• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholics sue Obama over birth control mandate

When they are providing the compensation... Yeah.

If they aren't actually a church, no they should not be exempt from laws that effect every other business just because they happen to be partially funded by a church or sponsored by one. Those other business people have their own beliefs too.
 
If they aren't actually a church, no they should not be exempt from laws that effect every other business just because they happen to be partially funded by a church or sponsored by one. Those other business people have their own beliefs too.

I agree. They should just not provide insurance, and let their employees get ****ed in the competitive market the Federal government has fostered.
 
I agree. They should just not provide insurance, and let their employees get ****ed in the competitive market the Federal government has fostered.

Which would lead to us likely setting up UHC, which I am more than happy with. There is no way that most employees will be able to afford insurance on their own. And that means more people unable to pay their bills.
 
Considering the simple fact, that these Catholic Hospitals already perform sterilization, contraceptives, and various other "Conscience Compromised" services to the public they serve...I do not understand why they have an issue with a nurse taking the pill. They are already paying for BC by performing it regularly.

I smell Bull****.

"
Appeal to Conscience Clauses in the Face of Divergent Practices among Catholic Hospitals

Sandra S. Hapenney, Ph.D.
Committee Chairperson: Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D.

Conscience clauses are laws enacted by federal and state governments to protect health care providers from participating in those medical practices they consider morally objectionable. This study examines the practices of Catholic hospitals and their adherence to the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERD) for Catholic Health Care Services issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. If divergence of practice exists among Catholic hospitals, such diversity may pose judicial and political problems for providing protection under the conscience clauses.

Catholic hospitals in seven states—California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington—were studied to determine if diversity of practice existed in the provision of direct female sterilizations. Inpatient discharge data was requested for three years (2007-2009) from the 1,734 hospitals, secular and Catholic, within the states. Of these hospitals, 239 Catholic hospitals were identified of which 176 provided obstetric services. The records of these 176 hospitals were searched for those containing the diagnostic code from the ICD-9-CM coding system for sterilization for contraceptive management. Eighty-five or 48% of these hospitals provided a total of 20,073 direct sterilizations in violation of the ERD.

An analysis of Catholic hospital systems owning hospitals within the seven state study area illustrated that 69.0% the hospitals were members of 26 various Catholic hospital systems. Ten systems operating in the seven states also have hospitals outside the study area. Within these 10 systems, 64.2% of the hospitals in the study area performed direct sterilizations. An analysis of the Catholic dioceses in the study area revealed that 69.8% of the dioceses had hospitals which provided direct sterilizations. Thus, diversity of practice resulting from varied interpretations and applications of the ERD exists among hospitals, and within hospital systems and dioceses. An analysis of the conscience clauses illustrates that Catholic hospitals are in jeopardy of defending themselves against judicial challenges and could strip themselves of the ability to mount a political front to aid in defending the conscience clauses"


View revision 1 of the entire dissertation in portable document format (pdf).
Catholic Hospitals.org

Keep your damn Dogma away from my Kharma...and quit diddling little boys.
 
Considering the simple fact, that these Catholic Hospitals already perform sterilization, contraceptives, and various other "Conscience Compromised" services to the public they serve...I do not understand why they have an issue with a nurse taking the pill. They are already paying for BC by performing it regularly.

I smell Bull****.

"
Appeal to Conscience Clauses in the Face of Divergent Practices among Catholic Hospitals

Sandra S. Hapenney, Ph.D.
Committee Chairperson: Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D.

Conscience clauses are laws enacted by federal and state governments to protect health care providers from participating in those medical practices they consider morally objectionable. This study examines the practices of Catholic hospitals and their adherence to the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERD) for Catholic Health Care Services issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. If divergence of practice exists among Catholic hospitals, such diversity may pose judicial and political problems for providing protection under the conscience clauses.

Catholic hospitals in seven states—California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington—were studied to determine if diversity of practice existed in the provision of direct female sterilizations. Inpatient discharge data was requested for three years (2007-2009) from the 1,734 hospitals, secular and Catholic, within the states. Of these hospitals, 239 Catholic hospitals were identified of which 176 provided obstetric services. The records of these 176 hospitals were searched for those containing the diagnostic code from the ICD-9-CM coding system for sterilization for contraceptive management. Eighty-five or 48% of these hospitals provided a total of 20,073 direct sterilizations in violation of the ERD.

An analysis of Catholic hospital systems owning hospitals within the seven state study area illustrated that 69.0% the hospitals were members of 26 various Catholic hospital systems. Ten systems operating in the seven states also have hospitals outside the study area. Within these 10 systems, 64.2% of the hospitals in the study area performed direct sterilizations. An analysis of the Catholic dioceses in the study area revealed that 69.8% of the dioceses had hospitals which provided direct sterilizations. Thus, diversity of practice resulting from varied interpretations and applications of the ERD exists among hospitals, and within hospital systems and dioceses. An analysis of the conscience clauses illustrates that Catholic hospitals are in jeopardy of defending themselves against judicial challenges and could strip themselves of the ability to mount a political front to aid in defending the conscience clauses"


View revision 1 of the entire dissertation in portable document format (pdf).
Catholic Hospitals.org

Keep your damn Dogma away from my Kharma...and quit diddling little boys.

