GOP to permit employers to deny contraception

redrumloa said:
Yeah and? Find a better employer.
Click to expand...

Like it should be a church or mosque having to pay (directly or just premium increases) a third party to do something that is directly against their teachings. Progressives war against religion, this time it's naked and I wish they put their clothes back on, not a pretty picture.

They are acting like it's impossible for a woman to go buy something for herself with her own money. Unbelievable the amount of power they want to wield that was not even voted on by Congress. Where in the hell is this power included in the US Constitution? No where in the commerce clause does it give the POTUS the right to force individuals into private contract with other private entities. Is it any wonder why the Progressives damn and belittle the US Constitution? It stops them from achieving their fantasy utopia which is typically the last step before tyranny begins.
 
Dammy said:
Like it should be a church or mosque having to pay (directly or just premium increases) a third party to do something that is directly against their teachings. Progressives war against religion, this time it's naked and I wish they put their clothes back on, not a pretty picture.
Click to expand...
The US Constitution says that the government is to 'promote the general Welfare'. Welfare is the happiness, well-being and health of the citizens of the nation. Likewise the rights in the constitution are to promote the citizens and nation first, not the churches.

They are acting like it's impossible for a woman to go buy something for herself with her own money.
Click to expand...
Failing to cover birth control for women while covering other sexual aids for men is sexist and thereby unequal treatment of citizens.

And of course, we have seen other cases where churches must follow the laws of the land. For example, no longer can churches exclude blacks, even though it was in their teaching to do so.

Redrumola said:
Yeah and? Find a better employer.
Click to expand...
We have a Country that is 'Of, By, and For the PEOPLE.' So,Yeah and if the churches don't like it they can find another Country or stop providing healthcare.
 
faethor said:
We have a Country that is 'Of, By, and For the PEOPLE.' So,Yeah and if the churches don't like it they can find another Country or stop providing healthcare.
Click to expand...

Bzzt wrong, stop pissing on the First Amendment. Why do you lefties hate the Constitution so badly?
 
the_leander said:
So which part of his comment was wrong in your view?
Click to expand...

The whole missing the point of Separation of Church and State. Since when did Separation of Church and State meaning become complete government control of Church by government?

Don't forget, I haven't been to back church except for funerals since I purposely got myself kicked out of Catholic school in the late 80's. I am no big fan of the Catholic church or religion itself. I have much disdain for Catholic institutions, at least on a local level.
 
the_leander said:
So which part of his comment was wrong in your view?
Click to expand...
some people think Separation of church and state means the churches should be allowed to bully everyone who isn't part of their religion. As if the church is 'special' and has more rights than the non-believers.

they simply don't understand that America is a secular country JUST so each individual can CHOOSE whatever THEY wish without pressure from anyone else. No one in the government is forcing a catholic to USE contraception. The catholics can do exactly what they wish.

What they shouldn't be allowed to do is force non-catholics to believe that contraception is somehow a 'bad' thing just because some wacky pope says so.
 
redrumloa said:
The whole missing the point of Separation of Church and State. Since when did Separation of Church and State meaning become complete government control of Church by government?
Click to expand...

So churches are to be considered above the law then? Or at the very least be allowed to pick and choose which ones they want to uphold?

From what can see the concern is that religiously motivated employers could, with these exceptions then impose their beliefs on non believers. Whilst I don't understand what that would have to do with the first amendment as such (since it would apply to all religions equally it cannot be said to favour one over others), I do feel that it would be out of line to give the ultra orthodox/fundies special exemptions based on their belief on the right to impose their own particular brand of lunacy on others as a privilege.

--edit-- The equal protection clause in the 14th might make such an exemption illegal.

Lets face it, most employers would have no real issue with this, hell the smart ones would probably use it as a means of fostering loyalty to the company. The only ones who'd ban it would be fundies. "Get another job" rings kinda hollow given these times of austerity.

redrumloa said:
Don't forget, I haven't been to back church except for funerals since I purposely got myself kicked out of Catholic school in the late 80's. I am no big fan of the Catholic church or religion itself. I have much disdain for Catholic institutions, at least on a local level.
Click to expand...

Only time my family ever came into contact with religion was for hatches, matches and dispatches. Though these days not even that much bar a few die hards.
 
faethor said:
"Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny contraception coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday"
Click to expand...

I'm sure the employers that refuse to cover contraception will be the ones who are offering generous maternity packages instead, right?
 
redrumloa said:
The whole missing the point of Separation of Church and State. Since when did Separation of Church and State meaning become complete government control of Church by government?
Click to expand...
This is far, far from complete control. There certainly are other laws that Churches must follow. (For example: No murder meant the end to human sacrifice. Marriage is between two people means one can't have multiple wifes any longer. Children are no longer allowed to be married. Anti-discrimination laws means the blacks with the mark of Cain must now be allowed to attend. And certainly it's a crime worthy of war to instruct followers to drive planes into buildings. And of course churches that stay out of politics don't have to pay taxes. Though I'd note the IRS fails to enforce that as many have been into polictics and nearly never get taxes imposed upon them.) Churches, like any other institution, must follow the laws of the land. Should this not be the case the result is the nation becomes subserviant to the church. As the nation can then only pass laws which the churches agree are in it's best interest.
 
faethor said:
Failing to cover birth control for women while covering other sexual aids for men is sexist and thereby unequal treatment of citizens.
Click to expand...

