• 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

Boo Radley said:
I actually use the churches words when they hired me back when, They said it was part of my pay. Today, I also help in negotiations with my current employer. They too refer to it as pay. So, I see nothing I state concerning this only my personal opinion.







Yes, I worked for Several years at a Catholic hospital in Iowa City Iowa. But, you don't have to take my word for it:

If you own your own business, your employee compensation and benefits package can be the deciding factor for many potential employees. And it's not just the money.

HowStuffWorks "How Employee Compensation Works"

Benefits are forms of value, other than payment, that are provided to the employee in return for their contribution to the organization, that is, for doing their job.

Employee Benefits and Compensation (Employee Pay)

You can also go ask your employer if health insurance is compensation or just at his pleasure. Give it a shot. ;)




Agian, and you are ignoring this, the Church is not forced to pay for abortions or contracptions. The insurance company pays for this. Whether this is from the employees own cash, it gets from the church, or the insurance comapny, it is the employee, not the church, who is paying for and getting the service.
Click to expand...




I clearly see I am wasting my time. Your wish to make a square peg fit a round hole, constitution be damned. "separation of church and state" only applies to the church, not the state to you....


If I offer my employees a healthcare plan, and by your logic, considered it pay how do you think they would react to say a "raise", instead of money, I upped thier healthcare to include dog grooming. hey, it's "pay" right? :roll:
 
Thunder said:
this stupid issue again????

the solution is simple: let religious institutions demand that all services for abortion, birth control, male-circumcision, Viagra, Propecia, vasectomies, hysterectamies, and full-body massages be covered by an optional-rider that the subscriber can choose or choose NOT to purchase. that way, the insurance provided by the employers does NOT pay for these things.

done and done.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be a distraction then.
 
I don't agree with the idea that healthcare should cover birth control. It is not a medical problem IMO. People should pay for their own. However, if we are requiring everyone to carry this option then religious orgs should not be exempt. No one should have special rights or exceptions.
 
muciti said:
I don't agree with the idea that healthcare should cover birth control. It is not a medical problem IMO. People should pay for their own. However, if we are requiring everyone to carry this option then religious orgs should not be exempt. No one should have special rights or exceptions.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the first assertion (as Getting Pregnant is indeed a medical issue), I very much agree with the second point.

If we are to consider BC a preventative measure, that can easily prevent pregnancy and thus stop a medical issue from happening it is akin to high blood pressure medications, insulin, etc...in that it is medically proven to prevent a possible health risk. There are also many other medically beneficial results for some women and health.

I do agree 100%, that by trying to avoid the law (though actually they are still exempt everywhere but in PUBLIC hospitals)...the church is asking to be treated in such a way that they create unfairness. They are not some special entity that gets to be above the law.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I clearly see I am wasting my time. Your wish to make a square peg fit a round hole, constitution be damned. "separation of church and state" only applies to the church, not the state to you....


If I offer my employees a healthcare plan, and by your logic, considered it pay how do you think they would react to say a "raise", instead of money, I upped thier healthcare to include dog grooming. hey, it's "pay" right? :roll:
Click to expand...

The consitution has nothing to do with this any more than minimum wage does. You mistake who has control of the compensation once given. Like their cash, the health insurance is the employees and not the church.
 
Deuce said:
Religion doesn't get you exempt from whatever laws you feel like, sorry.
Click to expand...

What?

The bible doesn't say anything about birth control.
 
tecoyah said:
I disagree with the first assertion (as Getting Pregnant is indeed a medical issue), I very much agree with the second point.

If we are to consider BC a preventative measure, that can easily prevent pregnancy and thus stop a medical issue from happening it is akin to high blood pressure medications, insulin, etc...in that it is medically proven to prevent a possible health risk. There are also many other medically beneficial results for some women and health.

I do agree 100%, that by trying to avoid the law (though actually they are still exempt everywhere but in PUBLIC hospitals)...the church is asking to be treated in such a way that they create unfairness. They are not some special entity that gets to be above the law.
Click to expand...

What law are you referring to?
 
sharon said:
What?

The bible doesn't say anything about birth control.
Click to expand...


Exactly...thus the entire issue makes no sense to me.

It's almost as if the Catholic Church is making something up to lay a foundation.
 
tecoyah said:
I disagree with the first assertion (as Getting Pregnant is indeed a medical issue),

If we are to consider BC a preventative measure, that can easily prevent pregnancy and thus stop a medical issue from happening it is akin to high blood pressure medications, insulin, etc...
Click to expand...

I don't agree that birth control meds are on the same page as high bp pills. But it is just my opinion. I don't strongly oppose it, but I would never support it either. You don't need BC to avoid those risks. You can simply not have sex and eliminate the risks that way. I think it is a bit silly to expect someone to cover your preventive measures for a risky behavior you are choosing to engage in.
 
jambalaya said:
Contraception is not a new issue for the Catholic Church. This particular issue was forced on the Church by the Obama administration. The people who worked for the church were used to getting their own contraception anyway and still took a job with the church so this would just be an added benefit to them. Religious persecution continues its slow evolution.
Click to expand...

