Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    How many times do you need to be told that you are wrong before oyu give it up?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Oh, I see where you messed up. You don't win debates by simply announcing that you are correct and the other person is wrong a certain amount of times.

    [/QUOTE]

    I win them because I am right. No employee is denying access to contraception, nor are they obligated to provide contraception.

    that is the truth.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    Good lord, he really cannot explain what the religious problem is with contraception.

     

    But then, you know what they say.....atheists tend to know more about religion than religious people, and the reasons? Well.... 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Good lord, he really cannot explain what the religious problem is with contraception.

     

    But then, you know what they say.....atheists tend to know more about religion than religious people, and the reasons? Well.... 

    [/QUOTE]

    Skeeters problem is that he uses the "get out of jail free" card from Monopoly when it comes to defending his faith while the rest of us are playing Chess, based on logic and actual rules.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    so does that mean Christian Scientists don't have to offer any health insurance?

    Essentially, Freshway Foods is self insured.  So this means there is a 3rd option to either violating their religious beliefs or paying a crippling fine.  They can stop self insuring.  They can get out of the health insurance business.  Of course being fully insured is a little more expensive, cutting into their profits.  But I'm sure they'd prefer slightly lower profits to violating their religious beliefs.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    so does that mean Christian Scientists don't have to offer any health insurance?

    Essentially, Freshway Foods is self insured.  So this means there is a 3rd option to either violating their religious beliefs or paying a crippling fine.  They can stop self insuring.  They can get out of the health insurance business.  Of course being fully insured is a little more expensive, cutting into their profits.  But I'm sure they'd prefer slightly lower profits to violating their religious beliefs.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I read up on this case yesterday. The self insured issue is key. I've had a lot of experience with employers who opt to "self-insure"..and the quality of the coverage and experience is so poor compared to fully insured companies that it would be a deal breaker for me in any job negotiation.

    Interesting to note that this company is one of only eighteen companies across the country who are in opposition to this portion of the preventative care mandate. That is hardly an overwhelming objection...lol Another interesting tidbit is that all of these companies are owned by men( 2 owned by husband/wife teams).

    I don't believe one's religious faith has a place in dictating employer benefits. I didn't believe this before the ACA mandates and I still don't believe this.  If these 18 companies had actual shareholders..contraception coverage  would be a no brainer since it makes more economic sense. Most companies have been doing this for years.

    It's still interesting how this is the only portion of the preventative care mandate that the wingnuts have any issues with.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Good lord, he really cannot explain what the religious problem is with contraception.

     

    But then, you know what they say.....atheists tend to know more about religion than religious people, and the reasons? Well.... 

    [/QUOTE]


    Skeeter can't tell you what his religious objection is. Really..no one who objects on religious grounds can tell you what their actual objection is and point to evidence to support it. Why? Because that evidence doesn't exist. There is nothing in the bible about birth control or family planning. There is something in the Bible along the lines that men and women should only have sex for the purpose of pro creation. Do you think Skeeter..or any other of the wingnuts abides by that tenet faithfully..??

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Good lord, he really cannot explain what the religious problem is with contraception.

     

    But then, you know what they say.....atheists tend to know more about religion than religious people, and the reasons? Well.... 




    Skeeter can't tell you what his religious objection is. Really..no one who objects on religious grounds can tell you what their actual objection is and point to evidence to support it. Why? Because that evidence doesn't exist. There is nothing in the bible about birth control or family planning. There is something in the Bible along the lines that men and women should only have sex for the purpose of pro creation. Do you think Skeeter..or any other of the wingnuts abides by that tenet faithfully..??

    [/QUOTE]


    Right.

    The only time i've seen it done, it was an argument based primarily on an analogy to admonitions not to "spill the seed," and the command to go forth and multiply, etc. And that's just the argument against use of contraception by an individual.

    Here, we're supposedly talking about employers not wanting to pay for insurance that falls under the requirement. The supposed sin of the contraceptive user doesn't fall on such an employer in that context; how can anyone articulate a straight-face argument to the contrary.

    Moreover, as Matty pointed out, we're not even talking about Churches ...just employers with supposed religious scruples in general.

    Given the absurdity of the situation, it is no doubt that this is merely about opposing Obama. No surprise the only thing coming out of such opposers is "uh....first amendment. And, you see. That's good. And Obama's bad. First amendment."

