Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous The Moment a Lot of You Have Been Waiting For | Hey! Listen! Next »
A Rick Santorum supporter hearkens back to the olden times when women used to… stick aspirin between their knees to prevent pregnancy?
Yeah, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that probably doesn’t work as contraception. Also, this is why we need real science.
 | Deelz on Crowd Pleaser |
 | Andrew Long on Vandals Cashing In |
 | Daniel Bell on Vandals Cashing In |
 | noname on I’m So Live |
 | imnotreallyhere on Time Travel Protester |
| imnotreallyhere on GREECE |
| imnotreallyhere on GREECE |
 | eddi on Does to Jets What it Does to… |
 | Lyerra on Haven’t They Heard of Ce… |
 | Clueless the amazing… on My Bad |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
No one, but no one has ever suggested that we ban contraceptives. NO ONE. NO. ONE.
No, just remove access to contraceptions for folks who may or may not share the supposed religious objection to them.
In my book, blocking access has the same effect as an outright ban.
Who is blocking access?
Religious affiliated institutions were trying it, and the same people who championed that are claiming that no employer should have to pay any form of insurance for their employees if they have a moral or religious objection to it.
That’s not blocking access to it.
For people who can’t afford it by themselves it is.
Planned Parenthood. Or work somewhere that has an insurance plan that meets your needs.
Most of Planned Parenthood’s funding goes to breast cancer screenings, and they don’t have anywhere near enough funding to provide contraception to every employee whose employer thinks contraception is against their ‘morals or religion’ (read: almost all of them, for profit reasons).
Not every employee will need them either. Most likely less than half.
not everyone needs cancer treatments, so we should stop funding those.
for religious reasons. cancer is god’s smiting sinners.
Awe schucks did someone not understand the bill. A company has the right to offer whatever insurance they want. If they choose a company that won’t treat cancer then so be it, IT should be the choice of the company, and it should be the choice of the Insurance Company (unless they have a contract with someone that states otherwise). But hey be sarcastic and bitter and miss the point on purpose to show how truely ignorant you are.
Not everyone needs organ transplants, emergancy c-sections, dialysis and insuline either, guess we should cut those too.
Hmm, only women who are in their child bearing years and married (this is the church we’re talking about) really need maternity leave, OBGYN care (both pre and post natal) and coverage for labour and delivery. Guess we should cut that as well.
HMMMM maybe you should understand what was being proposed. But douches who want to mock rather than talk tend to ignore facts and make stupid generalizations.
Yes, Fox News really is awful.
Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide breast cancer screenings. They provide referrals for screenings.
Depends on where you go. The main one where I’m from was large enough to do them.
They might be large enough, but they don’t provide them. This is from the New York City Planned Parenthood website.
“Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses teach patients about breast care, connect patients to resources to help them get vital biopsies, ultrasounds, and mammograms, and follow up to make sure patients are cared for with the attention they need and deserve.”
Notice it says that they “connect patients to resources”. That is not the same thing as providing the resources themselves.
Planned Parenthood does NO breast cancer screenings. None. Listen to over a dozen calls to clinics to ask about them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQ.
They refer people to screenings; they don’t do them themselves.
Just to piss you off I’m going to mention Canada again. Because here it is ILLEGAL for an employer to restrict or remove their employee’s health insurance on moral grounds. This is partially because of our UHC, but also because even our private pay insurance companies aren’t allowed to make such decisions.
In fact I’m sure in the US it’s illegal as well because this violates the separation of church and state. Your employer doesn’t need to know if you are using Implanon, an IUD or VIAGRA because this violates the patient’s privacy act and I will be damned if I would ever allow my employer to dictate my private life because they didn’t agree with my personal beliefs.
What if they are muslim? Isn’t that considered racist up there? Do muslim employers have to provide birth control to their employees?
Yes they are. It’s part of the law. It doesn’t matter which culture, religion, or what not. If the insurance company offers it in the package they have to comply with the law or risk losing their business. As in part with the law it is no business of the employer, other co workers or the walk in clinic receptionist what your medical needs are. As far as I know that is the same as in the States. At least when I still lived in New York that was the case and I only left a few months ago
And that law is an abuse of the federal government. A government should NEVER tell a private company what services that yhey have to provide. We can have laws to protect employees, but to tell a company they have to provide Helath Insurance, what is in that Health Insurance, is WRONG! Insurance is a benefit that an employer provides, it’s not a right. Proper compensation for the hours worked is a right. A safe wroking environment is a right. A retirment plan = beneift. Life insurance = benefit. Health Insurance = benefit.
Also the government should NOT tell an insurance company that they have to cover certain items, unless it’s contractual between the provider and user.
If the government RUNS the insurance company the Government is able to make the rules. So it’s not over stepping or violating anything.
Everyone who is opposed to UHC, please remember that your tax dollars go to provide health care for hundreds of wealthy politicians from the day they start their careers to the day they die.
Blah blah blah… It’s aperk of their job for getting elected. That’d be like me complaining I pay $3.99 for a Big Mac instead of $3.00 b/c their company policy is to provide Full Salaried employees with benefits.
The governments DON’T run the insurance companies in this country nor the private companies in Canada. In Canada the government runs the health care system and certain things are NOT provided under that system; Such as- perscription drugs; densitry; vision however some citizens opt to get private insurance to cover these expenses. Your government has no right to tell this private industries what they should and shouldn’t cover.
I do love your way of arguing though…. If the government ran things then they can be toletarant about things. Thank you for making my argument as to WHY the government shouldn’t run things. “I have excorsized the demons, this house is clear!”
So you shouldn’t be entitled to tax payer funded health care because it’s ‘not a perk provided by your job’? Okay I get it now! Americans don’t believe that they are entitled to have health insurance because it isn’t a perk! Great. So what you’re saying is that politicians are more important than you, your friends and your CHILDREN because of a job they do. Love how that freedom’s working for you! No wonder Canadians live 4 years longer on average than Americans
I’m sorry, but this is just beating a dead horse now and my head hurts from dealing with the stupidity of policitcians being allowed ‘entitlements’ but regular every day Americans such as yourself don’t deserve the same consideration. Good day, enjoy your over priced medications and insurance policies.
No, peanut, we’re not talking about a $1 difference for something that you shouldn’t be buying in the first place, we’re talking about something where those who can and cannot afford health insurance are so far apart in actual wealth that it’s absurd. People can’t rise out of poverty through hard work, because they sustain injuries on the job, and that puts them in debt for several months, even while scraping every penny they can get.
You don’t want the government to have rule over private companies? Fine, kiss your food and environmental standards goodbye, and see how low your life expectancy drops.
“…is ILLEGAL for an employer to restrict or remove their employee’s health insurance…”
I’m going to cut you off here.
Contraceptives have been an optional offering for health insurance companies and their plans. Obama was pushing for a bill that would force companies to provide plans that included coverage for them. This means that no one is restricting anyone’s health insurance at the moment and it never had anything to do with removing it.
The bill kinda already passed, and catholic-affiliated organizations were saying they refused to pay for it, which would result in their employees losing that part of their insurance. Not only that, but the same people moved on to say, even after the concessions, that ANY employer shouldn’t have to provide any insurance that goes against their beliefs, which is vague enough to apply to ANYTHING.
The compromise though was that the insurance companies that were being used by Catholic charities and companies can’t charge extra for contraceptive coverage. That means the coverage is not there by default, but if the employee wants it, they can get it for free.
Exactly and although this bill wouldn’t apply to me any more, I don’t feel cozy with the idea of my employer having a final say on my personal choice to have or not have more children or even have a blood transfusion.
The empolyer has no say on that. You’re misinterpretting things, obviously on purpose. It simply states that your employer can choose insurance converage that won’t cover certain things, which is a freedom that have today. You can still go have your blood transfusion or morning after bill or balls cut off all you want you just have to pay for it.
I believe she’s referring to the proposed one I mentioned, not the one that was passed.
Geary I don’t think you understand the Bill. The Bill forces PRIVATE industry to provide a level of Health Insurance. The companies before didn’t force you not to have something, they just didn’t cover it under insurance. The way you and Misplaced are putting it you nmake it sound the comapny was able to say, We will check if you use birth control and if you do, you’re fired. That’s not it at all and to push that is disengenuine at best.
The president himself said 98% of the country gets them when they need them… where’s the problem? Oh yeah its not free and federally mandated.
I don’t know of anyone who expects to get it free.
Neither do I. In the US unless you have medicare, medicaide, or tri care your insurance company expects a co-pay so most people just expect to pay a co-pay for their BC.
I believe the people who believe that someone wants their BC for free are the same people who believe that UHC is free when it is infact paid for by income taxes.
Back before I was married, I used to go to the local public health department (where they did all the STD testing, and stuff) and pick up free condoms from them. Because so few people did that, they always ended up giving me a big bag with about 50 condoms in it.
My OBGYN office back in NY had baskets of Condoms at the nurse stations near the exam rooms. I always wanted to grab a few- especially when I was 7 months pregnant
walmart decided years ago to stop carrying the morning after pill in its pharmacies, because too many ignorant conservative groups were confusing it with ru-486, the abortion pill.
this is after walmart deliberately destroyed smaller pharmacies through their business practices. in some areas, the only accessible drugstores (“accessible” meaning “able to be reached with available transportation wihtin a reasonable amount of time”) are the ones deciding to block emergency contraception. many of the regions strongly affected also had high teen pregnancy and high poverty rates. so hundreds of people had to suffer for a campaign launched by the ignorant.
catholics still have bans on contraception, and they are the largest organized church group in the country. that the average catholic is also one in belief, but not necessary obeying all the strictures of the church means that it’s less of a big deal than it could be, but the church still has an extreme stance even onndoms.
First, I’m just want to chuckle at you using “strictures” the way you did. I don’t think that word means what you think it does.
Catholics don’t have bans on contraception. They have moral imperatives to not use them. It is a venial sin to use them. Essentially, you’re not going to heaven (at first), but you aren’t going to hell either. With this specific issue, Catholics were with the Church in that they have a right to protect themselves from doing what they feel is morally wrong, and in the same vein that most American Catholics are fine with contraceptives because they are not a “grave matter” they do not think mandatory coverage is needed, since again it is not a “grave matter”.
As for condoms, the Church does allow the use of condoms in certain situations. Which would hardly qualify it as “extreme.”
Depends on which Catholics you ask. Seriously old school ones like this woman I worked for and my paternal grandmother, yes it was. But if you asked my mom or some other Catholic women (98% according to some accounts) none of them would feel this way.
It also depends on you personal convictions. And if you realize that the pill isn’t used soley for family planning.
I can’t believe you are going to use that laughable 98% number! 98% of Catholic women are not of child bearing age!
98% of catholic women of child bearing ages, obviously. Not very bright, eh?
That is not what she said.
That’s what was implied. I doubt they were polling eight year olds to see if they’ve ever used a condom.
No, it wasn’t implied either. You have to be specific when you are using statistics like that or you won’t be taken seriously. Well Nancy Pelosi is already a laughing stock so I guess it doesn’t matter much…
How was it not implied? They don’t even sell birth control to people who aren’t of child bearing ages, why would people who don’t apply be polled?
When you attempt paraphrase a study’s conclusion you need to do so correctly. There are two things wrong with the statistic as quoted, “But if you asked my mom or some other Catholic women (98% according to some accounts) none of them would feel this way.”
The study that figure comes from says that 98% of American Catholic Women age 14-44 who have sexual experience have used contraceptives at least once.
That is VASTLY different than what misplaced_newyorker is saying.
I forgot to explain to clarify, sexual experience as used by the study means women who have had sex at least once.
Well, that leaves Itsy out.
Hey 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of Catholics, Jews and Christians lie. One of the foundations of the religion is Though Shan’t Lie…. hmmm think we should change that.
I’m pretty sure that at least 50% of adult church goers had premarital intercourse, maybe the church should be forced to provide fornication rooms at hourly rates.
Actually the commandment is ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor’. So unless your lie hurts someone else, it’s okay. Little white lies are still not sinful.
The Church has made no ban on contraceptives. End of story.
Then there’s no reason for Catholic affiliated businesses to deny coverage of contraception. End of story.
There’s no reason for coverage of contraception to be mandatory. End of story.
There is no reason for priests to be banging altar boys. End of story.
There’s no reason for you to be drugging farm animals and entering them through the back door. End of story.
Hmm, the Catholic church is the most recent one. Mississippi attempted a state wide ban. And when I lived in Texas I was given a speech about using the pill when I went to pick them up at a pharmacy even though I was married at the time.
But in your mind er… no one.
Back in Florida, when I was 16 or 17, I got carded for condoms. And then the clerk wouldn’t sell them to me, because I wasn’t 18. Even though there was no law in Florida at the time setting any age limit on condoms.
And, in point of fact, at the time, the legal age of consent in Florida was 16. Especially considering that my girlfriend at the time was only 10 months older than me.
That’s why I liked living in New York better and now BC. No one tries as hard to get into your business in the North.
That was really one of the only instances. I have found that here in the City, everyone is in everyone’s business… all the time.
I actually don’t really like it here, and want to move back, but my wife has the final say, and she wants to be up here for a bit longer.
Try a smaller northern city. I lived in Western NY and aside from the grocery stores no one really knew who you were half the time.
Here in BC aside from the Coopers (grocery store) near my place, no one really knows much. Unless you go to the village my MIL lives in. Then the post office lady even knows who you are when she hasn’t met you before!
I think there are several leaps there.
not offering = blocking access = an outright ban.
On a related note, I refuse to eat at Taco Bell until they lift the ban on Coca-Cola products.
They’re owned by Pepsi Co (same with Frito Lay) so I don’t see Taco Bell in your future.
Actually they are owned by Yum now, but part of the deal was a lifetime contract with Pepsi. So yeah, I will buy food from Taco Bell every once in a blue moon, but never a drink.
I assume you also get horrible bowel movements once in a blue moon? ;3
Yeah, my gf said that Taco Bell’s slogan should be “Nature’s Laxative”.
They have a new light menu that’s pretty good.
Only if it’s the chicken stuff. Or the double layer taco thing. I haven’t been to Taco Bell in a while. The only one up where I live is in the mall. I like Taco Time better, but I think it’s just a west coast thing
Granted, if one wants chicken on any day other than Sunday, Chick-fil-a is much better.
They don’t have Chick-fil-a up north. At least not where I lived. A&W has good chicken burgers though. But I hate the ranch dressing
I just saw on tv last night that Taco Bell is coming out with a cheese Doritos taco shell. That could be interesting. I love Chick-fil-a by the way, there’s not much better in the fast food world than their waffle-cut fries, chicken sandwich, and fresh lemonade.
