Secondly, I will need further explanation as to how this is different than, say, paying your employees using the currency of a society that offers contraception.
[/quote]
No, you don’t. You don’t need any explanation at all. The fact that we now have to come and explain ourselves to you and Pope Obama, for merely the continuation of a completely peaceful, voluntary, associational arrangement–which fulfills our LONGSTANDING religious obligations–is the most damning evidence of all.
[/quote]
Perhaps poorly worded, but isn’t this the central theological point that you are complaining so much about? You started the thread; I thought you wanted to talk about it.
Further, there is a lot of data which shows that women, men, and society benefit when contraception is easily accessible.
[/quote]
And no one wants to make it less accessible. Can you give me a single example - a single example out of 310 million Americans - of an instance where one could not aquire contraception without this federal insurance mandate?
Ms Fluke appeared before a show-hearing, lied and claimed that a woman who required contraception for an ovary condition was unable to afford it an lost one of her ovaries. This is a ridiculous lie that was refuted by a highly regarded gynacologist who explained that the generic medication this woman required is less than $9 a month.
One example of someone who cannot access contraceptives under the status quo which conservatives wish to preserve. It is of course conservatives who wish to preserve the status quo and the Democrats who are unconstitutionally attempting to compel religious institutions to provide insurance mandates that include contraceptives and abortifacients.
"Does the mandate further the governmental interest in increasing cost-free access to contraceptives by means that are least restrictive of the employer’s religious freedom? Plainly, the answer is no. There are plenty of other ways to increase access to contraceptives that intrude far less on the free exercise of religion.
Health and Human Services itself touts community health centers, public clinics and hospitals as some of the available alternatives; doctors and pharmacies are others. Many of the entities, with Planned Parenthood being the most prominent, already furnish free contraceptives. The government could have the rest of these providers make contraceptive services available free and then compensate them directly. A mandate on employers who object for religious reasons is among the most restrictive means the government could have chosen to increase access."
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
When Tim or TC kick me off this site is when I’ll stop posting.
I’m also not going through something that most likely most Bishops or Cardinals haven’t done; which is to go through 2000 plus pages of the PPAA to prove some point to some pissed-off guy on the Internet.
My points were NOT some wording; but the PRACTICAL “enforcement” of something that it appears that many Catholics appear to want; which is the availability of birth control within their insurance Plans.
Should the government make it a requirement, if it goes against the religious tenets of an institution? NO
If it is STILL mandated…THEN what? (AND THESE ARE MY POINTS): It most likely wouldn’t get past lower courts, much less the Supreme Court; and how, exactly would it even be enforced?
a) Would Catholics be fined and jailed for not providing the services? NO
b) Would Parishes and Hospitals be shut down? NO
c) Would the Feds come in and “force” BC pills and devices onto Catholic Pharmacies? NO
d) Would Bishops and Cardinals be jailed for not providing services? NO
e) Would Catholics be harassed by “Birth Control Squads” and forced to follow the dictates of the “Supreme Leader”? NO…NO…NO!
What exactly is supposed to happen?
The absurdity of making this an issue goes on and on and on.
Catholics have been through a lot over the last few years, and survived what appear to be some VERY extreme test of Faith, most of which have been internal.
I’m supposed to believe that an almost non-enforceable “mandate” with something that NO ONE is going to be forced to provide is all of a sudden shaking the very foundations of the Faith?
So…in my opinion, it still amounts to pseudo-persecution and demagoguery on the part of a lot of political hacks in order to score political points against an unpopular President.
The Truly Faithful always have, and always will, survive and move on.
Third, your goalposts shifted considerably in an EXTREMELY short time. From “[quote]Nobody–not the WH, not Congress, not the media, not pundits left or right–has claimed there is an exemption for these religious institutions.[/quote]” to “[quote]After the fact, this ‘accommodation’ (not an exemption) was offered.[/quote]” If you care to argue semantics, go ahead. You said “no one was saying THIS” when it was obvious people were but you didn’t like the way the word was being used.[/quote]
From the beginning of this thread I asked for someone to produce an exemption. Nobody has. No goals have been shifted. THE INSTITUTIONS MUST PROVIDE A PLAN WITH THE COVERAGE. Not possible!