No kidding and American Catholics have been ignoring the ban for as long as it has been in effect. The fact that the church is making an issue of it now is new. The fact is that if they don't have to pay for it they have no right to limit an employees access to it. Their original complaint was that it was against their teaching to PAY for birth control and now that that was fixed they found a different complaint. They apparently want to restrict the availability of birth control fo ALL not just Catholics. What does that have to do with freedom of religion?
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
I don't agree that birth control meds are on the same page as high bp pills. But it is just my opinion. I don't strongly oppose it, but I would never support it either. You don't need BC to avoid those risks. You can simply not have sex and eliminate the risks that way. I think it is a bit silly to expect someone to cover your preventive measures for a risky behavior you are choosing to engage in.
Click to expand...

LOL So your position is that you can't take contraceptives to avoid pregnancy? Millions of women do that every day, Einstein.
In the HC law offering birth control is a cost saving measure which of course means nothing to you. Who needs to reduce HC costs? We all love to pay and pay and pay, right?
 
muciti said:
I don't agree that birth control meds are on the same page as high bp pills. But it is just my opinion. I don't strongly oppose it, but I would never support it either. You don't need BC to avoid those risks. You can simply not have sex and eliminate the risks that way. I think it is a bit silly to expect someone to cover your preventive measures for a risky behavior you are choosing to engage in.
Click to expand...

Am I to understand that Sex with my partner of 5 yrs. is now a risky behavior?
Do you honestly expect people to deny a force that has driven all of us for millions of years?
I don't know about you...but this is not an activity I would do well without.

Do you find it "Silly" that Viagra is currently covered?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So it's voluntary for everyone but the church who offers it. pay is pay, healthcare is a benefit offered at the pleasure of the employer. the employer should be free to say, it's against thier religion, being a church and all, to do things that religion thinks is immorral.


The catholic church being against contraception is dumb, it's thier right to be dumb, as it is your right not to work there, and not use thier health insurance that does not cover your birth control.


Some insurance covers massage. Should we mandate that all insurance covers massage, I choose to get a massage as I may choose to have birth control, Is it the governments business telling a church how to practice thier "free exercise therof"?


Not unless you are some anti-constitutional statists, I can't see how. :shrug:
Click to expand...
yes but the catholic church pays no taxes so should get no representation. right?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, like pay, is just part of the compensaion, not pleasure. The church offers a certain salary, not one dictatied outside of mimimum wage. And to help, the also compensate with insurance, as part of the salary packet (as the church explained to me whe I worked at one of their hospitals -- it was part of the salary). As such, it is up to me on how I use it and not the church. It isn't a pleasure, and more than it is a pleasure to me 20 dollars an hour as opposed to the eight dollars that is minimum wage.

So, no, the government is telling the church how to practice anything. Only like minimum wage, the compensation will include the option for the employee. Only the employee can make the decision whether to use the option. The church plays no role in the decision.
Click to expand...
but they ARE trying to have a say in the decision and without paying taxes i don't see how they can do that.
 
tecoyah said:
I disagree with the first assertion (as Getting Pregnant is indeed a medical issue), I very much agree with the second point.

If we are to consider BC a preventative measure, that can easily prevent pregnancy and thus stop a medical issue from happening it is akin to high blood pressure medications, insulin, etc...in that it is medically proven to prevent a possible health risk. There are also many other medically beneficial results for some women and health.

I do agree 100%, that by trying to avoid the law (though actually they are still exempt everywhere but in PUBLIC hospitals)...the church is asking to be treated in such a way that they create unfairness. They are not some special entity that gets to be above the law.
Click to expand...
they are kind of special in that they don't have to pay taxes and think they can still get representation.
 
Boo Radley said:
The consitution has nothing to do with this any more than minimum wage does. You mistake who has control of the compensation once given. Like their cash, the health insurance is the employees and not the church.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.... The healthcare is a benefit, they cannot tell the employer. "no thank you, I'd like to take the cash instead". The church does not want it's money going to things its against. You as a statist have no problem pissing on the constitution if it goes your way.

:shrug:
 
tecoyah said:
Am I to understand that Sex with my partner of 5 yrs. is now a risky behavior?
Click to expand...

Yes. You are running the risk of pregnancy and any other complications that come with having sex.

Do you honestly expect people to deny a force that has driven all of us for millions of years?
Click to expand...

No. I expect them to cover their own costs of performing that action.
I don't know about you...but this is not an activity I would do well without.
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem paying for it. BC pills are not an expensive item.

Do you find it "Silly" that Viagra is currently covered?
Click to expand...

yes i do.


Do you think my medical insurance should cover my helmet for my motorcycle? My parachute when i sky dive? Should they cover a bullet proof vest? Protective eye wear when I go to a shooting range?
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Again, you folks only want "Separation of church and state" when it suits your agenda.
Click to expand...
nope i ALWAYS want separation of church and state like the church has no say in what the state puts forth as law when they pay NO taxes.
 
muciti said:
Do you also think that the poor should get no representation too? This is terrible logic.
Click to expand...

Funny how libs conveniently forget that every day. It's easy to scream for higher taxes when you pay none.
 
muciti said:
Do you also think that the poor should get no representation too? This is terrible logic.
Click to expand...
i'm poor and still pay taxes? and i have A LOT less representation than the church.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom