Contraception - a discussion

[BluePhantom]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

tell that to Rick Santorum

I thought it was Obama that started the contraception thing.

It was. It was Santorum that let Obama off the hook by being stupid enough to give the liberal media plenty of sound bytes that enabled them to shift the focus from Obama's dumb fuck position on contraception to Santorum's dumb fuck position on contraception.

 

[Too Tall]

i find it much more interesting that the religious right pushes for abortion to become illegal, because life is sacred, while at the same time opposing universal health care.

its extremely hypocritical to say life is sacred when your willing to fight to protect an unborn life, but not willing to fight to protect people who have already been born.

when you force women to have children they may not want, in many cases they become dependent on the state for services such as medicaid, food stamp, welfare, the foster system, etc etc.

They aren't pro life... they're pro birth.

if they weren't, they'd be arranging adoptions for unwanted children.

if they weren't, they'd be supporting day care and job training and education for unwed mothers

if they weren't, they'd support WIC and head start.

but they are....

because it isn't about "life", it's about punishing the harlots and making women incubators.

which is why something like 80% of anti-choice activists are men.

The Catholic Church is hugely involved in adoption services. It also funds programs such as day care for single parents (of either gender)..... we also provide school places, for kids from all faiths, and no faith.... Don't let the facts get in the way, though.

I have given to Boys Town for many years and I am not even Catholic. I guess there are dozens of programs for girls, and I felt the boys need a leg up as well.

 

[Too Tall]

Perhaps the solution to this biological problem, that has become political, is for the Church and Republican party to finance some type of creation or solution that when added to our drinking water removed the sex drive. I remember in the Fifties conservatives did not want flouride added to the water because flouride turned people into communists. If they can create a flouride that makes people communists surely they can come up with some kind of drug that destroys the sex thing.

What about that claim about a communist plot?

Fluoridation was required in East Germany as long as the communists were in charge. When the German Democratic Republic disappeared and the country was reunified in 1990, fluoridation stopped. It is prohibited in Germany now.

The claim is no longer made because it seems so ... 1950s. But it wasn’t far off

Read more: Editorial: Once again, fluoridation

 

[Wry Catcher]

Today we regard such practices as barbaric. We prefer a nice sterile hospital room to leave babies to cry themselves to death alone.

Sure...cause you know....so many kids are born in sterile hospital rooms and then everyone just leaves them alone and lets them die. That happens SO OFTEN.

If someone has a moral objection to contraception, women are going to be the victims of domestic violence as if no woman that has ever used contraception has been the victim of a abusive partner.

Sue your high school English teacher.

LOL, so true, and so sad.

 

[Intense]

For example, it's okay for you to impose your value, because you are special? In your own mind, maybe, outside of it, the word may take on a different meaning.

Neither government nor people should impose their values on anyone.

Idea Censorship is offensive to some, might want to consider the effects of what you advocate.

Ideas are fine. I am all for ideas. But when they are of a moral or religious nature it's not government's business. If you want to change society's morals you appeal to the hearts and minds of the people that are willing to listen and if they embrace it what you find to be immoral will eventually die out on it's own. Government forcing a moral or religious principle creates rebellion and in the end delays or prevents it being embraced by society. History is pretty clear on this one.

Actually it is not. Maybe in the past, arguably. Yet, Today we fight over everything from the definition of Marriage to when does Human Life start. You might want to consider the distinction between Principle, and Dogma. Principle has every place in a civilized Society, through Culture, and Law. Dogma, has none.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

You got to admit it turned out to be an awesome trick to get conservatives to reveal even more of how ridiculous their beliefs are.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

You got to admit it turned out to be an awesome trick to get conservatives to reveal even more of how ridiculous their beliefs are.

And as you get older and understand how the world actually works you will realize how stupid you sound. Either that or you'll turn into Barney Frank and move to P-town.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's real simple: Get the hell out of everybody's bedroom and start worrying about the economy. This contraception thing is nothing but a new shiny object to distract the easily distracted and unfocused Republicans.

You got to admit it turned out to be an awesome trick to get conservatives to reveal even more of how ridiculous their beliefs are.

And as you get older and understand how the world actually works you will realize how stupid you sound. Either that or you'll turn into Barney Frank and move to P-town.

I have to admit, that's one of more inventive gay come-ons I've experienced.

Sorry though, I'm not.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

You got to admit it turned out to be an awesome trick to get conservatives to reveal even more of how ridiculous their beliefs are.