What a bizzarre argument. If some members (or more likely non-member employees) of a church supported facility sin, then the church loses its right to oppose that sin and must now directly fund that sin or pay a fine? That is much like saying, that because some non Jewish diners may wish to eat pork, that the Jewish run restaurant facility must offer pork on the menu or pay those customers to eat pork elsewhere.
 
When they are providing the compensation... Yeah.

That makes no logical sense to me. It is very much like saying since the money in your paycheck is provided by a business, they decide how you spend it. Both are compensation. Both are from the business that hires the worker.
 
That makes no logical sense to me. It is very much like saying since the money in your paycheck is provided by a business, they decide how you spend it. Both are compensation. Both are from the business that hires the worker.

No it is not very much like that. They are paying for the insurance. They should be able to decide what is insured. If you don't like it, just like if you don't like the wage or other working conditions, then find a new job.

We would not even be having this discussion if the nanny ****ing state did not legislate this stupid ****.
 
No it is not very much like that. They are paying for the insurance. They should be able to decide what is insured. If you don't like it, just like if you don't like the wage or other working conditions, then find a new job.

We would not even be having this discussion if the nanny ****ing state did not legislate this stupid ****.

How is it different. The pay the salary. Hand the money to the employee to do with as they wish: Compensation. They hand the employee the insurance, and the employee, not the employer, goes to the doctor, hodpitals, clinics, pharmacys. Again, it is not the employer using it,but the employee as it belongs to the employee once given, just like the cash. You're trying to make a difference that really isn't there.
 
Yes the insurance belongs to the employee. What is offered belongs to the employer.

There is a difference, whether you can grasp it or not.
 
Last edited:
Considering the simple fact, that these Catholic Hospitals already perform sterilization, contraceptives, and various other "Conscience Compromised" services to the public they serve...I do not understand why they have an issue with a nurse taking the pill. They are already paying for BC by performing it regularly.

I smell Bull****.

"
Appeal to Conscience Clauses in the Face of Divergent Practices among Catholic Hospitals

Sandra S. Hapenney, Ph.D.
Committee Chairperson: Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D.

Conscience clauses are laws enacted by federal and state governments to protect health care providers from participating in those medical practices they consider morally objectionable. This study examines the practices of Catholic hospitals and their adherence to the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERD) for Catholic Health Care Services issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. If divergence of practice exists among Catholic hospitals, such diversity may pose judicial and political problems for providing protection under the conscience clauses.

Catholic hospitals in seven states—California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington—were studied to determine if diversity of practice existed in the provision of direct female sterilizations. Inpatient discharge data was requested for three years (2007-2009) from the 1,734 hospitals, secular and Catholic, within the states. Of these hospitals, 239 Catholic hospitals were identified of which 176 provided obstetric services. The records of these 176 hospitals were searched for those containing the diagnostic code from the ICD-9-CM coding system for sterilization for contraceptive management. Eighty-five or 48% of these hospitals provided a total of 20,073 direct sterilizations in violation of the ERD.

An analysis of Catholic hospital systems owning hospitals within the seven state study area illustrated that 69.0% the hospitals were members of 26 various Catholic hospital systems. Ten systems operating in the seven states also have hospitals outside the study area. Within these 10 systems, 64.2% of the hospitals in the study area performed direct sterilizations. An analysis of the Catholic dioceses in the study area revealed that 69.8% of the dioceses had hospitals which provided direct sterilizations. Thus, diversity of practice resulting from varied interpretations and applications of the ERD exists among hospitals, and within hospital systems and dioceses. An analysis of the conscience clauses illustrates that Catholic hospitals are in jeopardy of defending themselves against judicial challenges and could strip themselves of the ability to mount a political front to aid in defending the conscience clauses"


View revision 1 of the entire dissertation in portable document format (pdf).
Catholic Hospitals.org

Keep your damn Dogma away from my Kharma...and quit diddling little boys.


Good talking point. You of course know why they polled those states right? Oh...you dont.

California, Illinois and New York offer the same guidelines that the fed is now offering. That is, no exemption on those services to Catholic or faith based companies under Church control. Seven other states offer a narrow exemption guideline, which Im betting covers the other states mentioned in the above material. I believe it was 29 other states that offered the broad guidelines that allow chuch based orginzations to exempt themselves from offering these services.

In other words, you are using an example where the state government doesnt allow them to opt out as proof that they offer those services, truly Orwellian.
 
Yes the insurance belongs to the employee. What is offered belongs to the employer.

There is a difference, whether you can grasp it or not.

As does the pay, and the government tells the employee that he must pay at least minimum wage. So, we have something exactly the same, and that has a government specification attached.
 
As does the pay, and the government tells the employee that he must pay at least minimum wage. So, we have something exactly the same, and that has a government specification attached.

Except what they are now trying to specify, is against the religious beliefs of those they are demanding it of.

I know it sucks that there are people that believe something other than you, but you should really get past your bigotry.
 
