If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Supreme Court Justice Halts Birth Control Mandate in Health Care Law for Catholic Gro
It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now
It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now
Hey, I can't opt out of maternity coverage to lower my premium, so how come they can opt out of contraceptive coverage?
"Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)
Hey, I can't opt out of maternity coverage to lower my premium, so how come they can opt out of contraceptive coverage?
I can't either. I can't wait to schedule my first "free" mammogram and pap smear.
Regardless, the Constitution does guarantee people to be free from interference from the federal government with the free exercise of their religion.
Potentially interesting legal question that may arise from this if someone in a robe really sticks to the Constitution: those 22 (or however many it is) states that set up their own state exchanges may legally force Catholics to pay for contraception and abortions (to the extent that they don't violate the Hyde Amendment). It'll be fun to see how that one comes down, should that become an argument.
It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now
Hey, I can't opt out of maternity coverage to lower my premium, so how come they can opt out of contraceptive coverage?
True.
Perhaps that socialization of maternity coverage should be addressed.
"Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
-John Locke
"It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
-Newman
Perhaps that socialization of maternity coverage should be addressed.
Might as well decide to fight the minimum coverage limits for auto insurance. You may argue whether or not the government has the legitimate power to compel an individual to buy insurance from a for-profit corporation, but once we're down that road (and we all know that train left a long time ago), how can you quibble about the nature of the coverage that may be required? Strictly speaking, the purchase of insurance may violate Biblical prohibitions on gambling. Do you think that argument will get any Bible literalists out of mandatory auto insurance?
"Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)
They have a decent shot of getting Catholics off the hook from the obligation of following the law.
Meanwhile, while complaining about Jews having too much power in America....
The year's at the spring
And day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
God's in his heaven—
All's right with the world!
Perhaps that socialization of maternity coverage should be addressed.
Well if we're going to return to home birth and midwives then we can hardly require that housing have electricity, heat, and indoor plumbing.
The year's at the spring
And day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
God's in his heaven—
All's right with the world!
Might as well decide to fight the minimum coverage limits for auto insurance. You may argue whether or not the government has the legitimate power to compel an individual to buy insurance from a for-profit corporation, but once we're down that road (and we all know that train left a long time ago), how can you quibble about the nature of the coverage that may be required? Strictly speaking, the purchase of insurance may violate Biblical prohibitions on gambling. Do you think that argument will get any Bible literalists out of mandatory auto insurance?
I'm talking about rating and forcing people to pay for a medical scenario that will never happen.
Forcing you and me to pay for maternity coverage is like forcing us to insure our cars as if they were brand new Maseratis.
"Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
-John Locke
"It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
-Newman
It's an apples oranges comparison and doesn't work.
States mandate insurance on an individual level. You can avoid it by not owning a car.
The Federal Gov has zero to do with state mandates, other than agreeing that driving is a privilege and that the individual states have the right to restrict the privilege.
On the other hand, the Fed Gov has decided that I should be paying for maternity and female gynecological services even though I'm a 66 year old male.
Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
and lost …
But the Republicans are racist.
I'm talking about rating and forcing people to pay for a medical scenario that will never happen.
Forcing you and me to pay for maternity coverage is like forcing us to insure our cars as if they were brand new Maseratis.
The nature of insurance is that you pay for things which aren't going to happen to you, and other people pay for things which aren't going to happen to them.
These people are claiming religious exemption as a tool in a political battle which actually has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their politics. Do you honestly believe that these nuns want to deny birth control to other women? No, but those fucking Bishops do.
The year's at the spring
And day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn:
God's in his heaven—
All's right with the world!
The nature of insurance is that you pay for things which aren't going to happen to you, and other people pay for things which aren't going to happen to them.
Actually, that's no true. The nature of insurance is to hedge against the risk of something happening.
There is ZERO risk of me becoming pregnant and there is ZERO risk of me impregnating any person.
These people are claiming religious exemption as a tool in a political battle which actually has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their politics.
Not true with regards to the Catholic Church, but it's funny that the negotiation always starts there with Progressives while they ignore their population control and eugenics biases.
Do you honestly believe that these nuns want to deny birth control to other women? No, but those fucking Bishops do.
Plenty of nuns do too. It's obvious you don't confer with any these days. You should, you might be surprised.
"Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
-John Locke
"It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
-Newman
Actually, that's no true. The nature of insurance is to hedge against the risk of something happening.
There is ZERO risk of me becoming pregnant and there is ZERO risk of me impregnating any person.
Not true with regards to the Catholic Church, but it's funny that the negotiation always starts there with Progressives while they ignore their population control and eugenics biases.
Plenty of nuns do too. It's obvious you don't confer with any these days. You should, you might be surprised.
Yeah..but those nuns don't get press coverage.
Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
Robert Southwell, S.J.
I'm talking about rating and forcing people to pay for a medical scenario that will never happen.
Forcing you and me to pay for maternity coverage is like forcing us to insure our cars as if they were brand new Maseratis.
No, it's more like forcing me to carry high limits on both vehicles when HRH only drives the lightweight ancient Toyota, because she's under 25 and COULD drive my car. Well, theoretically I COULD get pregnant.
"Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)
Comment