Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

#27 Mar 01 2012 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I'd imagine there may be some conflicts between the Hippocratic Oath and religious dogma...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#28 Mar 01 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
See how that's a problem?


Nope because I still see the option of using birth control or not using birth control, which means if you don't use it you can pretend its not there (because it doesn't affect you at all)


Except that you're still paying for it, whether you personally use it or not. No one should be forced to buy something they don't want to buy, and no one should be forced to sell something they don't want to sell. Saying "you have to pay for it, but you don't have to take it home and use it" isn't really a solution.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Mar 01 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#30 Mar 01 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If churches want to get into the education or medical business, fine for them except they can play by the same rules as everyone else.


Churches have been in the education and medical business since long before Obama care was passed, and long before the US even existed. The issue is with the government intruding into these areas and creating mandates which never existed before. There is no need for it. There's a whole huge freaking range between making it illegal to buy or sell birth control and making it illegal to *not* buy or sell birth control.

Shouldn't the government stay in that middle range and let the people make their own purchase choices?


Quote:
If you can't handle that, stay in your cloister and I'll continue to defend your right to wave the religion flag from the altar.


Except the whole "free exercise of religion" is violated if the only place you can exercise it is in said cloister. And let's not forget that said cloister would still be required to provide health care for those in it according to Obamacare, and that insurance must include birth control. So even your analogy fails. This is the government reaching into every part of America, cloisters included and mandating that they buy birth control.


You really don't have a problem with that? I do. I think most people do, once they understand the scope of the problem. And the religious angle is only part of it. Our rights are not limited just to those enumerated in the constitution. I should have just as much right to not buy something whether I'm in a religion or not. The very idea that the government can force every (or even any) citizen to buy something is in complete opposition to the ideals of liberty.


Put more directly: It violates my rights to be required to pay for someone's birth control. It does not violate anyone's rights if the government does *not* pay for someone's birth control. The decision really ought to be simple. Let people buy their own **** health care. Let them decide how much they want. That's freedom.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Mar 01 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.


Not the point. Locking everyone up in jail cells and never letting them interact with each other would accomplish the same thing. So should we do that too?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Mar 01 2012 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,730 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.
So would taking Teen Mom and 16 And Pregnant off the air.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Mar 01 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.


Not the point. Locking everyone up in jail cells and never letting them interact with each other would accomplish the same thing. So should we do that too?
LOL. It's hard to take you seriously, gbaji.
#34 Mar 01 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
On the other hand, providing free and easily accessible contraceptives might just help lower the ridiculous teen pregnancy rate in the US.


Not the point. Locking everyone up in jail cells and never letting them interact with each other would accomplish the same thing. So should we do that too?
That'd be a rather impractical solution, don't you think?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#35 Mar 01 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Churches have been in the education and medical business since long before Obama care was passed, and long before the US even existed.

So? And?

Quote:
Except the whole "free exercise of religion" is violated if the only place you can exercise it is in said cloister. And let's not forget that said cloister would still be required to provide health care for those in it according to Obamacare, and that insurance must include birth control.

The second part is not accurate since actual churches are exempt from the requirement.
The White House wrote:
Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.

The bit that has people up in arms is auxiliary branches such as the mentioned schools and hospitals. As for the first part, we "violate" the free exercise on a regular basis for the good of the nation. You can't burn offerings to Moloch in your yard. The Amish still have to pay federal income tax. I don't consider "Religion!" to be carte blanche to decide which laws of the United States you feel like following and which ones you'll casually discard because... "Religion!"

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 6:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Mar 01 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
My question is, if I work for the Catholic church, and I get into some sort of freak ************ accident, will the insurance company deny my claim? What about if I get an STI before being married, will my religious physician deny me treatment? Or are we gonna foster an environment where people lie even more to their doctors?
#37 Mar 01 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,882 posts
Guenny wrote:
I get into some sort of freak ************ accident,


A reciprocating saw does not make a good marital aid.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#38 Mar 01 2012 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What if she's ************ freaks? Like at the circus or something as Christian charity work.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Mar 01 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,730 posts
Bearded Lady needs lovin', too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Mar 01 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
A point of clarification. Is the law that every insurance policy has to cover contraception, or is it the law that the insurance companies have to offer the option to have contraception covered?