[/quote]
Yes, but they don’t have to directly pay for it. See my post above. [/quote]
Further, there is a lot of data which shows that women, men, and society benefit when contraception is easily accessible.
[/quote]
And no one wants to make it less accessible. [/quote]
The new law/mandate would make them more accessible if/when implemented. In short, “more accessible.”
I think it is about ease of accessibility, no?
[quote]
Ms Fluke appeared before a show-hearing, lied and claimed that a woman who required contraception for an ovary condition was unable to afford it an lost one of her ovaries. This is a ridiculous lie that was refuted by a highly regarded gynacologist who explained that the generic medication this woman required is less than $9 a month.
One example of someone who cannot access contraceptives under the status quo which conservatives wish to preserve. It is of course conservatives who wish to preserve the status quo and the Democrats who are unconstitutionally attempting to compel religious institutions to provide insurance mandates that include contraceptives and abortifacients.
"Does the mandate further the governmental interest in increasing cost-free access to contraceptives by means that are least restrictive of the employer’s religious freedom? Plainly, the answer is no. There are plenty of other ways to increase access to contraceptives that intrude far less on the free exercise of religion.
Health and Human Services itself touts community health centers, public clinics and hospitals as some of the available alternatives; doctors and pharmacies are others. Many of the entities, with Planned Parenthood being the most prominent, already furnish free contraceptives. The government could have the rest of these providers make contraceptive services available free and then compensate them directly. A mandate on employers who object for religious reasons is among the most restrictive means the government could have chosen to increase access."
Ms. Fluke is the “slut whore” Georgetown Law student, right? (if not let me know andI’ll google later) I’m not sure why conservatives are going after her specifically. PP is attacked daily from the right and could lose funding in the future.
[quote]
"Does the mandate further the governmental interest in increasing cost-free access to contraceptives by means that are least restrictive of the employer’s religious freedom? Plainly, the answer is no. There are plenty of other ways to increase access to contraceptives that intrude far less on the free exercise of religion. [/quote]
I think this is a fair point. What ways would you suggest?
Absolutely no. It’s not about that at all. It really is a political stunt and sleight of hand. Of all the health-related issues to tackle why contraception and why now? Nothing to do with the GOP’s social conservatives and what’s going on there? This was a phoney hearing. Fluke is a prop in the Democrat’s little theatrical performance. Romney desperately needs conservative backing so he can’t oppose the performance. Obama emerges as the champion of women’s rights. Holds a press conference and announces he personally telephoned Ms Fluke to console her after Limbaugh’s attack. Romney against women. Obama fighting the misogynists. Ms Fluke on The View telling the sheep she’s being silenced and advising them to go to George Soros/Democrat website Media Matters. The blacklist: Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity etc
She is a radical agitator with a long, long history. I gave you an example above. “Heterosexist” discrimination deserving of legal action to fail to provide free gender reassignment surgery to “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning” people. This is Cloward-Piven agitator stuff.
I disagree with that part and there are plenty who agree with me. There is no shortage or difficulty in aquiring contraceptives. The article already lists numerous places that they are freely available. Anyone who can’t access them for free can afford them. That’s what I was asking you. In what circumstances could one conceivably not be able access contraceptives today in the United States? Or any other advanced, industrialised society for that matter. That’s why the only person they can front is a 30-year-old agitator who can afford to go to the top colleges in the country yet she can’t afford a pack of condoms. Think about it. Who are these people that can’t access contraception under the status quo? It’s nonsense.
Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., pushed for Fluke’s testimony. Maloney also initiated the call for Fluke to sue Rush Limbaugh for his on-air derogatory remark about Fluke, according to the Daily Beast.
Maloney is tied to a progressive pollster, Celinda Lake, who recently ran extensive polling in an effort to gauge voters’ reactions to including birth control or contraception in insurance coverage.
Lake heads Lake Research, which lists both Maloney and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as recent clients.