     

     

    Perhaps I shouldn't have to pay any taxes because they go to fighting the war on drugs and the death penalty.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

    I believe we should feed the hungry, help the needy but, not the hornyy

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Shall I presume you have some religious objection to birth control?  If so, then what is it?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    Women are automatons created to assist in procreation and nothing further. Anything that makes procreation more difficult is an offense to God. But if you procreate outside of marriage, you have to sway in terrible stormwinds and hailstones for all eternity.

    God is hardcore like that.

    [/QUOTE]

    A bit more glib than I was hoping for.

    I honestly want to know from a religious objector.  Clearly, tens of millions of catholics have determined the out-dated status of this tenet, because they ignore it en masse.

    Point being is that I never heard of objections from other christian sects until it was mandated as apart of health care reform.  Is it just a coincidence?

    (Never mind that distinctly religious (non-profit, non-taxed) organizations have been exempted from the rule by law.)

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, sorry, but I don't think you'll get much in the way of a reasoned and measured response from skeeter. I think that the vast majority of people making noises haven't worked any farther than "because the first amendment!" and may not actually have a personal objection.

    But there was some seriousness behind all that glib stuff. The persons actually religiously offended ground it in the bible's prohibition on fornication and spilling the seed, mandate to go forth and multiply, stress on marriage for children, etc. Birth control prevents pregnancy and therefore offends God's purpose.

    But again, I suspect most of them just want to scream at Obama so "first amendment shut up" is the extent of it.

    [/QUOTE]

    I suspect as much, but as always I'm willing to listen.  

    The question I have is whether it's about religious or political expediency.

    But to me, it's never made sense to restrict contraception even on religious grounds...but especially for married people or when female health is an issue.  

    Even worse is when they restrict contraception but don't offer basic maternity benefits.  That's just nonsensical.  Kind of like banning abortions but firing women for having kids out of wedlock.  Insane.

     

    I don't buy the 1st Amdt argument, because that's just imposing one's religious beliefs on someone else, not defending one's own beliefs.  Nobody is forcing anyone to use birth control.  (Whether some people should procreate or not is another matter entirely.)

    Even then, it would seem that a woman's choice of birth control is nobody else's business but her own (and her doctor's).

     

    [/QUOTE]

    WDYWN insists I respond to this.

    contraception is not being limited in any manner.  What is in play is whether or not you can force an employer to pay for it.

    your view of what makes sense is your view, some people have other views.  What you are sharing is not a legal view, but a moral view, one that is contested by the owners of this company.

    you seem to have a view that an employer must accept your view.  If having your employer pay for contraception is important to an employee, go work elsewhere.  Yes, it really is that simple.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why you couldn't respond on your own is beyond me.  

    No, it's not that simple, because the stated objection to providing coverage for birth control is religious, i.e. religious liberty as determined by the 1st Amdt. to the Constitution.  That is the issue on which this court has ruled.

    So again, my question is how providing health coverage that includes prescription birth control could possibly violate someone's religious beliefs - regardless of the denomination..?

    The company also has a choice - stop offering health coverage to their employees and give up their significant tax breaks in the name of their "religious liberty".

    You've mentioned you're a religious person, so explain: on what principle is the religious objection to contraception based...?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

    [/QUOTE]


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

    I believe we should feed the hungry, help the needy but, not the hornyy




    I don't think some should have to pay for old mens' boners, but then, the entire POINT of insurance is spreading risk. Inevitably you pay for conditions you don't have but other people do.

    And birth control treats very real hormonal problems; it's not just about sex. But you knew that.

     

    There's a D next to the target, is all.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

    I believe we should feed the hungry, help the needy but, not the hornyy

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think some should have to pay for old mens' boners, but then, the entire POINT of insurance is spreading risk. Inevitably you pay for conditions you don't have but other people do.

    And birth control treats very real hormonal problems; it's not just about sex. But you knew that. 

    There's a D next to the target, is all.

    [/QUOTE]

    lol, dont be such a putz!

    If, a doctor is perscribing a drug for acne (just a hypothetical) that also is used for birth control. I have no problem with helping pay for the less fortunate; but, if the perscription is for "birth control" I do not think others should pay for that.

    It's not the drug, it's the reason for the drug. Do insurance plans really pay for ED medications becauase i dont think some paying for others boners is right either.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     if the perscription is for "birth control" I do not think others should pay for that.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you have a problem with others paying for viagra so that an 85 year old can do what nature intended he not?

