpetrated, Saints cannot be predetermined until they have lived out their lives impeccably.
Who is your sect to say what true Catholicism is?
As far as your attempt to show off your Latin, next time try a complete sentence, what you wrote is a dangling participle, and showcases what you dont know.
The arrogance of youth, one has to chuckle.
Heres a Latin, as well as a life, lesson for you.
Iterum, non decurrunt, justo.
You're still not getting the point; your church, and all of its teachings, are just an extention of mine. So do you not believe what your church teaches is true????
I didn't say I new Latin. nice try. I said Novus Ordo (spelled it wrong before, my bad) which means New Order, which is what your church is called.
But maybe the best argument on behalf of the Obama administration’s position comes from a very unlikely source, as Jay Bookman points out: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In two different decisions, the conservative Catholic Scalia has sided with the court majority in finding that religious teachings can’t justify religious employers – or employees — failing to comply with labor law. In the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision, regarding an employer’s ability to fire a Native American employee who used peyote, despite the employee’s claim that using the drug was a religious rite, Scalia wrote:
Quote:
“We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” In an even more directly relevant 1982 decision holding that Amish employers must comply with Social Security and withholding taxes, though their faith bars participation in government support programs, Scalia wrote:
Quote:
Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.
Sorry, I don't comprehend why being able to become pregnant entitles you to free services unrelated to pregnancy. Especially when even women who cannot become pregnant are entitled to those same services. Simply being patronizing and nasty doesn't win you an argument, kshe95girl. You need relevant points.
When one has to resort to name-calling, one has no relevant argument, not that you really had one in the first place.
Read Kats post.
You're still not getting the point; your church, and all of its teachings, are just an extention of mine. So do you not believe what your church teaches is true????
I didn't say I new Latin. nice try. I said Novus Ordo (spelled it wrong before, my bad) which means New Order, which is what your church is called.
Spelling makes all the difference in the world.
And no, I do not believe everything that my own church teaches is true.
If I did, I would have many more children than I do.
Fortunately, I am old enough to know the difference, some day you will be, too......I hope.
My dear, I get your point, the question begging to be asked, is do you?
BTW, its knew, not new.
if i pay ins. for my employees i should be able to buy only what i want if i only want to cover thier heads because they'er going crazy i should be allowed to. until now companies don't have to buy ins. for anyone!
Irrational abuse of the intended purpose of insurance. By your math, if a religious group decides all vaccines are evil, then no child in America may be covered by insurance to be vaccinated for polio. Nothing about an insurance policy compels anyone to use the full range of services. IF they did, they'd have legitimate grievance on the grounds of religious objection. They are squarely on the wrong side of the fence demanding the government enforce their religious convictions for them. NO. And HELL no. My faith of origin is allowing itself to go wayward and I STRONGLY object.
-If this didn't have anything to do with juvenile/ demented attitudes towards human sexuality, it would be much clearer to all the beam in their eye.
-If I've never had a car accident that doesn't mean the car insurance company ripped me off.
-Nothing about free society/ secular law forces anyone to drive a car.
-Amish refrain from driving their horse and buggy on highways that prohibit them for the sake of the greater good, and the sake of their own safety. They stick with alternative routes that are equally maintained.
-Lifelong pedestrians still get benefit of highways and transport systems in every bit of goods and services they purchase.
-Anyone so offended by the concept of abortion who couldn't possibly live in a country where abortions take place ought to live elsewhere in a country where they don't. Not here. If they prefer to live in a gated community of zero abortion zones, no one stops them from establishing a community living in that box by themselves. Ultra orthodox religions forcing their ways on free society is not compatible with free society or America when they inflict themselves on all others rather than hold up their own faith with their own personal choices on their own dime.
-I don't choose how they spend that dime, nor do I want that power over them, HOWEVER, the only credible grievance I could have is when that dime is spent inflicting harm on myself or impeding my free will. Rights are responsibilities. Rights are not the right to inflict yourself on all others against their will. Rights are not the right to prey on the host civilization or rob all others of their rights. That is UN American.
-I strongly disagree with the decisions the Vatican has made in their investments of Catholic funds bankrolling lobbyists harming American dialog in zero sum game power grabs. I remain a Catholic and limit my charity to Catholic Charities who enable women to say yes to life. When the Vatican takes it upon itself to tamper with the mission statement to satisfy harmful agendas, they will put me in a position to redirect that charity elsewhere having abused charity as pretext to service irrelevant agendas and private ambitions.
if i pay ins. for my employees i should be able to buy only what i want if i only want to cover thier heads because they'er going crazy i should be allowed to. until now companies don't have to buy ins. for anyone!
A number of posts ago there was a quote from Scalia, for the majority of the court:
Quote:
Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abusing the pretense of employment to conscript others by writ into a religious beliefs they don't support is offensive to me personally, and offensive to free society. Rather than doubling their efforts squarely in their hands & jurisdiction on the lesson plan, they're in congress demanding grace and favor at the expense of liberty, and in court rooms demanding judicial review therapy.
