obama caves again

[Synthaholic]

you might want to turn that around ask yourself why is it obama wants to mandate others morals...?

Is child labor immoral?

Start a thread if you're interested...

Otherwise, **** off, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, dickwad...

Obviously, you are afraid of the question.

 

[del]

Personally I think that giving women equal coverage for preventative health care is important and making laws to pander to a religion is un-American.

But a lot of stupid people only care about stupid laws that legislate their moral views.

personally, i find it difficult to equate birth control with preventive health care.

i guess i'm stupid since i see this as a first amendment issue and not a moral one

i'll endeavor to persevere, nonetheless

we know its a struggle...

projecting is so 90's

 

[Synthaholic]

thats fine, but why do we have to pay for your fun? and why force someone who doesn't believe in it, to provide it to you?

Doesn't health insurance cover Viagra?

Sometimes.

Yup! Thanks!

 

[Dr.House]

Is child labor immoral?

Start a thread if you're interested...

Otherwise, **** off, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, dickwad...

Obviously, you are afraid of the question.

Obviously you're an idiot...

The question is unrelated to the topic...

 

[del]

That's fine, but I would like to be able to have sex with my husband for fun and not just to have kids. Not only would MY health suffer if I got pregnant every time, but so would the health of my kids.

But hey, I've never been a perfect Catholic.

And I'm kind of mystified at your old fashioned attitude.

I'll get over it, though.

i don't care who does or doesn't use birth control.

i've got a teensy problem with the govt forcing churches to supply it against their beliefs.

i guess i'm old fashioned that way.

He wasn't forcing churches. Churches already had an exemption.

But when churches want to delve into insurance, hospitals, and other secular industries, they have to follow the rules that everyone else does.

apparently not, according to mr obama

try again

 

[Amelia]

Obama's Birth Control Compromise Is Actually Pretty Good

Should birth control be covered by health insurance?

From the first link:

The White House has released the details of the compromise — as reported earlier, religious organizations will not have to pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees.

That's baloney. Besides the simple fact that nothing is free and the costs will be passed on to employers, many Catholic institutions are self-insured. So religious organizations will still be paying for contraceptive coverage.

That's their choice. Insurance is not in the bible, and is not a religious tenet.

I don't understand your point. My point is that when Obama forces the insurance providers to pay for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients, he's still forcing Catholic institutions to pay for things which they believe to be contrary to the will of God.

The shift from employer to insurer does not solve the first amendment problem when the insurer is the Catholic church.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bill Maher had an interesting take on this: that this was done on purpose by Obama to, first, change the subject from the economy to social issues that were settled years ago (contraceptives), and second, to get the clown car to over-reach and come out against a woman's choice to control their reproductive rights.

He may be right.

 

[Amelia]

Obama's Birth Control Compromise Is Actually Pretty Good

Should birth control be covered by health insurance?

From the first link:

The White House has released the details of the compromise — as reported earlier, religious organizations will not have to pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees.

That's baloney. Besides the simple fact that nothing is free and the costs will be passed on to employers, many Catholic institutions are self-insured. So religious organizations will still be paying for contraceptive coverage.

That's their choice. Insurance is not in the bible, and is not a religious tenet.

If that's all there is to it, then why didn't Obama stand his ground and force the Catholic hospitals and schools and so on to pay for it. He's exempting multiple Catholic-affiliated groups out of respect for the principle of conscience, but not exempting Catholic-affiliated insurers?

What justifies that arbitrary line? Why does one Catholic-affiliated group qualify for first amendment protection but another not?

 

[del]

Bill Maher had an interesting take on this: that this was done on purpose by Obama to, first, change the subject from the economy to social issues that were settled years ago (contraceptives), and second, to get the clown car to over-reach and come out against a woman's choice to control their reproductive rights.

He may be right.

and monkeys may fly out of my ass, but i'm not waiting up nights

little known trivia: bill maher actually played the shark that fonzie jumped over

 

[Dr.House]

Bill Maher had an interesting take on this: that this was done on purpose by Obama to, first, change the subject from the economy to social issues that were settled years ago (contraceptives), and second, to get the clown car to over-reach and come out against a woman's choice to control their reproductive rights.

He may be right.

Bill Maher never had an interesting take on any topic...

It comes as no surprise that you'd think he did...

 

[Dr.House]

Bill Maher had an interesting take on this: that this was done on purpose by Obama to, first, change the subject from the economy to social issues that were settled years ago (contraceptives), and second, to get the clown car to over-reach and come out against a woman's choice to control their reproductive rights.

He may be right.

and monkeys may fly out of my ass, but i'm not waiting up nights

little known trivia: bill maher actually played the shark that fonzie jumped over

THAT was funneh...

 

[Synthaholic]

Start a thread if you're interested...

Otherwise, **** off, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, dickwad...

Obviously, you are afraid of the question.