    Worse, doing something that may require the other party to have "birth control"?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     if the perscription is for "birth control" I do not think others should pay for that.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Do you have a problem with others paying for viagra so that an 85 year old can do what nature intended he not?

    Worse, doing something that may require the other party to have "birth control"?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I object. and, I am now upset.  How could you put that image in our minds?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ED is a disfunction.  having sex is a choice.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

    [/QUOTE]


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

    I believe we should feed the hungry, help the needy but, not the hornyy

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think some should have to pay for old mens' boners, but then, the entire POINT of insurance is spreading risk. Inevitably you pay for conditions you don't have but other people do.

    And birth control treats very real hormonal problems; it's not just about sex. But you knew that. 

    There's a D next to the target, is all.

    [/QUOTE]

    lol, dont be such a putz!

    If, a doctor is perscribing a drug for acne (just a hypothetical) that also is used for birth control. I have no problem with helping pay for the less fortunate; but, if the perscription is for "birth control" I do not think others should pay for that.

    It's not the drug, it's the reason for the drug. Do insurance plans really pay for ED medications becauase i dont think some paying for others boners is right either.

    [/QUOTE]


    The problem with your position is this. The insurance either covers the drug or it doesn't. Insurance companies don't differentiate based on what the drug is used for. It's either covered or not.

    So  that's where your hypothetical kind of falls apart. The other place your hypothetical kind of falls apart is based on the right to privacy. The employer has no right to know why a Dr. is prescribing a certain medication to an employee. It's simply none of their business. So employers don't get to ask their female employees if they are taking Loestrin for purposes of birth control..or for some other hormonal reason.

    How does this hypothetical fit in with your paradigm. Say a woman of childbearing age has a medical condition for which she takes prescription medication. Suppose one of the side effects of this medication that she NEEDS to take is the strong likelihood of birth defects, miscarriage or fetal death. Would you say that the responsible choice for her to make in this situation is to use contraception? Would you also say that it's unfair of her employer to ask her to pay out of pocket for a benefit that she earned? Would you say that it's unfair that the employer's religious belief takes precedence over her access to safe, affordable contraception?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

     

    [/QUOTE]

     


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ED is a disfunction.  having sex is a choice.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well..if the 85 year old didn't choose to have sex then the ED wouldn't matter..would it?  Same thing for contraception...if we womenfolk would just choose not to have sex then who would need contraception..right?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     if the perscription is for "birth control" I do not think others should pay for that.

     




    Do you have a problem with others paying for viagra so that an 85 year old can do what nature intended he not?

    Worse, doing something that may require the other party to have "birth control"?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I object. and, I am now upset.  How could you put that image in our minds?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    then I'm glad you're being consistent about something, but I think you come out on the wrong end of it because viagra can treat a legit condition (ED in a younger man) and so can birth control (hormonal issues, etc).

    The fact that in your view there might be a potential misuse isn't a reason to bar access.

    Adderal is straight-up speed and can therefore be misused; painkillers, benzos, the whole galaxy of laughers, screamers and sideways-ers can be misused....      and are. Do we say that insurance shouldn't cover them because we don't agree with misuse?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     if the perscription is for "birth control" I do not think others should pay for that.

     

     




     

    Do you have a problem with others paying for viagra so that an 85 year old can do what nature intended he not?

    Worse, doing something that may require the other party to have "birth control"?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, I object. and, I am now upset.  How could you put that image in our minds?

    [/QUOTE]


     

    then I'm glad you're being consistent about something, but I think you come out on the wrong end of it because viagra can treat a legit condition (ED in a younger man) and so can birth control (hormonal issues, etc).

    The fact that in your view there might be a potential misuse isn't a reason to bar access.

    Adderal is straight-up speed and can therefore be misused; painkillers, benzos, the whole galaxy of laughers, screamers and sideways-ers can be misused....      and are. Do we say that insurance shouldn't cover them because we don't agree with misuse?

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know what the heck you are talking about, except that nothing should ever be given to anyone from the government for free, because it could possibly be misused?

    Big difference between a small percentage of women needing birth control for it's other uses, which is medical, and should be covered, and the pitch made by Obama that contraception must be free, because Sandra Fluke can afford a $7 latte every day at Starbucks (as she was photographed doing), but can't walk two blocks further and cough up $9 for a month worth's of birth control.

