Obama declared jihad on the Catholic Church by decreeing it must pay for birth control and abortions of its employees, and the Holy Roman Empire is striking back.
This is not just a Catholic issue, it is a religious freedom issue. Make churches pay for stuff that violates their doctrines and bedrock beliefs, and you can next force them to perform gay marriages or declare their doctrine hate speech under pain of losing their tax exempt status.
But wait, there’s more! Once the federal government establishes the precedent that it can violate this First Amendment right, it is then free to violate the free speech rights of individual citizens. First Amendment gone. All for the greater good, dontcha know...
Libertarian Steve Chapman recalling the church's losing battle against birth control pills back in 1960's, comes to liberty's defense:
Venocci's argument encapsulates the progressive long march. As government increases, we decrease. They lure us in with favors and suborn private institutions with government money until the individual becomes indistinguishable from the state. Take government money and not only must you dance to their tune, you become government property, bought and paid for.
That is what the progressive argument hinges upon: If you take from the government pot (which consists of money confiscated from you), you surrender your rights to the state. The linchpin of this nefarious government plot is getting every little doggy's paw to reach into the pot. Progressive mission accomplished. Checkmate. You are bought and paid for. With your own money.
* - For a deeper explanation of the legal justification progressives use to defend Obamacare and other similar incursions on our liberties, see this: WH - Of Course Government Can Put a Gun to your Head...
But wait, there’s more! Once the federal government establishes the precedent that it can violate this First Amendment right, it is then free to violate the free speech rights of individual citizens. First Amendment gone. All for the greater good, dontcha know...
Libertarian Steve Chapman recalling the church's losing battle against birth control pills back in 1960's, comes to liberty's defense:
But many of those who think it's wrong to forbid Americans to buy contraceptives think it's just fine to require them to buy contraceptives. In this group, unfortunately, are President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who are hell-bent on enforcing that mandate on nearly everyone. (Chapman)Statist Toady Joan Venocci argues for the constitution shredders:
But not all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholics. Why should their employers impose their religious beliefs on them and deny coverage for birth control and other medical care? As long as those Catholic institutions are getting taxpayer money, they should follow secular rules. That’s the Obama administration’s argument, and it makes sense. (Boston Glob)
The obvious answer is, of course the Catholic Church is not denying them these things. Employees of the Holy Roman Empire are free to go out and purchase them. No inquisitions, no fear of being burned at the stake, just a free decision... Paid for with their own damned money!
All Your Cookies are Belonging to Me!
All Your Cookies are Belonging to Me!
* - For a deeper explanation of the legal justification progressives use to defend Obamacare and other similar incursions on our liberties, see this: WH - Of Course Government Can Put a Gun to your Head...
80 comments:
I'm still trying to figure out why Obama made his stand on this hill.
Protestants and Roman Catholics are outraged -- united on this issue. How can they possibly vote for BHO in November?
Obama must think that those votes don't matter.
But many of those who think it's wrong to forbid Americans to buy contraceptives think it's just fine to require them to buy contraceptives.
----------
Huh? Who's requiring anyone to use contraception?
Is this guy a complete idiot?
Duck,
Who's requiring anyone to use contraception?
The parents of teenage girls, I guess.
Ducky: Slick trick, switching words out. Chapman said "buy contraceptives," but in your statement you changed it to "use contraception."
Chapman's point is that government may not force the church to buy birth control pills for someone.
You're too smart to resort to such cheap tricks.
AOW: Why did Obama pick this battle? Because he is politically stupid. He sure isn't the genius his disciples portray him as. At least we've seen no evidence of it.
His political road has been clean and wide until now, with political panjandrums and backroom party bosses always clearing the way for him. Now he's a naif on a global stage, surrounded by marxist professor types who know noting of how the real world really works.
Any successes he has enjoyed (which are not many) has been pure dumb luck.
But this will all blow over and I predict Catholics will vote for him in droves, like an abused spouse running back to the abuser.
You can't explain liberalism...
Silverfiddle,
Maybe he's not so stupid. Have you seen THIS?
If true, he's going to look like the leader who listens to and responds to the will of the people.
He picked this battle because he knows what everyone else (except all of you apparently) already knows: most Catholics don't care about the church's teaching on birth control.
Look at the polls and statistics. The only women that actually refrain from using birth control simply because the church says so are the super hard-core Catholics and trust me, that is not even anywhere close to representative of the American Catholic population.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1
The statistic is that 98% of all American women have used birthc control at one point in their lives. Caholics account for nearly 50% of the American population. 2% is a pretty small number.
