Birth Control and Penile Implants

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Do note, however, that the 1st Amendment doesn't specify that freedom of religion is something bestowed upon religious sects as a whole. It's an individual right, not a collective one. Each person is free to practice their religion as they see fit (so long as they aren't breaking the law, of course), and it's always been generally understood that the whole idea was that the government couldn't force people of ANY faith (in any number) to compromise that faith unduly. Otherwise you could force Jehovas Witnesses in elementary schools to participate in holiday celebrations, since you're not forcing "the religion itself" to do anything, only a few members who had the nerve to try and say that the 1st Amendment protects them in particular, and not just their religion as an organization.

The crux of the issue is what you feel is undue, not what you feel qualifies as a valid religious tenet or who you feel qualifies as a valid religious person/organization. If it were subject to those opinions, it wouldn't really protect -anything-, now would it? At any point popular opinion could decide that certain religions aren't covered. If that's how it's supposed to work, why specify that freedom at all? Just get it over with and choose a state religion.

 

[daveman]

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.

Wrong. You claimed the right supports government-paid penile implants.

Prove it.

 

[Polk]

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.

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Do note, however, that the 1st Amendment doesn't specify that freedom of religion is something bestowed upon religious sects as a whole. It's an individual right, not a collective one. Each person is free to practice their religion as they see fit (so long as they aren't breaking the law, of course), and it's always been generally understood that the whole idea was that the government couldn't force people of ANY faith (in any number) to compromise that faith unduly. Otherwise you could force Jehovas Witnesses in elementary schools to participate in holiday celebrations, since you're not forcing "the religion itself" to do anything, only a few members who had the nerve to try and say that the 1st Amendment protects them in particular, and not just their religion as an organization.

The crux of the issue is what you feel is undue, not what you feel qualifies as a valid religious tenet or who you feel qualifies as a valid religious person/organization. If it were subject to those opinions, it wouldn't really protect -anything-, now would it? At any point popular opinion could decide that certain religions aren't covered. If that's how it's supposed to work, why specify that freedom at all? Just get it over with and choose a state religion.

The part I highlighted in the rub, since your argument is that they should be free to break the law, by claiming the law is a violation of their religion. My point is that to read the First Amendment so broadly is to effectively nullify all laws.

 

[Polk]

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.

Wrong. You claimed the right supports government-paid penile implants.

Prove it.

Show me the protests against it.

 

[Si modo]

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

Wrong. You claimed the right supports government-paid penile implants.

Prove it.

Show me the protests against it.

Well, that wouldn't be much proof of anything.

If you claimed the right supports govt-paid penile implants, that burden is on YOU to support it.

You won't be able to support it, but that doesn't mean that burden isn't on you. And, until you DO support it, it can be taken as utter bullshit until you DO support it.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

Stop interjecting the phony issue of the use of bcp to treat legitimate medical problems -because that is covered by insurance. We are talking about bcp as a contraceptive.

Secondly -you have a serious sexual hang-up as evidence by your suggestion you find penile implants to be the equivalent as bcp! Maybe you really don't get this but the ability to have sexual intercourse -for men and women alike -as actually a normal body function and it is one a lot of people value quite highly for themselves. YOUR personal hang-up doesn't get to substitute for the value an individual places on it for him/herself. Clearly you are an agist and believe older people who suffer the loss of normal body function due to age, illness or injury -should have to suffer the loss of that body function for the rest of their lives. And all because YOU have a hang-up about it!

A penile implant to restore lost body function is no different than replacing a damaged knee with an artificial joint so the individual can be restored to near normal mobility -or getting an intraocular implant and cataract surgery to restore near normal vision again! The loss of mobility due to bad joints and the loss of vision due to the development of cataracts are also strongly correlated to the aging process. Aging itself is a normal process -the damage it does to the body is a natural occurrence-but not normal any more than having a stroke is "normal"! Measles are natural too -should we stop vaccines for that too and tell kids and pregnant women they are on their own for that too?

