So much for liberal indoctrination theories.
Not true. A religious owned business can not offer birth control as part of its insurance. But the insurance company is compelled to offer it to the client at no cost.
So the rights of the business owner are kept. A third party is the one who is making this offer.
What the Republicans want is for any person to be able to deny coverage for what they find objectionable. They have specifically been pushing this with the Blunt Amendment. So Republicans want to increase the number of people who can’t get birth control through their insurance.
They do this because they are beholden to religious people who have very, very stupid and counter-productive beliefs.
That’s fair. I don’t know that Republicans need people actually stupider. But they need them misinformed. For instance, you’re carrying their water on this issue because you believe, against all evidence, that religious people are being forced to do something.
Protip: Not being able to force people to live by your religion isn’t oppression.
He didn’t address it well. His answer boiled down to, “Doesn’t count!”
Actually, keeping them in college would help the Democrats. 
It should be noted that the fine for not offering insurance could be less than the cost of the insurance to the company. To the point that some very very large companies (I do have one specific name in the telecom industry but I’m not allowed to name it) are considering dropping coverage, paying the fine, and sending their employees to the exchanges. So I don’t think paying the fine would be an onerous burden for the Catholic church.
Nobody’s freedom is being violated, and your insistence otherwise is tiresome. Any employer is free to not offer insurance, and pay the fine.
More like the freedom for some guy to take the stance on religion he wants to take with someone else’s family planning choices.
You are incorrect about the source. Look:
The British tabloid is only reporting it. But…
it’s Canadian reasoning applied to dated British information. But I’m not the kind of guy to limit myself solely to contemporary American information. Look what they say about this ‘more global’ conservativism, if you will:
Attacking the source doesn’t really debunk what I said. Anyway, I’m not sure I can prove it (going by the last election for one), but young people in America these days don’t seem interested in racism or homophobia, generally. Or in religious fundamentalism, which requires an inability to distinguish between debate and apologia, something which might be characterized as ‘low reasoning ability’. But the GOP has traditionally been founded in these things, and still seems to promote them. And they appear to be directing voter suppression against the young, poor and minorities, people who tend to vote dem. And conservative media appears often to appeal to a specific set of pathos to lead people to some conclusion, rather than calm logos to accomplish the same effect. They aren’t basing their case on their sterling agenda, but rather on, uh, ‘techniques’ I guess.
I am not too convinced by that. If your line is, “you can’t violate my religious freedom with your government health care!”, then where do you draw the line between religious beliefs that can or can’t be curbed by public policy? I don’t see the GOP side of the debate rising even to the level of John Mace’s nuance, merely a hammering on the point of religious freedom. Can you demonstrate more nuance from GOP leaders?
My gf thinks the bc debate is just a distraction to prevent government from proceeding with its business. Obstructionism. The less success is perceived to accrue to the Obama administration, the more likely the pubbies are to win elections. Going around in circles about nonsense is one way to make it happen.
You may not have heard, but there was an election in 2010. I believe some newspapers may even have covered it.
There is no difference between a business owner being forced to offer birth control in its insurance and a business owner buying insurance from a company forced to offer birth control coverage. There is a cost associated with the birth control coverage and the business owner pays that cost, unless you think the insurance companies conjure the birth control out of thin air.
The way you phrase it sounds so incendiary, imagine what would happen if people actually were allowed to choose what kind of insurance coverage to offer their employees. Its like Republicans think business owners should be free to run their own business instead of having the government make decisions for them. :eek:
So in your mind, when the government gives a mandate and fines everyone who disobeys, that’s not a violation of freedom? Imagine that the government chose to fine everyone who used birth control. Would you still say that wasn’t a violation of freedom?
No, you’re incorrect. Under the Blunt Amendment, everyone in the United States would have been allowed to make their own family planning choices. Under Obama’s mandate, some people make family planning choices for other people. Specifically, President Obama makes the decision that all insurers will pay for all forms of birth control. When you say that the Republicans want to let any person meddle with any other person’s family planning choices, you are incorrect.