I think Obama thought this would make the GOP look like Conservative Loons. Who could be opposed to contraception? As SF so clearly makes the point, the issue is not about contraception.Obama stirred up an issue that was way past his paygrade and mindset to comprehend.
I think Bunker offers the most plausible explanation, but Jack makes sense as well, although that poll paints a very skewed picture, since birth control pills have many uses besides just everyday, long term use for avoiding pregnancy.
Here's the larger issue. If one president can imperiously decree free birth control for everyone, a conservative president can decree the opposite, since we no longer require government action be grounded in something so archaic as a constitutional principle.
Welcome to rule by fiat. It's wonderful when it's "your guy" is doing it; but it sucks when "their guy" does it.
This is a blaring warning siren and flashing red light that our government is violating the constitution.
I think Obama thought they had the answer to the First Amendment issue. The reaction of the Catholic and the Protestant and many Democrats took him by surprise. He is now backing off and is trying to clean off the fan thrown debris.
Only a little bit, Jim. He's willing to compromise on this, even if the compromise isn't enough for some people.
We all know the Constution doesn't mention anything about medical services, so this is something outside of its purview, I think.
How would you all feel if some precepts of Sharia law were allowed to be considered on a matter of health insurance and employment? If you don't want Sharia to ever trump secular law, then how can you expect for church law to ever trump secular law?
You've got it backwards, Jack.
How would you all feel if some precepts of Sharia law were allowed to be considered on a matter of health insurance and employment? If you don't want Sharia to ever trump secular law, then how can you expect for church law to ever trump secular law?
Church law, Kosher law or Sharia are all permissible so long as they do not violate the constitution or the rights of others.
It is the federal government violating people's religious rights by forcing them to do things against their teachings.
Imagine the government forcing an Islamic hospital to cook and serve pork.
Their refusal to prepare anything non-halal is within their rights, and there's not a damned thing the government can do about it.
The government must respect and protect our rights, not the other way around.
@ Jack: We all know the Constitution doesn't mention anything about medical services, so this is something outside of its purview, I think.
That seals it. You've resolved the issue.
The constitution is a set of directives from the people and the states to the federal government. It is their instruction manual. If it ain't in the manual, the government may not do it. Period.
Will you all QUIT SPLITTING INFINITIVES, please.
It gives me a SPLITTING HEADACHE.
If you're going to insist on issuing tedious sophomoric arguments for the sake of argument, at least do it decent English.
To whom have I addressed this bit of vituperation?
If the foo shits, swear at it.
~ FT
"The government must respect and protect our rights, not the other way around."
YAWANNA MAKE A BET?
~ FT
So is every amendment ever ratified after the Founding Fathers died somehow wrong?
The Constitution *allowed* slavery at one point. The people who argued against the abolition of slavery used the same argument, the the government couldn't outlaw slavery because the Constitution didn't say it could.
Now I'm not arguing for a blank check here, but history has shown that men 200+ years ago could not have foreseen every single circumstance that could possibly pop up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to censor media based on a standard of "decency." So why do we have the FCC, and why do most people support the government censoring lewd things on television?
And Silver, we both know there's a big difference between serving kosher/halal foods and insurance coverage.
"The government must respect and protect our rights, not the other way around."
YAWANNA MAKE A BET?
Precisely. My first target shooting lesson (age 5) from my grandfather began with him handing me a copy of the Constitution and saying "This lists your rights."
With the lesson in the workings of the .30-06, he handed me the gun and said "This keeps your rights."
My grandfather was a bit ceremonial with his rites-of-passage, but I see wisdom in them more and more every day.
The Constitution *allowed* slavery at one point. The people who argued against the abolition of slavery used the same argument, the the government couldn't outlaw slavery because the Constitution didn't say it could.
Not so much. The Framers of the Constitution punted the slavery question, but they certainly stacked the Constitutional deck against it, gave it a nice cut to let it naturally bleed to death (or so they intended)
Article 1 Section 9 authorized Congress to ban slavery importation onto American soil (the States and unannexed federal territories) after January 1, 1808, and set a 10 dollar tax (one-half ounce of gold at the time) on each transference of a single slave between state lines (outright banning the importation of slaves into unannexed federal territories, such as Ohio at the time)
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
This made slavery an economically unfeasible institution in America.
