Since when did birth control = abortion? If that were true, then “rhythm method”, abstinence or any effort to avoid an unintended pregnancy could be construed as abortion. I thought folks got over that notion during the Renaissance.
Some types of contraceptive work by stopping the embryo from implanting on the wall, which happens after conception and is then considered an abortion. Many companies will pay for some contraceptives, but not this kind.
That is not considered an abortion by most scientists or doctors. If it was most women would have had many “miscarriages” because it happens naturally all the time.
I’m not saying I agree that it is abortion, but your logic here is incorrect.
The key word in your sentence is it happens naturally, but the obvious implication in that is that the occurrence you are talking about did not happen naturally.
Death happens naturally all the time. People will have their heart stop often as a result of pushing their bodies too far during let’s say a marathon.
Now, that’s natural. But let’s say that someone held this marathon and forced you to participate.
Then as a result, your heart has a natural “attack”. You then die.
You could then say well, people die of a heart attack due to over exertion all the time.
Yes they do. But in this scenario it didn’t just occur. It was forced.
Embryo’s have issues implanting to the wall. Correct.
It’s natural when it occurs naturally.
But when it is forced, it didn’t just occur. The scenarios are not the same.
Of course given your logical irrationality, and your over confidence in general, you will now whine and state some unrelated topic I have said before that you feel wasn’t logical, or call me a zealot, or an intellectual zero, and then you’ll throw a fit, and say how I’m and insane conservative, right?
Bob, I haven’t been in here to downvote you, obviously other people have been doing it, probably because yet are sick of your idiotic statements.
My logic isn’t incorrect, and it’s not debatable. As usual, you are clueless. My comment about it occurring naturally refers to the fact that more than 70% of fertilized eggs do not attach and therefore have to be considered a miscarriage if you consider this type of pill abortion. Your idiotic hypotheticals and analogies don’t apply here, don’t make sense, and aren’t relevant. Yes, if you created a fantasy world where people were forced to make people run marathons all sorts of things could happen, but I have no interest in debating the fantasy world of a person with no grasp of history, economics, science, policy, or, seemingly, reality.
You completely uninformed on seemingly every topic. Maybe the reason my post didn’t have any downvotes is because I stated what almost all scientists believe, and you and the other far right-wing, anti-science, nuts hadn’t been into this thread yet.
And yes, based on your preferred policies, preferred candidates, and positions, you are a fascist, as I pointed out before and as you melted down about but couldn’t refute. You whined about, denied, and demanded citations for commonly known things about the guy you support and then ignored them. You aren’t a serious person when it comes to this.
April 1, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
6
You’re fast UW. Pretty fast on that dislike button.
Notice your like and dislike ratio at the time of this comment.
Zero dislikes. Interesting, isn’t it?
I still have yet to dislike a single post of people I disagree with.
It is more telling that you have labeled the typical thought patterns on the issue as essentially what you put above.
What is in fact what most conservatives consider to be sacred, is the marital sex act. The supposed sin in say, masturbation and spilling of the seed, is lust. That is to say, that you care more about F’ing someone, then you do taking care of someone.
Now do I agree entirely with that? No…But I understand the people that think it and I don’t just issue some comment like yours above to label them all as whack jobs.
Contraceptives can work a couple different ways. Some stop the fertilization of the egg, others stop the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. The second is often considered an abortive method and many people are ok with the first, but not the second.
That’s why some companies are ok with some forms of contraceptive, but not others. It’s often reported as if they are simply against any of it, which is not accurate.
Without getting into the legalities, one simple question: How do priests get to decide about women being pregnant when they abstain (officially, anyway), despite God’s commandment to “be fruitful and multiply?” Can’t have it both ways!
God wants us to reproduce; he also wants the children to have healthy parents who can raise those children to be productive and positive members of society. The point wasn’t to breed endlessly! If so, there wouldn’t be Jewish family purity laws!
GoldC, do you think it is right to force birth control on the Little Sisters of the Poor in their Health plan? Shouldn’t they have a right to refuse the coverage?
To GoldC, you should try and learn a little about Priests before trying to equate them to ‘virgins’. Here’s a hint: Priests wear wedding rings. Go find out why.
This country makes religious allowances but it seems like it has forgotten that we are a Christian Nation. 3 Sikh-Americans are suing the Dept of Defense to make the army give religious allowances to them while they serve in the armed forces.
This should be a choice. If a company that is Catholic owned doesn’t want to provide contraception coverage, then they should have the choice to not provide it. And if that upsets an employee, they have the freedom to change jobs, or go visit Planned Parenthood for free contraception.
First of all, we are not a Christian nation and never have been (see establishment clause, the Treaty of Tripoli, etc). And if that upsets a Catholic, they have the freedom to live in the Vatican (or Mexico). Also, employees can’t go to Planned Parenthood if the location has been shut down.
Jack, Obama said we weren’t a Christian nation and Shirley believed him.
March 31, 2016 at 10:44 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
12
4
If we truly are a Christian nation, why is there no mention of God in the Constitution? Is that not the supreme law of the land?
We are a secular nation, period.
April 1, 2016 at 2:37 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
7
Spoken like a true Catholic. You are shameful to the your religion.
Even if you believed this, arguing it harms the general public when it comes to whether or not they will shape society according to God, or according to a secular world without God. God clearly demands one over the other.
Now on the aspect of whether we are a Christian nation:
We are. Several laws have had religious reasoning, that you and I don’t agree with. You’ve argued for the removing of religion from the laws.