By picking out penile implants instead of artificial knees is you revealing just how deep your sexual hang-up really is! That is nothing but your own ARROGANT demand we start distinguishing between the types of body functions medical treatment will be allowed to restore to near normal again because you think YOUR personal value judgment about the value of a particular body function must replace that of the individual! And you are in reality claiming a right to tell some people they will never be allowed to have a normal or near normal sex life again! Who the hell do you think you are?

What, you think because a woman is beyond her childbearing years her partner must forfeit his own sex life (and to hell with the fact it also forces her to forfeit her own along with his)? Suddenly liberals are PURISTS and think sex is all about producing CHILDREN now and anyone too old to bear or want to raise children you get to tell may never have a normal sex life for the rest of their lives? Who said your sexual and agist hang-ups will replace the value an individual places on his/her own sex life and whether they can receive medical treatment to try and restore it to as near normal as possible??

I hate to break the news to you -but there are a lot of old people who really value their sex lives. My 86 yr. father-in-law was still having sex to the day he died -and he was having it with his 80 year old girlfriend and next door neighbor and it was no one's business but their own. He was the kind of man who strongly valued it and if impaired due to illness, medication etc. I promise, he would have sought medical treatment for it. Whether YOU have a hang-up about that or not, whether the idea makes you go "eww" or not.

The purpose of medical treatment is to RESTORE an individual to as near normal function as possible and when it isn't possible, give that individual the highest quality of life in light of irreparable damage.

ABSOLUTELY health insurance should cover penile implants -the people who need them are suffering from an IMPAIRMENT of a previously normal body function and it is one they have every right to try and get restored to as near normal! Medical treatment is capable of addressing that impairment and restoring impaired body functions is the entire point of medical care! It is passing judgment that isn't YOURS to make when insisting the individual cannot be allowed to determine the value of a particular body function because YOU have a sexual and agist hang-up! The value of that body function is up to the individual to make -NEVER yours! Some people choose not to have knee replacements, some choose not to have cataract surgery, some choose not to have penile implant. But for those who WANT these body functions in better shape, it is THEIR call to make -not yours. And NO birth control pills are NOT the equivalent on any level when used as a contraceptive! The former is used to restore near normal function. The second is to relieve a woman's concern that if she has sex her NORMAL body function will result in pregnancy. She isn't suffering from any IMPAIRMENT.

 

[Polk]

Wrong. You claimed the right supports government-paid penile implants.

Prove it.

Show me the protests against it.

Well, that wouldn't be much proof of anything.

If you claimed the right supports govt-paid penile implants, that burden is on YOU to support it.

You won't be able to support it, but that doesn't mean that burden isn't on you. And, until you DO support it, it can be taken as utter bullshit until you DO support it.

If the right is so against it, why are they never protesting against it like they protest against birth control? It's the same load of crap where your side claims they were really angry about Bush's spending, but mysteriously never said anything the entire time he was in office.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Do note, however, that the 1st Amendment doesn't specify that freedom of religion is something bestowed upon religious sects as a whole. It's an individual right, not a collective one. Each person is free to practice their religion as they see fit (so long as they aren't breaking the law, of course), and it's always been generally understood that the whole idea was that the government couldn't force people of ANY faith (in any number) to compromise that faith unduly. Otherwise you could force Jehovas Witnesses in elementary schools to participate in holiday celebrations, since you're not forcing "the religion itself" to do anything, only a few members who had the nerve to try and say that the 1st Amendment protects them in particular, and not just their religion as an organization.

The crux of the issue is what you feel is undue, not what you feel qualifies as a valid religious tenet or who you feel qualifies as a valid religious person/organization. If it were subject to those opinions, it wouldn't really protect -anything-, now would it? At any point popular opinion could decide that certain religions aren't covered. If that's how it's supposed to work, why specify that freedom at all? Just get it over with and choose a state religion.

The part I highlighted in the rub, since your argument is that they should be free to break the law, by claiming the law is a violation of their religion. My point is that to read the First Amendment so broadly is to effectively nullify all laws.

