From the posts below, it is clear that you do not believe that Plan B, Mirena IUD's, and other devices that prevent implantaion rather than actual conception are abortifacient.
Also, you can see that NedoftheHill, myself, and the Catholic Church do believe that it is abortifacient ,and results in the taking of a human life in it's embryonic stage.
We aren't going to agree on this.
Are you going to side with Obama that we practicing Catholics can go fuck ourselves (and then use Plan B), and that we should be forced to pay for these products to be made available to our employees, or not be able to offer our employees healthcare?
I am not asking how stupid YOU think this belief is. Do you think Obama is right to force people who legitimately hold these beliefs to participate in the process?
Let's see fully where you stand on the right to consiencious objection. Do you feel that Obama, or you, have the right to put your foot down on other people because you think know better?
(no message)
by the billions into an unnecessary war in Iraq. By the way where were the D leaders when that was going down? Oh yeah, they were mislead. Bwhahahahahaha. Real profiles in courage there. I'm not angry though because Barry is just hurting himself with this one.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
are the characters having sex with banisters?
It's one of those weird statistical anomalies, right up there with 31.3% of abortions being done on Catholic women and 100% of creationists being lunatics.
(no message)
It's a classic Catch-22. Those crazy, repressed Catholic hormones mix with our ingrained birth control paranoia, and we just go ahead and fuck whatever moves without thinking about rubbers or pills.
The Guttmacher Institute, which researches sexual and reproductive health worldwide, says it used the survey data along with data on the number of abortions performed nationally to estimate abortion rates and the size of certain demographic groups. The institute found that more Protestant women obtained abortions than Catholics: Forty-three percent of women over age 17 in the 2000-2001 survey said they were Protestant, while 27 percent said they were Catholic. But Catholics were more likely to get an abortion: The abortion rate for Catholic women was 22 per 1,000 women; the rate for Protestants was 18 per 1,000 women.
According to a survey by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Just because the church believes that something that prevents pregnancy is a de facto abortion doesn't mean that a secular government, which the US government is, no thanks to Republicans (sorry, couldn't resist), should tolerate or accept said nonsensical belief. While you can give abortion a pass, since it is legitimately a hot button issue, contraception simply isn't to the overwhelming majority of the rank and file. It's only controversial to the church leadership. They're free to believe what they want, but government shouldn't have to accept it as fact. Obama isn't telling you to go fuck yourselves, he's saying that he's not going to accept that what medical science says is not an abortion is an abortion on the churches say so.
Finally, as for the religious freedom argument, ask yourself this: if a Muslim group was asking for Sharia Law-based exemptions to US law, would you be as for it? I know I wouldn't.
for example, to serve pork to their students because of some FDA regulation.
I would not force a Jewish school to serve milk with meat because they need a balanced diet according to some federal guideline.
If you can think of more problematic examples, let me know.
You missed BVZ's point that this is not about abortion, but about religious conscience, and the Catholic Church is not asking for something they would not grant to other faiths.
My fellow liberals sometimes forget that separation of church and state goes both ways; it should afford equally vigorous protection of religious believers from state interference. I even think the Obama argument that the Church's position on birth control means poor people will be unfairly denied family planning options is total horse shit. There are already government programs in place to provide free birth control to the poor; this is Obama pissing in someone's Cheerios just for the sake of being a quasi-socialist douche.
This is not original to Obama.
I don't think Barry is trying to be a douche though; rather he is kowtowing to some of his his supporters and interest groups who are strong proponents of contraception. I think he made a big political miscalculation here that he will now have to finagle out of. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
My issue isn't with people disagreeing about others beliefs, it is about not allowing them to follow their beliefs. Thanks for the candid reply.
Please tell us the other options hospital janitors and cafeteria workers have? I'm not aware of programs for them.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
My father's income was in the mid six figures when I was a teenager. Didn't stop me from going to my local Planned Parenthood and hording free condoms.
is where my shared rage at the ruling hits a bump in the road. The ruling is absolutely overstepping but with the financial and quite frankly false bad publicity PP has received over the past year has been generated by Catholic Right to Life groups as well as the Catholic Churches pressures put onto groups like the Komen Foundation to stop funding of PP. I think they need to accept responsibility for some of the their own actions which possibly let to the ruling.