To say religion is not within our laws is insane.
What I believe you mean to say is, the nation was intended as a secular nation.
Even this is not accurate. The founding fathers did not want the nation to remove God from the equation of law. They wanted to remove tyrannical religion and tyrannical oppression that was not religious as well.
Whether they wanted religion in there or not is unclear. Some were religious, some weren’t.
It’s all pretty much speculation from there, but given how many religious laws we passed, the Salem Witch Trials and other things I both do and don’t like that had religious laws involved, I’m thinking as a whole we were a religious nation.
April 1, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Ron says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10
0
Bob,
Why must you always try to make more of my statement than what is intended? Why must you completely mischaracterize me and my motivations?
All I am saying is that we are a secular nation and our laws SHOULD reflect that. If you want laws out of religion you must also keep religion out of laws.
Here is PRROF we are not a Christian nation:
1.The fact that neither God nor Christianity are mentioned in the Constitution.
2. We allow Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Hindi, Native Americans, Satanists and other non-Christians to not only live here freely and practice their religions, but to be in positions of leadership and influence in society.
3. The Founding Fathers said so.
April 1, 2016 at 2:09 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
7
A: It is ironic how at the same time as saying we aren’t a Christian nation, you often imply that we have a Christian problem in the nation. Where did that come from? The sky? Religion infiltrated the nation from the beginning eh? Wouldn’t that mean that we were a religious nation? I mean really. It’s always been there. I only recently converted to Catholicism. I enjoy it, but in many ways I’m still an agnostic. It’s complicated. What this means is I understand non believers, and Catholics. To say we didn’t start as a religious nation is absurd.
B: And you have the freedom to leave the U.S. as well. But it’s just stupid for me to say that…It’s an unreasonable thing to say.
C: Or, here’s a thought: Purchase your own birth control. It’s cheap. Insurance companies should not be handling it. Insurance is for the management of high risk issues. It does not lower the cost of preventative care, or consistently used items, because they cannot invest the unused premiums to fund the scenarios. Are you even in the insurance field? This is simple math Shirley. Insurance should not be handling those. Companies should not be required to provide them. If you want birth control, BUY IT.
Bob, do you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, or somewhere around there?
April 5, 2016 at 11:25 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Also, Bob, no it’s not ironic. Maybe you don’t know what that word means. His whole point is that our government is secular and this is a problem because people are pushing their religious views on others.
Also saying it is absurd to claim the US didn’t start as a religious nation is simply wrong. The most influential founders were deists and did not want the nation to be based on religion, as proven by the Establishment of Religion clause. They particularly did not believe the country was based on Christianity as noted earlier. The Treaty of Tripoli, written under Washington and then signed by Adam’s specifically stated the country was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Someone please show me where it specifically says Thou Shalt Not Wear A Jimmy Hat Or Take A Contraceptive Pill in scripture. And, remember, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t interpret that from something in scripture and then also tell me the planet is only 600 years old, for those of you anti-sciencers.
Did you just try to set it up so someone can’t win in a debate with you?
I think what you’re trying to do is label the person who uses biblical scripture…By saying they can’t use scripture because some people say scripture says the bible is only 600 years old (you used the wrong date, but I will assume that is for hyperbole).
I have to just say this on the issue:
Some things are common sense in the biblical sense.
If God exists, you don’t create kids. God does.
If God makes a child from your sex act, God doesn’t make mistakes. You do.
If God wanted it to be your choice at that point, he would have made you able to decide whether or not to become pregnant by nature. He didn’t.
So we have established this means God wanted the child to exist. As soon as you introduce an unnatural block, you are circumventing what God would have ordinarily allowed to happen.
It is literally common sense and impossible that if God exists, that he supports birth control.
Now, on this I have to go further:
Do I perceive birth control as a sin seriousness to send one to hell, that has no reason for humans to be doing it?
NO! Some people cannot afford a child, and because they know less than God they panic and take birth control to prevent it. God probably understands this, but it doesn’t mean the human who is erroneous must be called correct for doing what they are doing because they have a personal reason to do it. God has a divine creator reason for creating the life he would have created. God trumps Man.
It is not debatable that God doesn’t want abortion or birth control if he exists. And I still debate like this because though I am Catholic now, I do not KNOW God exists. I hope he does.
A lot of you here have labeled me as a crazy conservative despite my balance on these issues…
I know it sounds off topic, but I also know you will do so again and I have a need to show you I’m not extreme so you do not have the ability to do so.
April 1, 2016 at 3:07 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
Bob,
I believe getting pregnant is purely physiological. If God is the one who creates kids, then no one who is raped would EVR get pregnant.
If you disagree with me, then you are saying the pregnant rape victim made a mistake.
March 30, 2016 at 1:38 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
10
8
Yes, I echo RetiredUW and GoldC and would like to add, my wife was prescribed birth control so it we COULD conceive. The Teahadists are against Sharia Law but down with Judeo-Christian tradition ruling the land. Same people are purchasing product after product made in China where abortion is mandated.
Women are not going back to pre 1950. We have the ability to prevent pregnancy and access to those medical means is as valid as access to any other health service. By the way, vasectomy, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, also are pretty permanent ways to prevent pregnancy…will they stop paying for those medical procedures also? What about the high, high cost of fertility treatments? Why should an employee have to face potentially higher premiums because co-workers have used fertility treatments in the same medical plan where they cannot get birth control?