I understand that that's your point, my point in that first paragraph was to dispute that exact point. Due to the fact that this law makes a crime out of an action that is victimless, viewing this law as an infringement upon the 1st Amendment is -not- necessarily the same as viewing freedom of religion so broadly as to make it an excuse to break -any- law. Most laws that trump religious freedom have victims, after all (human sacrifice, for instance).

 

[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.

Stop interjecting the phony issue of the use of bcp to treat legitimate medical problems -because that is covered by insurance. We are talking about bcp as a contraceptive.

Secondly -you have a serious sexual hang-up as evidence by your suggestion you find penile implants to be the equivalent as bcp! Maybe you really don't get this but the ability to have sexual intercourse -for men and women alike -as actually a normal body function and it is one a lot of people value quite highly for themselves. YOUR personal hang-up doesn't get to substitute for the value an individual places on it for him/herself. Clearly you are an agist and believe older people who suffer the loss of normal body function due to age, illness or injury -should have to suffer the loss of that body function for the rest of their lives. And all because YOU have a hang-up about it!

A penile implant to restore lost body function is no different than replacing a damaged knee with an artificial joint so the individual can be restored to near normal mobility -or getting an intraocular implant and cataract surgery to restore near normal vision again! The loss of mobility due to bad joints and the loss of vision due to the development of cataracts are also strongly correlated to the aging process. Aging itself is a normal process -the damage it does to the body is a natural occurrence-but not normal any more than having a stroke is "normal"! Measles are natural too -should we stop vaccines for that too and tell kids and pregnant women they are on their own for that too?

By picking out penile implants instead of artificial knees is you revealing just how deep your sexual hang-up really is! That is nothing but your own ARROGANT demand we start distinguishing between the types of body functions medical treatment will be allowed to restore to near normal again because you think YOUR personal value judgment about the value of a particular body function must replace that of the individual! And you are in reality claiming a right to tell some people they will never be allowed to have a normal or near normal sex life again! Who the hell do you think you are?

What, you think because a woman is beyond her childbearing years her partner must forfeit his own sex life (and to hell with the fact it also forces her to forfeit her own along with his)? Suddenly liberals are PURISTS and think sex is all about producing CHILDREN now and anyone too old to bear or want to raise children you get to tell may never have a normal sex life for the rest of their lives? Who said your sexual and agist hang-ups will replace the value an individual places on his/her own sex life and whether they can receive medical treatment to try and restore it to as near normal as possible??

I hate to break the news to you -but there are a lot of old people who really value their sex lives. My 86 yr. father-in-law was still having sex to the day he died -and he was having it with his 80 year old girlfriend and next door neighbor and it was no one's business but their own. He was the kind of man who strongly valued it and if impaired due to illness, medication etc. I promise, he would have sought medical treatment for it. Whether YOU have a hang-up about that or not, whether the idea makes you go "eww" or not.

The purpose of medical treatment is to RESTORE an individual to as near normal function as possible and when it isn't possible, give that individual the highest quality of life in light of irreparable damage.

ABSOLUTELY health insurance should cover penile implants -the people who need them are suffering from an IMPAIRMENT of a previously normal body function and it is one they have every right to try and get restored to as near normal! Medical treatment is capable of addressing that impairment and restoring impaired body functions is the entire point of medical care! It is passing judgment that isn't YOURS to make when insisting the individual cannot be allowed to determine the value of a particular body function because YOU have a sexual and agist hang-up! The value of that body function is up to the individual to make -NEVER yours! Some people choose not to have knee replacements, some choose not to have cataract surgery, some choose not to have penile implant. But for those who WANT these body functions in better shape, it is THEIR call to make -not yours. And NO birth control pills are NOT the equivalent on any level when used as a contraceptive! The former is used to restore near normal function. The second is to relieve a woman's concern that if she has sex her NORMAL body function will result in pregnancy. She isn't suffering from any IMPAIRMENT.

It's not a phony issue. Your side has been protesting birth control coverage in general. And I'm going to guess the reason you care so much about penile implants isn't some great argument about age and full use of your body, and more about having a penis and therefore wanting to make sure your use of it is protected.

