Catholic Bishops Oppose Compromise on Birth-Control

[jgarden]

Jehovah Witnesses and Blood Transfusions

Based on various biblical texts, such as Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29, they believe:

- Blood represents life and is sacred to God. It is reserved for only one special use, the atonement for sins. When a Christian abstains from blood, they are in effect expressing faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem them and save their life.

- Blood must not be eaten or transfused, even in the case of a medical emergency.

- Blood leaving the body of a human or animal must be disposed of, except for autologous blood transfusions considered part of a “current therapy”.

A baptized Witness who unrepentantly accepts a blood transfusion is deemed to have disassociated himself from the religion by abandoning its doctrines and is subsequently subject to organized shunning by other members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

QUESTION: If I am employed by an agency under the control of the Jehovah Witnesses, do they have the right to remove access to "blood transfusions" from any health insurance package that they may provide?

 

[Intense]

Why do you think the Churches are protesting in the first place?

Because they are constantly advocating against the use of birth control, period. The church also protests executions. It has nothing to do with whether they have to pay for the executions or not.

The Employees will pay for it? Show me in the Legislation where the Employees pay for it?

Maybe one day, when you grow up and become and adult, and have a job for the very first time, you'll learn how the world works. When someone has insurance at work, the employee has to pay for it. It's not just given to you. You have to pay a premium. Maybe, one day, when you get older, and if you work really hard, you'll be able to move up in the world and learn new things about how businesses are run, and you'll understand how ludicrous your position is. In the meantime, show me in the legislation where it says that the church will pay for it.

Obama plainly states that the Insurance Companies should cover the added expense in his compromise, which translates to them adding it in for free, and raising the premium

The health care law requires employers to allow health coverage that will include birth control. The church threw a fit, so Obama suggested a compromise. I'm not in favor of the compromise itself. I see no reason to even bother with a compromise. I say let the church comply with the law as it already is written. I give Obama credit for trying to be accommodating, because he's just trying to be respectful. But I'd prefer he show a little more strength and stand his ground. The way it's all played out continues to show that the church isn't really concerned with freedom of religion. It's concerned with doing as much as it can to try to force people to comply with the lifestyle it is demanding, regardless of whether those people want to or not.

But you continue to present false information. The premiums would go up under the compromise. But it won't be the church that pays those higher costs. It will be the employees who pay for it. Which is why I'm against it, because not only is it an unnecessary appeasement in the first place, but now individuals will be left with higher costs for someone else's expenses.

Because they are constantly advocating against the use of birth control, period. The church also protests executions. It has nothing to do with whether they have to pay for the executions or not.

Exactly. The use of the Morning After pill goes even a step further. Distinguish between what the Church Advocates, what it tolerates, and what it Forgives. The new law puts them in the position of bankrolling the practice, either directly or indirectly. This is a change from the status quo, a new reasoning the Church rejects.

Maybe one day, when you grow up and become and adult, and have a job for the very first time, you'll learn how the world works. When someone has insurance at work, the employee has to pay for it. It's not just given to you. You have to pay a premium. Maybe, one day, when you get older, and if you work really hard, you'll be able to move up in the world and learn new things about how businesses are run, and you'll understand how ludicrous your position is. In the meantime, show me in the legislation where it says that the church will pay for it.

I'm 54 Sparky, I am Self Employed, and have more job experience than you have years. There are many different types of Employer provided Insurance, and they vary from State to State.

The Legislation that Dictates the birth control coverage is mandatory is where it says the Church pays for it. Directly or indirectly, you are still playing with words.

The health care law requires employers to allow health coverage that will include birth control. The church threw a fit, so Obama suggested a compromise. I'm not in favor of the compromise itself. I see no reason to even bother with a compromise. I say let the church comply with the law as it already is written. I give Obama credit for trying to be accommodating, because he's just trying to be respectful. But I'd prefer he show a little more strength and stand his ground. The way it's all played out continues to show that the church isn't really concerned with freedom of religion. It's concerned with doing as much as it can to try to force people to comply with the lifestyle it is demanding, regardless of whether those people want to or not.