And as you get older and understand how the world actually works you will realize how stupid you sound. Either that or you'll turn into Barney Frank and move to P-town.

I have to admit, that's one of more inventive gay come-ons I've experienced.

Sorry though, I'm not.

Don't go away mad. Just go away until it's grown up time. When you pay your own bills you'll understand.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well it's not ALL Catholics who believe that. Some disagree with that premise completely, but there is a section that holds that view. As far as contraception I defend the right of a church to determine and maintain the tenants of their faith without government intrusion.

Yes, that goes without saying.

However, there are some times when a particular position, regardless of how well intentioned, actually results in a much bigger disaster. I think contraception is one of those issues BUT it should be up to that church to make that determination for themselves and not forced upon them.

What’s being ‘forced’ on the Church? No Catholic is being forced to use a contraceptive.

There is also no legal foundation for the inane premise that a policy requiring employers provide health benefits, that might include contraceptive therapies, in any way conflicts with given religious doctrine:

“In addressing the constitutional protection for free exercise of religion, our cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith [1990.]”

The policy requiring contraception health coverage is clearly neutral and generally applied, as no particular faith is singled-out, no specific religious tenet identified, and no religious practice curtailed.

In order for the policy to be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Catholics must be specifically identified and compelled to use contraceptive therapies against their will.

This is clearly not the case concerning the coverage requirement.

“At a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.”

The health insurance contraception requirement in no way discriminates against a religious belief or prohibits religious conduct; again, no Catholic is being forced to use a contraceptive or to have an abortion. Only non-Catholics or Catholics who elect to ignore such dogma will use contraceptive therapies. That the employer might have a religious objection is far too tenuous a connection to make a Free Exercise Clause violation claim.

A policy requiring employers provide health coverage that may include contraceptive therapies - which may or may not be used by employees - discriminates against no religion or religious belief. That an employer is associated with a religious entity whose dogma maintains contraception ‘wrong’ means that adherents of that faith must refrain from using contraceptive therapies, not the employees.

“To determine the object of a law, we must begin with its text, for the minimum requirement of neutrality is that a law not discriminate on its face. A law lacks facial neutrality if it refers to a religious practice without a secular meaning discernable from the language or context.”

The policy requiring employers provide contraception health insurance has only a secular intent: the health of women; it is narrowly tailored to address only that issue, and it compels no Catholic to act in such a way that violates his religious belief.

An employer paying for part or all of an employee’s health insurance premium is providing compensation for services rendered, the same as salaried compensation. No one would support an employer threatening to withhold an employee’s salary because he might use that compensation to purchase a contraceptive therapy that the employer considers ‘morally wrong.’ To support an employer withholding health insurance compensation for the same reason is equally unsupportable.

Case law for the cited above:

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah

Just a question... If you can't afford the cost of contraception, how can you afford to raise a child?

You can’t – hence the need to include the coverage in one’s health insurance, so she doesn’t become pregnant, avoiding having the children she can’t afford.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The board idiopert on the law is expounding here folks, give him you full attention.

Well it's not ALL Catholics who believe that. Some disagree with that premise completely, but there is a section that holds that view. As far as contraception I defend the right of a church to determine and maintain the tenants of their faith without government intrusion.

Yes, that goes without saying.

Hey there Jones, still can't find the quote button? How can anyone possibly treat you with any respect when you never attribute the people you are quoting.

By the way, if this actually went without saying there wouldn't be anyone on the other side who is claiming that Republicans and Catholics are trying to ban birth control.

However, there are some times when a particular position, regardless of how well intentioned, actually results in a much bigger disaster. I think contraception is one of those issues BUT it should be up to that church to make that determination for themselves and not forced upon them.

What’s being ‘forced’ on the Church? No Catholic is being forced to use a contraceptive.

See, that is why people have to keep saying things that go without saying, because people like you just don't get it. There are actually honest people out there that fully support insurance companies providing contraceptives that have publicly admitted the claim that nothing is being forced on Catholics is a load of hooey, yet you keep saying it.

There is also no legal foundation for the inane premise that a policy requiring employers provide health benefits, that might include contraceptive therapies, in any way conflicts with given religious doctrine:

None? Are you sure?

“In addressing the cnstitutional protection for free exercise of religion, our cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith [1990.]”