The first doesn't really make sense to me, the second does. Gbaji is indicating that it's the first.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 7:23pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#41 Mar 01 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
gbaji wrote:
No one should be forced to buy something they don't want to buy, and no one should be forced to sell something they don't want to sell.
Agreed, that's why you go the universal healthcare route.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#42 Mar 01 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
If a religious organization objects to covering contraception on the basis that it violates their religion, then they will not be billed for having contraception on their list of services offered; the insurance company will, however, honor requests for it anyway.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#43 Mar 01 2012 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What if she's ************ freaks? Like at the circus or something as Christian charity work.

Marriage is only between one dwarf and one bearded lady. Smiley: mad
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#44 Mar 01 2012 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Honestly, the amendment was ******** insane. The reason it was being put forth was clearly due to birth control, but it was phrased in a way they hoped would draw in support--that being by asserting that the current policies were a massive affront to religion.

The horrible problem is that the nondescript language of the bill literally gave leave for ANY medical practice to be denied by the employer on religious grounds. And since there is no cutoff for what justifies a religious belief, that holds true. Your employer thinks vaccines are against his religion? Your insurance doesn't need to pay for it. Employer thinks mammograms are a violation of decency mandates on women? Doesn't need to pay for them.

Literally any procedure.

Furthermore, one of the reasons it was so stupid in the first place is because health insurance is almost always offered as part of your deal to take the job. It's essentially a way for companies to save money--they offer to pay health insurance, but take out a plan that covers a ton of people, giving them a great discount. Instead of paying 3k in addition per salary, they pay (say) $1500 a year.

That is not your employer paying for your birth control. That's them choosing to pay for your health insurance directly, instead of giving you a larger wage instead. It's a JOKE to consider that a violation of their religious freedoms, because they OPT to use this system to get out of having to pay higher salaries for the same quality of employee.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#45 Mar 01 2012 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
A point of clarification. Is the law that every insurance policy has to cover contraception, or is it the law that the insurance companies have to offer the option to have contraception covered?

The first doesn't really make sense to me, the second does. Gbaji is indicating that it's the first.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 7:23pm by Xsarus


IMO it is the latter, if Jane doesn't want contraception then she doesn't go to her doctor to get a prescribed contraceptive. Thus the company does not have to pay out the coverage.

Regardless of whether or not it is mandatory to fund or optional in a package, it all comes down to a persons free will to use or not use contraception. If it is used it is covered (like other prescriptions) if it is not used it doesn't need to be covered (thus isn't).
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#46 Mar 01 2012 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
You know, it's all kind of amusing watching the conservatives/Christians strive to hang on to the only tradition they can grasp being white Americans. The sad thing is, as we exit the age of Pisces (fish, Jesus) and enter into the age of Aquarius (humanitarianism, radical liberalism) it is inevitable that we will soon have "socialized" everything. The human race will evolve beyond its tribal, secular tendencies of misanthropic anti-socialism and embrace the ideals of unity as people, creatures who require a social order and society to function.

Now, this is a change in motion that won't come to its full fruition for a few more centuries (if we last that long), as each "age" lasts 2700 years, but it's inevitable. It's amusing as gbaji and others struggle against the current of change hoping that for the few short years they have left, they can cling to their moral, white, male superiority and systems created to uphold such.
#47 Mar 01 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,454 posts
catwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The Senate refusing to amend the health care law basically means that the likelihood of large portions of it being declared unconstitutional by the SCotUS went up.


Smiley: laugh


And? Do you even understand that the issue here is private hospitals and health care providers run by churches will be forced to both pay for and provide services which violate their own religious beliefs? That's the canary in the coalmine in terms of the constitutional issues with the health care mandates in Obamacare, since it directly violates the 1st amendment (which is kind of a big deal in this country). Had the Senate approved an amendment removing the requirement in the case of religious institutions, it's possible the direct 1st amendment violation aspect of the issue could be avoided. But by not doing so, it's left in place making it nearly impossible for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandates.


