Obama's assault on religion is beginning

[johnnyrodgers20]

First off, you explain to me how you know this to be true, take it step by step. Have you talked to all the people who feel this is a war on tehir religion? Or maybe you did a poll, can we see the results? I think you are trying to read other peoples' mind again, I guess you should probably stop until you get better at it.

 

Only people trying to score political points are trying to paint it as a war on religion. Same song, next verse.

 

And what do you mean by it is about Catholic AFFLIATED employers. My undertsanding is that all Catholic institutions MUST provide reproductive health care. Can you define affliated employer?

[knapplc]

I do believe Cactus was the first to predict this openly in this thread. Everyone can calm down now. The assault has been called off.

 

 

Obama announces contraception compromise

 

 

 

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama announced a compromise Friday in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.

 

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

 

Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage -- a continuation of current law.

 

There will be a one-year transition period for religious organizations after the policy formally takes effect on August 1.

 

"No woman's health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes." Obama said at the White House. But "the principle of religious liberty" is also at stake. "As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right."

[carlfense]

First off, you explain to me how you know this to be true, take it step by step. Have you talked to all the people who feel this is a war on tehir religion? Or maybe you did a poll, can we see the results? I think you are trying to read other peoples' mind again, I guess you should probably stop until you get better at it.

 

And what do you mean by it is about Catholic AFFLIATED employers. My undertsanding is that all Catholic institutions MUST provide reproductive health care. Can you define affliated employer?

Regarding the bold: Oh! I guess I didn't realize that your argument was based on feelings. Good luck arguing that you feel like it violates your rights. I'm sure you'll be very convincing. Truthiness lives. YOU are the one arguing that it's unconstitutional. That means you bear the burden of proving your statements . . . take it step by step. Slow down. You can do this.

 

Catholic affiliated meaning NOT the Catholic church itself. You might want to check your understanding of the issue.

[Cactusboy]

Hey, all I know is that if the government were dictating to me what benefits I had to provide in my company's health care plan (which they are doing counter to our constitutional rights), and one of those mandates was absolutely counter to what I believe and stand for (which there is none currently), I would attempt the exemption but could always fall back on not providing any health care benefit to my employees. Luckily, we're small enough that the government can't force us to provide any benefit and we are not subject to the penalty in Obamacare for company's that do not provide any health benefit. I happen to be Catholic but I do not share the contraceptives ban position the church has. But, I respect their religious right to hold that position. Who is our government to think they can infringe on an employers religous rights? Isn't that exactly what the founders had in mind when they dealt with this issue so many years ago? It has been skewed and abused to the point that a church cannot have a public display of a nativity scene but the government can enforce it's views of morality. It's assbackwards if you ask me. Personally, I would like to see the Catholic church reverse it's stance on preventative contraceptives but that will be a very long ways off, if ever. There is huge difference in my mind between preventing egg fertilization before it happens and stopping the process once it has already occurred.

 

And carlfense, to answer one of your questions, yes the Catholic church does make up some of this stuff as they go along. They believe that Jesus established his kingdom on earth with Peter and that he gave the church the authority to establish rules and to forgive or withhold forgiveness for sins. Don't want to get into a big debate over that but, yes they do feel they have the authority to decree these things.

This isn't about religion. It's about a woman's right to have her insurance cover her contraceptives. Please explain how ensuring that contraceptives are available through employee insurance infringes on an employer's constitutional rights. (Keeping in mind that employees of the Catholic Church are exempt. This is about Catholic affiliated employers.)

 

So technically it's not the church affiliated employer that's giving the birth control.

 

I guess you have to choose your battles and I'm thinking I'm glad he compromised on this.

[krill]

I guess you have to choose your battles and I'm thinking I'm glad he compromised on this.

 

That was the plan all along. I guess somewhere in all rhetorical fireballs, it was forgotten that nearly all insurance providers already provide free coverage for contraceptives because it's cheaper than an abortion or childbirth. All that happens is what insurers already voluntarily provide becomes law. Meanwhile, a slew of Republicans have gone on record with anti-contraceptive statements in the usual contest for who can take the most extreme position. Shockingly this is an important issue for women, and women vote.

[JJ Husker]

 

This isn't about religion. It's about a woman's right to have her insurance cover her contraceptives. Please explain how ensuring that contraceptives are available through employee insurance infringes on an employer's constitutional rights. (Keeping in mind that employees of the Catholic Church are exempt. This is about Catholic affiliated employers.)

 

It may very well not be about religion depending on who is included under "Catholic affiliated employers". But, if they were to attempt to force the Catholic church, i9n whatever capacity, to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, then I feel it would be about religion. I'm not that shook about it other than that principle.

 

The part that has me curious is the bolded. When did that necessarily become a "right"? Is that "right" in the constitution somewhere? I want my Insurance to cover Lipitor medication. Apparently I do not have that right as they recently decided they would no longer cover it because a lower priced generic is now available.

[bennychico11]

 

This isn't about religion. It's about a woman's right to have her insurance cover her contraceptives. Please explain how ensuring that contraceptives are available through employee insurance infringes on an employer's constitutional rights. (Keeping in mind that employees of the Catholic Church are exempt. This is about Catholic affiliated employers.)

 

It may very well not be about religion depending on who is included under "Catholic affiliated employers". But, if they were to attempt to force the Catholic church, i9n whatever capacity, to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, then I feel it would be about religion. I'm not that shook about it other than that principle.

 

The part that has me curious is the bolded. When did that necessarily become a "right"? Is that "right" in the constitution somewhere? I want my Insurance to cover Lipitor medication. Apparently I do not have that right as they recently decided they would no longer cover it because a lower priced generic is now available.

 

But the lower priced generic is still covered by your insurance, correct? So what's the issue. You're still getting the same active ingredient. This isn't about what "brand" of medication you are offered. It's being offered medication...period. If instead, your insurance said they weren't going to cover ANY cholesterol medication, would you have an issue with that?

[holvy83]

edited my post, nothing to see here....

[JJ Husker]

 

This isn't about religion. It's about a woman's right to have her insurance cover her contraceptives.

 

The part that has me curious is the bolded. When did that necessarily become a "right"? Is that "right" in the constitution somewhere? I want my Insurance to cover Lipitor medication. Apparently I do not have that right as they recently decided they would no longer cover it because a lower priced generic is now available.

 

But the lower priced generic is still covered by your insurance, correct? So what's the issue. You're still getting the same active ingredient. This isn't about what "brand" of medication you are offered. It's being offered medication...period. If instead, your insurance said they weren't going to cover ANY cholesterol medication, would you have an issue with that?

 

Actually I would not have an issue with that. A- No one in my family takes cholesterol medication. I only know about my Insurance company's policy due to a notification they sent out. B- There are many other things my insurance does not cover that I may someday desire. I don't see where that makes it my "right" to get those things or where they "have" to provide that benefit.

 

And FYI, generics are not necessarily equivalent to the brand name or to each other. I take one generic medication that works fine but, if I take the exact same generic, made by another manufacturer, it does not work. I don't make the assumption that avorstatin?? is equal to Lipitor.

 

But back to my original point, my first analogy was maybe too weak. I have the right to have flower petal spreaders precede me where ever I go so my insurance company is obligated to provide that benefit to me. When somebody successfully defends a persons "right" to have contraceptives coverage, I will answer for my equally ludicrous claim.

[carlfense]

Right was probably not the best choice of words. Still . . . I wonder how you got "constitutional right" from my statement.

 

The Catholic Church is not being coerced into doing anything. That's all political spin a hospital or university is not a church. Slapping a Catholic label in front of those words does not make them churches.

[JJ Husker]

Right was probably not the best choice of words. Still . . . I wonder how you got "constitutional right" from my statement.

 

The Catholic Church is not being coerced into doing anything. That's all political spin a hospital or university is not a church. Slapping a Catholic label in front of those words does not make them churches.

 

In this discussion is there a difference between a "right" and a "constitutional right"? Lots of people confuse things they want or that would be nice with some perceived right of theirs to have it provided to them.

[carlfense]

Yes. There absolutely is a difference between a right and a constitutional right.

 

This is why I agreed with you that right was a poor choice of words.

 

 

[HUSKER FREAK]

Right was probably not the best choice of words. Still . . . I wonder how you got "constitutional right" from my statement.

 

The Catholic Church is not being coerced into doing anything. That's all political spin a hospital or university is not a church. Slapping a Catholic label in front of those words does not make them churches.

0

They are affiliated with the Catholic church without them, those colleges and hospitals would not exist as they are ran and would not get any contributions from the church in which they do now. That is why Creighton or any other CATHOLIC college, or hospital is there the church agreed to them. This also applies to Midland Luthern college It is a Luthern college that you are forced to take religion classes based on their faith. If you don't like it don't go there. This is the same with a Benefit I have at my Employment if I didn't like them I would leave. These are offered to me if I would ask for something to be added and said this is my right they would say I was crazy. Employers SHOULD NOT be forced to give certain benefits like this or the way they are forcing the Obama plan on us. IMO Obama is abusing his power and is making this country even more split than it already was. The GOVERNMENT needs to stay out of Private companies. They need to collect their taxes and leave the rest alone.

[Sub-Husker]

They are affiliated with the Catholic church without them, those colleges and hospitals would not exist as they are ran and would not get any contributions from the church in which they do now. That is why Creighton or any other CATHOLIC college, or hospital is there the church agreed to them. This also applies to Midland Luthern college It is a Luthern college that you are forced to take religion classes based on their faith. If you don't like it don't go there. This is the same with a Benefit I have at my Employment if I didn't like them I would leave. These are offered to me if I would ask for something to be added and said this is my right they would say I was crazy. Employers SHOULD NOT be forced to give certain benefits like this or the way they are forcing the Obama plan on us. IMO Obama is abusing his power and is making this country even more split than it already was. The GOVERNMENT needs to stay out of Private companies. They need to collect their taxes and leave the rest alone.

 

The government needs to stay out of religion, and just let them be with their tax exempt status, right to perform state recognized marriages for those they choose, and exceptions to labor laws.

[carlfense]

If they're supported by federal dollars they are subject to federal regulations. If they don't want federal regulations they shouldn't accept federal dollars.