So, I may be misunderstanding here, but I’ll try and see if I have this straight. Employers will be required to provide medical insurance coverage to employees. This coverage must include birth control.
Some groups, notably Catholics, have a moral objection to birth control. They can not accept this new requirement that has been placed on employers, which they are in many instances.
Well, here’s what, federal taxes already pay for birth control (medicaid, grants to health clinics, etc.). How is it less offensive to provide payment for taxes, some portion of which goes to birth control, that to comply with a law that says you must provide payment for insurance, some portion of which goes to birth control?
In fact, I would think there are a number of expenditures in the federal budget that may be offensive to people on moral or religious grounds. Even if the organization did not pay any portion of federal taxes (I believe they do match some portion, but I could be thinking of state only) they are still forwarding the money and are therefore complicit in the funding of the offense.
So why take the stand on birth control? Everyone has to pick their battles, why pick this? Why not nuclear weapons or whatever?
They get to argue that something of no definable quality, their morals, has been offended. Conveniently, this is impossible to disprove. This makes it a very tempting tactic.
Because people who know they are fighting a dying battle end up hacking it out over whatever small stakes they think might afford them a momentary victory along their retreat?
Because some people really believe that everyone else is just as het up about the sluts as they are, and aren’t smart enough to recognize a losing issue when they see one.
Whether the government or insurance is actually praying for bc, they still get the money from the employer. Government mandate for taxes or mandate for insurance, both are spent on bc. What’s the difference?
Why haven’t these people been outraged all along? Welfare has paid for birth control for a long long time. I haven’t heard any complaints.
Silly man, thinking moral indignation requires recently changing circumstances. How about recently changing circumstances allowing the political possibility of moral indignation?
In the state side you have separation of church and state. But the state is not the only authority.
From a religious authority. There is a separation of authorities, religious and state. This taken from the famos statement ‘render onto Caesar what is Caesar’s and onto God what is God’s’ from Scriptures They coexist in their respective realms.
In one instance, that of the religious realm, the government is trying to invade the realm of religious authority, and force people to do something against the religious authority imposed on them. This generally is not acceptable, but in some instances it has happened.
So it is a work around as not to have the authorities in conflict.
So what if your insurance offers coverage for BCPs? They should. Most people don’t work for an employer based on religious reasons. It should not make any difference who your employer is or what company provides the insurance. If BCPs are against your religion, don’t use them. But they should be availabe to anyone who needs or wants them.
The ‘party of personal responsibility’ obviously doesn’t trust themselves to make a sound decision in regards to BCPs. They act like BCPs are some kind of ‘recreational’ drug. How strange.
They also act like married people don’t use birth control. Last time I checked, sex within marriage is still supposed to be okay with these Christians. Not all Christian denominations require people to breed indiscriminately. I can only think of two that outright forbid or discourage BC. I don’t get it, how “uses birth control” = “slut.” So married women who cannot afford more children are also sluts?
I am waiting to see the Christian Women for Birth Control movement. Haven’t seen it yet. Apparently, they are all barefoot and pregnant at home. I don’t know why married women who are Christians are not more vocal about preserving their rights to plan their families as they see fit.
Sorry, but you need to brush up on your Theophysics 101. When Man’s potency comes into play, God’s omnipotency is forced into a back seat, managerial role. So God is powerless (on technical grounds) to intervene against birth control, other than dispensing advice via Genesis: “Be fruitful and multiply.” It is kind of like that footprints in the sand thing. When you fall on your face you get hoisted up for a free ride (which also explains why we don’t need Social Security). Otherwise you’re on yer own.
If we don’t hurry up and start obeying, God is going to re-intensify the strength of tornadoes and hurricanes again. Isn’t it bad enough already?
I guess you could flip the argument and ask the same question: Why birth control? Why is only birth control covered 100 percent with no copay? Surely, if I have cancer, for example, my chemotherapy treatments are way more important to me than birth control, and it’s something that most people can’t afford out of pocket, unlike birth control. Why isn’t that covered at 100 percent with no copay?
The people opposed to the idea, I think rightfully, see it as a liberal slap in the face. You are going to provide it whether you want to or not, even if the overwhelming majority can afford it out of pocket, and there already is a government program for those who can’t.
Some employers will be required to do that and others will not. For example, employers with fewer than fifty employees are not required to provide their employees with insurance that covers birth control. Oddly enough, those folks who are howling in outrage about how the Catholic Church is supposedly trying deny its employees their “right” to birth control are not howling in outrage about how companies with fewer than fifty employees are doing the same thing.
Perhaps you see no difference, but to me the difference is very clear. If I am required by law to give some of my money to X, that’s different from me paying taxes to the government, which then spends money on X. In the later case, the government is making the decision and taking the responsibility for the giving of money to X. In the former case, the government is making the decision but trying to force me to take responsibility for it.
Darn good question. I wonder if any of our local Obama supporters will answer it.
It’s not only BC that’s covered 100% with no copay, depending on your insurance plan.
I get 1 free mammogram each year, 100% covered, no copay.
I also get 2 free teeth cleanings each year, plus one set of dental x-rays, 100% covered, no copay.
I could probably come up with a few more, but I don’t feel like digging through my insurance policy to find other examples.