Plus, Chick-fil-a has THE best customer service of any wide-spread fast food restaurant.
You realize the Chik-fil-a is owned and run by a very religious family. Wonder if those two are coincidental. Also employees at Chik-fil-a tend to be treated very well.
That’s true. The founder based his business model on Christian values. That’s why they are still closed on Sundays even in the mall locations. But hey, don’t force your delicious Christian morals on me!
Funny isn’t it? You can still follow your morals and be successful. Who would’ve thought. That being said I really don’t like their chicken salad. But I will try the waffle fries sometime.
Chick-fil-a is also heavily influenced by its workers and customers, which is why is pulled and endorsement to an anti-gay group after a large amount of regulars voiced their protest. Less because of Christian Values and more because it works like a business ideally works.
You clearly haven’t read the founder’s autobiography in which he explains how he set up his business.
Also, the company’s official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”
That might be his goal, but he listens to his customers and workers to do it.
Only two reasons why I rarely go to Chik-Fil-A anymore is because there aren’t too many in the NYC area, and they don’t have any gluten-free items, which means my wife can’t have anything there, and we would have to make an additional stop to get her something to eat.
Actually, I refuse to eat at Taco Bell until their food stops giving me explosive diarrhea.
Sometimes you need a little explosive diarrhea to purge the system.
When I worked there, some 20+ years ago, we (the employees) called it Toxic Hell.
Right, they came to my home the other day and took all the coke products out of my refrigerator!
Yep, and replaced them with Mountain Dew and Pepsi. Gross.
We need A&W, stat!
We do have an A&W/KFC who is excluded from the Pepsi contract and there’s very few sodas that compare to A&W on tap.
A&W is good, but only because they don’t put ice in your drink.
I remember those drive ins with the thick mugs and A&W on tap. Mmmmmm.
We have dine ins here and they still have the mugs
Canada, here I come!
I like the one in Armstrong BC the best because it has a nice veiw of the mountains.
They have them in the St. Petersburg/Clearwater area of Florida too. My mother & I stole two of those mugs last time we went.
Yes, my mother the Rabbi.
The A&Ws in my part of BC won’t allow you to take the mugs outside- instead they give you a paper cup. That’s probably why.
We were inside. My mother has a big purse.
LOL I have a large diaper bag… I’ll have to try that sometimes. Maybe I’ll blame the baby- my older one once stole silverwear from Friendly’s so it’s totally feesable.
Foster’s which is a burger place in my area still has mugs and A&W on tap. Or maybe it’s IBC, I always forget. Point is, root beer on tap.
If they make rootbeer milkshakes I’m there.
Or flurries. I love flurries.
I’ve only had flurries at Mc Donalds.
As long as they put in the ice cream after the soda, since fizz goes away slower than the ice cream melts when it’s cold… >.>
I believe here it’s made from rootbeer ice cream. So no worries.
They make those at Dairy Queen and call them rootbeer freeze. They are fabulous.
Not at the Dairy Queen up here. What I’d love is if someplace did a Nanaimo bar blizzard
Sonic makes a Dr Pepper flurry that is the best thing ever. The first flurry I ever had was at an A&W in California and it opened my eyes to the joys of blended ice cream and soda.
I’m starting to go into a sugar coma just thinking about them…
I wish my 11 month old would get knocked out that easily.
And if you think you get sugar comas from that, you should try a Nanaimo bar, they make your teeth hurt!
Those sound familiar… what do they have in them?
Chocolate vanilla custard (you can use vanilla pudding instead) coconut and walnuts. My MIL also makes mint ones without coconut and nuts because my youngest BIL’s girlfriend has a nut allergy
Note to self, rootbeer shakes are a great distraction fro heated political debates…
Food in general is. So are children, puppies, humour and the weather. Shoot I was having it out with another woman on FB about UHC and politics until we started talking about our kids.
Reminds me that I’ll have to decide whether to adopt or hire a birth mother in the future…
LMAO. Well I’m adopted, but my parents were on a 3 year wait list and this was back in the 80′s. It’s also expensive and there’s a chance before the adoption is finalized that one of the birth parents may want the child back.
If you hire a surrogate you have to look into the laws in your state about them and make sure you go with one who has experiance as a surrogate. Apperantly military women and spouses have been doing surrogacies for a while- I remember reading about it in either Marie Claire or Glamour a while back.
Adopt a birth mother? Hmmm…
Well I could always rent out one of my children for a while. If you had the 7 year old for a week though, you might consider a life of celibacy.
Thankfully, my prospective partners don’t require celibacy to not have children with moi. ;3
Ok then in that case, your potential surrogate would not be hired
No, it would, try flipping genders. ;3
Ok in that case…. you’d want to rule out children completely. It’s not even noon and I already want to lock my 7 year old in the laundry room for the day because she’s being a pain in the ass.
Maybe, but then how will I brainwash a child from birth into being the weirdest person ever?
You don’t have to worry about brainwashing, they just turn out weird anyway.
Maybe normal weird, but I want my son/daughter to integrate properly cooked insects into their diets, just to see what happens.
Most toddlers do that themselves with uncooked anthropods.
I happily integrate properly cooked arthropods into my diet.
Toddlers, maybe, but I want to see the looks on their friends faces when they come over hand have ants on a log- with actual ants. ;3
I don’t know what you’re complaining about, Coke is too acidic, and I have enough acid as it is. That’s why I prefer Pepsi.
Hey as long as they paid for the recycling fee and I can still return the empties I’m good.
That’s exactly what’s wrong with people like you. You would be perfectly fine with someone coming into your home and removing your good things and replacing them with garbage.
I don’t really like Pepsi or Mountain Dew in the first place nor do I drink soda so your aguement about ‘people like me’ is mote.
Besides I think the recycling fee is one of the most ridiculous ideas in my province. Right up there with the HST.
People like you was referring to your complacency with other people controlling all aspects of your life. Not your affinity for a certain brand of soft drink.
I believe she was joking…
Well I was trying to.
I think you’re asking me to show my math. Here you go:
As long as we have employer-provided health care in this country, the employer is making the insurance choice for all of its employees. The individual employee does not have free choice in the matter.
If the employer successfully demands that their health insurance provider not include contraception, that blocks access to contraception for their employees.
Any employee who wants to buy contraception on the open market then is forced to take the money to pay for it out of their own pocket. For some, that financial hardship is the practical equivalent to an outright ban.
The mainstream position is that contraception is a health issue, and should be included in insurance coverage (just like Viagra, for example). The radical position is that contraception is a moral issue, and the Catholic bishops want to make that moral choice not only for their flock but also for every employee, no matter what faith or creed they personally espouse.
I’m not seeing how your Taco Bell comment is related, since there are millions of providers of Coca-Cola, and and individual can choose freely between them, whereas an employee’s universe of health-insurance-choices is limited to one by his or her employer.
Checked the price of condoms lately? They’re pretty cheap.
Checked the price of The Pill recently? It’s not.
That’s why I went with an implanted birth control method. You only get it done every 5 years and you don’t need to worry about it. Of course that method is still costlier up front than the pill, but in the long run it’s cheaper and more effective.
I got the implant, and I’m on the Pill because the implant mucked me up. Thank eff I live in the UK, or I would be very very broke.
I have the implant because the IUD slid into my abdominal cavity and I had to have surgery to get it out (I still have the scar in my belly button from it) I like the implanon better because you don’t have to check the strings.
I’m just glad I live in Canada now so I won’t have to worry about a potential employer throwing a morality fit if I want a tubal ligation after I have my last 2 babies.
Brith control is an area where one is faced with a plethora of choices: one must make the decision that best suits one’s needs. If one wants insutrance to cover the costs, perhaps one should find a job where that coverage is offered.
One does not get full disclosure of what the insurance will cover and won’t cover before taking the job. If one were to ask about it prior to being hired, one might not be offered the job.
In addition, we’re talking about religious non-profit hospitals that receive monies from the Government. I think that gives “We the People” a say in what coverage is offered.
Separation of church and state goes both ways. Neither can dictate to the other. I don’t think they should be operating hospitals together. But since they are, who owns them? Who is taking the risks of owning the property, employing the people, civil and commercial liability? The one who takes the risks should make the decisions, seems to me. If the feds are unhappy with that, they can use eminent domain to condemn the hospitals, take them over and run them to their liking.
You’re right, the separation is supposed to go both ways, yet time and time again we have folks who are trying to use government to enforce their religious beliefs on every citizen in this country.
Also time and again we have people trying to force their lack of belief on all of us. It’s not the Church forcing anyone to do anything. The Church is being forced to a course it finds morally objectionable.
I don’t really see lack of belief being forced on anybody. Maybe keeping belief privates, or in specific places designed for it, but not so much lack of belief.
When the Church is forced to act against its beliefs, the state is forcing its lack of belief on the Church, actions being an expression of belief. The state has no compelling interest in seeing that the Church’s employees get BC.
Really? Keeping belief private? What happened to freedom of speech? What happened to separation of church and state? What happened to the right of peaceful assembly?
Lemon test people, lemon test. The government giving money to a religious organization’s charity does not break the establishment clause if the government also gives proportional amounts of money to other charities in the same or similar area. If religious organizations happen to be the majority than so be it. Catholic hospitals provide low cost to free health care to low income Americans (used to be all across this country). Catholic hospitals are essentially charities.
Gas is pretty expensive too. I guess my auto policy should cover fill ups.
Only if you can prove that gas is a vital necessity for your health and well being. I don’t know what they’re doing down in the US now for health care, but before I moved they weren’t considering Petrol a medication.
auto policy != health insurance policy
I would wager that the root cause of a LARGE portion of car accidents came about because gas was put in the tank.
I would therefore surmise you could get an awesome coverage plan for your auto if as a disclaimer, you never put gas in the car (assuming it required it for locomotion, of course).
that kind of equivocation is like saying that “a large portion of health problems are created by the parents of the individual not having taken the pill, therefore contraception should be completely covered by the healthcare plan”
Take it in context in reply to uckfay’s context.
You do get lower rates if you drive less. So, they kind of already do that, lol.
The rubber, she break. Condoms are only at the most 1/2 of a form of birth control. The woman also needs to be on a reliable form of birth control if the couple really does not want a baby.
Choices. People gotta make ‘em. Starting with the job they take, and whether the insurance is a criterion.
Which is why I’m glad I moved to a country where health insurance is MANDATORY and considered a RIGHT and not a PRIVLEDGE.
That, too is a choice.
However filing paperwork to live somewhere where you weren’t born is a hassle. And Americans shouldn’t be forced to make a choice whether or not to have health care it should always be an option. It honestly makes me sick to hear other Americans state that having Health care that will cover any medication you may need (the pill isn’t just effective in preventing pregnancies) is simply a CHOICE.
How many of you here honestly believe health insurance is a choice?
Again, you gotta make choices. Make your choices based on your criteria. For example, if I want a job with excellent health benefits, I will only apply for jobs with that package. If you accept employment at a place that doesn’t meet your criteria, why are you blaming the employer? Having health insurance is not really a choice, but the amount of coverage is, as is the quality. Ye gods and little fishes, you do know that a high level of insurance cuts into how much your employer can pay you, right?
Oh ye of scant knowledge of UHC, our health care is paid for by our taxes so our employers don’t get to raise our premiums. Yet another reason I chose to move to Canada with my husband who was born there rather than stay in the US and feel like Oliver asking the government ‘Please sir, can I have some more’ when it comes to my health care coverage.
The hardest part of this choice was leaving my family including my 91 year old grandma who just found out she might need to be put on dialysis while I’m 3,000 miles away and can’t leave the country because there is no guarantee I can come back to my husband.
I’m Canada is starting to take our stupid people.
Yes that’s very mature, starting a fight with someone online.
But in all seriousness the American health care system is broken because it’s treated more like a business than a a service. If you were suddenly given a bill for every time the police responded to any call, wouldn’t you be upset? And if the police department decided that responding wasn’t profitable they just wouldn’t respond, then what? Are you really okay with someone putting a price on your life and if you can’t afford that price then you aren’t worth saving? What about your children, are you okay with someone in a corporation saying that since you can’t afford a surgery for your child that it shouldn’t be done?
Go ahead and call me stupid, but I’m not the one living in a country where my life has a price tag.
bah, *I’m glad…
Meh don’t worry, Canada doesn’t want your type anyway.
Intelligent people? Yeah I know. They did nothing when my Grandfather left to go help work on the YF-12.
Neo, I don’t think the intelligent response to somebody neatly laying out facts and drawing the proper conclusion based upon them is, “WELL UR STUPID!”
Don’t use quotes Geary, I did not say that. I’m not obliged to respond with a logical or rational response when the person hasn’t presented one.
To begin an argument with an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. She also presented no facts except those about herself and why she made a decision.
My point is not about right or wrong, but about contraception. Women use a reliable form of birth control and have your partner use a condom, unless your partner is another woman–then forget it.
Maybe Church based companies should just hire gay people instead. That fixes one big problem. However I foresee another issue in the future
Really? What could possibly go wrong with that? /sarcasm
You’re right. No issues there at all. Well at least no one will need birth control. But the Church run organization can decide not to cover IVF due to morality issues.
Why would the Church prevent gays from working at their companies?
Because most churches teach that being homosexual is an abomination to God. Luckily, unlike the women who want birth control homosexuals are protected by anti descrimination laws
I think you know nothing of Catholics.
I was under the impression he she meant *ONLY* gay people.
Well I’m a she and yes I was.
I don’t think I said that Geary.
You can take a small condom and put it over your head. So the only reason they break is because the user is too stupid to put it on right. Take some personal responsibility for your actions and stop blaming everyone else for your failings.
False, there are many reasons why a condom would break. Usually because rough ‘situations’, and many specifics that I’m sure you’d not care to hear.
And only about 85% effective.
Checked the cost of raising a child or 3 lately? It’s pretty damn expensive.
Actually yes. I have three. My eldest is starting college. the ither two start at intervals of two years each. By the time they’re done, I may have to reconsider this whole living indoors thing.
Well in Canada the government pretty much takes care of the paying for health care thing and if you have a permanent disability and attend college you can get your tuition practically covered and the government will also assist in paying for things you may need for your college courses (the BC provincial government paid for the 2,000$+ computer I’m using). My husband may only have to pay about 10,000$ of a 30,000$ student loan.
