You Don't Own Me

[Inthemiddle]

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

And yet you still can't seem to comprehend that when you demand that they pay for it, you're making it their business.

It's truly astounding the you believe they owe it to you to pay for everything, but not ask questions or make decisions. I'd love to know what in the hell kind of household you grew up in. You just told daddy to fork over the cash like he was an ATM machine while you would just makes all of a the decisions?!? Is that how it worked?!?

Sorry, these books are filed under the Dewey Decimal system. You're looking for that section over there where everything is arranged by alphabetical order of the author's last name.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not agreeing with someone's choice does not equate with justifying government intervention in prohibiting it.

I have no problem with someone making the decision about bringing a child into the world who will always need help. I also have no problem with someone making the opposite decision.

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

I agree that it is none of government's business. So, why would I want a way to let government into such a decision by supporting a government controlled health care system, for example?

That seems contradictory.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a slippery synaptic slope.

Not if we understand English.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You mean demands by 36 year old coeds that Obama's fascist care mandate the Catholic church pay for contraceptives and abortions or face prison?

That is really all the church is looking for the right to do, buy insurance policies for their employees that do not cover birth control. They should be allowed to do so.

1. Churches are already exempt from the contraceptive requirements of the law.

2. In reference to the "Coeds", you realize that at the time Georgetown University was ALREADY offering contraceptive coverage for employees.

3. There are already 28 states that require contraceptive coverage, some exempt only the Church themselves - are there no Catholic Universities and Hospitals in those states?



[DISCLAIMER: I'm a Republican and want ObamaCare repealed. The argument shouldn't whether Churches should be exempt (they should), the argument ought to be that whats included or excluded should be between the insurance carrier and the individual owner of the policy (in the vast majority of cases that being employer who contracts for the policy and pays the vast majority of premiums).]



>>>>

[*]According to the IRS, Georgetown is a church. According to Obamacare, it isn't. The government cannot define what is, and is not, a church according to how it wants to treat the organization.

Really, show us the document from the IRS that classifies Georgetown University as a Church.

[*]According to the IRS, Georgetown is a church. According to Obamacare, it isn't. The government cannot define what is, and is not, a church according to how it wants to treat the organization.

According to Georgetown University they classify themselves as a University.

"Georgetown University is one of the world’s leading academic and research institutions, offering a unique educational experience that prepares the next generation of global citizens to lead and make a difference in the world. We are a vibrant community of exceptional students, faculty, alumni and professionals dedicated to real-world applications of our research, scholarship, faith and service.

Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. Drawing upon this legacy, we provide students with a world-class learning experience focused on educating the whole person through exposure to different faiths, cultures and beliefs. With our Jesuit values and location in Washington, D.C., Georgetown offers students a distinct opportunity to learn, experience and understand more about the world." About - Georgetown University​

[*]That is the first time I ever heard that claim. Even if it is true, so what? Should a college be required to supply students with the same insurance coverage it supplies its employees? Does any college anywhere in America actually do that, or do they all limit their liability for student medical coverage?

http://benefits.georgetown.edu/health/medical/aetnappo/GU FI_PPO Plan Design 2013 FINAL.pdf

It's true, it just goes to show that the claim that Catholic organizations (such as Georgetown University) will not provide contraceptive coverage, yet Georgetown University as a Catholic organization does.

My opinion is that there should be no exception for religious organizations because that cedes that government has the authority to mandate if for everyone else. My opinion is that the government should not mandate what is or isn't covered in a private insurance contract between the insurance carrier and the policy holder (which in this case was GU).

[*]As has been pointed out more than once by me, none of those coverage requirements are as onerous as the federal regulation DHS proposed. I recall specifically going over this with you, and you bugging out like a scalded puppy.

I don't remember you reviewing it with me, however the facts I linked to in a post in this thread show that there are states that require contraceptive coverage some provide religious exemption, some provide exemptions for Church organizations only (i.e. not hospitals and universities), and some have no exceptions at all. Are there still Catholic Hospitals and Universities in those states? I'm thinking the answer would be yes.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf

As for your disclaimer, since you can't stick to actual facts, I don;t believe it.

I deal in facts.

Fact #1 - Georgetown University is not a Church per their own perspective, they are a University and an Institution of Higher Education.

Fact #2 - Georgetown University as a Catholic University offers contraceptive coverage to it's employees.

Fact #3 - There are already states that mandate contraceptive coverage in their laws.

Fact #4 - Well OK, this isn't a fact, it's my opinion. What is included or excluded in an insurance policy ought to be up to the insurance carrier and the policy holder and not a function of government. (Freedom can be messy, sometimes people need to get over it and move on.)

>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

It doesn't matter that they aren't a church. If they object to providing birth control, they should not be obliged to do so. Screw mandated insurance coverage, it's been destroying this country since the first laws mandating car insurance were passed.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Not only is Mitt gonna' take yer Birth Control, he's gonna send all you "pleasingly plump" girls to Fat Camp.

 

[Immanuel]

It doesn't matter that they aren't a church. If they object to providing birth control, they should not be obliged to do so. Screw mandated insurance coverage, it's been destroying this country since the first laws mandating car insurance were passed.

Amen!

Hell, they could be McDonald's and if they don't want to provide coverage for birth control they should not be forced to do so.

Immie

 

[jillian]

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

And yet you still can't seem to comprehend that when you demand that they pay for it, you're making it their business.

It's truly astounding the you believe they owe it to you to pay for everything, but not ask questions or make decisions. I'd love to know what in the hell kind of household you grew up in. You just told daddy to fork over the cash like he was an ATM machine while you would just makes all of a the decisions?!? Is that how it worked?!?

When have I demanded government pay for it?

And why, just tossing this out there, should government pay for the obesity, diabetes and other diseases hat we pay for b/c some jerk has to drink 30 oz of sugar water every day

 

[Trajan]

No, I don't, but it's a great question. How does that reconcile with folks getting an abortion because they found out the fetus has Down syndrome?

I don't like either idea, tbh. But, there are plenty of laws I don't like (ie. the death penalty).

Odd, huh?

thx Si, yes it is curious and posits a conundrum too, in that IF one says no , they there by acknowledge, there is a restriction on the 'use of their bodies' and, I think it follows, the restriction would have to come from the gov......


also, how about;

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites?

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites? | Practical Ethics

Not agreeing with someone's choice does not equate with justifying government intervention in prohibiting it.

I have no problem with someone making the decision about bringing a child into the world who will always need help. I also have no problem with someone making the opposite decision.

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

do you support sex selective abortion?


thats what I asked and what that post is referring to aside from the last link....

 

[Trajan]

No, I don't, but it's a great question. How does that reconcile with folks getting an abortion because they found out the fetus has Down syndrome?

I don't like either idea, tbh. But, there are plenty of laws I don't like (ie. the death penalty).

Odd, huh?

thx Si, yes it is curious and posits a conundrum too, in that IF one says no , they there by acknowledge, there is a restriction on the 'use of their bodies' and, I think it follows, the restriction would have to come from the gov......


also, how about;

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites?

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites? | Practical Ethics

There is a difference between supporting abortion and supporting individual choice.

here I will make it dreadfully simple- do you support the right(s) of someone making a decision to abort based on the fetus's sex, yes, or no?