 

[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.

Stop interjecting the phony issue of the use of bcp to treat legitimate medical problems -because that is covered by insurance. We are talking about bcp as a contraceptive.

Secondly -you have a serious sexual hang-up as evidence by your suggestion you find penile implants to be the equivalent as bcp! Maybe you really don't get this but the ability to have sexual intercourse -for men and women alike -as actually a normal body function and it is one a lot of people value quite highly for themselves. YOUR personal hang-up doesn't get to substitute for the value an individual places on it for him/herself. Clearly you are an agist and believe older people who suffer the loss of normal body function due to age, illness or injury -should have to suffer the loss of that body function for the rest of their lives. And all because YOU have a hang-up about it!

A penile implant to restore lost body function is no different than replacing a damaged knee with an artificial joint so the individual can be restored to near normal mobility -or getting an intraocular implant and cataract surgery to restore near normal vision again! The loss of mobility due to bad joints and the loss of vision due to the development of cataracts are also strongly correlated to the aging process. Aging itself is a normal process -the damage it does to the body is a natural occurrence-but not normal any more than having a stroke is "normal"! Measles are natural too -should we stop vaccines for that too and tell kids and pregnant women they are on their own for that too?

By picking out penile implants instead of artificial knees is you revealing just how deep your sexual hang-up really is! That is nothing but your own ARROGANT demand we start distinguishing between the types of body functions medical treatment will be allowed to restore to near normal again because you think YOUR personal value judgment about the value of a particular body function must replace that of the individual! And you are in reality claiming a right to tell some people they will never be allowed to have a normal or near normal sex life again! Who the hell do you think you are?

What, you think because a woman is beyond her childbearing years her partner must forfeit his own sex life (and to hell with the fact it also forces her to forfeit her own along with his)? Suddenly liberals are PURISTS and think sex is all about producing CHILDREN now and anyone too old to bear or want to raise children you get to tell may never have a normal sex life for the rest of their lives? Who said your sexual and agist hang-ups will replace the value an individual places on his/her own sex life and whether they can receive medical treatment to try and restore it to as near normal as possible??

I hate to break the news to you -but there are a lot of old people who really value their sex lives. My 86 yr. father-in-law was still having sex to the day he died -and he was having it with his 80 year old girlfriend and next door neighbor and it was no one's business but their own. He was the kind of man who strongly valued it and if impaired due to illness, medication etc. I promise, he would have sought medical treatment for it. Whether YOU have a hang-up about that or not, whether the idea makes you go "eww" or not.

The purpose of medical treatment is to RESTORE an individual to as near normal function as possible and when it isn't possible, give that individual the highest quality of life in light of irreparable damage.

ABSOLUTELY health insurance should cover penile implants -the people who need them are suffering from an IMPAIRMENT of a previously normal body function and it is one they have every right to try and get restored to as near normal! Medical treatment is capable of addressing that impairment and restoring impaired body functions is the entire point of medical care! It is passing judgment that isn't YOURS to make when insisting the individual cannot be allowed to determine the value of a particular body function because YOU have a sexual and agist hang-up! The value of that body function is up to the individual to make -NEVER yours! Some people choose not to have knee replacements, some choose not to have cataract surgery, some choose not to have penile implant. But for those who WANT these body functions in better shape, it is THEIR call to make -not yours. And NO birth control pills are NOT the equivalent on any level when used as a contraceptive! The former is used to restore near normal function. The second is to relieve a woman's concern that if she has sex her NORMAL body function will result in pregnancy. She isn't suffering from any IMPAIRMENT.

It's not a phony issue. Your side has been protesting birth control coverage in general.

General views by those who disagree with this legislation don't positively or negatively affect the validity of the particular gripes against it. Each point stands on its own merit, regardless of who's been protesting what.

 

[Si modo]

Show me the protests against it.

Well, that wouldn't be much proof of anything.

If you claimed the right supports govt-paid penile implants, that burden is on YOU to support it.

