Religious freedom and contraception

[daenku32]

I'm just gonna start calling out all these anti-sex people. I mean, if that's the lifestyle they want to live, fine. But the rest of the population still likes to have sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm just gonna start calling out all these anti-sex people. I mean, if that's the lifestyle they want to live, fine. But the rest of the population still likes to have sex.

Am I anti-food because I want you to buy your own damn meals?

 

[Dorian Gray]

What is all this about "we're paying for women to have sex" business? I pay for my own insurance. So don't women pay for their insurance too? And don't they determine the plan they want? If they want an awesome plan, they pay more. If they don't mind, they pay less. And if they want a plan that covers birth control, and they're willing to pay for it, they should get it. And here, we're talking about the vast majority of women who are doing this.

That's free market capitalism! Supply and demand! The insurance companies are willing to cover it if you pay the premiums, and the employee is willing to pay for it. I'm not paying for it. So what the hell is Limbaugh talking about?

Zig, how do you know how much contraceptive pills cost? And why do you keep saying that YOU are paying for them, or WE are paying for them, just like Limbaugh did?

What the hell is wrong with conservatives? They wouldn't hand a gun to a 12 year old without lots of education, and guns are used by a small minority of minors. Conversely, sex is used by far more minors, and conservatives want them to go out with no information whatsoever. That makes no logical sense. Both have a right way and a wrong way to do them, both can have negative unintended consequences that can affect people for the rest of their lives, and both can be dangerous. But conservatives only want to teach about guns?

One of the arguments is that teaching about sex is tantamount to condoning it, particularly birth control. But that's like saying that teaching about guns condones murder, particularly in self defense classes! It's not that at all. The more information people have, the better off they are, and the more likely they can make proper decisions. Why do conservatives want kids to be ignorant? Why do they want kids to be stupid?

And then when they are, because they don't know any better, conservatives want to just shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, shouldn't have done it, but sorry, no abortions." So an ignorant kid has a kid of her own, probably gets abandoned by her boyfriend or "boyfriend", and has to raise the kid by herself. So she drops out of school, thus leading her to be more ignorant, relatively. So she can't get a great job. What does she do then? That kid that was so precious has to eat, right? So what can she do? Someone has to take care of that kid. But conservatives want to say "oh, you dropped out. Well, sorry, but no welfare." So she either becomes a prostitute, or sells drugs, or something equally bad. What else can she do?

Nice friggin philosophy there, conservatives! It's no wonder that we're lagging behind every other developed nation in many areas. Because you guys want to shove your beliefs down everyone's throats, while at the same time squawking about "government interfering in our lives" and "activist judges" when the decision or law doesn't go your way. Seriously? Nice corner you've backed the country into. Way to go.

"I want all of you people to do this and that, and I also want you to pay for it, but I'm not going to change at all." Great.

 

[leftysergeant]

Am I anti-food because I want you to buy your own damn meals?

Nobody is asking you to subsidize anyone's sex life. Health care coverage is either a part of the compensation package, like the minimum wage, or it is something that employees get on condition that they pay for part of it. Either way, fertility management is as important to over-all health management as cholesterol management and is covered under any rational health plan.

To not cover contraception raises the over-all cost of fertility management under a health plan because the plan is paying for much more costly pregnancies.

 

[xjx388]

Between that earlier amazing flip-flop, your other contortions, now this moving of goalposts, and all the running away, I certainly hope that your health plan isn't administered by Christian Scientists.

Maybe you can explain the "amazing flip-flop" better than Bri.

And I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm asking why you advocate that birth control be mandatorily covered but not more important health needs like food.
That you don't is indicative that there might be another agenda at work here.

My only agenda is that we only infringe on anyone's constitutional rights when there is compelling government interest. Government can't curb free speech . . . unless it's slander or dangerous or hate speech. This is not at all controversial.

In the present case, there are great alternatives to mandatory coverage of birth control: Buy it yourself, Title X, planned parenthood.

 

[RandFan]

In the present case, there are great alternatives to mandatory coverage of birth control: Buy it yourself, Title X, planned parenthood.

Given Title X and the Guttmacher report you don't need to worry about it. Everyone already pays for contraception. The president decides the best way to implement the Business Group's recommendations (which he has done).

No harm. No foul. Let the experts and leaders do what they do (they will anyway). Save your concern for something substantive.

 

[Ziggurat]

I pay for my own insurance.

Under most employer-sponsored health care plans, you only pay for part of your insurance, the employer pays for the rest. And no, that's not just a matter of semantics: if you elect not to buy coverage, you don't get that money, your employer keeps it.