But the cost of diapers, wipes and this thing called food that I am supposed to feed my older daughter is causing me to think I may have to forego heat (thankfully the temps have been about +5 the past few days)
canada also only has about 10 million people. Thats a little over the population of NY city. So couple that with the lack of a need for any real canadian military and you have the entire reason for your above math… redistribution of the wealth due to the government being able to take more of your tax dollars and put it towards non military spending… even then it still takes longer to get seen for even an MRI than it does here in the US. Or did you forget that the prime minister of new foundland I think it was came down here to the US for treatment because it would have been 6 months to get seen in his own country?
Ok first off, canada population is, according to the canadian gov, estimated to be about 34,000,000 as of 2011
You’re actually refering to the primier = to governer and the reason that it would take 6 months would be because of.
1: it was some thing that was NOT life threatening
2: there were other people in grater need than him in line first.
3: he can afford to go to the states and pay 1/2 a mill or what ever the bill would be
It should also be noted that its normal for Canadians to get treatment in the states, if a Dr or equipment is not avalible in Canada and it’s life threatening, our system will send the person to the states and STILL take care of the bill.
but of course in all truthfulness, our system is NOT perfect, it does have some cracks in it and things do happen, thats because its a man made system and any thing man made is going to be FLAWED in some ways or another.
“but of course in all truthfulness, our system is NOT perfect, it does have some cracks in it and things do happen, thats because its a man made system and any thing man made is going to be FLAWED in some ways or another.”
It’s funny that you only seem to make that excuse about Canada…
Our health care system’s flaws bankrupt people for being seriously sick, or cut them off for being sick too long or in a “pre-existing” fashion. To my mind, there really is no excuse for that in a country with as much resources as we do.
Ummm I hate to be a devil’s advocate here since the US healthcare system is rubbish and all, but isn’t the use of contraception an individual choice? Individuals should therefore pay for contraception if they want to use it.
The pill isn’t expensive, neither condoms or any of the other contraceptive choices out there, why do people need a health insurer to provide these when they should be as simple to obtain as a box of aspirin? As long as no legislation is put in place to stop pharmacies and drug stores from stocking contraceptives then there should be no barriers to buying contraceptives.
Pretty sure preventing unwanted pregnancies is a lot cheaper in the long run. I might buy your argument if there were OTC birth control pills available. BTW, the pill also controls a whole host of menstrual related issues, and is in many cases treating a health issue.
Considering I have 2 children contraceptives are a LOT cheaper.
Correct! I have been treated for polycystic ovaries and menorrhagia with birth control pills. Why should an employer be able to deny me treatment for this because they oppose the use of birth control?
Actually, one of my friends at school can’t afford the pill because he mother is strapped for cash and the father isn’t on a salary (or present), so she has entire weeks where doing work and focusing is very difficult because of her menstrual cycle, and sometimes causes outbursts that result in her being sent to the office.
That’s the question, C-V. Either one sees the Pill (and Depo-Provera, and IUDs, etc.) as health issues, in which case health insurance ought to pay for them, or one sees contraception as luxury items, in which case why bother?
I would ask, what is health insurance being used to pay for? Viagra? Other things that someone might say are optional? And if so, then why single out the lady parts as undeserving of coverage?
Because we’re women. Health insurance companies were helping men have sex long before they were required to help women not have babies during sex or regulate their mood swings and menstral cycles.
I have a history of high risk pregnancies and I nearly died having my 2nd child last year. I have pre hyper tension as well when I’m not pregnant and my OBGYN told me I needed to take a low hormone birth control and try really hard not to get pregnant for a while. This is why I have implanon and this is also why I feel it’s bull to call birth control a luxury item.
I feel for you. I was in the same type of situation when I had my daughter. Now I have full blown diabetes and hypertension. The product information for a couple meds I am on have warnings about being sure not to get pregnant while on these meds and to be sure to use a reliable form of birth control. I recently decided that having a tubal and getting off the pill was my best option, and when they performed the surgery, they found endometriosis and a fibroid cyst. Guess what one of the treatment options for both problems just happens to be? Yes, the pill.
I agree – having the ability to be intimate in a marriage/relationship and control the size of your family is not a luxury.
A Janeane Garofalo mask would be cheaper and just as effective.
That’s funny, but as much as I disagree with everything she stands for she is still fairly attractive. Now if you had books on tape read by her constantly playing no one could get pregnant.
She’s cute as long as she doesn’t open her mouth!
I’d say she’s quite adorkable, but I’m not familiar with her works.
Logical leaps again.
“If the employer successfully demands that their health insurance provider not include contraception, that blocks access to contraception for their employees.”
That’s just not true. They don’t hire people to follow their employees around and tackle them every time they try to buy contraception. That would be blocking access. Remember when people were defending the OWS protestors who were arrested for blocking access to a building entrance? The same people who are claiming there were plenty of other access options then are now saying that closing off one option here is completely shutting off access. That is the height of hypocrisy. Especially since we fund groups like Planned Parenthood just so that people can have access to affordable and/or free contraceptives. Also, birth control pills are available in generic brands for less than a dollar a day. So, they are actually really affordable even if you have to pay *GASP* FULL PRICE.
Mississippi wanted to ban contraceptives in their state and put it to a vote. And phamacists in some states are allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills if use of contraceptives is a conflict with their beliefs.
Yes, no one is trying to ban contraceptives outright, but there are a lot of conservative politicians trying really hard to make them accessable to women who would like to use them. The same ones who want to ‘stick to the constitution’ I guess that the US Constitution is pretty flexible when it comes to religious beliefs and imposing them on people eh?
Not it’s about religious freedom. Men or women who believe contraceptives are immoral because of their religion should not be forced by the government to provide them to employees. It’s an outrageous attack on religious liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
Wrong level of gov’t to start with.
This decision means that it’s legal to fire someone for breaking the law, whether or not they had religious reason. For an employer to deny contraceptive insurance as part of their benefit package is quite a different case. If the hiree doesn’t want the job without the insurance, he shouldn’t apply or he should buy the stuff with his paycheck. The Pill is,after all, legal and widely available.
“It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]…to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended….To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ – permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’ contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.’ To adopt a true ‘compelling interest’ requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.”
Dang brackets, replace all the parenthesis with brackets while you read.
“It is a permissible reading of the (free exercise clause)…to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the (law) but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended….To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is ‘compelling’ – permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, ‘to become a law unto himself,’ contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.’ To adopt a true ‘compelling interest’ requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.”
The crux of that argument is on existing laws and unintentional consequences of laws. Once the law is in place, a company must follow it until it is repealed. The court case dealt with the right of a company to fire someone who didn’t not follow the laws. And the court basically said, just because your religion disagrees with ti does not mean you can choose to not follow it. This is not saying that such a law is Constitutionally legal, rather that you must respect the laws while they exist. It is not saying that you can ignore religious freedom if the object of the law isn’t to prohibit the practicing of a religion.
In the case we have here, we have a law (or bill) about to passed that is has valid opposition to it’s passing.
Please tell me where in the Bible it speaks out against Contraception.
In Genesis, where it says ‘be fruitful and multiply’. Again in Exodus where it says ‘Thou shalt not kill’. At least that’s a Catholic interpretation; a sin of omission. Let’s not forget Genesis again: reread the story of Onan. That’s three. Had enough?
Actually only the first one really applies, and you can be fruitful AND use birth control to keep your fruit in check a bit, if you know what I mean. “Thou shalt not kill” has nothing to do with condoms. Abortion, yes, condoms, no. And the story of Onan is debated in many circles, particularly Jewish ones, that consider his crime to be his refusal to honour his brother by giving his brother more children (since any children Onan had with his brother’s wife would be considered his brother’s children by God) NOT that he “spilled his seed”. If that was his only crime, why include and emphasise all the stuff about it being his brother’s wife? Why not just detail God’s punishment for “spilling” in a general, or solo, situation?
I don’t know. I would think an extreme interpretation of ‘thou shalt not kill’ would include contraception. It’s a small leap from killing to preventing a life from starting.
I was replying to the statement that said the Bible had nothing to say about contraception.
Personally, I have no problem with contraception. My big problem here is that the Church is being forced to act against its conscience.
Does that mean chastity would be against the tenet of Thou Shall Not Kill?
No. chastity is inaction. contraception is a positive action. Again, I don’t agree with this, but it is important to understand the opposition’s argument in order to understand your own. If you’re just trying to score cheap shots (the Bible has nothing to say about contraception, chastity is contraception) you ain’t gonna learn nothin’.
But refusal to procreate when pressured is action.
Seriously though, one would think you could just take the Pope’s word for it, him being the leading Catholic authority on the Bible.
So conscientious objectors (Quakers, e.g.) can be placed in combat arms MOS’s in the military? Or are they a law unto themselves? Either way, please provide the reasoning.
Conscientious objector isn’t restricted to religion.
Conscientious objector is a moral stance. Why, then, are those who hold this stance given different treatment than other servicemembers? If they lack even a religious requirement of pacifism, then they should be treated exactly as others are treated.
Because religion, in itself, is entirely a choice, as is pacifism.
Exactly. So if pacifists are treated differently in the military because of their beliefs, doesn’t it make sense to treat a church and the charities it owns differently because of its beliefs? It’s the same idea writ small in one case and large in the other.
Logic failure: Pacifists do not employ people.
They make decisions that only affect themselves. They don’t dictate that others in their platoon shall only shoot rubber-coated bullets.
The point was that the gov’t makes exceptions to general rules based on the merits of the individual cases. I was drawing a parallel between the consciences of pacifists and the conscience of the Church.
Except that people AREN’T treated differently if they say, “Oh, by the way, my religion tells me to believe this.” Except in court, but that’s just because ‘freedom of expression’ is attempted to be translated as ‘freedom to do whatever the hell I want’.
Geary: Except they are. Check out army regulation 600-43 dealing with conscientious objectors. They are treated differently solely because of the dictates of their consciences- i.e. their morals. This in an organization dedicated to the opposite proposition. Why then should the Church be forced to go against its moral stance?
Could you tell me what it says, when it was made, and when/if it was repealed/replaced? I can’t find it myself.
geary: google conscientious objection army. It’ll get you several good links. Don’t take my word for it, I’m your opposition.
Well, I’d like a description of the specific regulation you brought up.
Okay. It provides for the discharge or reclassification of a servicemember who has or discovers a moral objection to war in general, or to a specific war the military is fighting in.
So how does that treat people differently if they have a religious belief?
Geary: It doesn’t. It provides for differing treatment of people according to their moral codes. What is the difference between that and the Church vis a vis contraception and why is the exception not being made under the same logic?
I answered that already: the exception applies to the objector (who’s obvisouly forced to be there in the first place), not to the people working for him. The objector affects himself, the church opposition affects every employee.
If you’re a surgeon/nurse in rural Wyoming, you may not find another job easily, so you’re subjected to the de-facto monopoly of the Church on employment that you qualify for. Their viewpoint should not be an excuse to force their captive employees.
bob: failure to use your weapon in a combat situation can result in the death of your platoon mates. Obviously being an objector affects everyone around you. It makes you dangerous to your own side.
If you’re a surgeon in rural Wyoming, and you’re working in a Catholic hospital, obviously you had no problem with the lack of BC insurance when you got the job. What’s changed? If you really had a problem, I think you would have gone somewhere else to look for work. The mere desire for BC insurance of the employee shouldn’t be used to force the Church to set aside a moral commitment.
“failure to use your weapon in a combat situation” does not apply to objectors. They don’t have weapons and the people around them do not expect them to take part in any fight. They’re actually supposed to stay where they won’t put anyone in danger by needing to be protected.
If I’m married and carrying a genetic defect that means I can’t have healthy children, the Church is ok with birth control. So the moral commitment is not against BC itself. The Church discriminates against people who would not, even if it’s outside of the job, act according to their guidelines.
No dear, it’s an outrageous attack on PERSONAL liberties and freedom not religious. The church’s affiliates (ie: schools, hospitals ect) are being asked to cover their employees’ health insurance including birth control. This is a human right.
Freedom of religion is also a human right and we should not be forced to compromise on our beliefs.
If you’re a non profit and don’t receive money from the government, yes. However if you are a for profit organization then you don’t get to cry ‘religious discrimination’
What makes you think that Catholic hospitals and schools are for profit? Unless they are really poorly managed they should be set up as a non profit organization.
Most Catholic hospitals are Catholic in name only. They rely on a lot of goverment funding.
1.) Just because the priests aren’t performing surgery doesn’t mean they are not Catholic hospitals. I was born in a Catholic hospital and the nuns baptized me as soon as I was born despite my parents not being Catholic. If you look at the board, the trustees, the financial donors, etc. you will see where the Catholic part comes in.
2.) Even if that were the case it doesn’t change whether or not they are non profit. In fact, I would challenge you to show me a non profit hospital that doesn’t receive government funding. The government has used the threat of removing funding in order to “softly” force compliance with things that they couldn’t mandate by law. That isn’t what they were attempting to do here.
If they baptized you without your parents approval, that’s technically assault. >.>
Oh the nuns wouldn’t even allow my dad in the room. I guess they were worried he might glimpse her naughty parts. You know that usually winds up with someone getting pregnant.
LOL. You know back then you weren’t supposed to look at them!
Doctor: Scalpel?
Nurse: Scalpel.
Doctor: Mirror?
Nurse: Mirror.
Doctor: Blindfold?
Woman: Wait, what?
Nurse: Blindfold.
Woman: I’m having second thoughts…
No, I mean the husband. You were supposed to turn all the lights out and go to work. Then there was the whole sheet with a hold in it thing some religions recommended.
As is freedom FROM religion. If I have no moral qualms about contraception then why should I have to listen to some religious w**ker rabbitting on about how his/her morals don’t agree with contraception.
Just fill out my f**king prescription, take my money and keep your morals to yourself, where they belong. If you don’t stock contraceptives, fine, but I neither want to know nor do I need to know why you don’t stock them, just point me to the nearest pharmacy that does.
That’s all I’m sayin.
if you want to get contraception or an abortion then dont go to St. Mary’s hospital for it. If you are that opposed to a religion and its views dont ask them for help. go to your secular planned parenthood location and STFU about it.
That openly defies the patient’s right to treatment. If you don’t have the tools to a procedure, then you send them to somewhere that does, but if you do, you legally have to preform it.
Right to treatment != right to abortion.
No one cares about the live human inside the wombs right to treatment.
Of course they have right to treatment. It’s just not ‘preferential’ treatment. ;3
convenience of one person > life of another person
!Yep makes complete sense to me.
first they are being mandated to offer things they are morally opposed to. Like if you were a vegan being federally forced to eat meat 3 times a day because of the food pyramid. Second… its not a human right to be given someone else’s labors for free.
According to the UN defination of human rights every country by UN law (which the US took part of) must provide accessable health care. This is a standard that we stand by here in Canada. If you want to be technical the US is in clear violation of UN human rights.
