Birth Control and Penile Implants

[Greenbeard]

Except no one is forcing religious groups to pay for them.

Not now that Obama has reversed his stance.

The entire controversy lasted about two weeks. This was over shortly after it started, though some don't seem to have gotten the memo.

- HHS Rules On Contraception Coverage; Insurance Labels Draw Attention - Kaiser Health News (Jan 25, 2012)

- Obama Announces Shift In Contraception Rule - Kaiser Health News (Feb 10, 2012)

 

[daveman]

Except no one is forcing religious groups to pay for them.

Not now that Obama has reversed his stance.

The entire controversy lasted about two weeks. This was over shortly after it started, though some don't seem to have gotten the memo.

- HHS Rules On Contraception Coverage; Insurance Labels Draw Attention - Kaiser Health News (Jan 25, 2012)

- Obama Announces Shift In Contraception Rule - Kaiser Health News (Feb 10, 2012)

Did Obama really think he could get away with it?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

More on Catholic Healthcare West's decision


by Jamie L Manson on Jan. 26, 2012 NCR Today


In what could set a significant precedent, Catholic Healthcare West, "one of the nation's largest hospital systems and operator of four Bay Area hospitals, is ending its governing board's affiliation with the Catholic Church and changing its name to help the system expand," the San Jose Mercury News reports.

The system's change to a nondenominational board will create "a tremendous opportunity that will help accelerate our growth," Lloyd Dean, the president and CEO of Catholic Healthcare West, told the Mercury News.

The article also reports that "secular hospitals added to the system will be required to adhere to the 'Statement of Common Values' that apply to Catholic Healthcare West's secular hospitals."

Although the article doesn't note this, the move will also allow the hospital to provide its employees with all of the provisions included in the Affordable Healthcare Act, including access to contraception, without involvement from the hierarchy.

More on Catholic Healthcare West's decision | National Catholic Reporter

and some 'catholic' systems don't agree...imagine that

 

[Polk]

Are you making assumptions based on stereotypes?

I don't see protesters marching around demanding government stop funding penile implants...

Ahhh. Assumptions it is, then.

Perhaps you'd like to provide a link to something about the anti-penile implant protests?

 

[Polk]

For those that are so militantly opposed to insurance coverage for birth control, why are you okay with insurance coverage for penile implants? Birth control actually has some medical uses beyond contraception (it's very useful for the treatment of endometriosis, for example), while penile implants don't have a medical use beyond defining the ability to have sex as a medical use.

I don't know about you, I am opposed to this president stomping on First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment doesn't give you blank check to violate the law, then use your religion as a fig leaf.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those that are so militantly opposed to insurance coverage for birth control, why are you okay with insurance coverage for penile implants? Birth control actually has some medical uses beyond contraception (it's very useful for the treatment of endometriosis, for example), while penile implants don't have a medical use beyond defining the ability to have sex as a medical use.

For those of you with no brain, where did I ever say I think insurance should cover penile implants?

Maybe you should stop assuming you know my position and stop trying to use your assumptions against me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those that are so militantly opposed to insurance coverage for birth control, why are you okay with insurance coverage for penile implants? Birth control actually has some medical uses beyond contraception (it's very useful for the treatment of endometriosis, for example), while penile implants don't have a medical use beyond defining the ability to have sex as a medical use.

We are not opposed to all ins. paying for birth control. Even though you can get it for very cheap any where.We are against forcing religious insurance groups to pay for them.
It's a first amendment issue.

Except no one is forcing religious groups to pay for them.

Keep repeating the lies, it shows how stupid you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except no one is forcing religious groups to pay for them.

Not now that Obama has reversed his stance.

The entire controversy lasted about two weeks. This was over shortly after it started, though some don't seem to have gotten the memo.

- HHS Rules On Contraception Coverage; Insurance Labels Draw Attention - Kaiser Health News (Jan 25, 2012)

- Obama Announces Shift In Contraception Rule - Kaiser Health News (Feb 10, 2012)

Can your side do nothing but lie? If it is all settled why are there lawsuits?