All well and good, but, since the federal government is actually doing this, Employment Division v Smith is not the applicable case law, Sherbert v Werner is, something you would actually know if you knew a tiny fraction as much about constitutional law as you like to pretend you do.

The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:
For the individual, the court must determine

• whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
• whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

• that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest" and
• that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

• Is it a sincere religious belief? Yes?
• Is it a substantial burden? Yes
• Is it in furtherance of a compelling state interest? Let's just assume it is, even though I could argue otherwise.
• Is it the least restrictive or least burdensome solution test possible? Not even close.

Since it cannot pass the Sherbert test imposed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was unanimously held to apply to the federal government in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal which held that all churches can do drugs, not just the Native American church.

The policy requiring contraception health coverage is clearly neutral and generally applied, as no particular faith is singled-out, no specific religious tenet identified, and no religious practice curtailed.

Interesting argument, if you were properly applying case law I might take the time to disect it. As it is, I can simply laugh.

In order for the policy to be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Catholics must be specifically identified and compelled to use contraceptive therapies against their will.

Actually, that is not true. Even under Smith all that really needs to be proven is that the law is not applied to everyone. Since Obamacare specifically exempts one group because of their religious beliefs it frees others to argue that they should also be exempted. Regardless, you are still citing the wrong case.

This is clearly not the case concerning the coverage requirement.

Only if you are blind.

“At a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.”

Wow, look at that, you are arguing against your own argument. Do you realize how stupid that makes you look? The Catholics are being regulated in an area that is undertaken for religious reasons. Unless you can somehow argue that paying a company to do something is somehow a tax, you just blew your case out of the water.

The health insurance contraception requirement in no way discriminates against a religious belief or prohibits religious conduct; again, no Catholic is being forced to use a contraceptive or to have an abortion. Only non-Catholics or Catholics who elect to ignore such dogma will use contraceptive therapies. That the employer might have a religious objection is far too tenuous a connection to make a Free Exercise Clause violation claim.

It does, however, regulate an action that is undertaken for a religious reason, as you just pointed out.

A policy requiring employers provide health coverage that may include contraceptive therapies - which may or may not be used by employees - discriminates against no religion or religious belief. That an employer is associated with a religious entity whose dogma maintains contraception ‘wrong’ means that adherents of that faith must refrain from using contraceptive therapies, not the employees.

It actually discriminates against me personally on the basis of sex because, as a man, none of those contraceptives are available to me, yet I am still required to buy them. Can you possibly explain that one?

Didn't think so.

“To determine the object of a law, we must begin with its text, for the minimum requirement of neutrality is that a law not discriminate on its face. A law lacks facial neutrality if it refers to a religious practice without a secular meaning discernable from the language or context.”

What if it discriminates as applied? Just because the law passes muster in text does not mean it will pass muster in application, which is why the Plan B mandate in Washington was recently struck down even though the 0th ruled that, on its face, it is not discriminatory.

The policy requiring employers provide contraception health insurance has only a secular intent: the health of women; it is narrowly tailored to address only that issue, and it compels no Catholic to act in such a way that violates his religious belief.

Being pregnant is unhealthy? Really?

By the way, if the government was actually interested in people's health they would advise them to be celibate or monogamous. They would tell them right up front that no contraceptive is actually healthy because they all mess with a women's natural bodily functions. They would also admit that no epidemiologist in the world thinks condoms keep people safe. Since the government is full of people who are at least as smart as I am, I am pretty sure someone pointed this out at some point, and then got pulled aside and told to shut up. The real issue here is not health, it is convenience. It is inconvenient for women to pay for contraception, so the government wants to make things easier.

An employer paying for part or all of an employee’s health insurance premium is providing compensation for services rendered, the same as salaried compensation. No one would support an employer threatening to withhold an employee’s salary because he might use that compensation to purchase a contraceptive therapy that the employer considers ‘morally wrong.’ To support an employer withholding health insurance compensation for the same reason is equally unsupportable.

Funny how you can make that argument and not end up with cramps from the cross typing you have to do to avoid the truth.

Case law for the cited above:
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah

Just a question... If you can't afford the cost of contraception, how can you afford to raise a child?

You can’t – hence the need to include the coverage in one’s health insurance, so she doesn’t become pregnant, avoiding having the children she can’t afford.

Want to make a bet that, even if the mandate makes it through all the possible legal challenges, that abortion rates and unwanted pregnancies are still going to happen at the same rate?

Didn't think so.


