• 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!

Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

So they paid for it and installed it?
 
Somerville said:
Sometimes hatred or distaste for a group causes people to forego actually reading posted links
Click to expand...

I read you link to think progress Somer, but I question why you totally ignored the part that I pointed out. You couldn't have missed it, it is right before the bold part you posted here....Let me highlight it for you...

The nuns argue, **, that this form may also be used to induce their insurer to provide birth control to the workers in their nursing homes though a separate arrangement. That may be true in some cases, but it is not true here, as the nuns use an insurer who is also exempt from compliance with the requirement to provide birth control. So the punch line is that all the nuns needed to do is fill out the form, and then no one would provide birth control to anyone. Nevertheless, they did not wish to do this.

**I removed "incorrectly" because it is opinion of the writer, not fact.**
Click to expand...

You'll notice the relevant part as I highlighted it...This case in the court system, so we will see how it plays out. But weight has to be given that a Liberal justice in Sotomayor [sic] is the one who ordered the stay.

The relevant federal statutes ERISA § 3(33)(C)(i) and ERISA § 3(33)(C)(ii)(II) & (C)(iii). Basically the courts have ruled for more than 30 years, if the body providing health insurance to church employees does not sell insurance to non-employees, the insuror is not required to provide services which violate their religious tenets.
Click to expand...

And that may well be the case in the LSoP argument in front of the court. But as I see it, and as reported by the NYTimes,

"...The injunction means that they will not be forced to sign and deliver the controversial government forms authorizing and instructing their benefits administrator to provide contraceptives.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/u...king-contraception-mandate-for-nuns.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

See, the whole thing that the administration, and its supporters fail to grasp in situations like this, is that even if the administration says that it is not forcing a group like LSoP to directly provide BC, or abortion services, it is telling them that they must sign a document saying that it is ok if their insurer does....That is a defacto tacid approval of these services, and thus by extension forcing them to provide the service anyway...It is underhanded in its devious method....
 
Somerville said:
Maybe you should read the OP, specifically the following “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.”
Click to expand...

this still doesn't disprove my point. none of the people running or operating those things give up their 1st amendment rights unless you can provide some evidence that they do. The SCOTUS has ruled on this many many times.

There is already a gay couple in london that has sued the church there for not recognizing their marriage and won't allow it to be performed in the church.
it is just a matter of time before it happens here which again is a violation of the 1st amendment, but you don't see to care about that.
 
ludin said:
It does the same thing that the 1st amendment does or is suppose to do. allow people to practice their religious views or practices without fear of the government stepping in and penalizing them for practicing their religious beliefs.

that owners of companies can't be punished for exercising their first amendment rights.
look at the chick fil a incident. they tried to demonize that place and it backfired they had more sales than ever before and had people lined up around the block.
their sales are also still going strong.

you say you don't like religious people forcing their views on you well other people don't like you forcing your views on them. it goes both ways.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Chic Fil A is proof of why they do not need this bill.
 
scatt said:
Not paying for their employees abortions is not controlling their lives.
Click to expand...

Taking birth control is nowhere near paying for an abortion. Birth control is about family planning, and prevents abortions. Only an idiot believes birth control (as in contraceptives, what this is about) is the same as abortion.
 
scatt said:
Not paying for their employees abortions is not controlling their lives.
Click to expand...

The thing is, they are not paying for their employee's abortions, any more than they are paying for their employee's braces. They are paying for a comprehensive health insurance plan that covers many, many different things including abortion and braces. Nobody gets to pick which medical procedures their insurance covers and only pay for those things. That's not how insurance works. You pay a single fee and you get a wide variety of coverage.

Why are the religious so stupid?
 
scatt said:
They paid for it and installed it?
Click to expand...

"They" have no money. All of the money for the state legislature comes from the taxes of the citizens. So no, "they" didn't pay for anything.
 
Cephus said:
The thing is, they are not paying for their employee's abortions, any more than they are paying for their employee's braces. They are paying for a comprehensive health insurance plan that covers many, many different things including abortion and braces.
Click to expand...

Sure they are, the state forces them to literally pay for their insurance. And the state literally mandates that that insurance specifically includes those things. And the state literally bans insurance policies that do not cover those things.

Cephus said:
"They" have no money.
Click to expand...

They used taxpayer funds to pay for this thing and to pay for its being put there?
 
scatt said:
Sure they are, the state forces them to literally pay for their insurance. And the state literally mandates that that insurance specifically includes those things. And the state literally bans insurance policies that do not cover those things.
Click to expand...

Not that I agree with Obamacare in the slightest, but the state is forcing *EVERY* business to do the same thing so there's no undue effect on the religious. Obamacare simply insists that care be comprehensive and cover many different areas of medical care. If a company decided they were offended by oncology care, this would never be an issue because nobody would ever suggest that they had a right not to want to pay for cancer treatment. This only happens because the religious think they're special.