And…does it go without saying that a woman should be given all the health benefit info during an interview so she can know what the deal is when she considers a job offer.
Dont Planed Parenthood give away Birth Control?? I know my local county health department does. If its available for free from those entities, why have it in the drug plan at all?
When the Federal government can force its will on how “We The People” practice religious beliefs it’s another sign we are rapidly losing our freedom to an out of control lawless bureaucracy. You may not agree with the beliefs of some religions but it is important to note the Freedom to practice those beliefs without government interference is one of our Constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment states” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Terrible analogy, unsurprisingly, but not as bad as your logic.
Government is not interfering with the right of anybody to practice their religion. The leaders of these groups do not have to use contraceptives, nor do any of the people in the group, they are given the option; alternatively, the leaders of these groups are forcing their interpretation of their religion onto the other people in the organization who may not share their interpretation of the religion.
Your terrible analogy would be more accurate if you stated you don’t think people should have money so you don’t allow others to have money even if they don’t share that belief. If religious groups want to participate in civil society and share in the benefits of society they have to follow the rules.
When this was discussed for over a year before Obamacare was passed it was frequently shown that many health insurance groups offer this free of charge because it reduces their cost v in the long-term.
One may not agree with the beliefs of a religion but when the federal government mandates how one can practice that faith and be in violation of a constitutional right protected under the First Amendment it’s a very troubling development. It signifies that “We The People” are losing another one our freedoms to an out of control lawless bureaucracy.
The government is not telling anyone how to practice their religion.
They are just saying that in practicing your religion you cant step on the rights of people who practice something else. Doesn’t that sound fair?
It is easier to give everyone a benefit and let people opt out who don’t need, want or support it, than it is to have no benefit and put an undue burden on people who need to obtain it.
In these stripped out health plans, can you even get an RX for birth control or is that office visit (that medically necessary consultation and exam with your doctor) not covered either? NOW who is tromping on whose rights?
No other country in the world does this, even Catholic countries. Mexico of all places , purposely is controlling its population by many means http://www.economist.com/node/15959332
libra, your first paragraph is ridiculous. The gov’t is stepping on the rights of Catholics to practice their religion. They are saying too bad you are Catholic and don’t believe in contraception. Others want it, so you have to provide and pay for it.
The simple answer is to allow companies to opt out of the contraception coverage.
They are neither providing nor paying for it. The Catholics are free to practice their religion. In fact, the Catholics are stepping on the rights of the American people. They want public infrastructure, so the rest of us have to provide and pay for it, while the church pays no taxes. Talk about moochers. I’d like to opt out of paying for public infrastructure that is used for the benefit of the church. After all, having to pay for another religion is a violation of my religious liberty.
What public infrastructure is giving money directly to the Catholic Church, other than a donation???
Again, Catholics are not stepping on the rights of Americans; it is the other way around. If I am a Catholic business owner, and I strictly follow Catholicism, I would not believe in contraception but yet the gov’t is making me go against my beliefs and provide coverage for contraception in a health plan. The way to handle this is to allow a religious exemption and not force contraception coverage on Catholic business owners. If the employees don’t like it, they are free to find other employment.
April 4, 2016 at 6:11 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
Jack, how about police, military, education, roads, a stable society, the right to be protected and free to practice their religion?
March 31, 2016 at 9:51 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
10
Jack, you are right, of course. Obamacare has those nasty mandates in it and one of them is Birth Control. Had it been flexible and gave the option to decline, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The federal government via the ACA asserts that religious-affiliated groups do not have to provide contraception to their employees but they do need to sign a form affirming their objection. This forces the insurer or an outside third party e.g. health plan administrator to provide separate birth control coverage back to their employees. The government is saying you do not have to offer the coverage but sign a form and we will still violate your religious beliefs by forcing you to use a third party . I’m not certain what you mean by “stripped out health plans”. Please review what is occurring to citizens forced into Obamacare. In many states more than half the plans being sold on Obamacare insurance exchanges have a deductible of $3,000 or more.
For many, that means they must pick up the cost of many routine doctor visits and treatment, while counting on their insurance primarily for catastrophic or other major medical expenses.
Lastly you mention Mexico. Did you know priests could not vote until 1992 and any religious buildings erected prior to 1992 are owned by the state?
I’m not sure how anyone can be “for” healthcare, yet “against” the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of Healthcare in the world.
What happened to the good ol’ days when The Bible okay’d treating women like property? It’s time to own them again and push them back into the kitchen. I want my turkey pot pie, bit…
One thing is for sure, Sharia Law treats women like property, won’t let them drive, no vote, abuses them and then stones them to death if they commit adultery. Kind of like 1,000 years ago. By the way, the greatest glory a Terrorist can have is killing an infidel. He is promised 72 virgins and all the dates he can eat. Evil personified and they call that a religion. Pretty much a cult.
Also: Quit with that bull crap about putting them back into the kitchen. It’s annoying to hear a self avowed Christian assault their own religion just because it’s hip to do so.
Actually Bob, as usual you are wrong or lying. Hey, The Bible laid out conditions for owning and treating slaves, and was pretty particular when it came to women. This is one reason many of people don’t want Christians imposing their religion them.
First of all, point out a single lie I have said. If you want to say “as usual” as in, as per usual, you should have your facts backed up.
On women as property:
I know the biblical versus kiddo, you don’t. Provide your evidence as to the ownership and enslavement of women in the bible.
Because the “property” you go over, is never as you’re going to portray it.