Fail. It was a Mandate, not a choice. You are lying to yourself. You are for this, you are against this, make up your mind. The Church is not out to get you. The Church is fighting this on moral Grounds. I suspect your whole point here is to divert from real arguments on the mismanagement of the Nation. You are just chasing your tail. Nothing new here.

But you continue to present false information. The premiums would go up under the compromise. But it won't be the church that pays those higher costs. It will be the employees who pay for it. Which is why I'm against it, because not only is it an unnecessary appeasement in the first place, but now individuals will be left with higher costs for someone else's expenses.

You are a total Idiot. In our Diocese, the Church pays Employee Insurance. Most probably true across the Nation. You do not know your basic facts.

 

[Intense]

If you are opposed to the legislation, why? You acknowledge that this Legislation changes the game, that's why the Churches are fighting it.

Why am I opposed to the health care bill? Because it's not the government's proper role to demand that I buy health insurance, when it cannot decide whether or not I'm even able to readily afford it.

Which is more the reason you should support all Potential Customers buying only what they are interested in. Incidentally, I don't think it's the Government's role either, neither does the Church.

 

[Intense]

Jehovah Witnesses and Blood Transfusions

Based on various biblical texts, such as Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29, they believe:

- Blood represents life and is sacred to God. It is reserved for only one special use, the atonement for sins. When a Christian abstains from blood, they are in effect expressing faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem them and save their life.

- Blood must not be eaten or transfused, even in the case of a medical emergency.

- Blood leaving the body of a human or animal must be disposed of, except for autologous blood transfusions considered part of a “current therapy”.

A baptized Witness who unrepentantly accepts a blood transfusion is deemed to have disassociated himself from the religion by abandoning its doctrines and is subsequently subject to organized shunning by other members.

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QUESTION: If I am employed by an agency under the control of the Jehovah Witnesses, do they have the right to remove access to "blood transfusions" from any health insurance package that they may provide?

Yes.

 

[saveliberty]

Great you made a choice, that is all I asked. Accessibility means birth control is available. It is, so why is Obama making an issue of it?

Obama made an issue out of health care, to make affordable basic health care accessible to all Americans. It's the Catholic church who made an issue out of birth control, because they have this silly notion that freedom of religion somehow exempts them from laws dealing with health care and employment relations.

Be honest, Obama wants it free, that means someone pays for it. Play all the denial games you want. The subject is religious freedom.

That's absolutely absurd. If you're against the health care law, fine, be against it. But don't cite stupid notions and make it out to be some kind of grand conspiracy by Obama to force the church to pay for birth control. That's not what he's doing, that's not what is going to happen.

How affordable and accesible has Obama made it? The Catholic church has not changed its health coverage stance at all. Total fabrication on your part there. The church was exempt from these laws until Obama decided to make an issue of it with an executive order. It backfired on him and now it is a Constitutional rights case.

Obama flat out tried to make the church pay for it. That is denial on your part. Only when challenged did he cave into the plan for insurance companies to bear the cost. That means all policyholders pay, because only the deluded think things are free.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jehovah Witnesses and Blood Transfusions

Based on various biblical texts, such as Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29, they believe:

- Blood represents life and is sacred to God. It is reserved for only one special use, the atonement for sins. When a Christian abstains from blood, they are in effect expressing faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem them and save their life.

- Blood must not be eaten or transfused, even in the case of a medical emergency.

- Blood leaving the body of a human or animal must be disposed of, except for autologous blood transfusions considered part of a “current therapy”.

A baptized Witness who unrepentantly accepts a blood transfusion is deemed to have disassociated himself from the religion by abandoning its doctrines and is subsequently subject to organized shunning by other members.

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QUESTION: If I am employed by an agency under the control of the Jehovah Witnesses, do they have the right to remove access to "blood transfusions" from any health insurance package that they may provide?

Yes.

Can a Muslim majority community (i.e. village, township, etc.) impose Sharia law on the residents within that district?

 

[Luissa]

Wow! I think I would been fine with a male who was actually on the other side of the issue.