It’s worth noting that what the Republicans want is merely to maintain the same policy towards birth control that we currently have. We’ve let individuals and groups make their own free decisions regarding birth control and insurance for years, and I’ve never heard anybody claim that was a violation of anyone’s rights. It was only after Obama announced that he was going to seize power over everybody’s decisions regarding payment for birth control that his allies suddenly came up with this bizarre idea that they had a “right” to force every employer in the country pay for birth control regardless of whether or not they wanted it. (Except, as noted, Obama chose to exempt employers who employ less than fifty people. For some reason, folks like you are outraged at the possibility that churches might have the freedom to choose their own insurance policies, but you’re not outraged at the fact that small employers will have the freedom to choose their own insurance policies. I wonder why?)
Uh huh. And why should I believe that a tabloid would summarize a scientific paper correctly? I note that they don’t tell us the name of the actual paper or even the authors, so there’s no way to look it up and check. (And to go by the articles in the right-hand column, this tabloid seems devoted mainly to judging women by their bodies.)
Yeah. And after being given the gift of decades due to a bad economy, the Republicans decided that punishing women for fucking and removing rights from homosexuals was more important than the economy.
The last election was a response to the economy and the Republicans are doing all they can to squander it on social issues that are long-term losers in our society.
Of course there is a cost. And it’s being absorbed by the insurance company. Ultimately it is paid by the end-user, the people and businesses who pay for insurance. So what?
What the people against this don’t understand (among, I’m sure, many other things) is that the insurance company is paying for the birth control coverage. It does this via premiums. This doesn’t mean the RCC is paying for birth control. It means they are paying premiums and the insurance company. Then the insurance company is spending its money as it will.
If the RCC pays a priest cash and he uses it to take a sex tour of Asia where he fucks his way across the middle-schools, that doesn’t mean the church is paying for it. The Church is paying for the priest’s services. The priest is paying for the sex.
The government is people. It is made up of us. And if business owners had their way, free of the government we’d be in the 19th century with company stores, unchecked pollution, children laboring in mines, and heavy metals in the water. We need some laws. The world is better for you and everyone you love because of some laws. So don’t fall back on some bullshit argument that all regulations are bad.
The Republicans are trying to allow employers to force their employees to live by religious rules. That’s evil.
I suggest you try this line of argument the next time you’re caught speeding. Rotsa ruck.
This is an employment law issue. There are all sorts of laws that govern compensation, and this is just another. Your ridiculous screechings certainly do amuse though.
As has been mentioned before, the Republicans’ are only trying to have the situation as it currently is maintained. Do you believe that at the present time any employee in the country is being “forced to live by religious rules”. If so, exactly what religious rule are they being forced to live by, and what’s your cite for that?
If we were not being forced to live by religious rules, then the new rule would not be disputed on religious grounds. But the new rule is disputed on religious grounds. Then we were being forced to live by religious rules.
The fact that religious apologists and sympathizers specifically object to following a rule on religious grounds is a proof that they were, prior to the rule, behaving differently on religious grounds.
What on earth is this supposed to mean? I asked “So in your mind, when the government gives a mandate and fines everyone who disobeys, that’s not a violation of freedom?” Are you willing to answer this question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
That doesn’t answer the question. The question is, do you think that when the government imposes fines on people who disobey a certain mandate, that constitutes a decrease in freedom? For example, if the government mandated that everyone not use birth control and fined those who disobeyed, would you view that as decreasing you freedom or not?
Of course not, because it depends. You aren’t entitled to the freedom to drive 130mph on highway, because that would infringe on everyone else’s freedom to not die in a fiery crash. I understand that nuanced reasoning isn’t really your thing, but honestly, sometimes the answer is “it depends”.
