| Author |
|
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3491
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 11:11am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
If you really think a woman voluntarily taking birth control is the moral equivalent of forced female genital mutilation, you're out of your fucking mind.
-------------------------
Good thing I never said that. Is this one of those issues that people are too emotional about to have a rational discussion?
I'm trying to discuss what the ruling actually says, and what it says is that the government can pay for whatever health care it wants, and can require insurance to cover whatever health care the government wants to require it to cover, but that the government cannot require a third party to pay for reproductive health care that they find religiously or morally objectionable. Meaning they can't make a Roman Catholic pay for IUD's, nor can they make an enlightened atheist pay for a clitorectomy.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3491
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 11:16am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
In terms of my own views, as I intimated in my first post in this thread, I believe that 'for profit' healthcare is immoral. I think this country needs to adopt a single payer system like every civilized country in the world already has.
One big problem with a half-ass compromise like Obamacare where you have the government paying for some things, employers paying for some things, and the individual paying for some things, is that it generates arguments like this over who precisely has to pay for what.
The solution, as the Supreme Court decision suggested, is for the government to cover birth control for all women. The ultimate solution is for the government to cover everything for all its citizens.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 11:59am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Steve, Christian groups have long opposed taxpayer-funded
abortions along the same lines of the Hobby Lobby suit. It
would be hard to come up with a solution that would not
offend their religious convictions.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14819
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 12:18pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
QUOTE:
Which is 90% of all businesses, covering more than half of the workforce.
------------------------
Where are you getting that statistic? You're really arguing that publically traded companies only employ 10% of Americans? |
|
|
Read what I wrote again.
QUOTE:
| I think you are missing the point.
------------------------
No, I'm not. Read the decision. The Justices explicitly said that this decision does not apply to blood transfusions, vaccinations, or any form of treatment other than birth control. So all of the posts on here about 'What if scientologists blah blah...' are ill-informed. People need to read the actual decision. |
|
|
Sigh. No, it means you are missing the point. People understand what the decision actually stated.
QUOTE:
Are you referring to the standing Federal law entitled "Religious Freedom Restoration Act"?------------------------
Precisely. If you read the decision, the Justices were clear that First Ammendment protections did not apply to this case. |
|
|
So the law entitled "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" has nothing to do with freedom of religion? A statute that states "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" has nothing to do with freedom of religion?
That is your assertion?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3491
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 12:55pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Steve, Christian groups have long opposed taxpayer-funded
abortions along the same lines of the Hobby Lobby suit. It
would be hard to come up with a solution that would not
offend their religious convictions.
----------------------
Which is why its important that the Supreme Court decision doesn't say that the government is required to make everyone happy, which I agree won't happen. It does, however, give two examples of ways in which the government could accomplish its goal, providing contraception coverage to all women, which would comply with existing Federal law.
I have no doubt that if the President, by executive order, has the Department of Health and Human Services pay for contraception for all women who aren't otherwise covered that there will be religious groups that don't like that. It will, however, be Constitutional and in keeping with current Federal law.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1222
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 1:21pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
"Which is 90% of all businesses, covering more than half of the workforce.
------------------------
Where are you getting that statistic? You're really arguing that publically traded companies only employ 10% of Americans?" 90% of business, employing about half of the workforce. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/30/a- lot-of-people-could-be-affected-by-the-supreme-courts-birth- control-decision/ Furthermore: "the vast majority of small businesses (96 percent, according to Kaiser) don't have to abide by the contraception mandate because they have fewer than 50 full-time employees. But, again, larger companies employ a hugely disproportionate percentage of the workforce -- which means a significant chunk of Americans work for large closely held corporations."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Brown
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8847
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 3:19pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I kinda mentioned that earlier in the thread....
Just sayin'. ;-)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35748
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 3:43pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Oops. Oh well. No big deal. You mentioned it, but I supplied a link.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1653
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 5:13pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Steve De Young wrote:
| Is this one of those issues that people are too emotional about to have a rational discussion? |
|
|
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this statement. You want us to have a rational discussion about the enforcement of superstitious beliefs on a segment of the population?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Marcel Chenier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2723
|
| Posted: 01 July 2014 at 9:41pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Take vasectomies: by a not too convoluted religious translation,this could be considered the grandest affront to the Sky God on account of its being the ultimate pre-emptive abortion.
It virtually eliminates any possibility of birth taking place under any circumstances whatsoever.
One imagines doctors performing the surgery would be harassed, campaigned against on FOX, spoken out against by religious leaders and have their character assassinated on a daily basis.
But, not a peep. Not a peep. You want one, there's nothing in your way of getting one, and no one will even want to discuss it with you when you do get one.
Contrast this with what the average woman has to put up with concerning how she wishes to govern her body, and you'd be shocked and amazed if you weren't already.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Welsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 12:36am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
i generally steer clear from these discussions, because nobody wins. However, i need to comment on some of what has been discussed here.
First, the decision is limited to closely held companies that already expressed their religious convictions. This would exclude Microsoft, Oracle, HP, GM, Ford,Walmart,Sears Apple, Google and a host of other big companies. i think you would agree that would constitute a majority of the big employers. None of them are covered by the ruling.
Imagine the government requiring a company to buy a pork sandwich for everyone who had a job, do you think that would be unreasonable?
it has been postulated that this is a step back for womens right's. how? does it stop them from voting? does it keep them from getting jobs? does it keep them from doing anything but being barefoot and pregnant.
also, if a woman is about to have sex, if the man isn't springing for a condom, can't she say no? or do i have to buy her a condom because she can't insist that the man have protection before she consents, do es the government have the responsibility of purchasing her birth control because she cannot say no?
These are electrifying issues and i respect everyone opinion here and your right to say them, but i disagree with the majority of this thread and tried to express why i disagree with them.
Thanks,
Joe
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Welsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 12:45am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I should apologize. I cannot type as fast as I think, so if I seem disjointed in my post, it's because of my lousy typing skills. In a bar I would seem more articulate.
Joe
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