And those same private hospitals gladly avail themselves of federal funds. That means they need to keep their noses out of the business of an adult and his or her doctor.

Especially for contraception, which 15-20% of women take for reasons other than preventing pregnancy because it fixes a lot of other problems with female plumbing!

Unless you want to have adult women miss 3-4 days of work every month because they're bleeding so heavily they have iron deficiency anemia.

Sometimes when I'm in the car I listen to a republican radio show when I'm tired of listening to kids music and want to argue with the radio. Yesterday the host was talking about this and how he was ****** that the government wanted tax payers to pay for women to have ***. I finally got ****** enough that I called in and told him basically what you wrote, on how contraception is also used for medical reasons. He said his daughter had medical issues like one I used as an example. By the end, I had him semi agreeing with me. I thought the world was ending. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.


#48 Mar 01 2012 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Guenny wrote:
The sad thing is, as we exit the age of Pisces (fish, Jesus) and enter into the age of Aquarius (humanitarianism, radical liberalism) it

You knew this was coming.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#49 Mar 01 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
the government wanted tax payers to pay for women to have ***

I like how the conservatives keep phrasing it like that. Apparently women are deathly afraid of making babies during their ******* trysts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Mar 01 2012 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Churches have been in the education and medical business since long before Obama care was passed, and long before the US even existed.

So? And?


It means that arguing this like it's the religious organizations which are intruding into those areas is dishonest. It's the government that is intruding, not the other way around.

Quote:
The second part is not accurate since actual churches are exempt from the requirement.
The White House wrote:
Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.


Um... Except they aren't. The White House doesn't write the laws Joph. Congress does. And the Congress just failed to pass an amendment which would have exempted churches. If they had passed this amendment, then what you say would be true. But they didn't.


Quote:
The bit that has people up in arms is auxiliary branches such as the mentioned schools and hospitals. As for the first part, we "violate" the free exercise on a regular basis for the good of the nation. You can't burn offerings to Moloch in your yard. The Amish still have to pay federal income tax. I don't consider "Religion!" to be carte blanche to decide which laws of the United States you feel like following and which ones you'll casually discard because... "Religion!"


There you go with the big gaping excluded middle again though. So because we can't allow religious people to ignore any law they want, it's perfectly ok to pass any law we want no matter how offensive it might be to a religious person? There should be some reasonable range in between that we can find here.


And as I've stated before, the religious angle is just the canary in the coalmine of this issue. It's a violation of all our rights to impose the sorts of mandates that are in Obamacare. It's just that the ones directly violating various religious institutions 1st amendment rights makes the issue that much more obvious. It isn't really about religion though. It's about the government requiring people to buy things they don't want to buy, and to sell things they don't want to sell. That should not be allowed regardless of whether there's a violation of someone's religious beliefs involved.



What I was saying earlier, is that by failing to pass this amendment they make the argument that much more stark. Had they actually excluded religious institutions from this, they might have been able to play the whole thing as "necessary intrusion via commerce clause". Maybe. Now? That's pretty much down the drain.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Mar 01 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It means that arguing this like it's the religious organizations which are intruding into those areas is dishonest.

They're not intruding. They're not simply "churches" either.

Quote:
Um... Except they aren't. The White House doesn't write the laws Joph. Congress does.

And the administration, via the Dept of Health and Human Services, has the latitude to set regulations and exemptions per said law.

Did you think all those waivers, for example, were just tissue paper without value?

Quote:
There you go with the big gaping excluded middle again though. So because we can't allow religious people to ignore any law they want, it's perfectly ok to pass any law we want no matter how offensive it might be to a religious person? There should be some reasonable range in between that we can find here.

Sure. I don't think demanding an exemption to this law for auxiliary branches of a religious body which go beyond simple religion and into aspects that employ numerous people of various faiths and creeds is reasonable.

Edited, Mar 1st 2012 8:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 81 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (81)