What? Obama’s mandate is being disputed because Obama is trying to force religious institutions to do something which they don’t wish to do, not because the religious institutions were trying to force anyone else to do anything.
Exactly what religious rule are you currently being forced to live by? Are you willing to tell me, or not?
What’s your point? A church “behaving” a certain way is not forcing you to behave that same way, so this statement does nothing to justify your claim that you’re being “forced to live by religious rules”.
I think you should try again with a less ridiculous argument.
So it looks like you and I both acknowledge that when the government imposes fines on people who break the speed limit, that removes the freedom of people to drive the speed they choose. That’s a restriction on freedom that most of us would agree with, but it certainly is a restriction on freedom by definition. You told me that “Nobody’s freedom is being violated” when churches are forced to pay either obey the government or pay a fine. It is a restriction on freedom. You can argue that it’s a good restriction on freedom if you want, but if you think that governments fining people for disobedience are not a restriction on freedom then you’ve been reading too many George Orwell novels and taking them too seriously.
Yeah. And after being given the gift of decades due to a bad economy, Obama decided that punishing Catholics for providing medical care and removing rights from religous people was more important than the economy.
The last election was a response to the economy and the Democrats are doing all they can to squander it on social issues that are long-term losers in our society.
Intelligent people were able to see this and that is why college educated people voted by a 53-47 margin for Republicans over Democrats in the last election.
This is inchoherent, the insurance company is not spending its money, they are raising their prices and the RCC is spending its money to buy what it considers immoral to buy.
And if this regulation was rescinded we would be thrown all the way to January 2012, when anyone who wanted could walk into a Target Pharmacy and buy a month’s worth of birth control for 9 dollars, less than the cost of one movie ticket. If that is to rich for them they could have bought condoms for less than a dollar each if they were not near one of the myriad of places that gave them away for free. It is like something out of the Handmaiden’s Tale.
The idea that government passed environmental regulations which did some good so they should be able to force religous organizations to go against their own beliefs seems like such a bizarre argument that I must surmise that you are making another one which has escaped me.
This is not true in the slightest , if the law is rescinded there is nothing the employers can do that will affect the people who choose to purchase birth control. Those of us who approve of birth control will be free to purchase it ourselves or buy insurance plans that cover it. Those who believe birth control is wrong will be free to buy insurance plans that do not cover it. There will be no forcing. The only forcing being contemplated is the government trying to force religous organizations to violate their consciences. Freedom of conscience is an important thing and those of us who love freedom hate to see it ending so a politician can get re-elected.
Well then allow me to rephrase.
Churches are being given the exact same freedoms as everyone else. They’re not being singled out. So this is absolutely not the attack on religion that you’re pretending it is.
I have nothing less ridiculous handy than the modus tollens I offered. Sorry 'bout that.
It isn’t a right for religious people to keep insurance companies they purchase insurance from (for their non-church businesses) from giving a free service to their workers.
If the law states all insurance companies have to give birth control coverage at zero cost, then that’s the insurance companies doing that, not the church.
Honestly, this is simply a tantrum being thrown.
This does not follow. Most religious people agree that this is bullshit. Only a very small subset of people who are misinformed, or simply don’t understand, or just want to be angry for its own sake, are against this.
Going to college is more about social class than intelligence. Getting a post-graduate degree is about intelligence. And that’s why people with post graduate degrees vote Democrat.
If the RCC ever buys insurance from any company ever, it is paying for birth control. Because all insurers offer it. So this argument of yours is imply puerile foot-stomping.
The policy is there to *improve *society. You know, like the left does all the time.
It escapes you because you don’t understand that this isn’t forcing religious organizations to do anything.
This regulation only applies to non-religious businesses that the RCC owns, not churches. So hospitals and colleges. Not churches. But business that deal with all people, not just Catholics.
I’m guessing you didn’t know that, since you’re so up in arms about it.
If you’re supporting the RCC on this issue you aren’t supporting freedom. You’re supporting the RCC being able to deny people freedom.