Obviously you're an idiot...

The question is unrelated to the topic...

Why? You brought up morals. Newtie wants to put children to work. Mandated child labor is immoral.

Now get back to filling that tissue! Think of California Girl, if that helps.

 

[Synthaholic]

From the first link:


That's baloney. Besides the simple fact that nothing is free and the costs will be passed on to employers, many Catholic institutions are self-insured. So religious organizations will still be paying for contraceptive coverage.

That's their choice. Insurance is not in the bible, and is not a religious tenet.

I don't understand your point. My point is that when Obama forces the insurance providers to pay for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients, he's still forcing Catholic institutions to pay for things which they believe to be contrary to the will of God.

The shift from employer to insurer does not solve the first amendment problem when the insurer is the Catholic church.

Then the Catholic church should get out of the insurance business. Problem solved.

 

[Synthaholic]

From the first link:


That's baloney. Besides the simple fact that nothing is free and the costs will be passed on to employers, many Catholic institutions are self-insured. So religious organizations will still be paying for contraceptive coverage.

That's their choice. Insurance is not in the bible, and is not a religious tenet.

If that's all there is to it, then why didn't Obama stand his ground and force the Catholic hospitals and schools and so on to pay for it. He's exempting multiple Catholic-affiliated groups out of respect for the principle of conscience, but not exempting Catholic-affiliated insurers?

What justifies that arbitrary line? Why does one Catholic-affiliated group qualify for first amendment protection but another not?

The end result is that these women will now be covered like everyone else, with no co-pay, and will not be discriminated against because of where they work.

Obamacares about results, not process.

 

[del]

That's their choice. Insurance is not in the bible, and is not a religious tenet.

If that's all there is to it, then why didn't Obama stand his ground and force the Catholic hospitals and schools and so on to pay for it. He's exempting multiple Catholic-affiliated groups out of respect for the principle of conscience, but not exempting Catholic-affiliated insurers?

What justifies that arbitrary line? Why does one Catholic-affiliated group qualify for first amendment protection but another not?

The end result is that these women will now be covered like everyone else, with no co-pay, and will not be discriminated against because of where they work.

Obamacares about results, not process.

nor the constitution, apparently

 

[Dr.House]

Obviously, you are afraid of the question.

Obviously you're an idiot...

The question is unrelated to the topic...

Why? You brought up morals. Newtie wants to put children to work. Mandated child labor is immoral.

Now get back to filling that tissue! Think of California Girl, if that helps.

So you admit you are afraid of the question, huh Synthaholic?

 

[Amelia]

That's their choice. Insurance is not in the bible, and is not a religious tenet.

If that's all there is to it, then why didn't Obama stand his ground and force the Catholic hospitals and schools and so on to pay for it. He's exempting multiple Catholic-affiliated groups out of respect for the principle of conscience, but not exempting Catholic-affiliated insurers?

What justifies that arbitrary line? Why does one Catholic-affiliated group qualify for first amendment protection but another not?

The end result is that these women will now be covered like everyone else, with no co-pay, and will not be discriminated against because of where they work.

Obamacares about results, not process.

That's all well and good ... except for where it violates the Constitution.

The end does not justify the means.




edit: what Del said.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bill Maher had an interesting take on this: that this was done on purpose by Obama to, first, change the subject from the economy to social issues that were settled years ago (contraceptives), and second, to get the clown car to over-reach and come out against a woman's choice to control their reproductive rights.

He may be right.

and monkeys may fly out of my ass, but i'm not waiting up nights

little known trivia: bill maher actually played the shark that fonzie jumped over

You don't think Obama will highlight the GOP nominee's stance against birth control in the general? Because they are all on record as supporting Mississippi's 'Personhood' legislation that failed as too extreme - in Mississippi!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

If that's all there is to it, then why didn't Obama stand his ground and force the Catholic hospitals and schools and so on to pay for it. He's exempting multiple Catholic-affiliated groups out of respect for the principle of conscience, but not exempting Catholic-affiliated insurers?

What justifies that arbitrary line? Why does one Catholic-affiliated group qualify for first amendment protection but another not?

The end result is that these women will now be covered like everyone else, with no co-pay, and will not be discriminated against because of where they work.

Obamacares about results, not process.

nor the constitution, apparently

What is un-Constitutional? Obamacares is law.

 

[Dr.House]

If that's all there is to it, then why didn't Obama stand his ground and force the Catholic hospitals and schools and so on to pay for it. He's exempting multiple Catholic-affiliated groups out of respect for the principle of conscience, but not exempting Catholic-affiliated insurers?

What justifies that arbitrary line? Why does one Catholic-affiliated group qualify for first amendment protection but another not?

The end result is that these women will now be covered like everyone else, with no co-pay, and will not be discriminated against because of where they work.

Obamacares about results, not process.

nor the constitution, apparently