Also there is a difference between these actually paying for these services and choosing an insurance plan that covers these services free of charge. I would also ask the Catholic organizations if they make if their employees buy into these insurance plans or do they pay for the whole amount. I'm sure like a lot of businesses (by the way that is what these organizations are) they don't pay for the whole insurance amount hense its very well could be they are directly paying for non of it because how much could it really be adding to the plan, maybe $10.00 a month? I bet an employee contribution is at least $150.00 to their own healthplan. Whos to say the employee is paying for it themselves.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Birth-control pills (and most other "permanent" forms of birth-control) have significant hormonal side effects.
Needs the high doses.
(no message)
Sorry you and your partner have to. I guess the pool of gay guys without AIDS is fairly small, huh?
(no message)
(no message)
A lot of guys do. Of course some guys don't which will explain the burning sensation when he pees
Despite the fact that they were wearing the same blouse, that tranny at the last UHND tailgater was not my wife. Sorry to disappoint you. Glad you were sober enough to use a rubber on him/her though. Otherwise I'd be worried.
You should have been.
(no message)
(no message)
I'll work on it for the betterment of all of us.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
At least on the population crash thing, I kid. Not intending to start a debate there.
But there are less offensive and more constitutional ways to make sure everyone has contraception.
If the Church wishes to sell healthcare they must do it legally and without bias.
If they wish to make HC free and not accept federal or tax dollars (tax exempts) they're free to do what they wish.
Edit also in subject.
..that's called tyranny.
(no message)
I don't think that Catholics are supporting contraception simply by paying the health care tax, which is exactly all that it is, any more than they are supporting war or the death penalty by paying income taxes and other taxes.
However, I don't think Obama really needs to deny the requested religious exemption.
I think whatever way it turns out, someone will be pissed that probably shouldn't be.
(no message)
Religious objection or not. From a medical/insurance standpoint, it almost makes more sense to subsidize abortion. Not much, I grant you, but at least it is an acute condition with health consequences. Birth control is just a lifestyle drug.
(no message)
I do not understand why we "insure" birth control pills. It's not really a treatment for anything, is it?
(no message)
In a single-payer system, this is not an issue. It's what happens when you try and force private entities to provide necessary public services.
(no message)
1) Require people to buy insurance themselves (the original approach--and I would argue the better approach--costs would likely go down).
2) Single payor system (full on social medicine).
It's not perfect, and involving the government is always a tough call, but the market screwed the pooch on this one. In essence, basic health care is considered by most advanced societies to be a "right".
So many issues. It is a very complex problem.
I'm inclined to think that we have the problems we have now because we have 3rd party payors (who are never as incentivized as 1st party payers to keep costs down), and because the government incentivized (through tax breaks) companies to provide insurance as a form of payment for employment.
Companies pay a certain value to employees for their work, and part of that value is in the form of insurance, because the government gave tax breaks, and therefore companies could buy insurance cheaper than individuals. So, to stay competitive and give the best value to employees, companies had to adopt this system.
And here we are. Maybe the government should have just offered the tax breaks to individuals in the first place, and cut out an entire industry of middlemen.
I admit I am not an expert on this, so I welcome criticism on the above.
Neither the old system nor the new system provide true free-market feedback, and it drove costs sky-high. The distortions you mention are perfect examples.
If there is a single payor, the system would hit an equilibrium even if it was a fairly low standard of acute care. People with means could enhance their healthcare in the open market.
I am ambivalent as to the GOP coming in and trashing Obamacare. I assume anything they introduce will still be an improvement over the pre-Obamacare system.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
That is why I enjoy the irony of Albany and you having kniptions over, and making thousands of posts about the fortunes of the foremost Catholic University in the Country during football season
I cheer for the latter, as the athletes come and go every year. Honestly, I am surprised by, and sick of, the anti-Catholic sentiment expressed by so many on this board. The broad assumptions that all priests are pedophiles (hate to tell you Albany, I would guess many more teachers are pedophiles)...etc.