I've stayed out of this thread for a while, because the constant back and forth was boring. However, and this might shock my fellow USMBers.....


I'm gonna agree with Luissa on this. While I do not support the mandate, I find it absolutely ridiculous that they didn't have anyone testifying on behalf of the plan. Male or female, I don't really give a shit about.... but I do find it ludicrous that they didn't have one individual in support of the plan.

That's because the plan is not subject to debate. There is no issue as to whether or not there should be access to birth control. Liberals want to MAKE it about birth control because that way they can control the debate and the outcome. It is about whether or not forcing a person to pay for birth control and abortion when they have a religious belief against it violates the first amendment. Since it's a first amendment issue, ONLY those who are affected are part of the discussion.

No one is fooled by obama's gimmick of having insurance companies pay. The insurance companies will just get the money from the policy holders. It's an accounting gimmick, nothing more.

I don't care what is going on at those hearings, they should have had people from both sides of the issue testify. If you don't think they should have you have worse problems.

 

[saveliberty]

I've stayed out of this thread for a while, because the constant back and forth was boring. However, and this might shock my fellow USMBers.....


I'm gonna agree with Luissa on this. While I do not support the mandate, I find it absolutely ridiculous that they didn't have anyone testifying on behalf of the plan. Male or female, I don't really give a shit about.... but I do find it ludicrous that they didn't have one individual in support of the plan.

That's because the plan is not subject to debate. There is no issue as to whether or not there should be access to birth control. Liberals want to MAKE it about birth control because that way they can control the debate and the outcome. It is about whether or not forcing a person to pay for birth control and abortion when they have a religious belief against it violates the first amendment. Since it's a first amendment issue, ONLY those who are affected are part of the discussion.

No one is fooled by obama's gimmick of having insurance companies pay. The insurance companies will just get the money from the policy holders. It's an accounting gimmick, nothing more.

I don't care what is going on at those hearings, they should have had people from both sides of the issue testify. If you don't think they should have you have worse problems.

...and the issue was?

 

[Luissa]

That's because the plan is not subject to debate. There is no issue as to whether or not there should be access to birth control. Liberals want to MAKE it about birth control because that way they can control the debate and the outcome. It is about whether or not forcing a person to pay for birth control and abortion when they have a religious belief against it violates the first amendment. Since it's a first amendment issue, ONLY those who are affected are part of the discussion.

No one is fooled by obama's gimmick of having insurance companies pay. The insurance companies will just get the money from the policy holders. It's an accounting gimmick, nothing more.

I don't care what is going on at those hearings, they should have had people from both sides of the issue testify. If you don't think they should have you have worse problems.

...and the issue was?

Dude, shut up.

I am no problem saying a woman who is a law student from Georgetown Law should have been there.
Were any of those religious leaders who were invited to hearings experts on Constitutional law? Any of them have a law degree, or are studying law?
Your point is void by the fact they invited religious leaders to testify, and not lawyers or anyone who is an expert on Constitutional law.

 

[Luissa]

I can say such and such is against the Constitution because I want it to be, but that doesn't make me expert on whether it is Constitutional or not.
Of course Save has his head too far up his ass to realize that.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't care what is going on at those hearings, they should have had people from both sides of the issue testify. If you don't think they should have you have worse problems.

...and the issue was?

Dude, shut up.

I am no problem saying a woman who is a law student from Georgetown Law should have been there.
Were any of those religious leaders who were invited to hearings experts on Constitutional law? Any of them have a law degree, or are studying law?
Your point is void by the fact they invited religious leaders to testify, and not lawyers or anyone who is an expert on Constitutional law.

You missed the point of that hearing is all I'm saying. Should there be other hearings touching on questions you raised here. Absolutely. Should women be properly represented at those hearings? Yep.

Btw, the issue wasn't dude shut up.

 

[Luissa]

...and the issue was?

Dude, shut up.

I am no problem saying a woman who is a law student from Georgetown Law should have been there.
Were any of those religious leaders who were invited to hearings experts on Constitutional law? Any of them have a law degree, or are studying law?
Your point is void by the fact they invited religious leaders to testify, and not lawyers or anyone who is an expert on Constitutional law.