You won't be able to support it, but that doesn't mean that burden isn't on you. And, until you DO support it, it can be taken as utter bullshit until you DO support it.

If the right is so against it, why are they never protesting against it like they protest against birth control? It's the same load of crap where your side claims they were really angry about Bush's spending, but mysteriously never said anything the entire time he was in office.

YOU made the claim; the burden is on you.

It's bullshit.

Move on or carry on and look like a moron, though.

 

[Polk]

Well, that wouldn't be much proof of anything.

If you claimed the right supports govt-paid penile implants, that burden is on YOU to support it.

You won't be able to support it, but that doesn't mean that burden isn't on you. And, until you DO support it, it can be taken as utter bullshit until you DO support it.

If the right is so against it, why are they never protesting against it like they protest against birth control? It's the same load of crap where your side claims they were really angry about Bush's spending, but mysteriously never said anything the entire time he was in office.

YOU made the claim; the burden is on you.

It's bullshit.

Move on or carry on and look like a moron, though.

Why is it bullshit? Hell, your side has had this entire thread to voice opposition to it and not a single person has done so.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If the right is so against it, why are they never protesting against it like they protest against birth control? It's the same load of crap where your side claims they were really angry about Bush's spending, but mysteriously never said anything the entire time he was in office.

YOU made the claim; the burden is on you.

It's bullshit.

Move on or carry on and look like a moron, though.

Why is it bullshit? Hell, your side has had this entire thread to voice opposition to it and not a single person has done so.

As always, there are exceptions, but "the right" not being in support of government provided penile implants seems fairly intuitive. The general theme on the right is anti-government aid, why should penis products be any different?

Edit: Scratch that one. Self-ID mix up. Sometimes when I argue with a leftist I forget that right and libertarian aren't really the same thing, and vice versa when I argue with a repub.

Edit 2: Then again, most republicans are against government health care in general, so maybe the initial statement -does- stand to reason, sporadic republican support of bailouts notwithstanding.

 

[Si modo]

If the right is so against it, why are they never protesting against it like they protest against birth control? It's the same load of crap where your side claims they were really angry about Bush's spending, but mysteriously never said anything the entire time he was in office.

YOU made the claim; the burden is on you.

It's bullshit.

Move on or carry on and look like a moron, though.

Why is it bullshit? Hell, your side has had this entire thread to voice opposition to it and not a single person has done so.

Ummm, because you haven't supported a claim you made so it can be anything the reader wants it to be.



It's called simple burden.

 

[Polk]

Not a single voice of opposition, even after being given the chance to denounce it repeatedly, and yet people are supposed to believe you're firmly opposed?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Not a single voice of opposition, even after being given the chance to denounce it repeatedly, and yet people are supposed to believe you're firmly opposed?

So if those of us who are constantly banging the drum of self-responsibility and the right to do as one sees fit with ones own acquired wealth rather than letting the government spend it on what they deem as necessities don't specifically enumerate penile implants amongst the shit that we don't feel it's the taxpayers' responsibility to provide, then that means we're sexist and we just want to control women and control the bedroom?

Quite a stretch, don't you think?

 

[Si modo]

Not a single voice of opposition, even after being given the chance to denounce it repeatedly, and yet people are supposed to believe you're firmly opposed?

Moron.

 

[Ravi]

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

That is very interesting. So all this blather about charity hospitals going out of business was just, well, blather?

 

[frazzledgear]

It's not a phony issue. Your side has been protesting birth control coverage in general. And I'm going to guess the reason you care so much about penile implants isn't some great argument about age and full use of your body, and more about having a penis and therefore wanting to make sure your use of it is protected.

No -people aren't objecting to any company CHOOSING to cover birth control pills -so don't make it up, ok? Also when you compare birth control pills to penile implants, viagra etc, it is setting up a totally FALSE COMPARISON. Not everything that involves sex is equal! Penile implants and viagra are to restore lost body function -which is the purpose of medical treatment. Birth control pills are used to deliberately impair normal body function.