And again since no one really seems to get it. Universal health care in all countries that have universal health care is FUNDED BY THE TAXES of the country’s citizens. This is simular to the tax payer funded health care that all politicians are entitled to, but US tax payers don’t benefit from. I don’t know about you all who are kvetching about health care, but I’d rather get something for my taxes.
Really, it’s more like a vegan working* in a restaurant being required to serve meat to people if they order it.
It’s still a bad analogy, but at least it’s slightly less bad.
No it’s not — but shoving their religion on their employees IS.
No offense, but the separation of church and state is supposed to go both ways. As the state is not allowed to be influenced by any religion, so may it not dictate what that faith believes. Inasmuch as actions are dictated by belief, barring a state interest, the state should not dictate to the church. For those employees who use access to contraception as a criterion for whether they want a job or not, WHY ARE YOU WORKING THERE?
Because the debate was over religious AFFILIATED organizations, like Catholic hospitals or Rastafarian bakeries. They tend to hire people based on qualification, not religion, so you’ll end up with people of different sects, sub-sects, and entirely different religions. Also, with the economy as it is now, saying, “If you don’t like that we won’t give you contraception, then just quit,” is rather ignorant of a statement.
They may hire some that are not of their religion and a few of those may be women and a few of those may be child bearing age and a few of those may be sexually active and a few of those may not want children at that point. That tiny fraction can either get birth control else where or work else where. Why infringe on our religious freedom for that tiny percentage? This is a political hammer and that’s all that it is. It has nothing to do with concern for women.
So, because it’s a small amount of people, it’s a-okay to stomp on their rights just so that a couple institutions don’t have to foot a bill?
No but they could go to PP or buy their own.
And if they can’t afford it?
Get another job. BC was not part of the deal when they got the job. Why should it be now?
Or campaign for Universal health care so you don’t have to worry about your employer claiming their morals dictate your coverage. Oddly enough European and Canadian Church run businesses don’t get to kvetch about what they have to cover. Why are American churches special?
Honestly if a Jehovah Witness’s Kingdom Hall hired a janitor that wasn’t a Jehovah’s Witness and stated that they wouldn’t cover blood transfusions would THAT be okay? Or is it just okay because we’re talking dictating whether someone can decide when they will have children or not?
The Church is also talking about not covering hystorectomies, tubal ligations and vascectomies because it falls under sterilization.
Because our country was founded on freedom and in your countries you were subject to kings and queens. We don’t take kindly to being dictated to for our own good while you in your countries are used to it and may even find it comforting. Our government is not allowed to infringe on our basic freedoms. At least that’s what our founders intended. What I can’t understand is why people in other countries can’t just leave us alone and let us run our country the way we want to and have for centuries? Constantly with the criticism and derision. Can’t there be one country in the world where the people are free? And free means free to fail as well as succeed. It’s what makes life worth living.
Oh and this was a response to the question: “Why are American churches special?”
I think because every time something affects them, they tend to throw a fit.
Like when a creche is erected in the town square for Christmas? Or when they sue to have a maltese cross taken off the town’s seal? Wait, that was atheists.
I’ve heard Christians whine a lot more than Atheists. Most Atheists I know just acknowledge that they live in a predominantly Judeo Christian society. It’s some of the Christians that don’t seem to realize that the Crusades and the Inquisition are over and that it’s 2012 and you can’t get kicked out of an all girl’s school for using the pill.
More like when they sue because there’s a model of a skeleton wearing a Santa outfit in town center, or when they whine over the phrase ‘Happy Holidays’.
@I think because every time something affects them, they tend to throw a fit.
So they should just sit down and shut up? We are used to having a say in our government treats us. They are supposed to be working for us, not ruling over us.
*head desk* You drank the Kool aid didn’t you.
As someone who used to live in the US and now uses UHC I fail to see where government run healthcare= dictatorship. In Canada we get to choose our own health care providers, we get paid our travel expenses (I have a friend who has to drive 3hrs for physical therapy and her provincial insurance covers her gas), we don’t get denied coverage, we don’t risk being dropped because of a pre-existing condition (like say pregnancy) we don’t get denied any NECESSARY surgeries or treatments, and our provincial and private pay insurances will pay for a doctor to come to us or us to go to a doctor.
My health and the health of my children doesn’t have a price tag on it. I am not dictated by an HMO coverage cap or what my insurance provider has suddenly decided not to cover. I work in health care, I am considered a government employee because of it and I receive the best health care not just because I can afford it, but because it is my RIGHT as a Citizen of Canada to have access health care.
This is VERY unlike the US where you have people losing their homes because their insurance policy won’t cover the treatment that their oncologist deamed necessary. You have people deciding whether they want to eat or pay for their company’s insurance policy.
Yes, Americans are so free that they can decide that a POLITICIAN is more worthy of health care paid for by tax payers than they are simply because that politician has money and is supposed to be helping that person. How wonderful to be an American with that kind of freedom. The freedom to believe that you don’t deserve to be healthy and have access to health care and doctors if you can’t afford it.
Now answer seriously, how much are your life and the lives of your family worth? Because that’s pretty much the system in the US.
I know I replied to this already… But yes because in Canada, Australia and Europe no one is free. Those mandatory 5 week holidays they have in Germany- oppressive. The one year maternity leave in Canada, who needs it. A guarantee of not being dropped by your insurance provider because it’s paid for by your taxes- yep it’s a dictatorship.
So, I get a health plan. In this health plan, they say what medical thingies are covered. Great. I go get a script, as one of the health thingies. So, now the employer gets to look at my script and say “Ooo.. hm… interesting, but no, we aren’t paying for that?”.
Yeah, frag off. If you are offering the plan as part of my compensation package for working in your establishment, you don’t get to “review” my medical needs an history to see if it conflicts with your morals.
If the Church is so adamant about not paying for it, maybe that should NOT HIRE people currently using birth control, or had an abortion, etc. Its not about the morality, its about control. The Church in this instance wants it.
Are you an idiot? just asking… You’re asking why we can’t leave the high and mighty americans alone? really? Because the way i see it America is always meddling with everyones businesss, starting wars here and there, causing global economic crisises and telling everyone what they should do.
Look, if you really want to be a country that stands for individual freedom and total separation of church and state, don’t try to have the state work in favor of the christian-fundies that are trying to take everyone back to the stone age…
I’m European and I can honestly say that UHC is a blessing to a lot of people i know that otherwise couldn’t afford to send they’re kids to college or take them to a doctor when they need it.
Thank you! That’s what I’ve been trying to say about UHC in Canada through out the thread!
@otherwise couldn’t afford to send they’re kids to college or take them to a doctor when they need it.
And the reason they can’t afford it is because you have a crap socialist country.
The reason people can’t afford health care is because modern health care is bloody expensive. Perhaps the “crap socialist country” is actually doing well because its citizens are healthier and more productive since they aren’t losing jobs, homes, and the ability to work at all, to privatized health care costs. My mom’s lymphoma treatment was paid for in large part by Medicare, which she certainly couldn’t have afforded on her own. Too bad I couldn’t have used that same “crap socialist” system myself to cover the cost of my eye infection.
And this is why I don’t want Australia to become a Republic. The further away we stay from the USA system, the better. “Free” seems to mean “free to die in the streets” and that’s just about it. I’ll happily bow to some old lady if it means my prescriptions and health care is heavily subsidised.
Harper’s trying to convince Canadians to turn our UHC into a more “free” system like in the US. He won’t explain his reasons to anyone (All anyone in Canada knows is that his idea was mentioned back in December and Harper has refused to meet with any health care board in any province. He bailed on one in BC) Of course the majority of Canadians are against it. Including myself who has dealt with the American system of health care. It’s great when you’re lucky enough to have health insurance or poor enough to qualify for “entitlements” but when you’re not poor and not lucky it really sucks. And your state Government also gets to decide what is poor and in NY poor appearantly isn’t working per diem at 9$ an hour.
If UHC passes, I think that would be great. I am in favor of that. I think it is the best solution to a growing problem. I simply don’t think it’s right to force anyone to act against their moral code.
I don’t really care about what other countries’ deals with the Church are. Quite simply, the American Church is special because I live here and have a microscopic amount of influence here.
If the full insurance deal was known and accepted without coercion by both sides, I have to say it’s fair. Regarding the janitor, that is.
I have no problem with birth control. I will admit to being more conflicted about abortion, though I don’t think that should be banned, either.
If the Church made the terms and conditions of its inurance clear to its employees prior to hiring, I just don’t see the problem.
I’m not a fan of abortion myself but I wouldn’t support a ban on it either because then you go back to the days before Roe v Wade where it was illegal and you had to do it somewhere where no one had to really give a damn about cleanlyness and sanitation.
I challenge that notion. No one would go back to the back alley abortion option because there is no stigma to having a baby out of wedlock like there was before. Can you imagine!? A single working woman getting pregnant and risking her life with a back alley abortion because of the shame!? Never gonna happen and with things like adoption and even just being able to leave your baby no questions asked in some cases if you don’t want to raise it I don’t think there would be any back alley abortions again, ever. See what a good job liberals have done taking the stigma out of single motherhood? And with all the public help you can have and raise a child these days without a father no problems. You can even have a whole bunch of them.
“No problems?”
You clearly have never met any of the students that I teach.
What right is being stomped? Contraception is not being outlawed. And anyway, the Declaration of Independence doesn’t say “Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and, of course, Contraception”.
Yes it is AOK for institutions with a long-standing moral objection to BC to refuse to buy insurance for their employees to have it. They didn’t have it before, they don’t have it now, it was never part of the deal, if they wanted it, they should have kept looking until they found a job that suited them.
Did your religion dictate you run a secular business?
No but it doesn’t forbid it.
Considering when most religions were founded, I find it hard to believe that any religion forbids birth control. Therefor, it is the fault of the person, and not an issue with the religion itself.
That is possibly the most ignorant thing I have read all week. I don’t even know where to begin informing you. Suffice it to say that’s what this whole debate has been about. Have you not been paying attention?
Yes, but at points the scope gets too drawn into specifics, and the big picture needs to be re-evaluated based on the information that has arisen.
FYI, contraceptive devices go back to at least Egyptian/Pharaonic times.
Try me again when the GOP isn’t trying to attack women’s rights all over America, as we speak.
Hey… abortion ain’t just a woman’s right, b/c if it was then women wouldn’t need men to pay for the baby. Oh wait women are only liberated when it suits their needs, but when it doesn’t they LOVE chivalry. Can’t have it both ways, chose. It’s either about a women’s right to choose then she takes ALL responsibility for the choice OR men have a say in the action.
Why woul that be an ignorant statement? If you knew that you would not be getting contraceptive insurance when you took the job, why are you complaining now? Face it, you had a deal.
Because somebody at the hospital down the road is getting it for no reason other than that their employer doesn’t have a stick up their bum and doesn’t want to foot a bill that doesn’t affect them, personally, at all.
Then find that hospital job. A deal is a deal. Why do you think all employers have to offer the same deal? You’re ignoring some pretty basic principles of business.
” You’re ignoring some pretty basic principles of business.” – which is a real interesting thing to say when a Church is trying to interject its morals in a businesses.
Morals or money, pick one.
Are you saying that there should be no morals in the practice of business? Can I start buying and selling people again?
First up, businesses have only as much morality as can be gotten away with, second, slavery is an illegal practice.
There is an inherent hypocrisy that is being sheltered under the banner of “morals”. If the church that is hiring people operates under the premise that abortion and birth control is bad, then they should probably ask people if they use or have had either before they hire them. Obviously, that isn’t the case, so it doesn’t way too heavily on their mind. The bottom line is that they don’t wanna pay for something that should be readily available, and are using their rather flexible set of religo-moral codes to defend it.
Yes it’s illegal because there were people who interjected morals (some from a religious standpoint) into business.
The rest is a straw man / red herring.
“The rest is a straw man / red herring.”
Oh? Please, explain how enforcing their set of morality stops only at what they pay for but not to who they employ. If they aren’t willing to chip in for contraception, it stands to reason they should employ people who will in turn use that money for contraception, shouldn’t it? And it sure as hell stands to reason that if they have such a big problem with the pill, they shouldn’t employ people currently on it, don’t you think? The same line of logic applies to abortion.
neoritter said, “The rest is a straw man / red herring.”
I believe he means elaborate on WHY it’s a Red Herring, not just dodge the question by dismissing it immediately.
Here watch, I can do it to:
RuleofOrder states: “Neoritter is dodging”.
The church doesn’t want people on the pill/having abortions.
The church will not give money(assitance, insurance, etc) to people wanting the pill/to have abortions.
The church hires people on the pill/whom have had abortions.
Either you are not willing to admit the disconnect or you don’t see it. Which is it?
Ya know McCarthy tried something like that in the fifties. ‘Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?’. Generally acknowledged to have been a stupid idea.
The bottom line is that the gov’t wants to force the Church to do something against its moral code. I haven’t heard anyone complain about this except the gov’t.
I haven’t heard anybody complain except the Catholic church.
ROO: Living up to the bargain you made IS the moral statement I was making. That’s the whole idea behind contracts. Morality and trust are necessary parts of the economic system.
The Church just wants to decide what it will and will not pay for… kinda like you.
“The Church just wants to decide what it will and will not pay for… kinda like you.”–
To the pontential detriment of some one else.
Not to their detriment. The church is picking up the tab. It’s like someone handing you a ham and swiss sandwich and you’re complaining because they didn’t run a toothpick thru the center to stick it together. You’re still ahead of the game.
Geary: Do you think offering Health Insurance is a right? Should all companies offer Health Insurance? What about Life Insurance?
The company my MIL works for does and so does the one my husband works for. But the companies are based in Canada and after over 50 years of UHC Canadians have entitlement issues about health care- go figure.
Healthcare at affordable cost is a basic human right that should be provided to all citizens equally by, or under mandate from, the government.
I don’t expect you to agree.
The practical side effects of your position are so horrible that I hope you don’t call yourself a christian.
I believe he was talking about insurance, not care.
Yes, and insurance is required for affordable care, due to the rising prices in the HC industry (which would be mitigated if people didn’t have to go to the ER)
We already have Medicaid for the poor. It should be expanded if necessary and better managed before they spread that out to the entire country. I would have more confidence if they could do that.
Which doesn’t cover many people, since hurdles keep being put up to prevent ‘fraud.’
What did I just say? It should be expanded and better managed. How in the world can the government manage EVERYONES health care if they can’t manage just the needy’s?
I spent several years covered under Medicaid, and it was some of the worst healthcare I’ve ever had to deal with. Medicaid, by necessity, leaves those on it going to the cheapest possible clinics, with inexperienced doctors who often don’t have a bloody clue what they’re doing.