Except what they are now trying to specify, is against the religious beliefs of those they are demanding it of.

I know it sucks that there are people that believe something other than you, but you should really get past your bigotry.

Believe it or not, what some of those people spend their cash on is against their beliefs as well. But, they can't control it there. And they shoudln't be able to control it with insurance either. The belief that we shoudl be concerned is the belief held by those who use it.
 
Good talking point. You of course know why they polled those states right? Oh...you dont.

California, Illinois and New York offer the same guidelines that the fed is now offering. That is, no exemption on those services to Catholic or faith based companies under Church control. Seven other states offer a narrow exemption guideline, which Im betting covers the other states mentioned in the above material. I believe it was 29 other states that offered the broad guidelines that allow chuch based orginzations to exempt themselves from offering these services.

In other words, you are using an example where the state government doesnt allow them to opt out as proof that they offer those services, truly Orwellian.

Yet, they offer the services....correct?

If indeed this issue is as important as claimed, would these hospitals of Catholic Lean, not leave rather than face the wrath of God watching such sin transpire?

Either this is a religious moral matter, or it is not...they cannot play both teams. Again.....I smell Bull****.
 
Except what they are now trying to specify, is against the religious beliefs of those they are demanding it of.

I know it sucks that there are people that believe something other than you, but you should really get past your bigotry.

May I ask exactly how requiring an institution providing secular services infringes on the religious beliefs of the proprietors?
 
Except what they are now trying to specify, is against the religious beliefs of those they are demanding it of.

I know it sucks that there are people that believe something other than you, but you should really get past your bigotry.

You do not even see the irony in your statement.....do you?
 
Around 80% or more of Catholics use birth control of some form or another.

I don't give two hoots if it is 100% of all Catholics are violating Church doctrine. That is between them, and their Priest. The Catholic Church doctrine isn't set by majority rule, in case you are unfamiliar, it is set by the Vatican, and the Pope.

Now, can you show me where Church doctrine has changed to allow BC?

It is a very small minority of Catholics that have an issue with this law, and those would be the ones who probably feel it is their business to mandate what others do with their bodies just because of their own beliefs.

Again, so what? The doctrine is set by the Vatican. If you don't like the Catholic doctrine, then don't be a Catholic. You can't pick and choose what parts of the religion you will follow, and what parts you will dismiss. Well, I guess you can, but then you're not really a Catholic then are you?


j-mac
 
Believe it or not, what some of those people spend their cash on is against their beliefs as well. But, they can't control it there. And they shoudln't be able to control it with insurance either. The belief that we shoudl be concerned is the belief held by those who use it.


Tell me why it is so important to have Catholic institutions pay for services that are against their doctrine?


j-mac
 
I don't give two hoots if it is 100% of all Catholics are violating Church doctrine. That is between them, and their Priest. The Catholic Church doctrine isn't set by majority rule, in case you are unfamiliar, it is set by the Vatican, and the Pope.

Now, can you show me where Church doctrine has changed to allow BC?

Again, so what? The doctrine is set by the Vatican. If you don't like the Catholic doctrine, then don't be a Catholic. You can't pick and choose what parts of the religion you will follow, and what parts you will dismiss. Well, I guess you can, but then you're not really a Catholic then are you?

Why does everyone assume that you can't pick and choose which parts of a religion you want to follow? Absolutely you can. You can choose whatever the hell you want to follow from any religion and the only thing the actual church can do is keep you from going into their church or having their priests give you what they consider certain religious rites.

And yes, if a person believes the vast majority of the Catholic beliefs but disregards a few they don't agree with, they would still be Catholic. Otherwise, I'm willing to bet there isn't a true Catholic at all.
 
Why does everyone assume that you can't pick and choose which parts of a religion you want to follow? Absolutely you can. You can choose whatever the hell you want to follow from any religion and the only thing the actual church can do is keep you from going into their church or having their priests give you what they consider certain religious rites.

And yes, if a person believes the vast majority of the Catholic beliefs but disregards a few they don't agree with, they would still be Catholic. Otherwise, I'm willing to bet there isn't a true Catholic at all.


The larger question is about whom sets doctrine....

j-mac
 
Because everyone else has to and I don't believe in special rights. Do you?


But that is just the point, no one else "has" to do anything, even at this moment offer health ins at all. This isn't a law that was passed, it is an over reaching regulation from an HHS secretary that once supporter the infamous Dr. Tiller 'the baby killer'.... It is heavy handed central government trying to tell a religion that they no longer have freedom to their own beliefs.


j-mac
 
Tell me why it is so important to have Catholic institutions pay for services that are against their doctrine?


j-mac


Because...everyone else must do so according to law.

Gov't is separated from church....but church is still a part of America,,,,,,,unfortunately.
 
But that is just the point, no one else "has" to do anything, even at this moment offer health ins at all. This isn't a law that was passed, it is an over reaching regulation from an HHS secretary that once supporter the infamous Dr. Tiller 'the baby killer'.... It is heavy handed central government trying to tell a religion that they no longer have freedom to their own beliefs.


j-mac

Whatever you say
The Health Care Law & You | HealthCare.gov
 
Back
Top Bottom