Catholic groups file suit over HHS birth control mandate - The Washington Post

 

[Si modo]

For those that are so militantly opposed to insurance coverage for birth control, why are you okay with insurance coverage for penile implants? Birth control actually has some medical uses beyond contraception (it's very useful for the treatment of endometriosis, for example), while penile implants don't have a medical use beyond defining the ability to have sex as a medical use.

I don't know about you, I am opposed to this president stomping on First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment doesn't give you blank check to violate the law, then use your religion as a fig leaf.

Rather, the First Amendment doesn't give the GOVERNMENT the right to dictate to religious organizations what they MUST do contrary to their beliefs by passing a law doing just that - that "law" that you say the religious organizations want to break. And when their breaking that "law" doesn't affect the inherent rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, of anyone.

I'm surprised you didn't learn that little detail in 8th grade civics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know about you, I am opposed to this president stomping on First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment doesn't give you blank check to violate the law, then use your religion as a fig leaf.

Rather, the First Amendment doesn't give the GOVERNMENT the right to dictate to religious organizations what they MUST do contrary to their beliefs by passing a law doing just that - that "law" that you say the religious organizations want to break. And when their breaking that "law" doesn't affect the inherent rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, of anyone.

I'm surprised you didn't learn that little detail in 8th grade civics.

They are apparently taught that the Constitution makes it illegal for people to do things.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

We are not opposed to all ins. paying for birth control. Even though you can get it for very cheap any where.We are against forcing religious insurance groups to pay for them.
It's a first amendment issue.

Except no one is forcing religious groups to pay for them.

Nor have they - ever. Saying its a First Amendment issue is laughable.

What is covered by "your" insurance is YOUR business, just as what is covered by ANY and ALL women's insurance is THEIR business.

The real truth is that rw's want to control women. They want into the bedrooms of all Americans so they can control their personal and private lives. Its just more Big Government by the party who LOVES to pass lots and lots of laws.

BTW, to that end, I noticed that SickRick Santorum has formed a super pac to help buy the election.

What is covered by a woman's insurance -is- her business. If she doesn't like the plan offered by her employer, she's free in this country to opt out of that plan and buy one she likes better. She's also free to seek employment with a company that offers the sort of plan she wants.

Freedom to have something and someone else's obligation to provide that something for you are -not- the same thing.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

For those that are so militantly opposed to insurance coverage for birth control, why are you okay with insurance coverage for penile implants? Birth control actually has some medical uses beyond contraception (it's very useful for the treatment of endometriosis, for example), while penile implants don't have a medical use beyond defining the ability to have sex as a medical use.

And, lushbo's fave drug to smuggle, Viagra ...

Its okay to pay to make him hard enough to impregnate a woman but its not okay to keep her from getting pregnant.

That's rw logic for you.

Do you truly not comprehend the arguments you're firing back at, or do you purposefully misrepresent them to avoid admitting to yourself that you don't have a good answer?

It's okay for Rush's employers to provide him with whatever sort of insurance plan they want. If his insurance plan includes plastic surgery to make his nutsack nice and smooth, more power to him. It's also okay for a woman's health insurance to provide her with whatever sort of birth control or drugs they want. I won't even bitch if she manages to find an employer who offers her a healthcare plan that provides late term abortions and a carton a week of cigarettes. That's between them.

The argument against which you're fighting isn't that birth control isn't okay. The argument is that, via the 1st Amendment, it's unconstitutional to FORCE religious organizations to offer forms of compensation that go against their fundamental beliefs. It IS a 1st Amendment issue for most of us who oppose that force and are sane.

As I said before, I'm pro choice, anti over population, and vehemently against babies being born into families who don't want them. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, respond to what I've -SAID- rather than trying to assign some bullshit evil motives that you assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is harboring.

 

[daveman]

I don't see protesters marching around demanding government stop funding penile implants...

Ahhh. Assumptions it is, then.

Perhaps you'd like to provide a link to something about the anti-penile implant protests?

Not really. You're making a claim -- it's up to you to prove it.