Women in Hawaii in 1961 lacked adequate assess to contraceptives
 
faethor said:
The US Constitution says that the government is to 'promote the general Welfare'. Welfare is the happiness, well-being and health of the citizens of the nation. Likewise the rights in the constitution are to promote the citizens and nation first, not the churches.
Click to expand...

Forcing third party to offer, for commerce, to another third party is clearly beyond that and the commerce clause. Think it was the Federalist Papers that one of the framers commented on that the phrase you quoted must not be abused and was ment to be limited to what the federal government is allowed to do.

Failing to cover birth control for women while covering other sexual aids for men is sexist and thereby unequal treatment of citizens.
Click to expand...

This is private enterprise and private employers. Who the hell gave Obama the right to be a tyrant of the freebie medical offerings?

And of course, we have seen other cases where churches must follow the laws of the land. For example, no longer can churches exclude blacks, even though it was in their teaching to do so.
Click to expand...

Says who? Or do you have case law handy that you can refer to? I see no reason why the Federal government can dictate who the churches/temples/mosques must allow to be apart of their practices. I want to see the US Marshals forcing a homosexual Jew into a Wahabi Mosque for all prayer services if what you are saying is indeed in US Code or Federal Judge made law.

We have a Country that is 'Of, By, and For the PEOPLE.' So,Yeah and if the churches don't like it they can find another Country or stop providing healthcare.
Click to expand...

Health care provided by an employer is NOT a constitutional right. I realize that the massive control by the Federal government into every aspect of our daily lives is a Progressive's Utopia, but it is smack against the Framer's of the US Constitution's wishes. They understood a massively over reaching powerful central government is the last step before tyranny. Think about what is required for oppression to become reality in America and look at the path your Utopian society will have to take to arrive at your desired Utopia.
 
Dammy said:
Forcing third party to offer, for commerce, to another third party is clearly beyond that and the commerce clause.
Click to expand...
Now don't forget we're talking about churches not about the law in general. What the commerce clause does is give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. It doesn't really identify which regulations are OK and which are not. That is something the courts determine.

This is private enterprise and private employers. Who the hell gave Obama the right to be a tyrant of the freebie medical offerings?
Click to expand...
This response was to my comment that insurance companies must give birth control to women just as they do to men. While this may be an Obama thing it didn't originate there. It's been the law of the land for more than a decade. The deciding court case on this was passed about a month prior to GWBush's 2000 election.

Says who? Or do you have case law handy that you can refer to?
Click to expand...
You don't really believe Churches are exempt from US laws do you? What do you think will happen if the Satanists took up murdering for human sacrifice? They'd be stopped, jailed, and in some states murdered by the courts themselves. In the 60s we saw churches had to allow blacks into worship they couldn't discriminate any longer. And you wanted an example? Here's a recent one. A Kentucky church recently told a couple they couldn't get married because they were interracial. (Something that's against the law.) The result was they had to allow it. http://www.eurweb.com/2011/12/kentucky-church-forced-to-reverse-ban-on-interracial-couples/

The Framer's of the Constitution ensured the will of the people constructioned the union. It didn't exempt churches. Doing so gives that Church more power than the government or the people. Something that is clearly smack against the Framer's of the US Constitution's wishes.

Health care provided by an employer is NOT a constitutional right.
Click to expand...
It may be one the Congress can determine, the courts are still ruling and likely have longer to go.

Think about what is required for oppression to become reality in America and look at the path your Utopian society will have to take to arrive at your desired Utopia.
Click to expand...
There are always various 'utopian' dreams at work and in conflict in a society. Though again note your statement isn't one on treating churches like any other business it's a general one. A bit off the discussion topic of what should we do of these church concerns.
 
faethor said:
Now don't forget we're talking about churches not about the law in general. What the commerce clause does is give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. It doesn't really identify which regulations are OK and which are not. That is something the courts determine.
Click to expand...

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”


"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

“(the General Welfare clause is) a grant of power, the scope of which is quite expansive, particularly in view of the enlargement of power by the Necessary and Proper Clause ....It is for Congress to declare which expenditures will promote the general welfare... Whether the chosen means appear "bad" or "unwise" or "unworkable" is to us irrelevant; Congress has concluded that the means are "necessary and proper" to promote the general welfare, and we thus decline to find this legislation without the grant of power in Art. I Sec. 8.” Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 US 1, 90-91 emphasis added.


This response was to my comment that insurance companies must give birth control to women just as they do to men.
Click to expand...

What male birth control pill are the insurance companies giving out for free? Men's group threatened law suits against insurance companies because they were refusing to cover men's supplemental hormone treatment but they cover woman's. I seem to remember a ruling recent that rejected it.

While this may be an Obama thing it didn't originate there. It's been the law of the land for more than a decade. The deciding court case on this was passed about a month prior to GWBush's 2000 election.
Click to expand...