You missed the point of that hearing is all I'm saying. Should there be other hearings touching on questions you raised here. Absolutely. Should women be properly represented at those hearings? Yep.

Btw, the issue wasn't dude shut up.

I get what the hearing are about, you would have a point if they didn't invite religious leaders and just people who were experts on the Constitution. Of course they said the hearings were about the legal issue, but when you invite people who represent the one side of the issue it is no longer about the legality of the issue and only about the opinions of these religious leaders.
So with all that, of course someone who is on the other side of the issue and with another opinion should have been represented.

 

[saveliberty]

Thank you for the reply Luissa. I hope more hearings are held soon.

One of my majors was political science in my degree. I can see some of the legal standing here, but the Supreme Court is far from predictable.

 

[Luissa]

Two women have won lawsuits on this very same issue.
They won because their insurance company and employer covered other elective drugs.

 

[saveliberty]

Two women have won lawsuits on this very same issue.
They won because their insurance company and employer covered other elective drugs.

This is a religious issue, so I don't expect the same results. The Supreme Court has tipped its hand on this sort of thing recently. Again, we have to wait and see if it reaches the court. The Obamacare ruling might be telling us well.

 

[Luissa]

Two women have won lawsuits on this very same issue.
They won because their insurance company and employer covered other elective drugs.

This is a religious issue, so I don't expect the same results. The Supreme Court has tipped its hand on this sort of thing recently. Again, we have to wait and see if it reaches the court. The Obamacare ruling might be telling us well.

Doesn't matter, they ruled they cannot exclude an elective drug that only females take. They are a religious group, but they are still an employer and have to follow certain regulations and rules.

 

[saveliberty]

Two women have won lawsuits on this very same issue.
They won because their insurance company and employer covered other elective drugs.

This is a religious issue, so I don't expect the same results. The Supreme Court has tipped its hand on this sort of thing recently. Again, we have to wait and see if it reaches the court. The Obamacare ruling might be telling us well.

Doesn't matter, they ruled they cannot exclude an elective drug that only females take. They are a religious group, but they are still an employer and have to follow certain regulations and rules.

Not necessarily. We will see. You said earlier that you were not a legal expert. Now you are?

 

[NYcarbineer]

QUESTION: If I am employed by an agency under the control of the Jehovah Witnesses, do they have the right to remove access to "blood transfusions" from any health insurance package that they may provide?

Yes.

Can a Muslim majority community (i.e. village, township, etc.) impose Sharia law on the residents within that district?

No answer?

Anyone?

 

[saveliberty]

Yes.

Can a Muslim majority community (i.e. village, township, etc.) impose Sharia law on the residents within that district?

No answer?

Anyone?

Imposing a set of laws like that runs counter to state constutional law, so no it would require at least state constitutional law changes. Congress and the President imposed the healthcare changes, so that is a different subject entirely.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wow! I think I would been fine with a male who was actually on the other side of the issue.

I've stayed out of this thread for a while, because the constant back and forth was boring. However, and this might shock my fellow USMBers.....


I'm gonna agree with Luissa on this. While I do not support the mandate, I find it absolutely ridiculous that they didn't have anyone testifying on behalf of the plan. Male or female, I don't really give a shit about.... but I do find it ludicrous that they didn't have one individual in support of the plan.

That's because the plan is not subject to debate. There is no issue as to whether or not there should be access to birth control. Liberals want to MAKE it about birth control because that way they can control the debate and the outcome. It is about whether or not forcing a person to pay for birth control and abortion when they have a religious belief against it violates the first amendment. Since it's a first amendment issue, ONLY those who are affected are part of the discussion.

No one is fooled by obama's gimmick of having insurance companies pay. The insurance companies will just get the money from the policy holders. It's an accounting gimmick, nothing more.

"Only those affected"? Really? Because on the first witness board, there were 5 men. On this morning's witness board, there were 4 men and 2 women, making it a total of 11 people, only 2 of which were women.

How many men take birth control pills?