During the hearing, Maloney thanked Pelosi “for bringing Sandra (Fluke) to this hearing and for your commitment to these issues that are so important to tens of millions of women and men across our country.”
In a Politico article two weeks ago titled “2012: The year of ‘birth control moms’?” Lake was quoted as saying Obama’s stance on contraception is enough to “really irritate” independent suburban moms and “re-engage” young, single women who haven’t tuned into the campaign so far.
Lake said that she and other Democrats see the strong Republican opposition to contraception as a way to win women back after they swung right in 2010, even though they backed Obama in big numbers in 2008.
Politico also quoted Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University, as warning of a major female backlash if the Republicans overreach on contraception.
Lake Research is one of the driving forces behind the progressive strategy to use contraception as an election issue.
According to Lake’s website, her company conducted polling on the contraception issue in conjunction with an organization called the Communications Consortium Media Center, or CCMC, and the Herndon Alliance marketing firm.
The Herndon Alliance helped to market Obamacare, even providing suggestions on which words supporters should use to promote the bill.
Lake’s research on voters attitudes on contraception found Catholic voters tend to mirror voters overall when it comes to reproductive healthcare services that the Affordable Care Act will cover.
Lake also found affirmative reaction on the following issues, according to the Women Donors Network.
Can communicating these new preventive health services to women boost public support for the Obama administration’s premiere domestic policy initiative?
What are communication strategies to shift the discussion on health care to a winning one for progressives?
I’m leaning that way minus the instance of rape or if the mother’s life is in danger. I just don’t completely understand the arguments as I don’t have a science background.[/quote]
I’m sincerely glad to hear this. You might just end up on my ‘atheists to keep around’ list, if my theocratic takeover of the Americas ever gets off the ground!
[/quote]
I feel the same way. You are a pretty reasonable guy Raj. I actually feel like you’ve become more reasonable recently. I take back my earlier comments suggesting disingenuousness on your part.
As for your comment, you don’t need but the simplest inkling of understanding of science. Here it is: Is it a human life at conception? Yes or no? Repeat this question for any time between conception and birth and see if you can come up with an answer that is anything other than yes.
As I said elsewhere, I will not continue this semi-off-topic line of thought any further here, but would be happy to do so in a related thread if you or anyone else sees it fit.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m not even against circumcision on the whole, just the specific practise mentioned in the article. The Rabbi puts his mouth on the babies dick which has lead to a transfer of herpes in some cases.[/quote]
To be honest, I have never heard of such a practice. And it’s clear, if it’s is some sort of bizarre religious practice, anybody doing it should able to present a clean bill of health. I can tell you this, putting your mouth on anything or anybody’s dick is not in Genesis, so I don’t know where the hell that came from.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So I’m thinking we may be able to come to some sort of understanding.
Would it be fair to say there is a limit to how far religious freedoms should extend?*
Would you guys be in favour of banning the specific method of circumcision (where the mouth is used) as presented in the article?
*Answering yes to this question does not mean you have to change your position on the Catholic contraception matter.[/quote]
I would like a clarification of the practice, certainly. What I mean is I’d want some sort of proof that it’s a real religious practice and not some weirdo getting freaky with a kid.
I do agree their is a line, for instance, female circumcision is just flat cruel. Where as male circumcision can actually server a practical purpose in terms of hygiene.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, but seriously - you’re not being persecuted. That black guy in the 1930s being chased by a mob? He was being persecuted. This is the equivalent of me forcing you to buy a McDonalds combo every day but not making you eat it unless you choose to of your own free will.
Grow a pair you sook.[/quote]
How would you make me buy McDonalds? A suggestion that I should, isn’t making. So, how would you?
A closer analogy would be something like making a muslim or orthodox jew buy a McDonalds sausage biscuit, maybe?
I’m leaning that way minus the instance of rape or if the mother’s life is in danger. I just don’t completely understand the arguments as I don’t have a science background.[/quote]
I’m sincerely glad to hear this. You might just end up on my ‘atheists to keep around’ list, if my theocratic takeover of the Americas ever gets off the ground!