Women were basically set up to be protected. So if a husband died for example, his brother or a family member would protect the woman. None of the aspects that happened were about making the woman a slave. It was about keeping the woman alive. The world was not as easy then as it is now.
I have quite a bit of study on this. What do you have?
Cliche phrases said from other liberal sources?
Really. You act like you’re an educated source on all subjects and I’m an idiot on all subjects.
You lied when you said you read the minimum wage study I presented, which was proven when you couldn’t even give a basic summary on the topic and said it said exactly the opposite of what it found.
As for this, you are 100% wrong as usual.
Women were set up to be “protected” by having no freedom.
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. ”
We call this slavery now, and women were treated worse than men, even in slavery.
As for their treatment, maybe it’s your view, but I don’t agree owning a slave and then beating them (even specifically women) is okay as long as they are not disabled longer than 2 days.
Also, “If you buy a Hebrew servant (slave) […] in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. […] If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her child shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”
You think this is great treatment of women, protects them, or you didn’t know they existed, but pretended to be knowledgeable. Regardless of the reason you are dead wrong, and totally clueless. This is from the “cliche liberal source” otherwise known as The Bible. You are an intellectual light-weight, at best. You have seemingly no knowledge on any topic.
April 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
So let’s provide some info and background here:
A father can refuse his daughter to marry a bad man. I imagine this is one of your “property” issues.
However, again, protection. The young woman may be making a bad choice, and the father knows better.
If the man rapes his daughter, either the man is executed or he is married to her for life. What this means is not that she is the rapists wife, it means the rapist cannot marry as he is considered married. The raped woman can marry. It means the rapist has to pay the woman for her life for her entire life, and he may not marry.
The system is set up to protect the woman. In one scenario from marrying a man who may end up screwing her entire life up, so her father gets the say.
In the other, it allows a man to take care of her for life and protects her there.
List to me one section that is designed to take ownership over women.
Bob, reading this drivel and then seeing you claim it’s for the woman’s protection really reveals why you were ignorantly claiming Trump has not made sexist statements. You are a sexist along with a fascist.
Women aren’t viewed property but their owner, err, dad can stop them from marrying their chosen mate, because he might know better and the presumably stupid woman has no say. Since it applies to all women and fathers it assumes all men are smarter than their daughters (if you go with your icorrect theory) which by definition is sexist.
Okay, you love analogies. I’m clearly more intelligent than you, so you would see no problem with your personal sovereignty if I had veto power over your most important decisions and could sell you into the service of other people, right?
April 5, 2016 at 1:26 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
7
Also,
The reason I’m not wasting my time with your other posts is I made my point well enough the first time, and I really don’t care whatever your piss poor argument is after that point.
I’m not running from your arguments.
It’s pointless to argue with someone as stupid as you are at times.
You said, “It’s pointless to argue with someone as stupid as you are at times.” Now you know how I feel.
April 5, 2016 at 1:58 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Don’t know what Bob is saying this time, because I just simply don’t read his bull$hit and haven’t for years now, but regarding Ron’s reply, OH SNAP!
April 1, 2016 at 10:46 am
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
While I think the Little Sisters of the Poor’s argument that sending a notice that they’re opting out of providing birth control coverage infringes on their religious beliefs is a little silly, I think the court’s 3rd option seems pretty reasonable:
“It tells the lawyers to “consider a situation” in which objecting employers, in arranging for health insurance, merely tell their insurer that they object to contraceptive coverage and don’t want to include it. They wouldn’t have to submit any separate notice to the insurer or the government.
Under the court’s proposal, the insurer then would notify the employees that it would provide birth control coverage separately.”
Hopefully, everyone agrees to it, and this can be settled.
Why can any women get BC but wife cant get her pain meds? Because the Market place says so. She is being pushed to get alternative treatment that is not covered by my Market Place policy. Seems bas akwars to me – providing someone with something that might happen as opposed to providing meds for someone that has had something happen.
Guess that how my premiums are supposed to go down $2500 @ year.
If you don’t want to have a baby, who’s stopping you? Your employer? Your health plan? I could be wrong, but I suspect there are many ways to not have a baby…however, if you like your baby, you can keep your baby…
JB, in my case, Mother Nature. I still end up paying for it. Same as maternity. thats why premiums are so high, I have to pay for shit I’ll never use any more that used to be optional.
But, Obama says it essential and who am I to question king Jofferies wisdom?
Since when did birth control = abortion? If that were true, then “rhythm method”, abstinence or any effort to avoid an unintended pregnancy could be construed as abortion. I thought folks got over that notion during the Renaissance.
Some types of contraceptive work by stopping the embryo from implanting on the wall, which happens after conception and is then considered an abortion. Many companies will pay for some contraceptives, but not this kind.
That is not considered an abortion by most scientists or doctors. If it was most women would have had many “miscarriages” because it happens naturally all the time.
Fallacious argument UW.
I’m not saying I agree that it is abortion, but your logic here is incorrect.
The key word in your sentence is it happens naturally, but the obvious implication in that is that the occurrence you are talking about did not happen naturally.
Death happens naturally all the time. People will have their heart stop often as a result of pushing their bodies too far during let’s say a marathon.
Now, that’s natural. But let’s say that someone held this marathon and forced you to participate.
Then as a result, your heart has a natural “attack”. You then die.
You could then say well, people die of a heart attack due to over exertion all the time.
Yes they do. But in this scenario it didn’t just occur. It was forced.
