Rally held to oppose birth-control mandate

All health insurance under the new health care law will cover preventive services without co-pays. Why should contraception, which can prevent pregnancies that can be health and life threatening to some women, be excluded? Why should contraceptives prescribed to treat other conditions be excluded simply because they can prevent pregnancy? Why should religious institutions get to determine what medical expenditures an insurer covers?

Marie Rehbein wrote:

All health insurance under the new health care law will cover preventive services without co-pays. Why should contraception, which can prevent pregnancies that can be health and life threatening to some women, be excluded? Why should contraceptives prescribed to treat other conditions be excluded simply because they can prevent pregnancy? Why should religious institutions get to determine what medical expenditures an insurer covers?

on your own dime!

Please Screw wrote:

<quoted text>on your own dime!

How about you pay for your medical costs on your own dime instead of using my premiums to help pay for them? If I pay thousands of dollars in insurance premiums and I am in good health, I more than cover what it costs the insurance company to cover my preventive care.

Marie Rehbein wrote:

Why should religious institutions get to determine what medical expenditures an insurer covers?

The better question is, why are those continually pushing 'tolerance' advocating for religious institutions to cover things they deem repugnant.

Now, don't get *me* wrong, I have no problem with birth control. I would much rather not see a child conceived than to have one aborted.

However if you work for a religious affiliated institution that has a problem covering birth control it is *you* who needs to find alternatives, and not force your views on them.

Otherwise the only tolerance you really want is tolerance for your own viewpoints and not other's.

Marie Rehbein wrote:

<quoted text>
How about you pay for your medical costs on your own dime instead of using my premiums to help pay for them? If I pay thousands of dollars in insurance premiums and I am in good health, I more than cover what it costs the insurance company to cover my preventive care.

That argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's not who pays for who, it's the fact that government should *never* mandate a religious organization to cover something that goes against its core beliefs.

Marie Rehbein wrote:

<quoted text>
How about you pay for your medical costs on your own dime instead of using my premiums to help pay for them? If I pay thousands of dollars in insurance premiums and I am in good health, I more than cover what it costs the insurance company to cover my preventive care.

FYI, I am paying my own medical costs as well as those of others. Birth control is not preventive care so take your sorry-azzed story else where.

SlaveToTheMasses wrote:

<quoted text>
That argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's not who pays for who, it's the fact that government should *never* mandate a religious organization to cover something that goes against its core beliefs.

When any organization receives federal funding, whether it is "religious" or not, it accepts certain limits on behavior which would violate established statutory and Constitutional law.

To ease your understanding of this concept so that you can see past your own personal "morality," I will quote from the King James version: "Render unto God what is God's, and render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's."

If an "organization" wants to exercise discriminatory practices because of their "core beliefs" in Jewish mythology... fine, but don't ask "Ceasar" for a doggone dime becuase you have NO right to complain when he sets the rules of exchange. Capiche?

If an "organization" does not want to deal with the legal impositions of "Ceasar", then it really be hitting up God for all of their funding.

durablebrad wrote:

<quoted text>
When any organization receives federal funding, whether it is "religious" or not, it accepts certain limits on behavior which would violate established statutory and Constitutional law.
To ease your understanding of this concept so that you can see past your own personal "morality," I will quote from the King James version: "Render unto God what is God's, and render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's."
If an "organization" wants to exercise discriminatory practices because of their "core beliefs" in Jewish mythology... fine, but don't ask "Ceasar" for a doggone dime becuase you have NO right to complain when he sets the rules of exchange. Capiche?
If an "organization" does not want to deal with the legal impositions of "Ceasar", then it really be hitting up God for all of their funding.

You are assuming I disagree with you on this point. I don't. I assure you I am quite consistent on my views of separation. BOTH sides of the issue need to get their claws out of each other's business.

The government should not be playing in religious organization's sandboxes.

Likewise, religious organizations should not be coming to the government begging for alms either.

SlaveToTheMasses wrote:

<quoted text>
You are assuming I disagree with you on this point. I don't. I assure you I am quite consistent on my views of separation. BOTH sides of the issue need to get their claws out of each other's business.
The government should not be playing in religious organization's sandboxes.
Likewise, religious organizations should not be coming to the government begging for alms either.

If you believe that government represents 100% of the people, then discrimination of services by "religious organizations" which affect even as little as 1/10 of 1% of those clients insured, is indeed proper representation of the public interest.

Exclusionary and discriminatory policies based upon "religious" principles have been the basis of institutionalized racism, sexism, and homophobia for millenia.

When proper governance and jurisprudence exists in a democracy, it provides remedies for those suffering from such religiously motivated policies.(SEE: Emancipation Proclamtion, 14th Amendment, 19th Amendment, 1964 Civil Rights Act)

durablebrad wrote:

<quoted text>
If you believe that government represents 100% of the people, then discrimination of services by "religious organizations" which affect even as little as 1/10 of 1% of those clients insured, is indeed proper representation of the public interest.
Exclusionary and discriminatory policies based upon "religious" principles have been the basis of institutionalized racism, sexism, and homophobia for millenia.
When proper governance and jurisprudence exists in a democracy, it provides remedies for those suffering from such religiously motivated policies.(SEE: Emancipation Proclamtion, 14th Amendment, 19th Amendment, 1964 Civil Rights Act)

Indeed.

However the topic at hand is not talking about STATE-sponsored religion dictating global public policy see Church of England). We are talking about what the rights of private, religious institutions can impose on those that CHOOSE to associate themselves with those institutions.

(Leaving the funding argument aside, which I already covered).