Welcome to socialized medicine.
Hardly.
The reason UHC is successful in other countries is because it actually works.
The problem, actually, was a lack of funding for Medicaid. Each individual – or, as the case may be, family – can only receive so much with regards to their benefits under Medicaid.
The time I spent with an actual insurance plan was better, until RadioShack decided to nerf the plan (without consulting their employees, I might add – that, as some of the more trusting people here might not know, is something companies can and will do if they feel like it). I am now in the awkward situation of having an insurance plan that effectively gives me no insurance, and, given the choice between fickle company-administered health insurance and Medicaid, I would (albeit grudgingly) trudge back to the cheap Medicaid-accepting clinics.
Actually socialized medicine works quite nicely for those of us poor, afflicted souls in “socialist” countries, where not a single person I know has gone bankrupt from paying medical bills. Where insurance is affordable (even for those of us with many health problems and prescriptions, like myself and my husband) and heavily encouraged by the government, which also regulates it. Maybe instead of just having knee-jerk reactions to words like “socialized” “tax-funded” and “regulated”, you should do some research into the actual success of these systems and the happiness of the citizens that live under them. I would listen more to your drivel about bad socialist medical systems but I’m busy skipping through the rainbow-studded meadows.
Don’t worry. People who spaz at terms like “regulated” “tax payer funded” and “socialized” also have difficulty understanding that the countries that have UHC are also DEMOCRACIES with elected Prime Ministers and representatives.
Yes the PM who started up Canada’s UHC was a member of the Socialist party in the 1960′s and at first Canadians didn’t like the idea very much. But now just try and take our UHC away from us and we’ll kick you out of office for real this time.
I should probably point out to my fellow Americans that if FDR didn’t die from a stroke before the end of world war two that we would also have UHC and a living wage in the US. But who wants to hear what we could’ve had when we can just say that politicians are more deserving of health care than average people?
That’s a huge leap in logic. Insurance is not required for affordable health insurance. There are other alternatives that could/ should have been explored such as free/ discounted clinics for routine and urgent care before mandating that everyone should carry insurance.
affordable health care, not insurance.
Universal health care, like most developed nations have, is the only proven solution.
Or we could, like most of the other major civilized nations, have a system where health care cost for everybody is cheap by default (it _only_ requires terminating lawyers, tort reform, lowering med school fees, forcing doctor to admit they should be millionaires, and by ripple effect suppress malpractice insurance).
Easy really!
Without the sarcasm, the cost of all of the above would be much lower than keeping the most expensive system in the world until it collapses on its own.
“affordable cost”
affordable cost =/= insurance.
Just do what we do in Canada with our provincial health care and have people pay for state run health care through income taxes. Then if you want private pay which will cover experimental treatments your employer is required to provide it.
And just to ease people’s fears, illegal immigrants and new immigrants are not allowed to use Canadian health care until they’ve put in a Visa proving that they’re going to be staying in the Country and paying taxes.
The problem is who gets to define “experimental treatments”. If a drug is new and costly, but still proven to work it can be defined as experimental until an affordable generic option is available.
I’m not sure what qualifies as experimental here in Canada. It may differ from province to province.
I’d imagine it would be something that is still in the testing stages where they don’t know all the side affects.
Considering so much of what has been said including that people who don’t agree with his/her positions are not speaking intelligently- I’m hoping he’s not Christian either.
BTW Peanut, I never got to reply to this earlier, but I have a lot of experiance with Catholics seeing as I was raised by Catholics, practiced the religion and most of my family is Catholic. Don’t assume you know people simply because of what they type on line. Kai, thanx bai
But what I see happening here is that the church is trying to use the government to impose its religion on employees of church-related institutions, even though the employees may or may not be of that faith (and therefore can not be assumed to cleave to the tenets of the religion). In other words, an impermissible establishment of their religion.
Then you need to step back and rub your eyes.
When a company offers its employees healthcare they pay a portion of the costs and get discounts to those costs for the employees (see how much health insurance costs when you’re not going through a company plan to see what I mean). The Church does not want to be forced to buy something that they view is immoral and unnecessary. The Church isn’t imposing anything, they are trying to prevent from being imposed upon.
But it doesn’t cost them anything now. The insurance companies agreed to provide the birth control for free. No cost to the Church – but that didn’t stop their objections, so their real objections must be about the birth control itself, something that 98% of women in America use or have used. Including 98% of Catholics.
The Church isn’t buying the thing they said they didn’t want to buy. So why do you see there is still a problem?
Yes the current “compromise” states that insurance companies must give to those employees who ask, contraceptive coverage at no extra cost. The Bishops are angry over the compromise for different reasons, but generally accept it. For one they don’t like it because there’s a expiration date. In a year or so this will have to be addressed again. Another reason is that while they are not seeing an increased premium for the coverage they are still essentially paying for it by buying the insurance plan that covers it. The Church wants no part in the purchase of contraceptives, with exception of where their money exchanges ownership from them to their employees (ie paying wages). They aren’t forcing their employees to not use contraceptives. They just don’t want to pay for their employee’s usage.
actually the state can be influenced by a religion they just cant start their own. That’s what they meant by “respecting an establishment of religion”. They didnt want a church of the united states. Doesnt mean that the president cant say god and schools cant say god or any of those ACLU claims.
Maybe at that vagueness they can, but once you get into specifics (“God wants…” or “God had told us…”) then you’re establishing a specific religious belief, which goes against the first amendment.
People have specific religious beliefs. People make decisions based on those beliefs. The President is as free to do so as much as any other citizen is. The reason behind a decision is not regulated, the effects of the decision are.
But the reasons and intent of their decisions regarding the law must be defensible using non-religious reasoning or it’s unconstitutional and imposing religious belief and practice upon others. You could ban, for instance, a certain type of contraception if it has been scientifically proven to cause bodily harm to the user that outweighs its potential benefits, but you cannot ban it because your pastor told you it’s “against nature” for women to prevent pregnancy.
“…their decisions regarding the law must be defensible using non-religious reasoning or it’s unconstitutional…”
No it doesn’t. Contemporary society requires this, not the Constitution. If the law is not promoting a religion and it’s not prohibiting one than it’s Constitutional, no matter the reasonings behind that law.
“…and imposing religious belief and practice upon others.” There are laws against murdering people that can be argued solely by the passage “Thou shall not murder…” Is that imposing religious practice. No. Is it imposing religious belief. You could certainly argue that, but wouldn’t you be for the law for other reasons. There have been laws in other countries about paying tribute to gods or God. That is imposing religious practice and belief. With relation to the contraception mandate, not allowing the mandate is not imposing anything on anyone. The only thing that could be said to be imposing anything is the mandate on religious institutions. People have a right to freely practice their religion, that means for this argument’s sake, not paying for someone to have contraception.
” but you cannot ban it because your pastor told you it’s “against nature” for women to prevent pregnancy.”
Preventing pregnancy is not the argument. Not being forced to provide a pill to prevent pregnancy is the argument. No one is banning the withdrawal method (considered birth control by the Church), no one is banning the purchase and use of birth control pills. Your argument here is ultimately irrelevant.
^this.
Why object to paying for a pill that prevents pregnancy unless that is, indeed, the argument? The unspoken elephant in the room is that without reliable birth control such as the pill, women’s choices in sexual activity are severely compromised. Lots of women want to be able to have sex and intimacy without worrying about becoming pregnant, and at times and places of their choosing, inside or outside of marriage. The buried agenda is controlling women’s sexual activity and by proxy controlling our moral choices by taking options away from us. The reasons for wanting to do so are highly socially conservative and mostly based on religious arguments. Please, give me one reason for forbidding coverage of women’s contraception that does NOT rely on someone’s religious “right” to do so. Being a religious person does not allow someone absolute freedom of action or freedom of denial just because they are religious about it. It’s a circular argument and privileges institutionalized religious ethics over equal protection and a person’s right to make their own damn health care decisions. I could declare that my religious beliefs entitle me to deny men Viagra because I don’t want to have to pay for erections. But, no religious institution is beating the drum for that, are they? It’s all about keeping those irresponsible girls from sleeping around.
Again, for the umptenth time, it’s not about forbidding contraception to women. It’s about religious freedom and the government forcing businesses to do something that is outside their religious beliefs. Women can get contraception easily, if not then why is this suddenly a problem? Certainly these Catholic institutions have not been providing contraception all this time but suddenly women are going to be severely disadvantaged if they are not forced to do so? There is no hidden agenda to control women’s sex lives unless you are talking about biology but there is nothing that can be done about that it’s a fact that women become pregnant through sex it’s not the fault of the “evil patriarchy”.
Wrong. Rick Santorum has stated that a) he thinks states should be able to ban contraceptives (and they did it before) and b) that he thinks contraceptives should be illegal. Then you have the whole personhood movement which would, in effect, ban certain types of contraceptives including variations of the pill and of plan B because they think it is abortion. And then you have the idiot abstinence only crowd that doesn’t want any children to be taught about contraceptives. And finally there is the Great Worldwide Pedophile Protection Association, er, the Catholic Church, which is against contraceptives of all kinds, even for the prevention of the transmission of HIV.
Try paying attention to what is really going on before you post next time.
10th amendment
A) Commerce Clause
B) I wasn’t arguing state’s rights, I was pointing out to itsybitsy that his statement “No one, but no one has ever suggested that we ban contraceptives. NO ONE. NO. ONE.” was false.
Citation needed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.html?ref=politics
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-explains-06-loss-still-supports-state-right-to-outlaw-contraception/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rick-santorum-favors-making-birth-control-illegal/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/06/02/laws_defining_fertilized_eggs_as_people_make_room_for_major_legal_abuses.html
http://www.livescience.com/16917-mississippi-personhood-birth-control.html
http://allafrica.com/stories/200905050757.html
Anything else?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/rick-santorum-contraception-birth-control-social-issues_n_1284176.html
“BIRTH CONTROL
_ Santorum: Says he wouldn’t try to take away the pill or condoms.”
Done.
You said that no one has suggested that we ban contraceptives. Contraceptives were banned, even for married couples in numerous states prior to Griswold v Connecticut 1965 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut – so they WERE banned, someone must have suggested it.
You said that no one has suggested that we ban contraceptives. Apparently you are not familiar with, among others, Catholic dogma – which states that any sex not for the purpose of procreation is wrong – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception#Roman_Catholicism – Among others, Thomas Aquinas suggested it and Pope Benedict XVI has continued to support the position.
I pointed out not that Santorum has said that HE would ban contraceptives, but that he has said that the states should have the right to. I then pointed out that, among other efforts, the personhood bills would almost certainly ban certain types of contraceptives – including some that women take not for birth control, but for other medical necessities.
So you are still not “done” as you think you are. Again, read the big story, don’t just cherry pick a quote.
Sorry, not substantiated by that article.
And besides — why would Santorum even BRING UP banning contraceptives, if he didn’t want to do it?
A) how is the argument not supported by the article?
B) he brought it up because he is against birth control and because he is pandering to the evangelical right which ALSO opposes birth control.
Birth control had to be made legal in the first place against the wishes of people like Rick Santorum. I have no doubt that he would support banning contraceptives if he felt safe doing so. Religious fundamentalists of every type wish to oppress others with their regressive, myth-based belief system.
HE says in his OWN words he wouldn’t ban contraceptives. Why is that not good enough for you? This reminds me of when Palin was running for VP and all that false info and rumors were swirling around like fact no matter what she said it didn’t matter.
You said, “No one, but no one has ever suggested that we ban contraceptives. NO ONE. NO. ONE.” – I gave you several examples where people have stated and/or proven that they think contraceptives should be illegal (which is the government banning them) and you are trying to hang your hat on Santorum saying he wouldn’t vote to make them illegal? Really? That’s the thread you are clutching? That’s the nit you are picking? Santorum is also anti-abortion and would very likely vote for and/or sign the personhood type bills that I mentioned, which would, in effect, ban certain types of contraception.
But again, back you your original statement: “No one, but no one has ever suggested that we ban contraceptives. NO ONE. NO. ONE.” I reminded you of the Catholic Church, if I felt like wasting the effort I could find you some anti-abortion/anti-contraception websites, I pointed you to the Supreme Court case which overturned state laws banning contraception. I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there are people who want to ban contraception. Santorum’s position allows him to aid those who want to ban it without getting his hands dirty.
But if you are determined to not see it, then you won’t see it.
No one in the government with any power or running for office is seriously considering that option. There are you happy? Seriously you liberals are constantly telling us conservatives that we live in fear of things like terrorism but you guys are ridiculous. Tired of being so scared yet?
You still aren’t seeing it, are you? “No one in government?” “No one in power?” Have you not been paying attention to the anti-abortion bills being passed? What the hell do you think Santorum is running for? Wendy’s spokesmodel? He’s running for government office. Your suggestion that my concern over people being out to cram their religious beliefs down our throat using the force of government is somehow irrational falls flat with me because I have seen far too much of it. You may not remember Ralph Reed, but I do. He’s still a power broker in the GOP. You may not have noticed how much money Nancy Brinker was giving to GOP candidates, but I did. You may not pay attention to anti-abortion, anti-sex education, anti-religious freedom positions being litmus tests for GOP candidates, but I do.
So, am I scared? Not really. I’m old enough that I likely won’t see the society described in The Handmaid’s Tale come to the US. But I have nieces who might.
Is my concern irrational? No. The social conservative movement is. Remember, THEY are the ones who think that their position is handed down from on high, not to be questioned and not to be interfered with by such paltry considerations as Constitutionality, or freedom, or decency.
No, you are irrational. He said he isn’t going to ban contraceptives, take it in. Abortion is another thing, it’s the taking of a human life and should be banned.
He said he would allow states to ban contraceptives, which would result in many states where they’re illegal.
Well that is a states right issue, not necessarily a ban contraceptives issue. Get involved in your local politics. There are many things the federal government has NO BUSINESS being in.
itsy, it’s an attempt to ban contraceptives in as many states as possible while having as minimum negative impact against him.
Right, and the selling of thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels by the Obama DOJ and Eric Holder resulting in the deaths of at least one American and thousands of Mexican citizens was an attempt to discredit gun sellers and to take our 2nd amendment rights away. Probably would have worked if they hadn’t got caught. And you’re worried about someone wants to ban the pill.
itsy, that started under Bush, only people DIRECTLY involved in the mission were told of it (meaning Obama was in the dark), and provide ANY INFORMATION AT ALL that FACTUALLY supports, “…was an attempt to discredit gun sellers and to take our 2nd amendment rights away.”