Embryo’s have issues implanting to the wall. Correct.
It’s natural when it occurs naturally.
But when it is forced, it didn’t just occur. The scenarios are not the same.
Of course given your logical irrationality, and your over confidence in general, you will now whine and state some unrelated topic I have said before that you feel wasn’t logical, or call me a zealot, or an intellectual zero, and then you’ll throw a fit, and say how I’m and insane conservative, right?
Bob, I haven’t been in here to downvote you, obviously other people have been doing it, probably because yet are sick of your idiotic statements.
My logic isn’t incorrect, and it’s not debatable. As usual, you are clueless. My comment about it occurring naturally refers to the fact that more than 70% of fertilized eggs do not attach and therefore have to be considered a miscarriage if you consider this type of pill abortion. Your idiotic hypotheticals and analogies don’t apply here, don’t make sense, and aren’t relevant. Yes, if you created a fantasy world where people were forced to make people run marathons all sorts of things could happen, but I have no interest in debating the fantasy world of a person with no grasp of history, economics, science, policy, or, seemingly, reality.
You completely uninformed on seemingly every topic. Maybe the reason my post didn’t have any downvotes is because I stated what almost all scientists believe, and you and the other far right-wing, anti-science, nuts hadn’t been into this thread yet.
And yes, based on your preferred policies, preferred candidates, and positions, you are a fascist, as I pointed out before and as you melted down about but couldn’t refute. You whined about, denied, and demanded citations for commonly known things about the guy you support and then ignored them. You aren’t a serious person when it comes to this.
You’re fast UW. Pretty fast on that dislike button.
Notice your like and dislike ratio at the time of this comment.
Zero dislikes. Interesting, isn’t it?
I still have yet to dislike a single post of people I disagree with.
I must be some insane fascist radical though right?
Because I get mad at your out of line crud every now and again.
You’re forgetting. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, for every one that’s wasted, god gets quite irate.
No one thinks like this.
It is more telling that you have labeled the typical thought patterns on the issue as essentially what you put above.
What is in fact what most conservatives consider to be sacred, is the marital sex act. The supposed sin in say, masturbation and spilling of the seed, is lust. That is to say, that you care more about F’ing someone, then you do taking care of someone.
Now do I agree entirely with that? No…But I understand the people that think it and I don’t just issue some comment like yours above to label them all as whack jobs.
Get a sense of humor, Bob. I’m sure J.S.’s comment was intended to be humorous. Do you understand humor?
Contraceptives can work a couple different ways. Some stop the fertilization of the egg, others stop the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. The second is often considered an abortive method and many people are ok with the first, but not the second.
That’s why some companies are ok with some forms of contraceptive, but not others. It’s often reported as if they are simply against any of it, which is not accurate.
Ever hear of the “morning after pill”? That in essence is ending a pregnancy. And plans cover that pill.
Morning after pills do not technically end a pregnancy. A woman is not pregnant until a fertilized egg implants, this stops that from happening.
What?!
Without getting into the legalities, one simple question: How do priests get to decide about women being pregnant when they abstain (officially, anyway), despite God’s commandment to “be fruitful and multiply?” Can’t have it both ways!
God wants us to reproduce; he also wants the children to have healthy parents who can raise those children to be productive and positive members of society. The point wasn’t to breed endlessly! If so, there wouldn’t be Jewish family purity laws!
GoldC, do you think it is right to force birth control on the Little Sisters of the Poor in their Health plan? Shouldn’t they have a right to refuse the coverage?
Which Little Sister of the Poor has a need for birth control?
I guess you haven’t been following that story GoldC.
To GoldC, you should try and learn a little about Priests before trying to equate them to ‘virgins’. Here’s a hint: Priests wear wedding rings. Go find out why.
This country makes religious allowances but it seems like it has forgotten that we are a Christian Nation. 3 Sikh-Americans are suing the Dept of Defense to make the army give religious allowances to them while they serve in the armed forces.
This should be a choice. If a company that is Catholic owned doesn’t want to provide contraception coverage, then they should have the choice to not provide it. And if that upsets an employee, they have the freedom to change jobs, or go visit Planned Parenthood for free contraception.
First of all, we are not a Christian nation and never have been (see establishment clause, the Treaty of Tripoli, etc). And if that upsets a Catholic, they have the freedom to live in the Vatican (or Mexico). Also, employees can’t go to Planned Parenthood if the location has been shut down.
WE are a Christian Nation. God is mentioned all over our history. Christian doesn’t mean just Catholics.
Jack, Obama said we weren’t a Christian nation and Shirley believed him.
If we truly are a Christian nation, why is there no mention of God in the Constitution? Is that not the supreme law of the land?
We are a secular nation, period.
Spoken like a true Catholic. You are shameful to the your religion.
Even if you believed this, arguing it harms the general public when it comes to whether or not they will shape society according to God, or according to a secular world without God. God clearly demands one over the other.
Now on the aspect of whether we are a Christian nation:
We are. Several laws have had religious reasoning, that you and I don’t agree with. You’ve argued for the removing of religion from the laws.
To say religion is not within our laws is insane.
What I believe you mean to say is, the nation was intended as a secular nation.
Even this is not accurate. The founding fathers did not want the nation to remove God from the equation of law. They wanted to remove tyrannical religion and tyrannical oppression that was not religious as well.
Whether they wanted religion in there or not is unclear. Some were religious, some weren’t.