And don't they determine the plan they want?

Not under the proposed rule.

Zig, how do you know how much contraceptive pills cost?

Because I looked it up out of curiosity when this whole debate started. Prices vary by brand, but I found a lot of brands that came in under $50/month, and many for around $20/month. That may not be pocket change, but it's a lot less than Fluke's $3000, and it's affordable for someone with a job.

That's right, I obtained facts by doing research. Does that somehow surprise you? Have you never done that yourself? Because unless you haven't, I really don't know why you're confused that I might know something which is so easy to look up.

What the hell is wrong with conservatives? They wouldn't hand a gun to a 12 year old without lots of education, and guns are used by a small minority of minors. Conversely, sex is used by far more minors, and conservatives want them to go out with no information whatsoever.

Who are you debating here? Because this thread isn't about sex education. I don't recall anyone here even mentioning sex education. Sex education is a different topic.

 

[Neally]

You didn't provide an example where the Constitution forbids something which is then "overridden" without an amendment. No amendment is necessary for your examples because the Constitution doesn't forbid laws prohibiting the action in question under the circumstances you listed.

So let me see if I understand what you're saying. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

You said, "If the Constitution forbids something, then it cannot be "overridden" without an amendment to the Constitution"

So as long as Congress doesn't make any law abridging the freedom of speech, other authorities laws are permissible, such as state laws against yelling Fire! or shutting down any newspaper that they don't like the content of?

 

[crimresearch]

Maybe you can explain the "amazing flip-flop" better than Bri.

And I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm asking why you advocate that birth control be mandatorily covered but not more important health needs like food.
That you don't is indicative that there might be another agenda at work here.

My only agenda is that we only infringe on anyone's constitutional rights when there is compelling government interest. Government can't curb free speech . . . unless it's slander or dangerous or hate speech. This is not at all controversial.

In the present case, there are great alternatives to mandatory coverage of birth control: Buy it yourself, Title X, planned parenthood.

I explained it perfectly well in post #209... you know, one of the posts you keep running away from.

And denying that you've moved the goal posts by naming the two unrelated things, is as much a fail as your duelling 1st Amendment assertions.

Now your turn... in what post did I write that I " advocate that birth control be mandatorily covered but not more important health needs like food"?

And when are you going to answer the question about exactly 'compelling public interest' would prevent Muslims and Christian Scientists from doing exactly what you claim Catholics should be able to do in foisting their dogma off on others?

 

[crimresearch]

So let me see if I understand what you're saying. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

You said, "If the Constitution forbids something, then it cannot be "overridden" without an amendment to the Constitution"

So as long as Congress doesn't make any law abridging the freedom of speech, other authorities laws are permissible, such as state laws against yelling Fire! or shutting down any newspaper that they don't like the content of?

Asked and answered.

Do you have anything either correct or useful?

 

[xjx388]

I'm sorry, I thought this post was kind of invalid on it's face, but I'll respond if it helps advance the dialog.

You keep fabricating an interpretation of the 1st Amendment by editing out critical words.
It doesn't say 'shall not establish a religion', it clearly says '...shall make no law respecting *an establishment of* religion...'.

Do you think that the actual wording means something different than the government "shall not establish a religion?"

That has been so well defined, that things like the Blunt Amerndment and the Arizona bill calling for legislation protecting churches who push their anti-contraceptive doctrine on others, would be unconstitutional. (It has been explicitly extended to apply to states as well).

The Blunt Amendment is a moot point. I'm not familiar with the Arizona law. A link would be appreciated.

So your citing the 1st amendment as affording Catholic doctrine special powers outside of its own churches is incorrect, and not in the least useful.

I didn't say that the Catholic doctrine had special powers. I said that the CC has rights too. And we shouldn't trample on those rights unless there is a compelling public need. Please demonstrate the need that isn't currently being met.

When you want to claim 1.) as an absolute for Catholic doctrine, but claim 2.) as a given for other's religions in the same circumstances, you are flip-flopping.

You need to re-read my argument. All religious rights must be protected unless a compelling government interest in demonstrated.

 

[bookitty]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/politics/arizona-contraception-controversy/index.html

Women in Arizona may be forced to share certain private medical conditions with their employers if they want their contraception to be covered by health insurance, a bill proposes.

The Arizona Senate is considering a bill that would give all businesses the option to exclude contraceptives from health insurance coverage. The only exception is if a woman can prove she is taking the contraceptives for other medical reasons.

 

[johnny karate]

The only "misconception" is in your mind, and in your attempts to weasel out of the fact that it is factually correct that Obamacare directly resulted in my health insurance going up.