I give you Exhibit A: A glass of Kool-Aid.
Exhibit B is a tinfoil hat.
DO you believe Itsy has spent even one minute comparing the number of guns sold by the botched program (designed to catch people doing illegal things) to the number of gun legally bought in US stores, which also find their way down there kill1ng people?
Considering itsy open admits she ‘doesn’t have time for research’…
Oh but it’s perfectly legit to say there is some big conspiracy to ban contraceptives in the entire country when it’s nothing but a states rights issue! *le gasp* It’s an evil right wing conspiracy. Tired of being afraid yet?
Your post confused me, let me clarify mine: People noticed that drug cartels were getting guns from the US. They want to catch the people doing that, and think tracing the guns is the best way.
The bad guys keep their routine of buying guns, some of which are now traceable. The traceable ones vanish until they are found, along with regular ones, at murder scenes.
My point was that the botched program was not the only source of guns, and the routine buying that prompted the investigation is still going on. I would easily contend that most of the guns in Mexico did not come from the bad program, but from how easily accomplices of the cartels can buy here and cross the border.
Not sure where the conspiracy part of your post comes into play.
I never said it was a conspiracy. Santorum doesn’t like contraceptives. Banning contraceptives nationwide would be difficult, and dangerous to one’s political career. Putting an issue to be decided by the states pretty much guarantees it’ll be put into effect somewhere, as well as being much easier and popular due to having the phrase, “State’s Rights,” triggering the pleasure sensors in the brains of a good portion of America.
10th amendment doesn’t give states the right to do whatever the hell they want.
The commerce clause doesn’t give the federal government the right to do whatever it wants.
Only in regards to matters that cross over state boundaries. Like this. ;3
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 – [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
This issue would not fall under the narrower interpretations of the commerce clause. And as those interpretations would argue, “commerce” in that passage would mean trade or exchange. There is not exchange of goods between the states in this case.
The supreme court has expanded the application of the commerce clause to issue of national interest that didn’t explicitly cross borders (it’s central to the Health care reform).
You narrow view of the commerce clause is not applicable as a rebuttal.
Me thinks you can’t read.
I think he was speaking in reality, not the ‘narrow interpretations’. By the by, health insurance is an issue that extends past state borders.
Removing mah brackets.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 – (The Congress shall have Power])To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
This issue would not fall under the narrower interpretations of the commerce clause. And as those interpretations would argue, “commerce” in that passage would mean trade or exchange. There is not exchange of goods between the states in this case.
Removing mah brackets….again
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 – (The Congress shall have Power)To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
This issue would not fall under the narrower interpretations of the commerce clause. And as those interpretations would argue, “commerce” in that passage would mean trade or exchange. There is not exchange of goods between the states in this case.
Ah yes, States Rights, the same excuse for the south to enslave and segregate black people.
Do you REALLY want to hide behind that?
Isn’t there something like a Godwin law for trying to use slavery as an excuse to remove states’ rights in totally unrelated issues? If not there should be. States’ rights are a legitimate concern.
So in America State’s Rights override Human Rights? Because America is in clear violation of the UN decree on Human rights.
How so? Reagan passed a law in the eighties that stated that people could not be refused emergency medical treatment because of a lack of ability to pay. That law is enforced and places us in compliance with the UN decree, although in the US our law trumps international law in cases where they conflict. So I don’t really care what the UN has to say about anything. They are a totally ineffective group who allowed dictators who have committed REAL human rights violations to sit on their human rights boards.
Access to affordable health care is a human right, and contraceptive is a major form of heath care.
Access to health care is debatable as a human right. Access to affordable health care is not. Contraceptives can be affordable without insurance coverage, even though it’s not an inherent right that they be.
State’s rights were never a legitimate concern. Not even for those who claimed it. They wanted the government proscribed from interfering with their “state’s right” to keep slaves, but at the same time, they wanted the same government to go up to free states and, against the law of that state which held that an escaped slave making it into that state was free, bring that slave back to the south. They wanted to beat their slave and eat his cake, too. So they weren’t serious about it then, and I’m not taking it seriously now.
And while Itsy and other cons try to convince people that they are for freedom, will of the people, and state’s rights, the Supreme Court overruled Montana’s Supreme Court today on the issue of corruption and corporate spending, and Chris Christy vetoed the people’s representatives on the issue of gay marriage.
Yeah, nothing to worry about as regarding our freedoms, nothing to worry about when it comes to the rights of states and individuals with the cons in power. We will all be well cared for by our corporate overlords.
Got a link? Media matters perhaps? Or is it Huffpo today?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/17/supreme-court-blocks-montana-ruling-against-outside-group-spending/?eref=ib_politicalticker
http://www.ktuu.com/sns-ap-us-supreme-court-campaign-finance-montana,0,2672505.story
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-gov-christie-vetoes-gay-marriage-bill-vowed-221536132.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/nyregion/christie-vetoes-gay-marriage-bill.html?amp
Although HuffPo and Media Matters are just fine as sources.
However, here you have the Montana Supreme Court ruling that the history of corruption, corruption so egregious that they were able to pass a rather strong law, meant that they knew they couldn’t trust corporations to not buy elections. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy all played their role as corporate butt puppets well, though, and said, “nope. corporations can buy any election they want. you little people just shut up and take it.”
And the elected representatives of New Jersey passed a law legalizing gay marriage. If they had passed a law criminalizing it, Christie would have signed it and hailed it as representing the will of the people. Since it didn’t go his way, he’s claiming that he wants a referendum.
How about you provide a link to some stories where the GOP supports freedom for anyone but corporations (including religious corporations). I’m sure there must be thousands.
::spit take:: I’m sorry, what? You want a Cite for national coverage of a New Jersey governor did? For cereal? Itsy, this isn’t crap hacked out of the BVS, or BLS, this is stuff plastered over even local papers!
Two seconds in Google got this: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/chris_christie_says_no_to_nj_g.html
I don’t know why Christy was against Gay marriage though. Considering that Jersey Shore is a reflection on his state, wouldn’t gay marriage be a step up even for him?
Is that a quote from his wife?
Nah, just a bad weight joke.
Santorum has.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/rick-santorum-birth-control-sodomy_n_1181291.html
Yeah, he thinks the states should be able to outlaw stuff if they want. but do you ever notice how much they hate it when states legalize medical marijuana? or gay marriage? or when states try to enact environmental standards more stringent than the weak crap the EPA has?
he’s a hypocrite like the others.
“Sticking an aspirin between your knees” is a euphemism for abstinence, i.e. you can’t open your legs to have sex if you’re holding an aspirin between them.
There are some less-than-advanced positions that would allow the aspirin to remain in place without a problem, but yes, that was the general idea.
Well, generally those positions use ‘nature’s contraception’. ;3
My paternal grandparents tried nature’s contraceptives and my dad has 5 sisters and one brother.
Sorry but God had scientists invent birth control for a reason.
Oh? To make sure we’re on the same page, was Rick’s namesake produced?
Nope, actually all my relatives (who were raised Catholic) support the use of contraceptives.
Ah, I was referring to taking it in the bum. ;3
Ok yeah that reference went over my head
Mostly referring to the song, “Wrong Hole” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIyeNRbbKBw
If we’re going where I think we’re going, yes a woman can get pregnant that way.
Is that how Rick was conceived?
So they didnt have sex and had 6 kids? Obviously they were blessed by some divine intervention… Or did you mean they tried the timing method and you are using that as an excuse to force me to pay for your abortions?
First off 7, and by natural contraceptives I meant the rhythm method. If you’re Catholic and protesting hormonal birth control you should know about the rhythm method
100% effective!
Except for rapes and roofies.
roofies would still be considered rape
Not really, I tried that with my first husband and ended up with baby number one.
Well you didn’t do it right then.
How would you know?
If you tried abstinence with your first husband and wound up with a baby you definitely did something wrong. Or you had an immaculate conception.
There’s a lot of ways for one to get pregnant outside of sex, though they’re pretty uncommon.
Those ways are very limited, require more effort and expense than traditional methods and wouldn’t make sense in an abstinent marriage.
FYI – an immaculate conception means to be born without sin.
Yeah, because THAT’S always been a practical, popular, justifiable, or freedom-loving position.
For people who claim to hate intrusive government, the right wing sure loves to mess with a woman’s privates a lot.
I’ve noticed that a lot myself. Conservatives in the States seem to have a ‘do as I say not as I do’ attitude toward most things. Thank God Conservatives in Canada are just concerned with the Keystone pipeline.
I love how messed up liberal thinking is. Opposing government mandates is somehow twisted into favoring intrusive government. Gotta love the way your tiny little brains work.
Again… picking fights on the internet by calling names… a sure sign of maturity. I’m not even going to dignify calling me a liberal just because of my veiws on health care with a response.
I didn’t realize “liberals” was on the highly offensive names list. In case you didn’t notice this was a response to the TWO previous posts insulting “conservatives”, so you have a pretty hypocritical standard going there. You also managed to completely ignore the very valid point I made about opposition to government mandates somehow becoming favoring government intrusion. I will assume that your silence on the subject implies that you concur.
“Gotta love the way your tiny little brains work.”
Also, Newt Gingrich is a prime example of what she was talking about, considering he claims to champion family values… which I hope I don’t need to point out the irony at this point, and the fact that he’s a, if not the (once you factor out Romney’s money-based victories) front runner for the GOP.
So Obama is a supposed Christian and he signed a bill allowing live babies from botched abortions to be left to die. He also sat in a church for 20 years listening to a racist preacher who he has described as his mentor. I hope I don’t need to point out the irony…
“So Obama is a supposed Christian and he signed a bill allowing live babies from botched abortions to be left to die.”
When did he claim to be orthadox?
“He also sat in a church for 20 years listening to a racist preacher who he has described as his mentor.”
So? I listened to Glenn Beck for a long time, doesn’t mean I agreed with him. He probably did it to get on the good side of the people of that community.
“He probably did it to get on the good side of the people…”
So, a hypocrite, then.
And you have no problem with this?
In my defense, “tiny little brains” is not name calling. ; )
I just get irked when people try to twist the topic under discussion in such a TWISTED way. Opposing a government mandate can NEVER become favoring government interference. That was my main point. I probably shouldn’t have made a sweeping generalization in making the point, but I was replying in kind.
I totally agree about conservative politicians not trying to be a beacon of values either before or after they are caught in their scandals. It does a disservice to their cause, which I think many politicians espouse out of political expediency. As far as Newt is concerned, I think his supporters have opted to forgive and forget. We’ve all made mistakes and made intentional decisions that turned out to be very bad. I don’t think anything should be held against someone for the rest of their lives, but I also am totally unimpressed with the Republican ticket this year and can’t get behind anyone. Of course, I stopped being a Republican so I don’t have a horse in this race.
I consider myself a moderate thank you very much.
And in my defense I’m not a Tory (nickname for the Conservative party in Canada), but I wouldn’t start calling someone one just because the person didn’t agree with me. Liberal, tiny little mind. Really and you believe you should be taken seriously in this arguement simply because you resort to name calling? I love America, but its politics turn some people into raging imbeciles.
And you weren’t ‘replied to in kind’. I never once name called or made references towards someone’s political standings. You want to talk twisting words around, look at your self.
You said, “Conservatives in the States seem to have a ‘do as I say not as I do’ attitude toward most things.” Now, I know you might think that conservatives are too dumb to understand the implication there, but it came out pretty clearly. You called US conservatives hypocrites.
I notice you still haven’t challenged the point I was making. The more you ignore it and deflect the discussion the more obvious it becomes that you can’t argue the actual point of my post.
Have you ever considered the reason people ignore replying to something that someone says is because they’d rather have a conversation with a lamp post? Because the other person doesn’t actually read or even try to comprehend what is being said, instead they just fly off the handle and keep calling names because you believe that it will either intimidate the person or draw them into a more heated arguement. This is why American politics are frowned upon by other countries.
And saying that conservatives appear hypocrites isn’t the same as calling a person a conservative or a hypocrite. You’re the one who implied I was a liberal, I never implied you were a conservative. If you feel I did, I appologize because that wasn’t my intention. But I have yet to resort to personally calling anyone anything other than their user name.
BTW, you’re also the one who refered to me as ‘people like you’ So you also don’t get to kvetch about feeling as though you were called a conservative.
“Opposing a government mandate can NEVER become favoring government interference.” — it wouldn’t have been an issue of certain people wouldn’t have stuck there noses in there the first place. Social conservatives have this tendency to get rules for their morality passed, rather than rules everyone should abide by. Don’t want gay marriage? Easy, don’t get one. But don’t try and make a law saying others can’t have one either. Don’t like abortions? Same concept.
“Opposing a government mandate can NEVER become favoring government interference.”
Actually, that’s not necessarily true. If the government mandate in question is there to secure a freedom for the people (not a corporation), then opposing that mandate would be favoring interference, in the form of allowing others to interfere, in the everyday lives of the people. I believe that’s what is being argued.
Remember, this government is supposed to be there for us, not for insurance companies or religious institutions.
Basically just a fancy way of saying that women are the only ones responisble for getting pregnant and they should’ve just kept their damn legs crossed. GOP my ass.
You don’t need birth control for that area…
Unless you don’t clean up quickly.
Uh nuh, that is an exit only!
Hey we agree on something!
Call the papers!
Exactly, and when the fluid exits, it sometimes drips. ;3 Granted, that’s mostly based on diet.
TMI!! TMI!!
Huh? I was talking about water bottles. 0.o What were YOU thinking?
What? I don’t need to know so much about water bottles.
That’s why you get control, so it doesn’t spill out when you don’t want it to.
You can have some pretty good vag1nal action with the girl’s knees together, and even with her legs crossed.
Well worth trying.
That was kind of what I was getting at, but I didn’t want to get too graphic about it.
Congratulations to the moderator for Not Getting the Joke.
It’s not a good joke. It’s not a new joke. But it’s a joke nonetheless.
It’s a euphemism that someone would only know by being as old as dirt, so it’s excusable.
I am now posting on FB today that I am NOT as old as dirt.
If you have a brain it isn’t hard to get.
Trying out for the special olympics I see.
Sounds like someone is butthurt. How’s the reading up on your adopted country’s history going?
After supporting some of the idiots that the GOP has, you don’t have much right to call others stupid.
I don’t think I asked for a straw man.
Got the first three words right.
Can’t tell if stupid or trolling.
Thanks for proving my point.
I’m quite sure it was invoked. ;3
Im 33 and I knew what he meant. Maybe the moderator is in his/her early 20′s LOL
I suggest another form of knee-based contraception. Find guys who think they have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies and knee them in the groin.