 

[daveman]

For those that are so militantly opposed to insurance coverage for birth control, why are you okay with insurance coverage for penile implants? Birth control actually has some medical uses beyond contraception (it's very useful for the treatment of endometriosis, for example), while penile implants don't have a medical use beyond defining the ability to have sex as a medical use.

I don't know about you, I am opposed to this president stomping on First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment doesn't give you blank check to violate the law, then use your religion as a fig leaf.

The First Amendment makes laws that violate it unconstitutional.

Apparently, the Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief didn't get that memo.

 

[Skull Pilot]

because that would effect men, and republicans care about men.

GOP: Government so small, it'll fit in your vagina.

At least then it won't hurt so much when the fucking government ass rapes the tax payer

 

[Polk]

I don't know about you, I am opposed to this president stomping on First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment doesn't give you blank check to violate the law, then use your religion as a fig leaf.

Rather, the First Amendment doesn't give the GOVERNMENT the right to dictate to religious organizations what they MUST do contrary to their beliefs by passing a law doing just that - that "law" that you say the religious organizations want to break. And when their breaking that "law" doesn't affect the inherent rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, of anyone.

I'm surprised you didn't learn that little detail in 8th grade civics.

Except no one is forcing religions to do anything. To say any organization vaguely associate with a religion deserves First Amendment protection is to effectively nullify federal law. After all, just claim any law you don't like violates your religion.

 

[Polk]

The First Amendment doesn't give you blank check to violate the law, then use your religion as a fig leaf.

Rather, the First Amendment doesn't give the GOVERNMENT the right to dictate to religious organizations what they MUST do contrary to their beliefs by passing a law doing just that - that "law" that you say the religious organizations want to break. And when their breaking that "law" doesn't affect the inherent rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, of anyone.

I'm surprised you didn't learn that little detail in 8th grade civics.

They are apparently taught that the Constitution makes it illegal for people to do things.

None of the amendments is an absolutely. Just because you have freedom of religion doesn't mean you get to perform human sacrifice. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

 

[Polk]

Ahhh. Assumptions it is, then.

Perhaps you'd like to provide a link to something about the anti-penile implant protests?

Not really. You're making a claim -- it's up to you to prove it.

You're the one claiming something exists. Burden of proof falls on you.

 

[Si modo]

Ahhh. Assumptions it is, then.

Perhaps you'd like to provide a link to something about the anti-penile implant protests?

Not really. You're making a claim -- it's up to you to prove it.

In this case, no burden rests on him.

He said a negative (he has seen no protests) and he cannot prove that negative.

Someone can demonstrate the opposite, though.

Just a point of order.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Rather, the First Amendment doesn't give the GOVERNMENT the right to dictate to religious organizations what they MUST do contrary to their beliefs by passing a law doing just that - that "law" that you say the religious organizations want to break. And when their breaking that "law" doesn't affect the inherent rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, of anyone.

I'm surprised you didn't learn that little detail in 8th grade civics.

They are apparently taught that the Constitution makes it illegal for people to do things.

None of the amendments is an absolutely. Just because you have freedom of religion doesn't mean you get to perform human sacrifice. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

That's very true, but human sacrifice involves a victim. Not offering a particular insurance benefit doesn't victimize anyone, as seeking/agreeing to employment with any company is a purely voluntary action. I realize that, legally, the existence of a victim isn't necessarily a consideration (sadly), but I would think that, in the case of defining limitations on rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, that distinction would carry at least a bit of weight. Then again, Massachusets has recently shown me that an even higher percentage of people than I had previously thought are willing to sell away fundamental rights to restrict shit that doesn't even really victimize anyone, so there's a good chance you disagree.

There's also a good chance that you disagree with the sentiment that not offering a particular insurance benefit to potential employees doesn't victimize people. Some folk, after all, believe that people giving you certain things is a fundamental human right. The right to enslave the able to provide for your predetermined, government approved necessities seems to be a basic premise for a growing facet of our population. If you ask me, however, saying that someone who doesn't provide for you, with the fruit of their effort/labor/intellect, something you deem to be your right, iis therefore victimizing you, requires a healthy adherence to Marx'esque dogma and isn't typically based in any identifiable logic.