I am not an ND grad - I went to another Catholic university(St. Bonaventure)- but have loved the program and the university that it represents since I was a young boy.
Seriously, with your hatred of Catholics/Catholicism why don't you root for Ohio State, LSU, or some other group of athletes that you can cheer for?
(no message)
What's your point?
(no message)
I thin the whole team goes to catholic mass before games? They respect the institution.
(no message)
..but you can't differentiate the attraction from the institutions' Catholicism. Let me help you. You like the results, you just don't like the rules that were a major factor in creating the results.
May I suggest that (strictly from a chronology point of view) and institution that has been around for 2000 years may have a thing or two to teach a 20 something or any of us for that matter.
You must have real issue with this point of view to cheer for Our Lady's University. Admittedly, less issues with Jenkin's at the helm, but issues nonetheless.
(no message)
many of whom are not catholic, simply because the University carries around the silly religious beliefs of a bygone era.
Actually, there seems to be a lot to Notre Dame that is really special, not just the Catholic nonsense. In fact, it's still among my list of schools to attend when I arrive at the next step of continuing my education (Catholicism be damned).
The only way for ND to access the conscience clause is to expel and no longer accept non-Catholic students, and to lay off all non-Catholic employees.
The good news is, you won't be stuck cheering for a primarily Catholic institution on Saturdays. You can go find another team to cheer for, and you won't be so conflicted.
Just stop. Lost an election three years ago and you haven't been able to deal with it since. Isn't three years a long time to be sucking on sour grapes?
OK, there is always the outcome of ND blinking...but I have to think donations will substantially dry up, which is why I don't see that happening.
You truly have no idea. But thanks for letting us all know.
As in I've already finished the undergrad, and in fact I've already finished the masters. Reconsider your underestimation and come back to me, Friar Tuck.
You are so inexperienced you don't recognize it yet, a child who has yet to live in the real world. You might actually might be Charlie Jr.
...who covets a step up in the world but lacks the class.
Hopefully he can hide his true self from his coworkers, or he won't hold down a job for long. Tough to live that way, though.
(no message)
(no message)
As it is distracting from the crux of the matter, which is freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion.
Catholics believe all forms of birth control are a sin (not just morning-after pills). Therefore let's just discuss this form of medication since its use is less controversial.
What I believe that Catholics do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on others. In other words, if there is a non-Catholic employee at a Catholic institution, that person should have access to the same forms of contraception legally available to all other Americans. IMO...the employees are the ones being left out of the discussion. I don't believe the gov't should be force Catholics to do anything that is against their religion as long as (and this is the key distinction) those beliefs do not infringe on the rights and liberty of other Americans.
What I find funny is that Catholics are viewing this as a gov't infringing on freedom of religion. IMO, this is a case where the gov't has to protect non-Catholics from Catholic doctrines that could be harmful to them (for example, my wife takes birth control pills, but not to prevent conception. She takes them to prevent ovarian cysts that are a legit health risk).
But to get back to "abortive agents", let's say an employee of a Catholic facility is raped, and fears that the rapist may have impregnated her. I think her health care provider should be required to provide her access to morning-after pills. Do you disagree?
Are we really to believe that Associate Professors at Notre Dame, Nursing Assistants at St. Elsewhere, and Custodians at Catholic Charities are forgoing contraception because they just can't afford it? That is ludicrous.
At most, we are talking about $50 per month. These are the same people who spend $200 per month for their Iphone 4 data plan.
There is a deeper agenda behind this dictate, and all the liberal blubbering about making healthcare affordable is a ruse.
I know this from experience. Since my wife takes a brand that has the best track record of reducing ovarianc cysts, her prescriptions cost about $100/month on my HSA high-deductible plan that pays nothing until the deductible is reached.
$1200/year may not be a lot to the ND grads on this board, but it is a significant number.
And we're not just talking about associate professors and doctors. We are talking about hospital janitors and cafeteria workers as well.
the oral contraceptives with the best track record of supressing ovarian cysts have the higher ethinyl estradiol dose mixed in. Specifically, a 35 ug pill is more effecive than a 30 ug pill (though higher doses are not thought to be of further benefit). That said, the Ortho Novum 1/35 pill, or the Ovcon 35 pill are now available in very cheap generic form (ethinyl estradiol and norethindrone).
