Obama chief of staff: No more compromise, contraceptive rule is done deal

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't aware they "endorsed" Viagra or its use.
If they did, they'd probably allow it as it would help married couples enjoy their sex lives.
Not terribly nefarious.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Your argument only holds water if you can somehow wave your hand and ensure that no private employer in the U.S. objects to having to subsideize contraceptives in their health insurance premiums.
That's the basis for the objection.
The Friday announcement still doesn't remove a causal relationship between employer and employee respective to the employer providing contraception via their payment of insurance premiums to the carrier.
The feds are going to have to spell out how, exactly, the insurance provider dispensing BC for "free", on demand, to an insured as part of a coverage plan is an act done outside of the contract between the employer and the insurance provider.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
It's abundantly true today, in advance of the mandate.
The argument presented by Roy is that the 28 state laws now act the same as the federal mandate under proposal, which isn't so.
An I'm reaching for technicalities?

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
SO DO CONTRACEPTIVES!!!!!!!
You can't enjoy Viagra recreationally without contraception!!
Contraceptives are NOT "terribly nefarious" either, Dan.
And yes, many (most?) Catholic healthcare plans currently pay for Viagra, so that is absolutely "endorsing" it.... or else paying for Birth control doesn't "endorse" it, either.
You are never consistent in your arguments. You merely try to "win" each individual post, but you don't apply your logic across the board. Makes it very frustrating to debate with you.

Judged:

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
If the lib argument continues to be "access", I'd expect the "free clinic/PP" rejoinder.
"Access to birth control" is a solution in search of a problem.

Judged:

1

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
"Your argument only holds water if you can somehow wave your hand and ensure that no private employer in the U.S. objects to having to subsideize contraceptives in their health insurance premiums.
That's the basis for the objection."
HUH?
What does that have to do with the Catholic Bishops trying to dictate that the bc mandate should be dropped for EVERYONE, as they explicitly did yesterday?

Judged:

1

1

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
The liberal argument ISN'T about "access" merely to birth control, though. That is your straw man.
The liberal argument is about access to comprehensive preventive healthcare, and a woman's right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
If you were sitting in a public park and praying, could a policeman stop you from doing so because you have "access" to a church six blocks away? No. It is an unfair infringement on your rights to say where you can and can't enjoy them.
In other words, we may be advocating a similar principal. Yet you say the rights of a religious organization should trump the rights of an individual in the secular world. I'm saying the opposite is true.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
The 28 state laws DO act the same as the federal mandate under proposal... but the technicality is that businesses can opt-out of the state mandates, provided they obey federal law.
If the federal law changes, the substance or options of the state laws do not.

Teach wrote:

<quoted text>
If a woman is gainfully employed, she can certainly afford $20 a month, never mind $9 a month. You just want the government to mandate that employers or someone else should have to pay for our every whim and need. If they don't make enough money, they can get it for free.
Those who are not employed have to go to a clinic...or maybe you'd rather the government mandated that they are delivered door to door? Shoved down their throats? Before long, we'll simply decide to let the government mandate that they have to be sterilized...how 'bout that?
I'm not a religious freeek(sic), in fact, I'm not religious at all. And if people want to have sex without procreating, and who doesn't?, there is birth control everywhere and a lot of it is free. So as it stands, right now, there is no reason for most "unwanted" pregnancies, other than a lack of personal responsibility. But not to worry. If you can't (or won't) be responsible enough not to get pregnant, the government will happily become the solution. The more you subsidize something, the more of it you get.

Judged:

1

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
The liberal argument ISN'T about "access" merely to birth control, though. That is your straw man.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Well that's awfully nice of you to tell gainfully employed women that they can spare $20 a month and the time needed to go to some clinic and get birth control.
I could say the same of flu shots, they're everywhere and pretty cheap. Why shouldn't flu shots also, therefore, be tossed out of health insurance coverage?
Oh I know of two reasons!
1. There's no intent to impose a "religious" dogma by ditching flu shots.
2. Making flu shots covered by health insurance plans will hopefully increase adherence, even though, as you say, there are always some people who just won't be able to avail themselves of healthy options. If you can get most people on flu shots, or more than otherwise would be, then that's very good for the body politic.
Of course the social consequences of a flu pale in comparison to the ongoing, tragic costs of an unwanted pregnancy.
Now, since you're not a "religious" freeek, you can explain why you think it's reasonable to leave birth control out of health insurance plans, yet leave flu shots in them. Or do you think flu shots should not be covered?

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Not according to Catholic teaching, viagra and contraceptives are not moral equivalents.
C'mon, CG.
Please. Don't presume to pick nits about logic if this is the kind of post you'll subject me to.
This may work with your "attaboy" chorus here, but not me.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps I misunderstand your post, but the talibangelicals and Franco RCC types _definitely_ wish to control female sexuality (and non procreative sex) by making birth control as non ubiquitous, expensive and hard to use as possible.
The conservatives in general may also have the aim of doing away with preventive care or any social safety net, but the birth control thing is far from just a straw man for much of the right wing.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL
So now "Logic" is "nit-picking"?
I appreciate your tacit admission that there's zero logical consistency in the Catholic position, but you are the self-appointed defender of the faith here on Topix, and have set yourself up as an expert on the subject.
What, exactly, is the reasoning that Viagra is okay.... but birth control isn't?
Does the Catholic Church not realize, or acknowledge, that four hour boners are not for procreation, but for recreation, only?

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>Say What? Singlehandedly? That infers he went to Pakistan and literally shot Osama. I think there are some Seals that would dispute that. You really go over the top with your obsessiveness over our Prez.

Judged:

1

1

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand that. But that's where I believe the argument becomes disingenuous.
They say they "don't wish to limit access to birth control", which I believe is not true, on its face.
But I believe it's a strawman because that is not what the left's argument is, or should be. It's NOT about a Constitutional right to have birth control paid for, as they say-- it's a bout a Constitutional right to equal care under the law. Birth Control pills have been defined by the SCOTUS as being an example of equal rights for women to healthcare, and they are now mandated by federal law.
The argument for forcing employers to provide them, therefore, is not a First Amendment argument for us, but a Fourteenth Amendment argument.
But I think that "all women have a Constitutional right to free contraception" is a strawman, because I don't think ANYONE is making that argument.
Make sense?

Rich Caruso J wrote:

<quoted text>
You left out the "free Chicken".

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
So is that what I should tell my wife on a Friday night, after the dishes are done, and the kids are put to bed?

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to pay for flu shots.
C'mon, man.