Repeating a lie by omission doesn't make it any less a lie by omission.

It is factually correct that Obamacare directly resulted in my health insurance going up and your cite, rather than disputing that fact, confirmed it.

You're misrepresenting what my cite stated. And again, repeating your lie by omission.

No, it broke it, in the sense that it was fine, and I was happy with it. Then Obamacare came along and caused the premium to go up as a result of adding crap onto it that I didn't need or want.

That your health plan was "fine" and you were "happy with it" is certainly odd considering that the cost of health care has steadily increased at a rate outpacing inflation for at least the last decade.

You seem to be saying that you don't mind being bilked as long as it's not in any way associated with Obamacare, and even if it's at a much greater rate.

It's also odd that you think you health plan was perfectly tailored to your needs and your needs alone - containing absolutely no costs derived from services you might not need - until Obama came along and "broke" it.

But hey, you strike me as a rugged individualist. Instead of whining about it, you can always cancel your health plan and pay out of pocket for your medical needs. That would have the double benefit of allowing you to only pay for exactly what you need, and sparing other people on your plan the burden of having to pay for the services you use that they might not.

Huh? People buying more stuff, increasing demand, makes prices go up, not down.

Not in terms of insurance. The larger the pool of participants, the lower the cost for each individual in the pool. That is the logic behind the mandate, and is probably why it was championed by Republicans right up until the moment Obama endorsed it.

You're right, you don't know, but since is was backed by your hero, it must work. Somehow. Magically?

It's sad that you are so blinded by hatred for all things Obama, that you perceive anyone who isn't to be engaging in hero-worship. Some people actually have the ability to gauge him and his policies soberly and without being so simplistic and reductive.

Skepticism is good, but the Pelosi philosophy that we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it is irresponsible.

Maybe. But I find it a damn sight more responsible than the Republican plan of not addressing the problem at all. I prefer my leaders to at least attempt to solve difficult problems rather than be naysaying obstructionists.

 

[crimresearch]

I'm sorry, I thought this post was kind of invalid on it's face, but I'll respond if it helps advance the dialog.

Do you think that the actual wording means something different than the government "shall not establish a religion?"

The Blunt Amendment is a moot point. I'm not familiar with the Arizona law. A link would be appreciated.

I didn't say that the Catholic doctrine had special powers. I said that the CC has rights too. And we shouldn't trample on those rights unless there is a compelling public need. Please demonstrate the need that isn't currently being met.

You need to re-read my argument. All religious rights must be protected unless a compelling government interest in demonstrated.

It doesn't matter what anyone 'thinks'... what matters is what the courts say, and they say that neither Congress nor the states can make a law that forces people to follow the dogma of other churches.
Nowhere in the current law of the land is the 1st Amendment *limited* to the government not creating a state run church.
And the meaning of 'shall not infringe' is well understood to allow for restrictions where 'free expression' may cause harm to self or others.

I happen to agree with them, and you can disagree with them all you want, either way it isn't going to change.

And to be very clear, are you now back to saying "all religious rights", not just Catholic religious rights?
There is no compelling public interest unique to one but not the others? Because equal treatment under the law is another significant 1st Amendment test.

So the question still remains, as it has throughout all of these threads on the same topic, if a hospital, school, or business is run by Muslims, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Taoists, Hindus et al. should they be allowed by law to use their own religious interpretations to pick and choose medical treatments for their employees *or* for their patients the same way that Catholics should be?

Or is 'that different'?

 

[Bri]

You said, "If the Constitution forbids something, then it cannot be "overridden" without an amendment to the Constitution"

I already asked you, "Does the Constitution forbid the government from making laws prohibiting you from yelling 'fire' in the movie theater or slandering people?" and you said, "No it doesn't." You agree that the Constitution doesn't forbid it. So it seems to be a poor example of something that the Constitution forbids that can be overridden without an amendment since, as you said, the Constitution doesn't forbid it at all.

So as long as Congress doesn't make any law abridging the freedom of speech, other authorities laws are permissible, such as state laws against yelling Fire! or shutting down any newspaper that they don't like the content of?

No, that's not what I said. What I said is that the Constitution doesn't forbid Congress or state governments from making laws against falsely yelling "fire" in a theater (which is not protected speech). The Constitution does forbid making laws that abridge some forms of speech (namely, protected speech). Shutting down a newspaper only because you don't like the content would likely be unconstitutional. Overriding that would require a constitutional amendment.

-Bri

 

[Neally]

You're misrepresenting what my cite stated.