Your statement is simply way, way off, and you should really consult a better gynecologist.
I'll take his word over yours.
(no message)
I have to no avail numerous times. The insurance companies just get their doctors to write a counter letter. The insurance companies don't want to pay, and short of legal action by me (which they know I won't do) there's nothing I can do.
I write them all of the time.
I know. It should be noted that higher estrogen does lead to a commensurate increase in the risk of thromboembolism, however the 35 ug pill was used by millins and millions of patients in the 1970's without much problem. Still, there is no need for the more expensive pills for her problem...no evidence based medicine consensus supports that. In addition, even the most expensive pill on the market should run about $75 a month Furhter, your wife can get anote from her doctor regarding the medical necessity for non=contraceptive use, and it should be covered no problem...happens all of the time..
Why must contraception have no copay, but cancer meds can have a copay? That tells me this is political, but maybe I misunderstand something.
(no message)
IMO it should all be free via a single-payer system.
But to answer your question, I don't think contraception is the only free medication under Obamacare. I think a lot of preventive medications are free. My suspicion (since pregnancy is technically an expensive medical condition) is that it falls under the "preventive medicine" category.
widely sold.
just another thought on that.
Could be you have a solid point though.
PS and the pill was cheap to produce. Probably many reasons that no longer are good ones.
from the start that birth control is a medically necessity instead of a choice, and that pregnancy is a disease. How have people ever been getting by up until now without forcing others against their will to pay for their pills?
The argument has shifted over the last 40 years from "Get out of our bedroom" to "Get into my bedroom and help me do what I want to do".
I agree that in most cases use of contraception is a choice, but in some cases (as with my wife) it is a medical necessity.
(no message)
convenient. There are 2000 plus exemptions from Commiecare. Such as congress and certain states, unions and other groups who support Soetoro. One such exemption is that Muslims are exempt on the basis that it is against their faith to have insurance. It is considered gambling. So Muslims can claim exemption based on their beliefs, but Christians cannot. Whats up with that?
No Muslim group has asked for or received an exemption from the health care law, but lots of groups have and they are all Christian groups (mostly Mennonite, Amish and Anabaptists).
"Nor are they likely to want to, says Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which opposes discrimination and defamation against Muslims. "I’ve never even heard it brought up as an issue," Hooper told us. "I have health insurance. We give health insurance to our employees. Every Muslim group I know of does the same thing." Hooper told us that he has seen some Muslims raise religious objections to life insurance, but not health insurance, and that, in fact, providing health coverage is very much in line with Islamic ideals of social justice."
Link: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/dhimmitude-and-the-muslim-exemption/
There once was a man here quite adept at firing up "We Shall Overcome." A shame.
BTW, can you explain where exactly in the United States private health care delivery and private health insurance has been abolished and monopolized by the state?
That's why white men control 90% of our country's wealth despite representing approximately 30% of the population....HUGE disadvantage.
(no message)
Link: A timely article for your use.
(no message)
(no message)
I did read recently that in 2013 30% of employers who provide private healthcare for their employees are going to cease doing that. That would leave all these people to scramble for their own private care or apply for Commiecare. This was predicted before the passage of the bill. I am sorry, I cannot provide a link to the source. I read this over a month ago and did not make a bookmark.
I don't see how this addresses the issue that Muslims for some reason are exempt and Christians are not.
you are fine trusting them with 8500 nukes.
I'm tired of hearing about the plight of the Christians. Christians have more than any other religious group out there, yet for some reason they think they have to fight for it all.
That is the first task of government: prevent aggression by other nations. There is no higher priority task.
Healthcare is much further down the list of government responsibilities...indeed, it is only very recently in history that we even added healthcare to the list of government responsibilities.
Christians have been quietly allowing you to have your contraception. It is only when you want them to give it to you instead of paying for it yourself that they have started making noise. That is hardly fighting for it all.
To govern them, not to be their military leaders. Do we have a Junta? We don't have a Junta? Do we have a Junta?