It’s all pretty much speculation from there, but given how many religious laws we passed, the Salem Witch Trials and other things I both do and don’t like that had religious laws involved, I’m thinking as a whole we were a religious nation.
Bob,
Why must you always try to make more of my statement than what is intended? Why must you completely mischaracterize me and my motivations?
All I am saying is that we are a secular nation and our laws SHOULD reflect that. If you want laws out of religion you must also keep religion out of laws.
Here is PRROF we are not a Christian nation:
1.The fact that neither God nor Christianity are mentioned in the Constitution.
2. We allow Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Hindi, Native Americans, Satanists and other non-Christians to not only live here freely and practice their religions, but to be in positions of leadership and influence in society.
3. The Founding Fathers said so.
A: It is ironic how at the same time as saying we aren’t a Christian nation, you often imply that we have a Christian problem in the nation. Where did that come from? The sky? Religion infiltrated the nation from the beginning eh? Wouldn’t that mean that we were a religious nation? I mean really. It’s always been there. I only recently converted to Catholicism. I enjoy it, but in many ways I’m still an agnostic. It’s complicated. What this means is I understand non believers, and Catholics. To say we didn’t start as a religious nation is absurd.
B: And you have the freedom to leave the U.S. as well. But it’s just stupid for me to say that…It’s an unreasonable thing to say.
C: Or, here’s a thought: Purchase your own birth control. It’s cheap. Insurance companies should not be handling it. Insurance is for the management of high risk issues. It does not lower the cost of preventative care, or consistently used items, because they cannot invest the unused premiums to fund the scenarios. Are you even in the insurance field? This is simple math Shirley. Insurance should not be handling those. Companies should not be required to provide them. If you want birth control, BUY IT.
Bob, do you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, or somewhere around there?
Also, Bob, no it’s not ironic. Maybe you don’t know what that word means. His whole point is that our government is secular and this is a problem because people are pushing their religious views on others.
Also saying it is absurd to claim the US didn’t start as a religious nation is simply wrong. The most influential founders were deists and did not want the nation to be based on religion, as proven by the Establishment of Religion clause. They particularly did not believe the country was based on Christianity as noted earlier. The Treaty of Tripoli, written under Washington and then signed by Adam’s specifically stated the country was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Yeah, I know. So?
God does not forbid contraception.
Someone please show me where it specifically says Thou Shalt Not Wear A Jimmy Hat Or Take A Contraceptive Pill in scripture. And, remember, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t interpret that from something in scripture and then also tell me the planet is only 600 years old, for those of you anti-sciencers.
What did you even just say?
Did you just try to set it up so someone can’t win in a debate with you?
I think what you’re trying to do is label the person who uses biblical scripture…By saying they can’t use scripture because some people say scripture says the bible is only 600 years old (you used the wrong date, but I will assume that is for hyperbole).
I have to just say this on the issue:
Some things are common sense in the biblical sense.
If God exists, you don’t create kids. God does.
If God makes a child from your sex act, God doesn’t make mistakes. You do.
If God wanted it to be your choice at that point, he would have made you able to decide whether or not to become pregnant by nature. He didn’t.
So we have established this means God wanted the child to exist. As soon as you introduce an unnatural block, you are circumventing what God would have ordinarily allowed to happen.
It is literally common sense and impossible that if God exists, that he supports birth control.
Now, on this I have to go further:
Do I perceive birth control as a sin seriousness to send one to hell, that has no reason for humans to be doing it?
NO! Some people cannot afford a child, and because they know less than God they panic and take birth control to prevent it. God probably understands this, but it doesn’t mean the human who is erroneous must be called correct for doing what they are doing because they have a personal reason to do it. God has a divine creator reason for creating the life he would have created. God trumps Man.
It is not debatable that God doesn’t want abortion or birth control if he exists. And I still debate like this because though I am Catholic now, I do not KNOW God exists. I hope he does.
A lot of you here have labeled me as a crazy conservative despite my balance on these issues…
I know it sounds off topic, but I also know you will do so again and I have a need to show you I’m not extreme so you do not have the ability to do so.
Bob,
I believe getting pregnant is purely physiological. If God is the one who creates kids, then no one who is raped would EVR get pregnant.
If you disagree with me, then you are saying the pregnant rape victim made a mistake.
Yes, I echo RetiredUW and GoldC and would like to add, my wife was prescribed birth control so it we COULD conceive. The Teahadists are against Sharia Law but down with Judeo-Christian tradition ruling the land. Same people are purchasing product after product made in China where abortion is mandated.
Women are not going back to pre 1950. We have the ability to prevent pregnancy and access to those medical means is as valid as access to any other health service. By the way, vasectomy, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, also are pretty permanent ways to prevent pregnancy…will they stop paying for those medical procedures also? What about the high, high cost of fertility treatments? Why should an employee have to face potentially higher premiums because co-workers have used fertility treatments in the same medical plan where they cannot get birth control?
And…does it go without saying that a woman should be given all the health benefit info during an interview so she can know what the deal is when she considers a job offer.
Which begs the question should medical plans provide coverage for elective surgery? Or should such charges be borne by those who elect to have it?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…It’s not that complicated.
No one is being prevented from practicing their religion. They’re being prevented from forcing their screwball religion onto their employees.
I wouldn’t say religion is screwball; but its interpretation within and without often is.
Just another reason this needs to go.
Dont Planed Parenthood give away Birth Control?? I know my local county health department does. If its available for free from those entities, why have it in the drug plan at all?