Not at all. I said that my health insurance went up because of Obamacare, and it did. You said it didn't and your cite confirmed that yes, Obamacare forced carriers to add stuff to their policies causing the cost to go up. That you continue with the but...but...but other costs went up too, doesn't change the fact that my costs went up directly due to Obamacare.

That your health plan was "fine" and you were "happy with it" is certainly odd considering that the cost of health care has steadily increased at a rate outpacing inflation for at least the last decade.

And Obamacare caused it to go up even more. Your constant hand waving that away with the silly lie by omission argument doesn't change that fact.

It's also odd that you think you health plan was perfectly tailored to your needs and your needs alone - containing absolutely no costs derived from services you might not need - until Obama came along and "broke" it.

Obamacare made it worse. That you continue to struggle with this and try to minimize it is quite amusing.

Not in terms of insurance. The larger the pool of participants, the lower the cost for each individual in the pool. That is the logic behind the mandate, and is probably why it was championed by Republicans right up until the moment Obama endorsed it.

Here's a flash for you, health insurance <> health care. Health insurance like all insurance is just to mitigate risk, it doesn't do anything to the cost of the goods or services that the insurance covers, unless the carrier negotiates with the provider for special rates. So again tell me:
1. Doctor visits. How will Obamacare lower those? Is my doctor going to start charging less for a visit? How?
2. Hospital costs. How will Obamacare lower those? Are hospitals going to start charging less for a stay? How?
3. Drugs, tests, medical devices. Are pharmaceutical companies, device manufactures, a medical labs going to start charging less for their products or services? How?

Maybe. But I find it a damn sight more responsible than the Republican plan of not addressing the problem at all. I prefer my leaders to at least attempt to solve difficult problems rather than be naysaying obstructionists.

Really? I just want to confirm that you want to stick to the claim that the GOP had no health reform plan, before I prove that to be totally false. Oh plus the nonsense that a crappy plan, one that actually increased my costs so far, is better than no plan, but hey that was all part of the Pelosi mindset of we have to pass something, anything, then worry about what it does later.

 

[RandFan]

Obamacare made it worse. That you continue to struggle with this and try to minimize it is quite amusing.

Obamacare made it modestly more expensive. It will reduce the cost and reduce the deficit.

 

[Ziggurat]

Obamacare made it modestly more expensive. It will reduce the cost and reduce the deficit.

If you believe the CBO numbers. But they've already been revised considerably, with 10-year costs increasing from $940 billion to $1.5 trillion. So why would you believe the CBO's numbers are accurate? Because apparently not even the CBO believes the CBO's numbers.

 

[tyr_13]

What medical conditions? Prior to sex, there IS no medical condition. If you engage in unprotected sex, then you might get pregnant, and that might require medical treatment. Just like if you go running without shoes, you might get a nail in your foot and require medical treatment. Or if you ride a bike without a helmet you might get a head injury that requires medical attention. But the equivalent in both cases is the protective measures: contraceptives vs. footwear or helmets, not contraceptives vs. treatment for existing injuries or illness. You have attempted to compare the latter, but the comparison was nonsense.

Medical professionals have consult with their patients, women, and determine what treatment or preventative measures are necessary. Now you can stick your fingers in your ears and sing Yankee Doodle Dandy all day about the net cost to society, and I'm betting you will keep doing so, but this is again an issue where conservatives are dead set against the findings and advice of the relevant professionals. There are many conditions were medication is supplied to prevent. There are also many things that at one time the attitude was, 'screw you if you don't have the foresight', to say have clean water, or a minimum wage. What society provides evolves when it's found that it's simply better for everyone to suck it up and not hurt everyone just to make sure some people are 'properly punished' for their actions. Actions which of course wouldn't even be harmful if they had the contraception their doctors recommended for them.

You have no evidence of that. Let me repeat that, in case you aren't clear on this point: you have no evidence that a lack of medical insurance coverage for contraceptives in employee health care plans creates any net harm for society.

Plus, you're wrong. Some people DO refrain from having sex when they don't have available contraception. What they usually do is go obtain contraceptives, which isn't difficult or expensive.

Unless of course a woman with the consultation of medical professionals determines it would be better for them because of what ever specifics they used to come to that conclusion. You know, medical considerations. But then again, conservatives know better than them about this, and better than the professionals about sex education (which you must be against too for the exact same reasons on the same subject as this subject right?) and better than the professionals about global warming.

But you probably can't hear over your singing.

 

[RandFan]

Unwanted pregnancies are a reality. Are there people who really don't get that?