Next, the Constitution's Framers set up the three-fifths compromise. States could only count 60% of their enslaved population towards enumeration of Congressional delegates to the House of Representatives - where tax legislation is made. Slave-holding states could be taxed and taxed until they emancipated their enslaved population, and lost more voice in Congress with the more slaves they accrued.
[This is why chickenhawk warmongers like Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi screamed so much for war with Cuba and Mexico to acquire more territory to become slave-states, to break the political dominance of free states in Congress]
Slavery wasn't ended by the Founding Fathers, but it certainly set the stage for its economic and political unviability as an institution in America.
The Missouri Compromise of 1850, which acquiesced against the Founding Fathers' intentions and allowed slavery into a federal territory pretty much doomed America to Civil War when Constitutionalists like Abraham Lincoln and the "Radical" Republicans stepped up and said "no further."
That's a lot of words to reiterate one statement I made.
Sure beamish, the Constitution indirectly allowed slavery. We all know they thought ending the slave trade would end slavery, but the problem arose that slavery in America was racial and generational, and slavery was very economically viable and lucrative.
It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Constitution explicitly abolished slavery.
And the whole point of that is to remind us all that the Constitution is subject to change as the times change.
What Obama is doing is questionable, but I disagree that it's an all out assault on religion.
@ Jack: So is every amendment ever ratified after the Founding Fathers died somehow wrong?
I don't know how you got that out of the conversation???
As for the rest of your comments. Congratulations! You can successfully ingested the progressive indoctrination and are now regurgitating it.
So tell me, do you agree or not that the constitution circumscribes federal action? Yes or No.
The principle I argue from is simple, and it concords with the founders' understanding of natural law: It says a woman (or anyone) had a right to birth control (or anything that does not harm others). The government may not interfere.
That includes smoking dope and hosting homosexual orgies or church meetings in your own home. That is your private sphere and government does not belong there. It has no sovereignty there. You do.
It also includes holding religious beliefs and acting upon them so long as you do not violate a fundamental right of another.
Last time I checked, there was no fundamental right to have someone else pay for your medical care.
Did Obama issue a statement of compromise today or not?
As government increases, we decrease. They lure us in with favors and suborn private institutions with government money until the individual becomes indistinguishable from the state.
I was warned about Mr. Stranger Danger, luring kids into his car with candy for whatever lewd purposes I didn't understand at the time, at a very early age.
I always wondered why his car had Government plates.
Do any one of you cons agree with the Hyde Amendment?
Just curious.
Because if you do, then you already believe that as "long as those ______ (fill in the blank) institutions are getting taxpayer money, they should follow secular rules." Right? Not only that, but you would believe the government can impose religious strictures on taxpayer funded institutions, right? Like Planned Parenthood, right?
You have NO argument here. You are being silly, specious, hypocritical morons.
JMJ
Exactly Jersey, it's a labor law issue.
But today's right winger is more comfortable using religion to restrict freedom.
Silver,
My point is that there is an amendment process for a reason, and that the founding fathers put it there for a reason. It's because they knew that the Constitution didn't cover everything possible, and that as time went on it wouldn't address certain issues that arise.
You didn't answer my question about the FCC. Oh and how about that little thing that people call the "right to privacy"? Where in the constitution is the right to privacy explicitly guaranteed? It's not guaranteed, yet you would say that the government has no right to violate our privacy, yes? I mean, that's why we all hate the Patriot Act isn't it?
I haven't bought into any progressivist/statist doctrine or program or whatever.
Also, is it fair that non-Catholics working for an organization associated with the Catholic church have to be held to the standard of another religion?
And don't give me the "don't work for them" excuse. That doesn't fly when we've got 8%+ unemployment and a crap economy. Some people have to hold on to their job or take what they can get.
Jack: This and your subsequent statement reveals your fundamental ignorance of where our rights come from and how the constitution fits in:
It's because they knew that the Constitution didn't cover everything possible
Our rights do not come from the constitution. It is a document that tells the federal government how to conduct its business.
You think you have no "right to privacy" because it's not in the constitution? I also doesn't say you have a right to eat ice cream or own a dog.
Our rights are unenumerated and many. The federal government's are limited and specifically enumerated. That is the purpose of the constitution.
The FCC is tenuously tied to regulating interstate commerce.
You're quick to grant government all kinds of permission to trample our rights. Now, answer my question:
Does the constitution circumscribe federal action? Yes or No?
Jersey: You're close...
Government does put strings on its money, which is well and good. In this case, the proper government action would be to withhold any federal monies it grants the Catholic Church.
