U.S. gives church groups a year on birth control rule - Page 2

dabateman · #11 (**permalink**) 01-23-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

D-man I always felt you had feelings till now. It is a living unborn child, all that make this an insurance issue was Obama taking it to a new level.

Man you Progressives are cold hearted.

First of all, I'm not a progressive. I'm a liberal. There is a difference. Second, I have feelings but my feelings do not trump the rights of others.

saltwn · #12 (**permalink**) 01-23-2012, 10:10 PM

I think this is the core of the tension.

Quote:

In a decision expected to draw opposition from religious conservatives, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule requiring affiliated groups to provide a broad range of services, from implanted contraceptive devices to the morning-after pill. Many do not at present.

Many do consider that wrong for religious purposes. And if a charity organization hires people (with their membership donated funds) to work in one of their facilities they have every right to adhere to the rules of said religion. If there are state or federal funds going into it then that is different.
Birth control pills (going by the wording of this very short article) may be offered.

AZRWinger · #13 (**permalink**) 01-24-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

From a strictly legal perspective, if the religious hospital or nonprofit is receiving government money in any way, then they should be held to the same standards of providing medical options as any other organization.

And as debateman said, this is an insurance issue. Women should not be limited in their access to medical procedures simply because their employer has moral objections to them.

And I reiterate: this goes only for nonprofits, religious or not, that receive government money in the form of grants, etc. If they are fully funded by the religious organization in question, then by all means, let them do as they please in accordance with their faith.

Obamacare specifies the employer must include birth control and abortion coverage in the health insurance they offer to employees or they can elect to not provide health insurance at all and pay a fine. It is another example of Obama's statism trumping the Constitution's injunction against the Federal government suppressing religious freedom.

But don't worry, Obamacare exempts Muslim affiliated groups entirely from the requirement to purchase health insurance because Islam holds insurance to be a form of gambling. But those nasty old Christians who fail to support "progress" in the form of liquidating unborn children, they are fair game for the OA's war on Christianity.

dabateman · #14 (**permalink**) 01-24-2012, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Obamacare specifies the employer must include birth control and abortion coverage in the health insurance they offer to employees or they can elect to not provide health insurance at all and pay a fine. It is another example of Obama's statism trumping the Constitution's injunction against the Federal government suppressing religious freedom.

But don't worry, Obamacare exempts Muslim affiliated groups entirely from the requirement to purchase health insurance because Islam holds insurance to be a form of gambling. But those nasty old Christians who fail to support "progress" in the form of liquidating unborn children, they are fair game for the OA's war on Christianity.

Link from the actual legislation?

rivrrat · #15 (**permalink**) 01-24-2012, 09:04 AM

I don't agree to any federal mandate, but if there is going to be one then everyone needs to be held to the same standards. You don't get a pass because of something you choose to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

I know 3 females that aborted a living child in their bellies. And each wished later that they did not have done so.

And I've known many more than three who have no regrets at all and would do it again. I've also known more than three that regret giving a kid up for adoption, and a ****load more than three kids who were put up for adoption who never got over the emotional scarring it caused. And, I've known more than three who regretted having kids at all. And, I've known many people who regret getting married, taking a certain job, getting a certain degree, NOT getting a certain degree, etc. The possibility of regret is no reason not to allow someone to make a choice for themselves.

Quote:

With so many looking to adopt, they and I am sure others felt after that would have been the correct thing to do.

If they felt it was the correct thing to do, then they should have done it.

Quote:

Cause once you realize a life was taken it does matter..

No. It doesn't.

SwissMan · #16 (**permalink**) 01-24-2012, 09:10 AM

any medical Professional ought to inform a woman of all the Options on the Table,not just some!Regardless of their religious Persuasion!
Else,IMO,they are derelict in their Duties as Professionals!
This doesn't mean that an Abortion ought to be performed on any unwanted Pregnancy,but some go so far,they rather would let the Woman,and possibly the Child die,then relent and do the right thing!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
1069, catusfelidae, crazyflamingos, Idealogically Promiscuous

The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
MrLiberty

The Following User Says Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
Coyote

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rivrrat For This Useful Post:
1069, catusfelidae