By the way, once you check Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and find out that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act actually makes this contraception mandate illegal under federal law, feel free to pretend your position was always that the RFRA is what applies. I know you will anyway, you have every single time I actually used case law to trump your argument, and this is the worst you ever got anything.

 

[Rozman]

I am with you.

If you cant feed, house and take care of a baby you have no business having one.

Unless you live in the United States where you are rewarded for having
babies.The more babies the more Welfare assistance you receive.

 

[BluePhantom]

Actually it is not. Maybe in the past, arguably. Yet, Today we fight over everything from the definition of Marriage to when does Human Life start.

I am not saying we should not argue. I encourage constructive argument. But has government action on those topics done much of anything to change the opinions of the people? No. If the SCOTUS decides that gays have the right to marry will there be an increase in the number of gay partnerships? No. Will people who oppose gay marriage suddenly embrace it if the SCOTUS rules against their position? No. In fact they will likely make more of a ruckus than they are now. So the SCOTUS may settle the legal argument but they won't change anyone's mind in regards to the moral argument.

We see this effect all the time with things as simple as politically correctness. People may not use racial slurs as freely in public but behind closed doors they say whatever they want and I would argue that racial tension, the divide between genders, etc have actually increased as a result of politically correctness. People simply don't like to be told what they can and can't do and they really don't like being told what they can and can't believe (although an alarming number of people do exactly that).

You might want to consider the distinction between Principle, and Dogma. Principle has every place in a civilized Society, through Culture, and Law. Dogma, has none.

Perhaps I have not made my point clearly enough. That seems to be the point I am arguing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And as you get older and understand how the world actually works you will realize how stupid you sound. Either that or you'll turn into Barney Frank and move to P-town.

I have to admit, that's one of more inventive gay come-ons I've experienced.

Sorry though, I'm not.

Don't go away mad. Just go away until it's grown up time. When you pay your own bills you'll understand.

We all make presumptions, I've presumed from the two posts of yours that I read that you're a bigot and not very bright. And yes, I pay my bills and my taxes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am with you.

If you cant feed, house and take care of a baby you have no business having one.

Unless you live in the United States where you are rewarded for having
babies.The more babies the more Welfare assistance you receive.

That has not been true since TANF replaced AFDC. Try to keep up (or don't lie).

 

[rightwinger]

Contraception is about responsible parenthood. Why would Republicans choose to make it an issue in an election year is beyond me.

For some reason, anything having to do with sex puts them in a tizzy

 

[Wacky Quacky]

You know what I find funny about the whole argument of Catholics and birth control. The bible doesn't say a damn thing about it one way or the other. Not using birth control was probably dreamed up by a couple of guys in the Vatican that thought it would be a good way to fill pews. It has no basis in the christian faith.

There was another thread based around this topic were the question was asked; if I create a religion, get some followers, and then dream up some inane restrictions, would the government have to respect my asinine religious edicts?

 

[Wry Catcher]

For example, it's okay for you to impose your value, because you are special? In your own mind, maybe, outside of it, the word may take on a different meaning.

Neither government nor people should impose their values on anyone.

Idea Censorship is offensive to some, might want to consider the effects of what you advocate.

Ideas are fine. I am all for ideas. But when they are of a moral or religious nature it's not government's business. If you want to change society's morals you appeal to the hearts and minds of the people that are willing to listen and if they embrace it what you find to be immoral will eventually die out on it's own. Government forcing a moral or religious principle creates rebellion and in the end delays or prevents it being embraced by society. History is pretty clear on this one.

Actually it is not. Maybe in the past, arguably. Yet, Today we fight over everything from the definition of Marriage to when does Human Life start. You might want to consider the distinction between Principle, and Dogma. Principle has every place in a civilized Society, through Culture, and Law. Dogma, has none.

Legal codes enforce matters properly defined in philosophy as ethical or moral. "Thou shall not steal" is a moral imperative (or a Commandment from God) and codified in the Penal Code of all states. Government does enforce morality.

 

[BluePhantom]

Legal codes enforce matters properly defined in philosophy as ethical or moral. "Thou shall not steal" is a moral imperative (or a Commandment from God) and codified in the Penal Code of all states. Government does enforce morality.

Laws against theft and murder were around a long time before Moses wrote them on a rock. Did we forget that Moses was forced to flee Egypt for murdering someone? Theft is illegal not because it's necessarily immoral but because it infringes on the rights of others.