I found it interesting that you say the first task is to prevent aggression by others. We do this by having 8500 nukes? Interesting.
And Health Care seems to be a high priority for the governments of those in Europe... and all of the other major industrial nations of this world. Then again, they may not be pouring all of their money into the military (and thus not taking care of the first task, correct?).
You are so misguided that it is frightening.
I was talking about how they represent us...what actions the government must take. The first necessary task of government is defense against other nations. The second necessary task is to keep the peace at home through police and the courts. All other tasks come after those two. If you don't have those two first, then you don't have government, representative or otherwise, and therefore you can't have things like government provided health care.
Regarding the nukes, you said, "I found it interesting that you say the first task is to prevent aggression by others. We do this by having 8500 nukes? Interesting." You seem to use the word "interesting" to mean "doubtful." I find that "interesting" since our nukes prevented aggression for decades. MAD worked. That seems obvious to me.
And your comments on health care do not contradict mine. It is only a recent addition to the list of government tasks. Go back in history, and it drops off the list. It is important in Europe now. Rest assured, Europe would pour more money into their militaries if we would withdraw our umbrella of protection and deterrence.
"You are so misguided that it is frightening."
Seriously - Well done.
See you this evening if you are still up.
a) Not in high school, but rather a masters grad preparing for PhD programs
b) fully employed and doing well
(no message)
(no message)
Take "socialism" and "communism," for instance.
I believe you can find your source at www.powerline.blogger.com
They both result in authoritarianism, totalitarianism (or bankruptcy in the case of Europe). It is essentially the same damn thing that the common people have been struggling against since the dawn of time, a small minority oppressing the majority. The terms "Socialism" and "Communism" in practice are only propaganda tools used by the ruling class to expedite the process of eliminating individual liberty and private property from the working class.
It tends to be idiots like you and Jimbasil that are the first lemmings to go over the cliff, the main problem for the rest of us is that you seem determined to take the rest of us with you.
Communism is inequality, - socialism is equality
Communism is violent, - socialism is passive
communism is for the wealthy and nationalization - socialism is for the worker
Communism = Marx - Socialism = pantheism
Communism = needs - Socialism = deeds
=====================================
"authoritarianism, totalitarianism"
From what you have said, corporatism or corpocracy is what you've described also a Monarchy comes to mind.
Socialism does not remove liberty or property. Your example of Europe(if you really believe Europe is a socialist state) proves the fact.
Dumbass!
"A generation which ignores history has no past — and no future." Robert A. Heinlein
They look at history, and see problems, like we do.
When I see history's problems, I say, "Those problems were a result of human nature, which does not change. And bad people will inevitably get control. So, lets have a system so that we econoimically leverage human nature, and limit the political harm causeable by human nature so that those bad things don't happen again." You know, a system which has checks and balances, and a federal government limited to enumerated powers and restricted by a Constitution.
Progressives say, "The big mistake was that someone other than me was in charge. I am a better and smarter person. When I am in charge, or people I pick are in charge, things will be better." They see limitations on government as bad because they limit their power to do good.
What Progressives don't think about is that someday they will lose power, and some "less able" or "evil" conservative type will again gain power, and then wreak havoc (from their point of view) with the power they collected to manage things better.
So, in one way of looking at it, their problem is more than just not understanding history; it is a shortsighted view of the future, and a failure to understand "systemic politics." (I just googled that, and unfortunately, I cannot claim to have coined that phrase. Damn!)
Today, we are slowly, decade after decade, court decision after court decision, omnibus spending bill after omnibus spending bill, executive order after executive order, increasing the power of the federal government in the name of "national progress" to overcome "local backwardism" and geographical political diversity. We are changing our system--making it more powerful. Politics is poisoned and becomes more hateful because each side has more to lose.
If we don't turn things around, eventually it will all collapse of its own weight, or a competent power hungry leader who thinks he can "fundamentally change" our system for the better will wreak havoc on our society.
And then you are left with this:
SOcialism leads to crony capitalism--those with connections get the good food and the nice cars and the good healthcare and those without connections do not. It is a "connections based" economy. Capitalims is a merit based economy. Both involve luck (luck in who you know with socialism, luck with market timing for capitalisms).