When the Federal government can force its will on how “We The People” practice religious beliefs it’s another sign we are rapidly losing our freedom to an out of control lawless bureaucracy. You may not agree with the beliefs of some religions but it is important to note the Freedom to practice those beliefs without government interference is one of our Constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment states” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So their grievance is… helping a woman manage her life? What happened to “love the sinner, hate the sin?” This makes for good practice.
Government isn’t forcing it’s will in people, it’s stopping people from enforcing their religious views onto others.
…
Are you really saying that not buying someone’s birth control, is a form of forcing religious views onto someone?
While the someone who wants the corporation to pay for their birth control, is not the party trying to force someone to do something?
This is backwards logic.
Let’s try this fact.
I don’t want to give you my money UW.
Am I forcing you to not have money?
Terrible analogy, unsurprisingly, but not as bad as your logic.
Government is not interfering with the right of anybody to practice their religion. The leaders of these groups do not have to use contraceptives, nor do any of the people in the group, they are given the option; alternatively, the leaders of these groups are forcing their interpretation of their religion onto the other people in the organization who may not share their interpretation of the religion.
Your terrible analogy would be more accurate if you stated you don’t think people should have money so you don’t allow others to have money even if they don’t share that belief. If religious groups want to participate in civil society and share in the benefits of society they have to follow the rules.
When this was discussed for over a year before Obamacare was passed it was frequently shown that many health insurance groups offer this free of charge because it reduces their cost v in the long-term.
One may not agree with the beliefs of a religion but when the federal government mandates how one can practice that faith and be in violation of a constitutional right protected under the First Amendment it’s a very troubling development. It signifies that “We The People” are losing another one our freedoms to an out of control lawless bureaucracy.
The government is not telling anyone how to practice their religion.
They are just saying that in practicing your religion you cant step on the rights of people who practice something else. Doesn’t that sound fair?
It is easier to give everyone a benefit and let people opt out who don’t need, want or support it, than it is to have no benefit and put an undue burden on people who need to obtain it.
In these stripped out health plans, can you even get an RX for birth control or is that office visit (that medically necessary consultation and exam with your doctor) not covered either? NOW who is tromping on whose rights?
No other country in the world does this, even Catholic countries. Mexico of all places , purposely is controlling its population by many means
http://www.economist.com/node/15959332
libra, your first paragraph is ridiculous. The gov’t is stepping on the rights of Catholics to practice their religion. They are saying too bad you are Catholic and don’t believe in contraception. Others want it, so you have to provide and pay for it.
The simple answer is to allow companies to opt out of the contraception coverage.
They are neither providing nor paying for it. The Catholics are free to practice their religion. In fact, the Catholics are stepping on the rights of the American people. They want public infrastructure, so the rest of us have to provide and pay for it, while the church pays no taxes. Talk about moochers. I’d like to opt out of paying for public infrastructure that is used for the benefit of the church. After all, having to pay for another religion is a violation of my religious liberty.
What public infrastructure is giving money directly to the Catholic Church, other than a donation???
Again, Catholics are not stepping on the rights of Americans; it is the other way around. If I am a Catholic business owner, and I strictly follow Catholicism, I would not believe in contraception but yet the gov’t is making me go against my beliefs and provide coverage for contraception in a health plan. The way to handle this is to allow a religious exemption and not force contraception coverage on Catholic business owners. If the employees don’t like it, they are free to find other employment.
Jack, how about police, military, education, roads, a stable society, the right to be protected and free to practice their religion?
Jack, you are right, of course. Obamacare has those nasty mandates in it and one of them is Birth Control. Had it been flexible and gave the option to decline, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The federal government via the ACA asserts that religious-affiliated groups do not have to provide contraception to their employees but they do need to sign a form affirming their objection. This forces the insurer or an outside third party e.g. health plan administrator to provide separate birth control coverage back to their employees. The government is saying you do not have to offer the coverage but sign a form and we will still violate your religious beliefs by forcing you to use a third party . I’m not certain what you mean by “stripped out health plans”. Please review what is occurring to citizens forced into Obamacare. In many states more than half the plans being sold on Obamacare insurance exchanges have a deductible of $3,000 or more.
For many, that means they must pick up the cost of many routine doctor visits and treatment, while counting on their insurance primarily for catastrophic or other major medical expenses.
Lastly you mention Mexico. Did you know priests could not vote until 1992 and any religious buildings erected prior to 1992 are owned by the state?
How many Catholics aren’t on birth control?
That is how they actually “practice” their religion. Not by whether or not their employers allow birth control in the health plan.
Uncommon sense?
OK, so you’re down with Sharia Law, then?
…
False Equivalency to the largest extreme I have seen in some time.
exempting religious organizations from providing birth control is similar to Sharia Law?
So we either make no exemptions, or we have Sharia Law eh?
Your scenario creates an insane level of hostility between believers and non believers.
We should weigh the scenario instead of being essentially totalitarian in one or the other direction.
I’m not sure how anyone can be “for” healthcare, yet “against” the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of Healthcare in the world.
What happened to the good ol’ days when The Bible okay’d treating women like property? It’s time to own them again and push them back into the kitchen. I want my turkey pot pie, bit…
One thing is for sure, Sharia Law treats women like property, won’t let them drive, no vote, abuses them and then stones them to death if they commit adultery. Kind of like 1,000 years ago. By the way, the greatest glory a Terrorist can have is killing an infidel. He is promised 72 virgins and all the dates he can eat. Evil personified and they call that a religion. Pretty much a cult.
