quote:

ORIGINAL: misanthropicdom

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

No harm, no foul...no laws broken....and....no private affairs of anyone intruded upon.

(Contrary to popular, misguided and, VASTLY uneducated opinion).

Actually, they are constantly trying to intrude.

Authored by Republican Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, the birth control measure states that women who want birth control pills to be covered by their insurance plans must submit a form affirming that they need the drug solely for medical reasons. In addition, the bill grants employers the right to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, abortions or sterilization if it goes against the company's religious beliefs. And some activists argue that the bill allows employers to fire or choose not to hire women who use birth control to avoid pregancy, even if they pay for it themselves.

http://www.ibtimes.com/arizona-birth-control-bill-banning-use-contraception-employers-back-spotlight-798937

If that isnt shoving a religious nose into a woman's twat.....

And this, THIS, is why the Republicans are doing badly politically. Endlessly intrusive in things which are none of their business, many wish to eliminate the church-state separation, control every aspect of sex and pregnancy based on biblical interpretation, from a fantasy fairy tale book which they read selectively, pushing only the things with which they agree, ignoring the rest.

But of course, the moment that unwanted child is born, they wash their hands of all responsibility, repeatedly vote to cut funds for its care and education. They love the fetus, hate the baby.

And my favorite part is, they never learn. Here's hoping they control the Republican primary process and run zealots for President forever who pander to their insanity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I agree about the Depo. My question was more about the idea that using the Depo is a bandaid rather than a viable solution to a problem many women have.

Viagra causes a hard cock. Its also available under other names when used for other conditions besides impotence.

Unfortunately, the same is not true for birth control devices when used for medical problems. So, many assume that because a woman is on Depo that she is fucking around. They also assume that if its for a medical condition, there MUST be another way to treat that condition. Im sure a hysterectomy would do it... but who the hell wants to yank all the plumbing at an early age if they dont have too, which brings around the problem of hormone replacement....

I just really get fed up with these holy rollers telling women AND Doctors how to treat women.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

He's in line behind every 'conservative' on the board at the moment for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

That is why he waits in the line. Conservatives hold the honors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

(I'm waiting for DomKen to weigh in with some incredibly absurd assumptions).

quote:

WOW!!!!!

I was (and the original post was) discussing an individuals right to negotiate (his) rights in a court of law as to insurance.

Amazing extension of the conversation, to say the least.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian
I have no problem, and in fact support, exemptions to the contraceptive provisions for religious organizations (i.e. schools like Notre Dame, actual churches, and purely religious institutions).

I'm not sore sure I agree with that. I'd be tempted but honestly I'm more inclined to look at it like this.

If you are an organization... ANY organization... that hires people then you are an employer.
If you are an employer in the US you are expected to conform to whatever labor laws apply
I don't see your religion as being a viable reason for providing substandard health care which the rest of us will need to pick up the tab for.

Can you explain why you think that a "religious organization"... in it's role as a secular institution... should not be subject to secular rules? Render unto Ceaser and all that? Note that I'm not making anyone get birth control. I'm encouraging that decision to be a moral and spiritual one which presumably these religious organizations are well situated to address. I just don't see any need to adjust minimal standards of healthcare. I'd rather decisions about health be made on a scientific basis.

I'm not talking about religious organizations which act as secular institutions (like Hobby Lobby, the Salvation Army, etc). I am talking about situations such as private religious schools (Notre Dame, John Brown, Patrick Henry), churches themselves (which do have to hire people to help run the church), and non-profit organizations which are entirely religious (Campus Crusade for Christ).

For those organizations, their religion is what defines them as an organization, it is the basis upon which they are built, and their daily activities are focused on that religion. Forcing them to pay for, via their health insurance, a medical practice which violates their central tenets is, in my opinion, going too far. I am not saying they should be exempt from the law in its entirety. Rather, there should be small exemptions made that don't forbid their employees from getting contraceptives, but makes it so Campus Crusade for Christ doesn't have to pay for it.

Also, to finish, your statement about "decisions about health being made on a scientific basis" is a non sequitur. No one is saying that religious groups get to make medical decisions. All they are saying is that, if a medical procedure violates their core beliefs, they shouldn't have to pay for it if an employee chooses to have that procedure done. It is about churches asking not to be forced to financially support a practice with which they disagree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

I disagree with having a traffic light third street from the main intersection. My personal belief is that it shouldn't be there

I disagreed with all three invasions of the Middle East. That is my personal belief.

But I am forced to pay taxes for all of it, agree or not.

BUT ... if my objection were to be on religious grounds, rather than secular ...

WELL!

This is the state interfering with religious beliefs, is it not?

The Constitution said the government couldn't do that, didn't it?


THINK, man, THINK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

I agree with the judge. Having said that, I shop at Hobby Lobby and I eat at Chick-Fil-A. I don't participate in mindless lemming boycotts and nobody tells me where to shop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

I agree with the judge. Having said that, I shop at Hobby Lobby and I eat at Chick-Fil-A. I don't participate in mindless lemming boycotts and nobody tells me where to shop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

ARTIFICIAL LEGAL ENTITIES do not have religions. Therefore CORPORATIONS cannot have Religious Beliefs.

PERIOD.

THINK before you sacrifice YOUR PERSONAL RIGHTS for the benefits of incorporation. Caveat Emptor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/usa-healthcare-oklahoma-court-idUSL1E8MK12E20121120

quote:


Nov 19 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Monday denied a legal challenge to President Barack Obama's signature health reforms, ruling that the owners of a $3 billion arts and crafts chain must provide emergency contraceptives in their group health care plan.

The owners of Hobby Lobby asked to be exempted from providing the "morning after" and "week after" pills on religious grounds, arguing this would violate their Christian belief that abortion is wrong.

Judge Joe Heaton of the U.S. District for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the request for a preliminary injunction.

Heaton ruled that while individual members of the family that owns and operates Hobby Lobby have religious rights, the companies the family owns are secular, for-profit enterprises that do not possess the same rights.

BINGO. Game over Crazy Religious Extremists. Keep your CHURCH in YOUR CHURCH, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

quote:

Judge says, "Fuck you crazy religious nuts"