When you CHOOSE to associate yourself with a religious employer or school, it's not up to the institution to bend to YOUR will if one of your wants violates their core belief structure. It is your job to find alternatives or another institution that allows what you want.

durablebrad wrote:

<quoted text>
If you believe that government represents 100% of the people, then discrimination of services by "religious organizations" which affect even as little as 1/10 of 1% of those clients insured, is indeed proper representation of the public interest.
Exclusionary and discriminatory policies based upon "religious" principles have been the basis of institutionalized racism, sexism, and homophobia for millenia.
When proper governance and jurisprudence exists in a democracy, it provides remedies for those suffering from such religiously motivated policies.(SEE: Emancipation Proclamtion, 14th Amendment, 19th Amendment, 1964 Civil Rights Act)

story along to the Muslims because they seem totally unaware of this information.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Let's say you attend the Hindu University of America, but are not Hindu. You think there should be a McDonald's on campus (a service) because you like Big Mac's and have no problem eating beef.

Now of course Hinduism would not like this as it is against their core beliefs.

Would you expect the university to be compelled to allow a McDonald's on campus? OF COURSE NOT!!

People would just tell you to go down to one of the many other McDonald's in the area.

Which is what should be happening in this birth control debate.

Religions do NOT have the right to ignore Consitutional and statutory law... even if they CHOOSE to declare war upon the United States of America.(SEE: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah War 1857-1858)

Your perspective appears to be shaped by a fundamental ignorance of law and of American history.

Just because Satanists (a recognized religion) like to sacrifice human beings, and followers actually bear children in order to create sacrificial victims, it does not mean that there is no legitimate authority for intervention by the federal government to protect the rights of those children... and the child-brides of polygamists in the Southwest today.

Human rights are not an arguable subject of theological debate. They are guaranteed for every American citizen... regardless of what argument you or any religious fanatic may CHOOSE to employ.

durablebrad wrote:

Religions do NOT have the right to ignore Consitutional and statutory law... even if they CHOOSE to declare war upon the United States of America.(SEE: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah War 1857-1858)
Your perspective appears to be shaped by a fundamental ignorance of law and of American history.
Just because Satanists (a recognized religion) like to sacrifice human beings, and followers actually bear children in order to create sacrificial victims, it does not mean that there is no legitimate authority for intervention by the federal government to protect the rights of those children... and the child-brides of polygamists in the Southwest today.
Human rights are not an arguable subject of theological debate. They are guaranteed for every American citizen... regardless of what argument you or any religious fanatic may CHOOSE to employ.

Holy hyperbole Batman!

We are NOT talking about the Inquisition here.

Again, we are talking about a service which a religious organization has elected to not offer to VOLUNTARILY associated individuals. Said service can be obtained any other number of ways without mandating the institution violate its beliefs.

durablebrad wrote:

Just because Satanists (a recognized religion) like to sacrifice human beings, and followers actually bear children in order to create sacrificial victims, it does not mean that there is no legitimate authority for intervention by the federal government to protect the rights of those children... and the child-brides of polygamists in the Southwest today.

TERRIBLE analogy. Mine with Hindus and McDonalds is much more accurate.

My analogy and the specific example with the Georgetown student contain the following:

Organization: Religious Institution
Service from third party: Birth Control/McDonalds
Violate organizations core beliefs? Yes
Offered elsewhere? Yes
Voluntary Association with Organization? Yes

You can continue to argue that this is some religious law that will then be mandated to ALL insurance policies, but that is not what is happening at all, and you know it.

Try some intellectual honesty for a change.

durablebrad wrote:

Religions do NOT have the right to ignore Consitutional and statutory law... even if they CHOOSE to declare war upon the United States of America.

Strike 1

Religious institutions, assuming they are not receiving taxpayer monies (remember I agree with you on that) are not violating any Constitutional or statutory law by not offering a purely optional service that is offered legally elsewhere and freely available.

durablebrad wrote:

Your perspective appears to be shaped by a fundamental ignorance of law and of American history.

Foul Ball
Do NOT presume to belittle my knowledge or understanding of the law as it pertains to this matter.

durablebrad wrote:

Just because Satanists (a recognized religion) like to sacrifice human beings, and followers actually bear children in order to create sacrificial victims, it does not mean that there is no legitimate authority for intervention by the federal government to protect the rights of those children... and the child-brides of polygamists in the Southwest today.

Strike 2

The *service* in question that some religious institutions don't want to pay for is not illegal and is widely available from other sources.

durablebrad wrote:

Religions do NOT have the right to ignore Consitutional and statutory law... even if they CHOOSE to declare war upon the United States of America.(SEE: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah War 1857-1858)
Your perspective appears to be shaped by a fundamental ignorance of law and of American history.
Just because Satanists (a recognized religion) like to sacrifice human beings, and followers actually bear children in order to create sacrificial victims, it does not mean that there is no legitimate authority for intervention by the federal government to protect the rights of those children... and the child-brides of polygamists in the Southwest today.
Human rights are not an arguable subject of theological debate. They are guaranteed for every American citizen... regardless of what argument you or any religious fanatic may CHOOSE to employ.

"Consitutional" law? Is it like the laws that Obama ignored for his Obamacare deal? Are free contraceptives now another human right?

durablebrad wrote:

Human rights are not an arguable subject of theological debate. They are guaranteed for every American citizen... regardless of what argument you or any religious fanatic may CHOOSE to employ.

Strike 3
Nobody is being restricted access to a service. They are simply being asked to find that service elsewhere.

Also, huge assumption noted on your part.

*I* support using birth control.