Agent, as noted before, that 72 virgins line has been shown to be a mistranslation. Repeating it is fundamentally dishonest and shows your ignorance.
Never did.
Never will.
The Bible made sure women were taken care of.
Also: Quit with that bull crap about putting them back into the kitchen. It’s annoying to hear a self avowed Christian assault their own religion just because it’s hip to do so.
Give the biblical attacks a rest.
Actually Bob, as usual you are wrong or lying. Hey, The Bible laid out conditions for owning and treating slaves, and was pretty particular when it came to women. This is one reason many of people don’t want Christians imposing their religion them.
First of all, point out a single lie I have said. If you want to say “as usual” as in, as per usual, you should have your facts backed up.
On women as property:
I know the biblical versus kiddo, you don’t. Provide your evidence as to the ownership and enslavement of women in the bible.
Because the “property” you go over, is never as you’re going to portray it.
Women were basically set up to be protected. So if a husband died for example, his brother or a family member would protect the woman. None of the aspects that happened were about making the woman a slave. It was about keeping the woman alive. The world was not as easy then as it is now.
I have quite a bit of study on this. What do you have?
Cliche phrases said from other liberal sources?
Really. You act like you’re an educated source on all subjects and I’m an idiot on all subjects.
Even when I give good facts.
UW you need to drop the attitude.
You lied when you said you read the minimum wage study I presented, which was proven when you couldn’t even give a basic summary on the topic and said it said exactly the opposite of what it found.
As for this, you are 100% wrong as usual.
Women were set up to be “protected” by having no freedom.
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. ”
We call this slavery now, and women were treated worse than men, even in slavery.
As for their treatment, maybe it’s your view, but I don’t agree owning a slave and then beating them (even specifically women) is okay as long as they are not disabled longer than 2 days.
Also, “If you buy a Hebrew servant (slave) […] in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. […] If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her child shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”
You think this is great treatment of women, protects them, or you didn’t know they existed, but pretended to be knowledgeable. Regardless of the reason you are dead wrong, and totally clueless. This is from the “cliche liberal source” otherwise known as The Bible. You are an intellectual light-weight, at best. You have seemingly no knowledge on any topic.
So let’s provide some info and background here:
A father can refuse his daughter to marry a bad man. I imagine this is one of your “property” issues.
However, again, protection. The young woman may be making a bad choice, and the father knows better.
If the man rapes his daughter, either the man is executed or he is married to her for life. What this means is not that she is the rapists wife, it means the rapist cannot marry as he is considered married. The raped woman can marry. It means the rapist has to pay the woman for her life for her entire life, and he may not marry.
The system is set up to protect the woman. In one scenario from marrying a man who may end up screwing her entire life up, so her father gets the say.
In the other, it allows a man to take care of her for life and protects her there.
List to me one section that is designed to take ownership over women.
I’ll wait.
Bob, reading this drivel and then seeing you claim it’s for the woman’s protection really reveals why you were ignorantly claiming Trump has not made sexist statements. You are a sexist along with a fascist.
Women aren’t viewed property but their owner, err, dad can stop them from marrying their chosen mate, because he might know better and the presumably stupid woman has no say. Since it applies to all women and fathers it assumes all men are smarter than their daughters (if you go with your icorrect theory) which by definition is sexist.
Okay, you love analogies. I’m clearly more intelligent than you, so you would see no problem with your personal sovereignty if I had veto power over your most important decisions and could sell you into the service of other people, right?
Also,
The reason I’m not wasting my time with your other posts is I made my point well enough the first time, and I really don’t care whatever your piss poor argument is after that point.
I’m not running from your arguments.
It’s pointless to argue with someone as stupid as you are at times.
Bob,
You said, “It’s pointless to argue with someone as stupid as you are at times.” Now you know how I feel.
Don’t know what Bob is saying this time, because I just simply don’t read his bull$hit and haven’t for years now, but regarding Ron’s reply, OH SNAP!
While I think the Little Sisters of the Poor’s argument that sending a notice that they’re opting out of providing birth control coverage infringes on their religious beliefs is a little silly, I think the court’s 3rd option seems pretty reasonable:
“It tells the lawyers to “consider a situation” in which objecting employers, in arranging for health insurance, merely tell their insurer that they object to contraceptive coverage and don’t want to include it. They wouldn’t have to submit any separate notice to the insurer or the government.
Under the court’s proposal, the insurer then would notify the employees that it would provide birth control coverage separately.”
Hopefully, everyone agrees to it, and this can be settled.
You have said something reasonable.
I agree.
Why not just make it optional on Group Coverage? You know, like it used to when health insurance was affordable?
Why can any women get BC but wife cant get her pain meds? Because the Market place says so. She is being pushed to get alternative treatment that is not covered by my Market Place policy. Seems bas akwars to me – providing someone with something that might happen as opposed to providing meds for someone that has had something happen.
Guess that how my premiums are supposed to go down $2500 @ year.
If you don’t want to have a baby, who’s stopping you? Your employer? Your health plan? I could be wrong, but I suspect there are many ways to not have a baby…however, if you like your baby, you can keep your baby…
JB, in my case, Mother Nature. I still end up paying for it. Same as maternity. thats why premiums are so high, I have to pay for shit I’ll never use any more that used to be optional.
But, Obama says it essential and who am I to question king Jofferies wisdom?