Stop twisting the real issues here! If some insurance company wants to offer a plan that includes birth control pills -have at it. If some business wants an insurance plan where birth control pills are includes -again, have at it! That is NOT what people are opposing! What some private company and their employees hash out for a plan that best suits the needs of those employees -is their business. But for government to ORDER any business, any company and any religious institution that they MUST include birth control pills in a one-size-fits-all-the-hell-with-the-fact-it-will-mean-something-else-won't-be-covered-so-it-remains-affordable -is wrong. IT IS WRONG. First of all the STUPID notion that a one-size-fits-all is in EVERYONE'S best interests is both ARROGANT and monumentally STUPID! But aside from which government has NO business deciding what the terms of ANY private health insurance policy will cover! Whether an insurance plan covers it or not is up to individuals who buy their plan on their own - and up to companies who offer insurance to their employees. PERIOD. It is NOT up to GOVERNMENT and it is NOT a valid federal issue whatsoever! It is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment for government to FORCE religious institutions to offer something that violates the tenets of their own religion! THAT is what people oppose! It is a violation by government to force anyone to foot the bill for something they find morally objectionable but a constitutional violation to force people to violate their own religious beliefs to do so! If you think government stands a chance of winning the lawsuit brought against it for trying to force religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own religion and be forced to foot the bill for "free" birth control pills -then you haven't bothered to research who wins past lawsuits claiming government violation of the 1st Amendment! Government will NOT win this -and interesting the leftist media once again couldn't really be bothered to do their job by reporting on the historic nature of the lawsuit which only happens to be THE largest lawsuit claiming religious violation by government in our history! Think they would have made it a major story for months if the Bush government were being sued in the largest lawsuit of its kind in our history? We'd STILL be hearing about it! ROFL

Religious freedom does NOT just mean a right to hold particular beliefs -but to actually live and exist in accordance with those beliefs. And here comes the most leftwing extremist President since Wilson insisting religious institutions have no right to do so. He isn't going to win this one! Nor should he. Were you aware Obama tried to impose another order giving government the "right" to decide who was and was not a legitimate minister of any particular religion? Were you aware that was struck down in a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling? OF COURSE NOT -because the liberal lapdog media is bound and determined to filter any information from people that makes Obama look bad and most of all, avoid reporting anything that may damage his ability to move his extremist agenda along. Now why do you think Obama also wanted to claim a power for government to decide who would and would not be considered a real minister/priest for any religion -and not the religion itself? What was behind THAT sneaky ass little dictator move on his part? Were you aware of the fact the 1st Amendment was intended to protect religions from JUST THIS KIND of government abuse? Were you aware the founders did not try to protect government from religion -but intended to protect religions and the religious from government! They knew full well the power hungry had no qualms about perverting and and using religions in order to further entrench their own power! This narcissistic man harbors ambitions of running a dictatorship and has far more in common with Hugo Chavez and Castro than he ever did with George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Seriously -can you possibly explain why if government was going to FORCE private businesses to cover something for "free" (which is never free), why not some life-saving procedure? Why not some promising experimental treatment? Who is Obama pandering to by an ORDER from government FORCING companies to cover bcp for "free"? Where are the legitimate grounds for government to claim it has an interest in shifting the cost of birth control pills from those who want them to those who don't? Hmm? What grounds are being used to insist those who want birth control pills should get both the pills AND keep their money -but those who didn't want them in the first place, get neither the pills nor their money?

That is what people are objecting to -the clear over reach by government on this issue. Which is entirely done for political game play and NOTHING MORE. I find it SHOCKING that we have people in this country who place so little value on the religious freedom of OTHERS they would gladly sell their rights down the river for ******* $9/mo pack of birth control pills! It is why I keep saying -liberals can NEVER be trusted to protect our real rights because they won't and they don't. Instead they deceive people insisting real rights aren't that which protect us from an overreaching, abusive government -but just whatever goods and services produced by others we happen to covet today.

 

[Ravi]

Contraception is a valid medical issue, nutball.