Importantly, socialism inevitably leads to oppression since it suppresses the fundamental individual drive for self preservation, whereas capitalism attempts to leverage that fundamental individual human nature.
Both have inequality, and neither is perfect. The key is where the average line of prosperity is drawn (averaging societal wealth). Capitalism draws the average line higher than socialism does. Both have people fall through the cracks, and are therefore not perfect, but one is "less imperfect" than the other, and that one would be capitalism.
The Soviets learned this lesson. We didn't believe them, apparently, and began our own experiment on the topic with the Great Society. I would rather stop our slow slide into socialism, but I despair that we can stop it.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Why do we not make the correct distinction on this? It's not you, it's everybody.
Let's please call it what it is.
(no message)
when saying it is to assist Americans who are economically challenged.
It's more of an insurance package helping the corporatecare in these difficult times.
Obama couldn't have been more for corporate interests if he was John Boehner.
It's a mark on Obama that he calls this a HC victory for Americans.
It certainly isn't "commiecare"
Edit - In rethinking, it might just be unwittingly and accurately called "commiecare".
(no message)
(no message)
to have a photography business. We incorporated. What is negative about incorporation?
(no message)
Jimbasil will vilify corporations until the end of time while the Obama administration doles out waivers, tax incentives and stimulus money to corporations who in turn make political contributions to their election campaigns. Same thing happened during the Bush administration only it was different politicians and different corporations.
Big business and big government are playing both sides against the middle. This truth must be realized by a majority of the electorate before we can move forward.
(no message)
order to cover their ass regardless of who wins.
(no message)
Does it come from catching those mice in your apartment? You are the very poster child for the harm that can come from ignorance and a poor education. If Karma has it's way, President Santorum will be forcing you to do evening vespers 5 nights a week at the local monastery.
The Catholic Church is trying to deny its lower income workers access to contraception, Catholic or not.
The convoluted notion that providing money to a broadbased insurance pool that may be used to cover contraception is not actually using or forcing anyone to use contraception. Maybe all the "premiums" paid by the Catholic church go to the costs associated with single mothers and childcare, while the premiums of other employers can be used for contraception.
At the core, it's not about where the Catholic employer money goes, it's about trying to use political force to defund it for poor people. Refusing to pay for an insurance plan that provides such coverage does more to coerce the poor than anything the government is doing.
If there is a President Santorum, then Jimbo, AlbanyIrish and I will be on a caravan filled with strippers and blow on our way to Canada.
Also, we can't seriously have a president named Santorum. Mitt, Newt, and Santorum. Good grief.
(no message)
You're in high school.
(no message)
Take my wonderful example below: The member of the Church of the Brethren who is an actual Christian and supports the sanctity of life in all situations. That person is forced to subsidize warfare, despotic regimes and any number of other things they find morally offensive. Admittedly, those foreigners aren't as sacred as zygotes who, as Ricky would say, are only separated from you and I by that little thing called "time," but they're still significant to some. I don't know that there is any action taken by any government, at any time, that does not impose upon its people a morality. Consequently, there will always be someone claiming that their spiritual beliefs have been violated, as you are now doing.
Instead of engaging in a argument in which you pretend your version of the state wouldn't impose a particular morality upon people, it would be wiser to argue why the morality imposed under your version of the state would be preferable to the versions offered by others.
Someone pointed out below that the bible makes room for taxation.
I think it is safe to say that the Catholic Church has not endorsed any of the warfare you mention. So they are consistent.
You also continue to refuse to accept that people actually hold life sacred from conception....really. Your thinking and rationalizations are a recurrent theme in history and has allowed many an oppressive government steal the religious freedom of its' people. You are openly espousing what Obama actually thinks as well. He will likely try to hide from this belief if it costs him a chance at further power, but you state it openly. All religious people should take heed of your thought processes (and Obama's) for what would happen if there were no election to have to answer to this fall?
(no message)
(no message)
Douche holding a bible.
(no message)
(no message)
Then we won't see Barry back away from his real goals and beliefs. All religious people and certainly Catholics should remember this.