Not reaching into my pocket to pay for your favorite birth control method is no more “controlling your body” than not reaching into my pocket to pay for your favorite brand of breakfast cereal. Isn’t it the liberal feminists who are always telling us a uterus is not a public utility? If so, then don’t expect the public to pay for it.
Hardly the same damn thing. Breakfast cereal is NOT a medication. I can’t believe you’re that ignorant that you are using food as an analogy. Your house being on fire isn’t my damn problem either and neither is your personal safety. However I have to pay taxes for my fire department and police department because there is a chance that you may need it. Maybe we should scrap that too. Hell your child’s education isn’t my issue since when I lived in the States I sent my child to a private school. Maybe I shouldn’t have to pay school taxes either.
A) Insurance isn’t a tax and B) contraception isn’t an emergency. My homeowners insurance, for example, would cover my home in a fire loss, but it doesn’t cover the cost of batteries for my smoke detector, or light bulbs, painting, or washing the driveway. My car insurance would cover my vehicle in a collision loss, but it doesn’t cover the cost of oil changes and gasoline. Insurance is supposed to spread risk of catastrophic events over a large pool. When they start collecting a tax for birth control, then your point will be valid. Of course, that would entail, you know, like, fascism.
FYI, I would support private police forces and the scrapping of public education. Since you were forced to pay for someone else’s kid to attend school and also pay for your own to attend privately, I would think you would see the injustice in that. But that’s still beside the point. Those, too, are services that we have chosen to give over to the state in exchange for taxation. Insurance is not a tax and your birth control isn’t a public good. If we decide to make it a public good, I should get a vote on how you use reproductive organs, since I’m subsidizing it. Is that really what you want?
In other words, my failure to pay for you to have something is not the same as saying you can’t have it. That principle works exactly the same for birth control and breakfast cereal. If you want an insurance plan that covers birth control, get one. Don’t ask Catholics who morally oppose it to pay for it.
FFS.. would Catholics rather their employers have abortions instead? Because for some that is the other option. And also FFS, birth control has other uses besides just preventing pregnancies. But it’s nice to know that although 98% of Catholic women have used some form of birth control that only the 2% who oppose it for ‘moral reason’ really get to have any say in the matter.
And lucky for me I don’t need your approval or tax money because I live in Canada and already used NYS tax payer money to get my Implanon before I moved.
Why is this important right now? How did women do without their contraceptives from Catholics before this? Could it have to do with the election by any chance?
No, that’s irrelevant.
98% use contraceptives != 98% oppose the Church’s stance.
Hey man… did you know that 99.999999999999999999% of Catholics lie. Therefore they believe that the Chruch’s stance of “Though Shant Lie” is a sham.
Doooooooooooode!!
Meh.
It’s not really a lie if you never tell your priest you’re using the pill.
Most Catholics vote Democrat and feel guilty over it.
Why? Because Catholicism is like Judaism… there are so many rules, most of the folks who associate themselves with the culture don’t actually follow the obnoxiously prohibitive letters of the law.
Just sayin.
AND… most Catholics vote Dem because they’re lower middle class blue collar types who hate getting screwed over by Rich Republicans.
AND… because tons of Catholics still remember being immigrants who were not welcomed by the established American Protestant Bourgeoisie Republicans.
But hey. Whatever.
You release that most of the “American Protestant Bourgeoisie” were Democrats? Come on Mrs. Q up until about 1980′s the Republicans were actually more into social liberalism. Take a look at the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Though proposed by Kennedy, it was a majority of Democrats who opposed it. 80% Republicans voted aye, while other 63% Democrats voted aye. Not to mention it was a Republican President who freed the Slaves. The 15th Amendment passed pretty much down party lines with only 3 Republicans against it.
It’s this last misnomer that Republicans are only for big business. In reality Republicans (not necesailry Politicians) believe in smaller government. It’s not the government’s job to fix individuals problems.
“Most” is a bit of an overstretch. Catholics tend to fluctuate between the two parties. We’re kind of a swing group, which is why Obama made the compromise he did.
So what you’re telling me is to vote Democrat is a sin… I agree.
sorry youre wrong again
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm
How could that number even be right? Are 98% of all Catholic women at or above child bearing age?
No, but the 98% of Catholic women who ARE at child bearing age or were at one point have used some form of contraceptives or are still using them.
That is not what you said.
Silly me, I figured it would be implied that the studies were done on WOMEN of child bearing age NOT teenagers and certainly NOT elementary aged children.
wow are you wrong
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html
Well, other than being hung-up on the semantics, the article still makes a case for supplying birth control.
seriously? “that is the other option”? are you fsking retarded? I’m sorry, but…
y’know what? screw it, y’all aint gonna change your minds, shoving your heads up your asses prevents you from noticing the fact that having secks is entirely optional. Unless it’s r@pe, and if it is? I doubt the r@pist is gonna be nice enough to fetch the pill for his victim.
good lord, I’m out of here, liberalism is a serious mental disorder, and all y’alls need more help than is possible to give.
http://failblog.org/2010/09/15/epic-fail-photos-effective-win/
ZOMG! FAILBLOG IS FASCIST!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joke
You’re welcome.
http://failblog.org/2010/09/15/epic-fail-photos-effective-win/
ZOMG! FAILBLOG IS FASCIST!
Or, you know, maybe it was a joke.
Pope Obama says we have to get all our birth control from Catholic priests from now on! It is a new sacrament, like communion. Get in line ladies!
::snarktacular:: A funny! Gold plated internet! ::applauds:: Well played.
*bows*
Never had a gold plated internet before!
And you’d rather have weiner.
“Birth control pills” as most people call them are not just for contraception. They are widely used for hormone regulation therapy. They help keep a woman’s cycle regular so she is not exposed to the risk of anemia from having to long of cycle or infection from having a cycle to short to fully purge her body: both of which have dire results up to and including sterility and death.
Hormone regulation is in fact the primary cause of prescribing “birth control pills” to minors. The younger the person is the more likely their cycle is to be unstable and the more dangerous it is to have overly long or overly short cycles.
A number of doctors also use “birth control pills” as hormone regulation after a woman has had a baby. After birthing a woman’s body is weak and can have trouble resetting the cycle. Unstable cycles after birthing have found to be connected to post partum depression.
So if a person needs “birth control pills” for some medical reason like oh, just staying healthy, they may be denied coverage because of the contraceptive side effect. This makes the law dangerous to the public health and amazingly stupid. It is a slap in the face to the entire female population delivered by the church and supported by people who think a pot dealer should spend more time in jail than a rapist. Face it the USA does not love or value it’s women.
So you cite a “prescribed” use while ignoring any possible side effects, of which I know of a couple, and because Santorum has stated it the STATES CHOICE whether to ban it or not you think he is for it?
Anyone who actually bothered to listen to his answer knows he merely answered a STATES RIGHTS question. The media has turned into something else.
@It is a slap in the face to the entire female population
That’s just B.S. So your idiotic position is that the middle eastern nations value their women more, huh?
Saying, “I think the states should have the right to choose,” in a matter that involves EVERY state, is essentially saying, “I want to get this done, but I know it wouldn’t pass through the federal government, so I’m passing the buck to the states, since some of them are dumb enough to do it.”
Archer your lack of effort in reply disappoints me.
All prescribed drugs have side effects even antibiotics. A.D.D. meds have more negative and dangerous side effects.
It should not be a state matter when health care coverage is becoming a national matter.
Also Iraq had a pretty kick ass women’s health care system before we went over there tore everything apart, removed the law and left a bunch of Zealot Gangsters killing and raping little girls on their way to school. The actions of the US in Iraq set middle eastern women back about a century or two.
Also before you fly off at the mouth do some research, like real research, rather than repeating what ever the conservative media tells you.
Actually, Sadam had dedicated rape squads for the families of men that experessed opinions against him when the men themselves were too valuable to kill. And only Suni women received any sort of health care, there was a massive bias against Shia Muslims in every sector of life.
That’s why I left that place and came to the US. I don’t have it great here, but I don’t have to worry about my sister being brutilized by some madman because of my actions.
Everyone wants to talk ill of the US for going into Iraq. Yes it’s still dangerous over there, but that is part of revolution. A revolution, mind you, that we were not able to start ourselves because of the iron-handed rule of a tyrant.
So how did Libya start their revolution?
With protesters getting shot in the street and hit by airstrikes. If the Libyan government’s air capabilities hadn’t been neutralized, leveling the playing field, it is doubtful that Gadhaffi would have been overthrown.
I guess the main difference was that Saddam ruled an iron fist, while Ghadaffi swung it around wildly.
Yet a prescribed use of Viagra is for sexual intercourse, and is covered by insurance, yet one possible side effect is DEATH.
http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/med_avoid/pill.htm
I call BS on that study because there is also proof that taking the Pill prevents certain types of Cancers.
There are carcinogens in my car’s exhaust too that may cause Cancer, should we ban those too?
Oh no! You called BS?! I’m undone…
No, the teabaggers support the use of fossil fuels no matter what, because they make big profits for international oil companies and rich Republcans.
only if youre having sex with your car on a regular basis… I hear it gets really cold up there in canada…
Depends on where you live. In Vancouver it hardly gets below freezing in the Winter, but in the NWT you may need to have sex to stay warm during the summer.
That’s nice and dandy, but the purpose for contraceptives being covered in the workplace is not to provide those things. Further some of the other reasons for using contraceptives would be covered under other sections of the policy, such as pregnancy care. There are also other drugs out there that are not labelled as contraceptives that can be used for hormone regulation.
Poster is a pathetic troll.
I can see no one wants to answer the question why this is such a huge issue right now? How did poor beleaguered women survive all this time without access to birth control pills forcibly dispensed from the Catholic church? This is an election year ploy to rally the Dumbocrats. Never mind the economy! Never mind the unemployment! Never mind the corruption of the Obama DOJ! A tiny percentage of women are being denied something! RALLY!! And PK is right there with it.
It’s most likely that most private pay insurance companies chosen by church sponsored organizations had already covered Birth Control and other reproductive related issues (although I did hear of a woman who worked for a Catholic school and was denied coverage for IVF because it didn’t fit with her employer’s morals- funny I thought IVF promoted having babies) And now that the church found out that they would be required even though their organizations are for profit and public sector they’re having issues with it.
Furthermore I doubt it’s a ‘small number’. There are studies that show that 90% or so of CATHOLIC women do or have used birth control and there are MEDICAL studies to prove that birth control is used for more than just having sex that won’t result in having babies. 90% is not a small number. The church is speaking for a minority- even a majority of Republicans polled are for this measure.
I said it once and I’ll say it again, you can’t go for profit or public sector and start crying ‘religious discrimination’ when you are required by law to do something. If you don’t want to be required by law to do something, that stick within the private sector- or in this case, stay in America.
Actually this is a HUGE cautionary tale on the dangers of taking government funding for ANYTHING! That includes all the entitlements because eventually the government will demand you do something you don’t want to do and you will have to do it. This is how the government gets power and it’s what they want. What makes you think they will always be benevolent especially when they become the over arching power in the country? Even your wonderful Canada could turn on you at some point if you give them enough power. I just don’t know where peoples heads are sometimes… The government is not your friend and NOTHING is free!
Well duh, our health care isn’t free anyway- it’s paid for by taxes. The same way you pay for US politician health care which you seem perfectly fine with even though you get jack for it and someone on Capitol Hill can run off and get a sex change with your tax dollars.
Since our health care is paid for by our taxes we have a say in what happens with it. UHC in Canada is just that UNIVERSAL. It’s not this person’s or that person’s it’s everyones. Everyone who is LEGALLY residing in Canada gets the same health care from the PM to someone who is a dumpster diver. Nobody gets to suddenly change it for one person unless they change it for everyone. And here we believe it’s really not anyone’s business (not for the majority of Canadians anyway) what someone is having covered by their provincial or private health insurance be it IVF or abortion since it doesn’t affect everyone.
Canada like the US also has more than one party and is a democracy so So the government can’t take complete control of its people (although your analogy is perfect for the US) Parliment, provincial government and even the Prime Minister are all controlled by checks and balances just like the States. And as a plus, they don’t have to pander to religious rhetoric like in the states. Besides that if the country doesn’t like what their PM is doing Ottawa, it’s time for a referendum (which kinda sucks since our voting system is like a pyramid scheme but hey, no country is perfect.)
I know that you’ll probably only take half the information and only process what you want to believe. But that’s fine with me.
The point you missed was that the government can tell you what publicly aproved meds you can take because they arent “cost effective”. So they can determine whether or not you live or die based on how much they deem your life worth to them in tax dollars. MOST americans have a problem being reduced to a tax value by a government that we have not given the right to determine that we should live or die based on that value. Everyone is a number to the government of course but only when you have things like UHC or you are living on government welfare for an income does the government have any right to say what you should be able to do as long as youre not hurting anyone else. The purpose of the government is to protect your borders, put down insurrections, and print a uniform currency. Thats it. Anything more than that and they are taking your freedom in exchange for something.
Do me a favour before you post anything about Canada’s UHC again, Google it.
Our government has no say over which meds we are allowed to use, I should know I live in Canada.
“Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Gasp, and to think that sort of thing USUALLY happens in the U.S.
It usually does and the occurance of something like that happening here in Canada is so rare that this is why that and the ‘Prime minister of Nova Scotia’ (FML, are you that lazy you can’t even look up what the proper term of a person in control of a province is and know that a PM is the equilvelent of President?) were transfered to other hospitals or chose to go somewhere else.
As also stated, elective surgeries (IE: rhinoplasty) are generaly not covered by provincial insurance and it is common to be on a wait list depending on how severe your need is. If it’s an absolute necessity and your city or town in Canada doesn’t have the specialist on hand provincial insurance will pay to either bring the specialist or doctor in or fly the patient to the doctor. My daughter has a friend in school whose mom and baby brother were flown to a Vancouver hospital(4hrs south of where I am) because of issues that occured shortly after the baby was born. Insurance covered everything and the family has no co pay.
I’d also like to know if the medication prescribed was still in the trial stages because provincial insurance won’t cover trial medications (My husband’s cousin recently lost his wife and they couldn’t afford to do any trial treatments because he only had provincial health care not private insurance) because the side effects and actual effects of a new or trial drug aren’t as widely known.
However Canada isn’t always the best example of an ideal UHC system- especially since our Prime Minister (of Canada) wants to screw the whole thing up. If you want an example of an ideal UHC system check out Scotland.
“Never mind the economy!”
Which is recovering at a steady rate.
“Never mind the unemployment!”
Which is going down at a steady rate.
“Never mind the corruption of the Obama DOJ!”
Such as?