And No, I do not believe the government should impose religious strictures on anyone. Using the same standard, government should not be giving money to planned parenthood.
My argument is consistent and grounded in the constitution and natural rights as understood by the founders. What fundamental philosophy guides your scattershot thinking?
AOW, I emailed Mustang this morning with that information! It takes the onus off Obama; he gets his way and his liberal Catholics sycophants who have the good values to be against killing babies will be on his side again. Man, that guy's got THE BEST PR EVER.
And they called Reagan TEFLON? :-)
Jersey said: "Not only that, but you would believe the government can impose religious strictures on taxpayer funded institutions, right? Like Planned Parenthood, right?"
Actually, the dispute over Planned Parenthood is a human rights issue. This organization's #1 goal is to harm (in fact, kill) young human beings. It has nothing to do with their religion.
Yes, of course, many people of different faiths oppose abortion. Just like people of faith support abortion. Just like with other issues such as nuclear disarmament, ending hunger, stopping slavery, etc.
But the issue is not itself inherently religious. Not in the least.
Or would you be the one standing up against Martin Luther King and his civil rights movement in the 1960s because it was "religious" ?
I think you misunderstood my rhetorical question. And given the length I've written about and defended natural rights theory, I'm a little disappointed.
Of course we have more rights than the Constitution says, and that is the point.
You said the Constitution doesn't say everyone has a right to medical coverage. I retorted that the COnstitution also doesn't say we have the right to privacy. I basically used your own argument against you, because the argument applies to both situations.
Yes, the Constitution circumscribes federal actions, but as I said before, the Constitution, at one point, only gave the Federal government the power to end the slave trade. THe government, at one point, was not allowed to end slavery, even though it was a bold faced contradiction to everything America was supposed to be about.
dmark, when Dr. King was killed he was taking up the cause of trash collectors seeking a living wage and benefits. Was that a religious or economic protest?
The world isn't as cut an dry as you want it to be.
Just as our Constitutional scholar thinks that issues can be reduced to a binary we know that is simply the ravings of a true believer.
"It takes the onus off Obama; he gets his way..."
No. Not "his" way. It is the will of the people. Or have you not heard? 98% of Catholic women use contraceptives and 58% of ALL Catholics agree contraceptives should be available through insurance by Catholic institutions.
"...and his liberal Catholics sycophants who have the good values to be against killing babies will be on his side again."
They never left it.
"Man, that guy's got THE BEST PR EVER.
And they called Reagan TEFLON? :-)"
That's not "Teflon." Teflon suggests nothing sticks. Mr. Obama did nothing wrong. Mr. Obama compromised.
Women (Catholic and non-Catholic) who work in Catholic institutions still get contraception coverage, but now it will be the responsibility of the insurance company, not the Church. So their pure consciences are clear.
It is also interesting to note that several large Catholic universities and hospitals all over this country have been providing insurance for contraception for years.
Why the outcry now?
@ Jack: I basically used your own argument against you, because the argument applies to both situations.
No you didn't, and here's why.
I am arguing against positive rights (making people give other people certain things), and you used a negative right. Someone's right to privacy costs others nothing.
Government protecting our right to privacy is a constitutional act. Violating it is unconstitutional.
So I will state again: Government has no right to tell a business owner what they must provide by way of insurance.
BTW, giving government wide leeway to issue such commands is how we get abominations like sodomy laws and the patriot act, not to mention the serial violations of the 4th Amendment.
Sounds like we may be in general agreement, just not understanding one another?
Shaw:
I hope you will be as understanding of government action when a future religious conservative president decrees that businesses do not have to provide contraceptives in their insurance plans. For this future president's proclamation will be just as valid as Obama's.
AOW said: Did Obama issue a statement of compromise today or not?
From:
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10371870-obama-revamps-contraceptive-policy
"President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees...
Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free birth control coverage directly from health insurance companies."
Uhh... did he just mandate that companies give away product for free?
Actually the issue really is with the "mandate." It should be the choice of insurers whether they offer coverage and it should be the choice of the businesses who purchase insurance whether or not they purchase and ofter it to employees they cover.
It is not the States place to mandate to individuals, institutions, or businesses. Period. End of story.
The entire Church, Santorum, et all issue of "infringing on religious liberty" is just cover. Or more accurately stated BS.
Catholics and pro-lifers are not going to take this and will probably fight back.
I hope that many Catholics will vote against him when the time comes. Maybe this will tear down his narcissistic arrogance a notch or two.
Silver,
"In this case, the proper government action would be to withhold any federal monies it grants the Catholic Church."