[/quote]
I feel the same way. You are a pretty reasonable guy Raj. I actually feel like you’ve become more reasonable recently. I take back my earlier comments suggesting disingenuousness on your part.
As for your comment, you don’t need but the simplest inkling of understanding of science. Here it is: Is it a human life at conception? Yes or no? Repeat this question for any time between conception and birth and see if you can come up with an answer that is anything other than yes.
As I said elsewhere, I will not continue this semi-off-topic line of thought any further here, but would be happy to do so in a related thread if you or anyone else sees it fit.[/quote]
That is what the whole controversy is about in the first place, the definition of when it becomes a human varies depending on how you look at it.
You’re too smart to buy into this. Or I think you used to be. It’s so laughable to suggest the insurance company will actually pay for the contraceptives that it’s not even worth discussion.[/quote]
Are you crazy? If insurance companies love to do anything, it’s pay costs for things out of its own pocket that can’t passed along to customers and for which they receive no benefit in return.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So I’m thinking we may be able to come to some sort of understanding.
Would it be fair to say there is a limit to how far religious freedoms should extend?*
Would you guys be in favour of banning the specific method of circumcision (where the mouth is used) as presented in the article?
*Answering yes to this question does not mean you have to change your position on the Catholic contraception matter.[/quote]
I would like a clarification of the practice, certainly. What I mean is I’d want some sort of proof that it’s a real religious practice and not some weirdo getting freaky with a kid.
I do agree their is a line, for instance, female circumcision is just flat cruel. Where as male circumcision can actually server a practical purpose in terms of hygiene.[/quote]
There are doctors who argue that male circumcision is harmfull, just throwing that out there. I for one are against circumcision of children and hope to see( in my country atleast ) that circumcision are only legal for adults, except when it is medical reasons to circumcise a child( it happen for instance that the foreskin are thight on boys and this can be problematic for them, in those cases a medical circumcision can be needed, but as far as I know they try to cut as little as possible, so it isnt necesary the same type of circumcision that jewish and muslim men go trough ).
No, but seriously - you’re not being persecuted. That black guy in the 1930s being chased by a mob? He was being persecuted. This is the equivalent of me forcing you to buy a McDonalds combo every day but not making you eat it unless you choose to of your own free will.
Grow a pair you sook.[/quote]
Sure they are - if a mosque or mosque-affiliated institution (like an Islamic school for children) was forced to serve bacon in its cafeteria, it’d be persecution, even if the kid didn’t eat the bacon of his own free will. Right?[/quote]
No, by not forcing them to eat bacon, they have the choice not to do so, ergo ensuring they can stick to their zany magic diet.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ A big powerful government that pushes you around in every nook and cranny of your life sounds like something right up your alley, Mak, based on your post above.
Why is it on many other posts of yours you take such a different tack? Not trying to antagonistically bait you, but I do think I’m pointing out a glaring inconsistency problem on your part.
For instance, the same government that wants to force religious institutions to provide a service/product that distinctly goes against their long held beliefs is the one that wants to bust your doors down and rip the cannabis out of your hands and haul you off to the slammer. And for basically the same reason - because it can…and because it’s a “health problem.” Why do you support the one oppressive government action and not the other?[/quote]
Different tack in what sense? I’m for providing an opportunity to use contraception. Whether or not you use it is up to you. Same thing with pot - it should be available to all. Use comes down to choice. Same for anabolic steroids - available to all (perhaps more controlled though, via prescriptions but still available for aesthetics as well as health), use not mandatory.
And with regard to the health factor, pot is hardly a health risk. In fact much less so than alcohol, and that’s perfectly fine for some reason.
It’s about providing access to whatever you want (unless it harms other people), so I’m not really seeing the inconsistency.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, but seriously - you’re not being persecuted. That black guy in the 1930s being chased by a mob? He was being persecuted. This is the equivalent of me forcing you to buy a McDonalds combo every day but not making you eat it unless you choose to of your own free will.
Grow a pair you sook.[/quote]
So if I forced you to pay for a child prostitution ring, would you be cool with it as long as you didn’t use it?[/quote]
Except making a church provide coverage for contraception harms no one.