They're not. They're morons.
 
Cephus said:
Not that I agree with Obamacare in the slightest, but the state is forcing *EVERY* business to do the same thing so there's no undue effect on the religious. Obamacare simply insists that care be comprehensive and cover many different areas of medical care.
Click to expand...

Sure, they used PPACA to get around already established religious protections.
 
roguenuke said:
Because your comment was made toward me and I had something to comment on it about.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you said something wrong, so I addressed it.
 
scatt said:
Sure, they used PPACA to get around already established religious protections.
Click to expand...

Don't care. I'm entirely happy to see all of the "religious protections" just go away entirely. They were always intended to protect individual religious practices and beliefs from being infringed on, they were never meant to protect religious discrimination against others, which is exactly what this is.

Try again.
 
scatt said:
Yeah, you said something wrong, so I addressed it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything wrong. I was discussing birth control, what this issue is about, not abortions. The law concerns birth control coverage, not abortions.
 
CriticalThought said:
As a conservative put the emotional knee jerk desire to push a religious agenda aside and ask yourself the critical question that all responsible conservatives ask of any proposed law, "what might be the unintended consequences of this legislation?'
Click to expand...

People are allowed to exercise the right of association in ways the rest of us find distasteful.

A knee jerk religious agenda of the kind you are alluding to would be the opposite of what is being described. Such an agenda would remove the right of association by (for example) forbidding the employment of homosexuals in churches, or banning pastors from keeping their jobs once they have been divorced.


Individual liberty. If you are going to put "libertarian" next to your lean, you are supposed to be in favor of it. Even for people you disagree with.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
They were always intended to protect individual religious practices and beliefs from being infringed on, they were never meant to protect religious discrimination against others, which is exactly what this is.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS obviously disagrees with you, religious entities can discriminate against their employees for religious reasons, and the ruling was unanimous.

roguenuke said:
I didn't say anything wrong. I was discussing birth control, what this issue is about, not abortions. The law concerns birth control coverage, not abortions.
Click to expand...

The forced coverage for both is the topic.
 
The bill seems to be worded so broadly that anyone or any business can justify virtually any otherwise illegal action by claiming that they are practicing their religion. In my view, that privilege should be reserved for the harmless activities of individuals and the harmless actions of religious non-profits. Once a religion forms a spin-off non-religious organization (ie. Catholic Charities) so that they can qualify for government contracts or other public recognition, they should lose their religious privileges.
 
scatt said:
The forced coverage for both is the topic.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Abortion can be mandated to be paid for by the person getting it, either directly or by paying a separate premium for that particular coverage. Birth control is the one mandated to be covered by the insurance provided by an employer (included in the policy) without an out, from what I've read.

Health Reform and Abortion Coverage in the Insurance Exchanges (State Implementation Brief)

"If insurance coverage for abortion is included in a plan in the exchange, a separate premium is required for this coverage paid for by the policyholder. In addition, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion" executive order establishes an enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services, consistent with existing federal statute."
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong. Abortion can be mandated to be paid for by the person getting it, either directly or by paying a separate premium for that particular coverage. Birth control is the one mandated to be covered by the insurance provided by an employer (included in the policy) without an out, from what I've read.

Health Reform and Abortion Coverage in the Insurance Exchanges (State Implementation Brief)

"If insurance coverage for abortion is included in a plan in the exchange, a separate premium is required for this coverage paid for by the policyholder. In addition, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion" executive order establishes an enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services, consistent with existing federal statute."
Click to expand...

Abortion is already paid for with taxpayer funding though, is ncsl not aware of this?
 
You know. Laws like this can be fun. I should start a pro abortion rights religion and sue Texas to back off some of its laws.
 
scatt said:
Abortion is already paid for with taxpayer funding though, is ncsl not aware of this?
Click to expand...

It isn't. You can believe the bull you have been told, but abortions are not paid for by taxpayer funding.
 
roguenuke said:
It isn't. You can believe the bull you have been told, but abortions are not paid for by taxpayer funding.
Click to expand...

The Hyde amendment specifically allows for taxpayer funds to pay for certain abortions. Are you unaware of this?
 
scatt said:
The Hyde amendment specifically allows for taxpayer funds to pay for certain abortions. Are you unaware of this?
Click to expand...

Yes I was unaware. Still not elective abortions and still not what we were discussing.

Taking things to extreme, and/or limiting black and white answers prohibits honest debate. They cannot pay for elective abortions. You may not agree with the amendment (personally I have my reservations about abortions), but the issue at hand was insurance and paying for birth control, not requiring insurance to pay for abortions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom