Obamacare's hhs contraception mandate struck down

[Maddhattter]

Madd, the only problem with sending people to planned parenthood is that "conservatives" are trying to shut the organization down.

Your right.

However, Planned Parenthood has been offering free condoms (both male and female) for years and hasn't stopped the "babymakers on the gov't teat". Given that pregnancy and STI/STD rates demonstrably go down in places where responsible sex is taught (i.e. no abstinence only BS) and the places with the highest STI/STD and teen pregnancy rates are the areas that only teach abstinence, I'd argue that, in America, there is no real need for free contraceptives as much as actual sex education.

[Maddhattter]

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Just so I'm clear on what you're saying, what the Pope says is what the religion dictates?

[Nash B.]

I'm not Catholic, but yeah, I think that's the way it works.

[Maddhattter]

I'm not Catholic, but yeah, I think that's the way it works.

That's fair.

However, all the Pope stated there is that it's a sin to use those methods. It says nothing about insurance covering those methods. That's why I asked which religion states it cannot provide insurance that provides coverage for contraceptives.

[racrguy]

Prior to Obamacare, were they required to offer plans that cover sterilization?

No, they did it willingly, which makes me wonder why they're bitching about paying for it now. They were already paying for it, so what's the problem?

[Nash B.]

That's fair.

However, all the Pope stated there is that it's a sin to use those methods. It says nothing about insurance covering those methods. That's why I asked which religion states it cannot provide insurance that provides coverage for contraceptives.

I'm not sure, but I would think there's something about not enabling other people to sin. It would be like someone that thinks prostitution and pre/extramarital sex are wrong, and paying a hooker for somebody else (in this case, being forced by the government to do so).

No, they did it willingly, which makes me wonder why they're bitching about paying for it now. They were already paying for it, so what's the problem?

It should be their choice, not a government mandate.

[racrguy]

It should be their choice, not a government mandate.

While I agree, they didn't argue that point, they took the religious angle that makes them look like humongous hypocrites.

[Maddhattter]

I'm not sure, but I would think there's something about not enabling other people to sin. It would be like someone that thinks prostitution and pre/extramarital sex are wrong, and paying a hooker for somebody else (in this case, being forced by the government to do so).

I disagree. They are not paying for other people to have abortions. They are paying for the insurance company to provide insurance.

It's more like my trying to tell HEB/Kroger/etc that they cannot sell cigarettes to my employees because it's against my moral values to smoke. I'm not paying HEB to sell cigarettes. I'm paying for them to provide me goods. Does that enable them to stay in business and allow other people the choice to buy cigarettes? Sure. That doesn't mean that I'm paying for them to do so, even if they are on sale.

[Nash B.]

While I agree, they didn't argue that point, they took the religious angle that makes them look like humongous hypocrites.

They're arguing that the government can't require them to provide something that their religion forbids. Whether or not they choose to provide that on their own is irrelevant.

I disagree. They are not paying for other people to have abortions. They are paying for the insurance company to provide insurance.

It's more like my trying to tell HEB/Kroger/etc that they cannot sell cigarettes to my employees because it's against my moral values to smoke. I'm not paying HEB to sell cigarettes. I'm paying for them to provide me goods. Does that enable them to stay in business and allow other people the choice to buy cigarettes? Sure. That doesn't mean that I'm paying for them to do so, even if they are on sale.

They're fighting the requirement to provide the cigarettes to their employees, not allow their employees access to cigarettes. It's not something that they should be forced to provide. It's something that they should be able to choose to provide or not to provide.

[Gasser64]

A bunch of guys that never have sex, dictating how other people should breed. Seems legit. Some people need to be sterilized! Like those women who leave their kid in a hot car until the kid dies

[Maddhattter]

They're fighting the requirement to provide the cigarettes to their employees, not allow their employees access to cigarettes.

No, they're not. They are saying that they want the right to tell HEB/Kroger/etc that they cannot offer cigarettes to their employees because they shop there. They are not providing abortions by providing an insurance that covers them anymore than they are providing cigarettes to people who shop at the same grocery store. My previous analogy is apt.

It's not something that they should be forced to provide. It's something that they should be able to choose to provide or not to provide.

As stated earlier, I agree with you. However, that's not what's happening.

[blownragtop]

I tend to agree with Tony - and feel that your analogy is flawed. Let's see if I can make it more accurately reflect the reality of Obamacare.

The federal government hands down a new mandate that stipulates employers have to offer, as part of their overall compensation package, $1,000 a month toward groceries, $100 a month for cigarettes and $100 a month for beer.

You (the employer) contract with Kroger to provide your employees with their basket of goodies for $1,200 per employee/month. Not all of your employees smoke or drink - so they'll leave the Colt 45 and Salems on the shelf. But, irrespective of usage, you (the employer) have still paid for the beer and cigarettes.

You might, for personal convictions, be inclined to argue that you shouldn't have to provide beer and cigarette money. Why should you be forced to subsidize behaviors that you find morally untenable? And, obviously, you are not denying access - there is nothing to prevent individual employees from going to Kroger and buying all the beer and cigarettes that they can afford (with their own money).

Your analogy seems to be forgetting that one of the key features of Obamacare is it creates 'one size fits all' policies that are designed to subsidize high cost groups. Historically women have paid more for health insurance because of the cost of birth control/maternity care. By forcing everyone to have the same coverage, regardless of need or personal convictions, women of child bearing age can pay less and everyone else can pay more.

I find it funny how some people can argue out of one side their mouth about women's reproductive rights as a privacy issue - until it's time to pay for it.

[Forever_frost]

Can you, or anyone else, show me a religion that states they cannot provide insurance that covers contraceptives?

I'd also like to note that there are medical reasons for taking contraceptives. My wife has to take them, even after I got snipped, due to the fact they manage her hormonal levels before, during and after her period and are much cheaper than the alternative progesterone pills.

While I admit I don't have percentages, I've known many women who use contraceptives, in the form of birth control that the ACA is requiring coverage for, to control/manage several conditions regardless of their sexual activity.



While I don't believe this should get a religious exemption, I agree with you on these two points.

That would be forcing a company to fund a drug that they don't agree with on a religious basis. You can't force a person to violate their religion which is why you have Gitmo having prayer mats and permitting them to pray 5 times a day.

You or your wife want birth control for any reason? Free market. Go buy it yourself.

[racrguy]

That would be forcing a company to fund a drug that they don't agree with on a religious basis. You can't force a person to violate their religion which is why you have Gitmo having prayer mats and permitting them to pray 5 times a day.

You or your wife want birth control for any reason? Free market. Go buy it yourself.

It is against my religion to fund the government in any way shape or fashion. Does that give me a free pass to not pay taxes?

[Forever_frost]

It is against my religion to fund the government in any way shape or fashion. Does that give me a free pass to not pay taxes?

Nope because the constitution dictates that you are to pay taxes to fund the 18 enumerated responsibilities. One amendment does not trump another unless it specifically states such which is why the power to tax does not trump the freedom of religion.