     

    Obamacare:  So popular it has to be mandated.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     for free




    How can you complain about insurane premiums and then claim this is "free"?

    The people supposedly getting contraception for free are - you guessed it - paying for the insurance that provides it.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

    [/QUOTE]


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ED and contraception to prevent pregnancy are not the same thing.  

    I know you think there is a war on Women, but really all you have presented is a war on logic.

    I don't articulate a religous objection to contraception becasue I don't have one.  Doesn't mean the owner of this company doesn't have one, but, that misses the point:

    You are conflating providing a benefit, or not providing a benefit with an employer mandating that an employee can't use contraception.  that is simply not the case.

    That's the pointn, and it is further evidence that progressives are thicker than two planks nailed together, and can't seem to sort out even the most basic of societal rules.

    And, I know why progressives are doing it.  Once you breakdown the logic of a well ordered society, you can declare ANYTHING objectionable, and therefore force people to act against their will, beyond what you have already done with Obamacare.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

     

     


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ED and contraception to prevent pregnancy are not the same thing.  

    I know you think there is a war on Women, but really all you have presented is a war on logic.

    I don't articulate a religous objection to contraception becasue I don't have one.  Doesn't mean the owner of this company doesn't have one, but, that misses the point:

    You are conflating providing a benefit, or not providing a benefit with an employer mandating that an employee can't use contraception.  that is simply not the case.

    That's the pointn, and it is further evidence that progressives are thicker than two planks nailed together, and can't seem to sort out even the most basic of societal rules.

    And, I know why progressives are doing it.  Once you breakdown the logic of a well ordered society, you can declare ANYTHING objectionable, and therefore force people to act against their will, beyond what you have already done with Obamacare.

    [/QUOTE]

    In terms of prescription drug coverage, they are indeed the same issue.  And prescription birth control even serves a broader need to menstrual and sexual health than ED drugs ever will (the latter of which is even more dependent on your "having sex is a choice" canard).

    I'm not conflating anything.  You're dodging the issue, as are those employers with phony "religious" objections to not providing fundamentally basic prescription drug coverage to their employees.

    What are these "societal rules" you're blathering about?  In any "well-ordered society", men and women should be treated equally under the law.  That you don't think so is your own intellectual failure, not mine.

    Again, that you don't have a religious objection shouldn't hinder your ability to explain it on behalf of the holier-than-thou employers you're defending...

    ...unless like the rest of your points, it makes no sense.  Instead, you revert to puerile insults. Typical.

     

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

     

     

     

     


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ED and contraception to prevent pregnancy are not the same thing.  

    I know you think there is a war on Women, but really all you have presented is a war on logic.

    I don't articulate a religous objection to contraception becasue I don't have one.  Doesn't mean the owner of this company doesn't have one, but, that misses the point:

    You are conflating providing a benefit, or not providing a benefit with an employer mandating that an employee can't use contraception.  that is simply not the case.

    That's the pointn, and it is further evidence that progressives are thicker than two planks nailed together, and can't seem to sort out even the most basic of societal rules.

    And, I know why progressives are doing it.  Once you breakdown the logic of a well ordered society, you can declare ANYTHING objectionable, and therefore force people to act against their will, beyond what you have already done with Obamacare.

    [/QUOTE]

    In terms of prescription drug coverage, they are indeed the same issue.  And prescription birth control even serves a broader need to menstrual and sexual health than ED drugs ever will (the latter of which is even more dependent on your "having sex is a choice" canard).

    I'm not conflating anything.  You're dodging the issue, as are those employers with phony "religious" objections to not providing fundamentally basic prescription drug coverage to their employees.

    What are these "societal rules" you're blathering about?  In any "well-ordered society", men and women should be treated equally under the law.  That you don't think so is your own intellectual failure, not mine.

    Again, that you don't have a religious objection shouldn't hinder your ability to explain it on behalf of the holier-than-thou employers you're defending...

    ...unless like the rest of your points, it makes no sense.  Instead, you revert to puerile insults. Typical.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you consider abortion also a "public health issue", so that an employer, regardless of any moral or religious exception , can be mandated by Government edict to pay for his or her employee's abortion? Just wondering if you think there is any limit to what your beloved Government can mandate....

     

     

Share