Since health insurance is not across state lines, I would love to read this opinion.

You don't really believe Churches are exempt from US laws do you? What do you think will happen if the Satanists took up murdering for human sacrifice? They'd be stopped, jailed, and in some states murdered by the courts themselves.
Click to expand...

How does that relate to forcing religious institutions to cover by the way of third party contract, services they find oppose to their religious views that readily available to the general public?

In the 60s we saw churches had to allow blacks into worship they couldn't discriminate any longer. And you wanted an example? Here's a recent one. A Kentucky church recently told a couple they couldn't get married because they were interracial. (Something that's against the law.) The result was they had to allow it. http://www.eurweb.com/2011/12/kentucky-church-forced-to-reverse-ban-on-interracial-couples/
Click to expand...

They were not forced, if you read the article, the church voted to reverse the ban. Had they been forced, there would have been a court hearing followed by a court order.
 
What male birth control pill are the insurance companies giving out for free?
Click to expand...
In the decade old case the men were getting preventative care and sexual treatments covered, for example Viagara like drugs.

Since health insurance is not across state lines, I would love to read this opinion.
Click to expand...
Strange when I was injured in Colorado my Minnesota insurance paid the 80% coverage rate. So indeed some are. Here's an article on the ruling. From there you should be able to find more in the legal proceedings on the case. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/06/13/MN206290.DTL

Another question I could take time to look up. Does the new Healthcare Laws insist on coverage across State lines? It's certainly be a very good idea as it'd support a more mobile society.

How does that relate to forcing religious institutions to cover by the way of third party contract, services they find oppose to their religious views that readily available to the general public?
Click to expand...
Allowing interracial marriage and blacks to attend their church were opposed to their religious views. And even still are for some as the Kentucky recent example held out. There's two questions here. First, is the Healthcare mandate legal or not. I'm arguing neither way here just noting that Courts are considering that. (Which is why I read but didn't comment on your posts from the Federalist papers.) The second is do churches have to comply. This I am commenting on. The answer is if churches are providing healthcare as an employer then it must comply with employer laws.

They were not forced, if you read the article, the church voted to reverse the ban.
Click to expand...
Yeah because they didn't want to be on the losing side of a legal fight that's been decided for racial issues for nearly 4 decades. Again churches aren't exempt from law. That would put church before nation, something that is clearly out of line with with the US. There's a reason Child Abuse has cost the Catholic Church billions. They failed to follow US law. Churches have to follow the law just like everyone else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Settlements.2C_bankruptcies_and_closures
 
faethor said:
In the decade old case the men were getting preventative care and sexual treatments covered, for example Viagara like drugs.
Click to expand...

You have a short memory, Viagara was not originally covered and law suits had to be brought to bare on the insurance companies since they offered female hormone replacement in their coverage.

Strange when I was injured in Colorado my Minnesota insurance paid the 80% coverage rate. So indeed some are. Here's an article on the ruling. From there you should be able to find more in the legal proceedings on the case. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/06/13/MN206290.DTL
Click to expand...

Ah, the good old Eugenics group Planned Parenthood. I didn't see where it mentioned policies across state lines, just that drug store chain had to provide birth control to the insurance policies that covered it, or something along those lines. You lived in CO but you bought a health insurance policy in MN? Is that right or did you buy it in MN and were in CO at the time of the injury?

Another question I could take time to look up. Does the new Healthcare Laws insist on coverage across State lines? It's certainly be a very good idea as it'd support a more mobile society.
Click to expand...

I like the idea as well.

Allowing interracial marriage and blacks to attend their church were opposed to their religious views. And even still are for some as the Kentucky recent example held out. There's two questions here. First, is the Healthcare mandate legal or not. I'm arguing neither way here just noting that Courts are considering that. (Which is why I read but didn't comment on your posts from the Federalist papers.) The second is do churches have to comply. This I am commenting on. The answer is if churches are providing healthcare as an employer then it must comply with employer laws.
Click to expand...

That means they will simply stop providing health insurance for their employees. That helps society, right?

Yeah because they didn't want to be on the losing side of a legal fight that's been decided for racial issues for nearly 4 decades. Again churches aren't exempt from law. That would put church before nation, something that is clearly out of line with with the US. There's a reason Child Abuse has cost the Catholic Church billions. They failed to follow US law. Churches have to follow the law just like everyone else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Settlements.2C_bankruptcies_and_closures
Click to expand...

We are not talking about criminal laws being violated, we are talking a mandate on health insurance policy that Congress did not approve and violates the religious beliefs of multiple religions. If you think this is going away in a election year, your very wrong. Bishops have stated they intend to go to jail before they allow this mandate to effect their parish. I'm sure some of the clerics of the Islam faith will follow suit.

I will note the court just recently rejected a law suit against a church for firing an employee who was not following their faith. The court recognized the right of the church to conduct it's business within it's religious sphere. This is a naked power grab by a Marxist POTUS in cowtailing religious institutions. Many Catholics voted for Obama in 08, they now want him fired. HHS secretary is apparently in the process of her being excommunicated from the RCC. It's not very often the Catholics turn their backs on a democrat, but in this election, it's going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top