“This is an election year ploy to rally the Democrats.”
You mean like anti-gay marriage was an election was an election year ploy to rally Conservatives? Also, you spelled Democrats wrong, which is understanding, considering your slow decent into willful ignorance and/or insanity.
Santorum is a dork.
I like dorks myself. And he isn’t more of a dork than our current president “Urkel” who can’t pump up a 10 year marshmallow gun without breaking a sweat.
That would be a nerd or geek, dork is a term describing an ‘awkward acting loser,’ and has little to do with physical ability, though it is typically attributed to less-than-athletic people, since they don’t punch back as often.
Also, have you tried pumping something to that pressure without using your feat to steady the pump?
I really hate the “contraception is inexpensive” argument. That’s so relative, and cause that’s exactly the kind of people who should be dealing with unplanned pregnancies – the extremely poor.
Planned Parenthood.
Doesn’t have enough reach to provide all of it. Plus, your party keeps shouting about eliminating it entirely.
Worked for me when I needed it. You will need to prove it can’t function in the capacity it is intended to. If it can’t then it should be eliminated.
So, pretty much, if it’s working at the moment, leave it alone, if it’s not working properly, but can easily be fixed, eliminate it?
Cite please.
Um, cite what? The video that you’re commenting on?
Christ, you have to TRY to be this stupid.
She isn’t on track because she hasn’t had enough weiner, lately.
Is it that difficult for you to figure out this was a nesting error? DOH!!
Considering I haven’t seen him before, (or at least not regularly enough to remember,) I doubt he’s savvy in the ways of PK glitches.
He’s a regular and has been here as long as I have or longer.
May have been here, but not quite a regular. Maybe as much a regular as Willie, but even that’s a stretch.
Do Catholic hospitals perform vasectomies? Or at least pay for health plans that will pay for them?
Quick google search on “do catholic companies pay for vasectomies” gave me this:
//http://www.quora.com/Do-the-insurance-plans-at-Catholic-institutions-and-hospitals-pay-for-vasectomies
The Catholic Church prohibits sterilization and a vasectomy would be considered as such. Therefore it stands to reason that those would not be covered by a Catholic institution either. I haven’t found proof either way, but I would say they don’t cover such a procedure.
What exactly is their reasoning for preventing sterilization? Didn’t it all start with a man being told by god to cut off part of his junk?
If you are serious, it has to do with the sanctity of human life. The reasoning would be the same as the reasoning behind their stance on contraception. For the record, while I don’t agree with the Church on this point, I do understand the reasoning. Pretty much a moot point most times, because I’m not a member. To me, the major issue is the gov’t dictating what they must do even though it goes against their moral grain. I really think that dictating to the Church is a violation of the separation of Church and state.
If you were just taking an opportunity for a cheap shot, you’re showing your lack of conviction in your atheism. Fanatic words and actions often cover doubt.
I was joking. Also, I’m not an atheist.
You have said so. Recently, too if I recall correctly. Certainly you haven’t studied your Bible much.
I know bits and pieces, and I honestly don’t find it that good of a read. But, what information I do need, I can get via Google and asking whoever is using it as a reason weasel out of something.
So a person’s religion is another weapon against him. That sounds like an Atheist’s idea, as opposed to someone with faith. Sounds like you’re sailing under false colors.
You’re putting words in my mouth.
Read the things you post. If you were trying to persuade me as a person of faith, you would use arguments from your own fatih to counter mine. Since you have none- there being no scientific morality higher than survival of the fittest- you must needs twist fragments of mine to suit your purpose.
“So a person’s religion is another weapon against him.”—
and others.
Weapons work on the person whom wield them as well as whom they are wielded against.
The easiest way to prevent your (general sense “your”, not you personally) religion from being used against you would to not try and find ways of applying it to others. A lot of the issue in current society stems from that projection.
“If you were trying to persuade me as a person of faith, you would use arguments from your own fatih to counter mine.”
I don’t have any formal faith, nor do I have any specifics of deities or their wills, so this is an impossible thing to argue. Also, I’d like to see any modern religion where the causal believer doesn’t twist fragments to suit their purposes.
I hate to dispute your claim. But most atheists don’t give a damn about your religious beliefs or personal beliefs unless you force them onto him or her. Using religion as a weapon against someone is more of a Monotheistic tactic. Inquisition anyone?
The boy has said Christianity and Judaism got their start by ‘a man being told by god to cut off part of his junk’. He has said he doesn’t know much about the Bible, he just googles what he wants to use as a club, presumably on a believer, because that wouldn’t really work on anyone else. Now he’s claiming to be a believer in something, but his posts lack a spiritual grounding. This, together with his recently proclaimed Atheism, tells me he is trying to use the tenets of my religion against me. The only principle of morality he has shown me so far has been the willingness to profess anything in order to win a point. Darwinism, anyone?
I’m not forcing anything on him. But if he asks questions, I won’t flinch from giving answers.
I was replying to your claim that all atheists use people’s beliefs against them. Most atheists I know (including the one I’m married to) question your beliefs and ask ‘why’ this is so (trust me, my husband has done this to me a few times) just to start a conversation or debate. That’s not the same as using what you believe against you unless you don’t feel as though you can defend your beliefs. From what I understand questioning your faith can make it stronger. Blind faith is the worst thing that can happen to a person because it can harm you and the people around you.
I didn’t intend to get into anything else besides that statement.
My reply was meant to be specific to him. I have no problem with Atheism per se. The boy is being as obnoxious as a Jehovah’s Witness, and makes as little sense. Is there such a thing as Fundamentalist Evangelistic Atheism? If not, I would like to coin the term now. The questions have little to do with doctrine, they are intended to show inconsistencies that do not in fact exist.
Ok then
So why are you harping on Atheists when you’re not talking to one?
Geary: Been reading what you’ve been posting recently and believing that, as opposed to what you’re posting now. You have posted recently that your scripture was a science text. What you’re posting now looks like an attempt to deny your convictions to remove a disadvantage. It is beneath you.
At what point did I state that I held books of science in the same way I hold religious texts? My morals come from me, and the experiences I’ve learned. I’d rather not cling only to the writings of a couple of dudes thousands of years ago whose writings reflected the social norms of their time period, and such belief has resulted in the general belief that there is a higher power of some sort, but, since I can’t reliably guess how it/they want(s) me to act, it is to the point of irrelevancy as long as no actions are made out of anger or spite, and as few people are hurt as possible as a result of my actions, or lack thereof.
Blegh, still ill.
You know, a couple weeks back, I helped defend Geary when he was accused of deviltry by one of the more fundamentalist members of this forum. I did it because I resented what I saw as a faith-based attack. Should I not defend myself from the same thing from the other direction? Wrong is wrong, no matter the faith of the perpetrator.
I never said anything about what you’re doing is wrong. I merely stated that I have seen more Christians questioning other Christians about their morality and going after people who do not share their beliefs or belief in God at all than I have seen of Atheists.
It is not I who labelled him. He did that to himself, though nowhe says not, because it puts him at a disadvantage.
*head desk* I never said you did. I was making a general statement.
I’d continue, but I have to go to lesbian recuitment AKA Girl Guides.
It seems we have a disconnect here. I aim my remarks at one specific case and you seem to want to make general remarks. For what it’s worth, I believe your statements to be true in a general way. I apologize for taking them as criticisms of my approach to the single case. It doesn’t look to me as if we were in the same conversation. Entirely my fault. Everything is of course about me.
Got mine at Resurrection Health Care…
Woohoo!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/02/17/santorum-fires-back-cbss-gotcha-raises-rev-wright-double-standard
Yay that Santorum isn’t listening to the guy whose trying to have a conversation with him while using the same tactics as Sarah Palin? (IE, don’t actually defend yourself, just attack somebody else.)
Yay that he verbally smacked that smug self satisfied Charlie Rose around the head and shoulders. I want to vote for this guy for president right now!
IE: traditional American politics. It’s why my FIL refers to my country as an eternal train wreck
This thread consists of a bunch of guys trying to c*ckblock a bunch of other guys and not considering that they may also be c*ckblocking themselves in the process.
I ask all of you: If, tomorrow, a male birth control equivalent to the pill showed up at pharmacies, would you sing a different tune then? If so, then you are just a misogynist for trying to deny women the same opportunity for burden-free s3x that you’d want for yourself.
It’s not a pure hypothetical. There are working male birth control products, but the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t think they’re worth while to bring to market. Mainly because the pharma giants get so much money from women’s birth control, and they’d eat into their own profits by releasing a competing product. If ALL birth control for any gender is covered by the health care law, that financial calculation might just change. And you could have s3x with any woman without ever worrying about pregnancy.
But no. You guys would rather shoot yourselves in the foot, so that a BUSINESS that happens to be owned by religious folk isn’t inconvenienced whatsoever. The churches all have a clear exemption, by the way. We’re talking about businesses only with this health care discussion (yes, charities and non-profits are still a type of BUSINESS).
At some point, you have to draw the line between a religious institution and a business owned by a religious person. At some point, you have to draw the line so that there’s a clear boundary where, on one side, churches can discriminate in hiring and only accept preachers of their own religion of the gender prescribed in that religion, and on the other side universities can’t refuse to hire protestant faculty or women janitors. If hiring anti-discrimination laws apply, then so should all the other laws. Otherwise we’re all just pissing into the wind with the whole debate.
I’m going to cut you off after reading the first few lines.
“I ask all of you: If, tomorrow, a male birth control equivalent to the pill showed up at pharmacies, would you sing a different tune then?”
Considering all of this is being viewed with respect to Catholic dogma. The Church has already said that birth control of any kind (which includes sterilization) is wrong. This applies to male procedures such as vasectomies. If a male equivalent to a birth control pill were to come out this would fall under those same issues. So the argument from the Church’s perspective would be the same.
As a male, I’d say I would never use such a product, ignoring my moral and religious misgivings, I don’t want to mess with my boys.
Lastly, the bill compromise didn’t have to do with a business owned by a religious person. It had to do with a business owned by a religious institution. Such as in this case, the Catholic Church.
Rest from you, as you would say, is pissing into the wind.
You do know that there is a male version of the pill and it’s available in Europe and Canada right?
What I’m trying to figure out now is if you’re saying that women shouldn’t be able to easily have protected sex as men?
Loaded questions and irrelevant sentences everywhere!
Those are charities owned by a church. Not at all the same as a business owned by a religious person.
As far as that goes though, I’m also OK with a business owner offering whatever insurance suits his conscience. Provided everyone knows the deal up front, I think that’s fair. Insurance is as much a part of the employment package as the salary or wage. If it doesn’t suit, look elsewhere.
However, what does one do when there’s a change like this, where they weren’t aware they wouldn’t be inapplicable for a health care plan because their company had an excuse that they didn’t want to pay for it?
This is not a new thing. The Church’s insurance (if any) didn’t pick up contraception to begin with. Are any of the employees complaining? If so, I haven’t read about it anywhere. It seems to me the gov’t is taking a non-issue and blowing it up to monumental proportions in order to keep the GOP from having all the political headlines.
As far as the answer to your question goes, when I was not self employed, my employer changed insurance providers 4 times in 18 years. I had the option of either taking what was offered or not. If I didn’t take what was offered, I could either find better on my own or I could find another job that provided insurance I could live with.
But everybody else’s employees NOW get it, and it could be for a company that somebody didn’t see any reason to abandon just because the church bought it, like a non-Mormon who works for Pepsi (… at least I think it’s Pepsi).
What everybody else does has no necessary bearing on whether an action is right or wrong. Everybody in Ca. let the Nipponese be herded into concentration camps during WWII. That utterly fails to excuse it.
As I see it, no one complained about the lack of coverage before. Why does the gov’t want to change a thing that works?
As far as the soda company goes, the employees have the same options I had. Take the insurance, buy your own, do without, find a company with insurance you like, or found your own.
“As I see it, no one complained about the lack of coverage before.”
You didn’t hear it, I did.
” Why does the gov’t want to change a thing that works?”
Abortions, abandons, unwanted pregnancies and teenage pregnancy rates may beg to differ with your statement that it works…
Insurances don’t mind, by the way. Contraception saves money. Only the “Puritans” make a big fuss about it.
Not worried about what the insurance companies find moral or not. I find it unreasonable that the gov’t is interfering with the Church’s conscience. Personally, I don’t care what the specific issue is. It could be pinky finger amputation for all of me. If the church has a long standing moral objection, then it should not be required to insure its employees for it. The coercion is my beef, not the contraception.
They’re a business first, and a religious organization last. They aren’t exempt from taxes, so church rules don’t apply to them.
The church itself was ALWAYS exempt from this ruling, but if it owns, say, McDonalds, McDonalds is responsible for the health care, not the Church.
Since when is a non-profit charity subject to taxation? Because that’s what is under discussion here.
Non-profit organizations are still subject to business laws, since they officially are businesses.
“it’s against my religion to pay the people that work for me”
“It’s mandated by my religion that all people donate all their assets to me and come to live in my compound where their bodies (and their children’s) shall be at my disposal”
You gotta draw the line somewhere…
Exactly. You are free to work under the coditions that suit you. If your employer won’t do enough for you to retain your services, find another. Draw the line wherever you like. All I’m saying is that the Church has a long standing moral stance. The gov’t has a history of making exceptions to general rules (e.g. conscientious objectors). I really don’t see that it’s that big a deal to make one in this case.
As I mentioned somewhere else in this now excessively long thread, there are cases where the Church has a local monopoly on the employment of people with your skill set.
It is the govt’s job to ensure that contracts do not include abusive/excessive clauses (mainly these that are detrimental to society in general). The Church is not exempted from Minimum Wage, while it could argue that Jesus said things about material possessions.
I maintain, from my European upbringing, that health coverage should not be at the whim of the employer, but universal and comprehensive. The Church in Europe has no problems paying the salary tax that funds the medical systems, including these parts that they don’t agree with.
Are you seriously this dumb, you leftist dunce? The aspirin thing is a joke. Maybe if your brain wasn’t so warped with liberal nonsense and bong resin, you could actually think.
Actually, the asprin thing is referring to an old-as-dirt saying which is never used any more, in fact, it pretty much stopped being used in the early nineties when people stopped getting it or finding it funny.
I actually got the aspirin reference because my granma used to make a joke about it and how she couldn’t hold an aspirin like that for too long.
Ah, I don’t usually see my grand parents much, since they live in another state, and visits are generally too short to get into reminiscing about sexual escapades.
I used to live 10 minutes from my mom’s parents when I lived in NY and my mama is always one for telling stories. Sex or not.
Quite alright. It happens.
“Santorum Backer”
Could we stop judging candidates by their supporters?