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.
I've posted information on this on C-D so many times, I won't again, but there has been a Supreme Court ruling, Employer Division vs. Smith that has been used many times in the contraception debate (at least two states lost their challenge to contraception provisions based on this ruling) and it has been used in other religious rulings. In a very short nutshell, it states that religious beliefs cannot trump "the law of the land" so long as the "law of the land" did not target any specific religious group. In the previous two state challenges, the law was found to be generic and the states lost.
In another case, it was used because Amish employers did not want to contribute to social security. Their lifestyle/religion demands that they take NO part in government programs of any kind so they felt that they did not have to pay. They lost based on this ruling. There are others.
Anyway, to answer some other points, government does have the right to regulate insurance and has done so for years with auto insurance, for instance. They mandate that you must have certain levels of coverage if you wish to drive.
Government has decided, for the overall "health and welfare" of its citizens, that certain minimal levels of preventive health care and wellness tests WILL be provided as a standard of care in all insurance policies. It is a way to try to close some of the gaps of the medical crisis we have in this country.
While the administration has temporarily waivered the Catholic employers out of this, I don't know how long that will go on. Are the Catholic religious tenets trumping the "law of the land". I guess the Supreme Court will have to decide.
It's about the people who are being asked to do something in violation of their religion - in this case, the employer.
The employer should be slapped left and right, instead of conceded to, for pushing religion into politics. The law should apply to all. The government responsibility is protection of rights of individuals and their welfare, not dance to the whims of a collective drowning in religiosity.
What else do you think the employer might be paying for, that is against the "religion"?
The employer should be slapped left and right, instead of conceded to, for pushing religion into politics. The law should apply to all. The government responsibility is protection of rights of individuals and their welfare, not dance to the whims of a collective drowning in religiosity.
What else do you think the employer might be paying for, that is against the "religion"?
Employees should NOT be involved in health care........... a UHC stops this B/S.
Birth-control-exclusion bill goes to Arizona Senate The problem, Abraham said, is women who want payment for those contraceptives can be required to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the company "along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part" to prevent pregnancy.
Birth-control-exclusion bill goes to Arizona Senate The problem, Abraham said, is women who want payment for those contraceptives can be required to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the company "along with evidence that the prescription is not in whole or in part" to prevent pregnancy.
Religious fascists in the US, whoda thunk it?
This goes against the medical privacy laws.
I have been, since learning as a teen that religious fanaticism, right wing ideologies are not limited to certain geographical boundaries. They exist everywhere, and only need an opportune time to show their disgusting faces.
This is merely an extension of: Deregulate Corporations, Regulate People.
The employer should be slapped left and right, instead of conceded to, for pushing religion into politics. The law should apply to all. The government responsibility is protection of rights of individuals and their welfare, not dance to the whims of a collective drowning in religiosity.
What else do you think the employer might be paying for, that is against the "religion"?
You have a twisted view of how this happened. They didn't push religion into politics. As the situation existed, they were not paying for contraceptives. Mr. Obama's politics disagreed and were pressed upon them - not the other way around.
Protection of rights is absolutely the role of government. Can you show me where we have the right to force someone else to take money out of their pocket to pay for something for us?
Why could they not have a waiver like the over a thousand waivers that the President has granted?
You have a twisted view of how this happened. They didn't push religion into politics. As the situation existed, they were not paying for contraceptives. Mr. Obama's politics disagreed as were pressed upon them - not the other way around.
Protection of rights is absolutely the role of government. Can you show me where we have the right to force someone else to take money out of their pocket to pay for something for us?
Why could they not have a waiver like the over a thousand waivers that the President has granted?
So i take it you don't pay property tax or for your tag on your car or the tax on gas or your fuel bill or the local taxes or taxes put on commodities etc etc etc because you don't want anyones money being taken out of their pockets to pay for us??????
Ah. So the women's health issue is really a strawman argument put up to galvanize attention while the real debate is over Federal power? Or am I misunderstanding you?.
I think the strawman is that the people that are in support of the church's desire not to pay for contraception are against contraception per se or think that contraception should be outlawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
I'm not worried about them being outlawed, I'm just wondering why it's such a big issue that women could get them covered by insurance.
It's not. A lot of insurance carriers already cover it and will continue to do so. It's about a particular group having to provide coverage for it against their religious views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
And what I can't get past is that the Catholic Businesses are exactly that, businesses. Businesses should be secular, but, that also presents a problem of throwing their rights right out the window, but at the same time, they are denying people in their employment to medicine that some of them need, and more of them want. It's a difficult issue.
I agree, it's a difficult issue for the points you raise. For example, many church's employ an administrative person who works in the church and takes care of church business. That certainly isn't secular.
So i take it you don't pay property tax or for your tag on your car or the tax on gas or your fuel bill or the local taxes or taxes put on commodities etc etc etc because you don't want anyones money being taken out of their pockets to pay for us??????
Not the same thing.
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.