LOL! Yeah, I'm sure the Catholics would love that!
"And No, I do not believe the government should impose religious strictures on anyone."
So, then you don't agree with the Hyde Amendment?
"Using the same standard, government should not be giving money to planned parenthood."
Why? The taxpayer money that goes to PP is solely for healthcare services? Now, I know you're against all taxpayer funded anything but war machines and cops, but how is that relevant to the "the same standard." I'm not arguing against taxpayer money going to sectarian institutions. Are you?
"My argument is consistent and grounded in the constitution and natural rights as understood by the founders."
No, it's purely modern partisan politics.
"What fundamental philosophy guides your scattershot thinking?"
I'm not an ideologue, Silver. I use whatever intellectual resources make the most sense.
dmarks,
"Actually, the dispute over Planned Parenthood is a human rights issue. This organization's #1 goal is to harm (in fact, kill) young human beings."
That's a lie and it's stupid. It is so incorrect, on so many levels, as to make it retarded.
That's all I can say to your comment reply.
JMJ
I agree with the first part of your statement, Les, but the religious argument is not BS.
Having said that, I understand your point. The state should not be issuing such mandates to anyone, and that includes churches as well as organizations, businesses and individuals.
Jersey:
Partisan politics? You can't be that ignorant...
As to the Hyde Amendment, what makes you think abortion is purely a religious issue? Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff, neither conservative nor religious, believe abortion to be the taking of a life.
Unlike them, you have no overarching philosophy other than goose-stepping state worship.
You're wasting your breath on the left, Silver. As Edmund Burke put it " One can only reason with reasonable men"
The statists have neither wish nor will to adhere to a constitution unless its a "living document" malleable in their hands.
viburnum
Silver, you can't name just two weird exceptions to a rule and then claim the rule is invalid. Unless you would care to present your honesty in a very unflattering light, you can not assert that the abortion issue is not overwhelmingly a religious issue.
C'mon. Get real.
And you theocrats complaining about "statists." What a joke.
JMJ
you can not assert that the abortion issue is not overwhelmingly a religious issue.
Seems to me it's a scientific issue as well, despite the psuedo-scientific pro-abortion religionists' innate disagreements with pre-natal physicians who seem to believe they're prescribing medicines for and doing surgeries on living human beings in the womb.
Funny how the right thinks its OK to have our have our bosses decided what kind of sex we should have after we punch the clock.
Put the bong down, Liberal man, nobody even hinted at that. Nobody cares that you're gay.
Jersey,
It only takes one non-religious instance to logically prove it is not a religious issue.
game over
Jersey, contraceptives and abortifacients are not medicine or healthcare, your redefining them as such is another example of newspeak in the modern world.
Unless of course you are so naive to consider pregnancy a disease.
Contraceptives are used by people engaging in sex to prevent having offspring, abortifacients are used by those who forgot to use contraceptives.
What makes it a religious issue is that the Catholics, among others, believe that sex should be for procreation not recreation. I personally do not hold that position but I can respect their views.
It is amazing how many on the left claim Catholics, conservatives, and anyone else who disagrees with them are "trying to ban birth control" (I've seen that in alot of posts all over the web). That is idiotic!
I have no problem with birth control and am not trying, nor do I wish to see their sale restricted. I have mixed views on abortifacients and on abortion based on logic, not religion.
By your argument and reasoning Obama may as well mandate that Health Insurance companies provide free food, water, and vitamins... for their lack will certainly cause more ill health effects than pregnancy generally does in a healthy individual.
I have no qualms whatsoever saying that hormonal therapy to treat disease or deficiencies is a proper application of medicine and logically should be covered by health insurance. Using them simply because you want to have sex but don't want to have offspring is not a medical application.
I have no problem with Health Insurance companies that provide free contraceptives since the alternative of paying for the medical care and childbirth is more expensive, but that is a business decision not a government decision.
Honestly, given the fiduciary responsibilities of the government in managing the taxpayers money, if the government is going to pay for the babies anyway, they might as well be preemptive and offer free birth control.
When the government dictates moral choices to individuals we have gone too far down the road of tyranny.
Ponder this legal contradiction:
If a woman takes an abortifacient it is choice... if you slip one in her drink without her knowledge causing abortion it is first-degree murder, yet the results are the same. Yet if you spike her drink with something else (alcohol, drugs) charges can only range from reckless endangerment to assault, unless intent to kill is present and can be proven.
Cheers!
I'm amazed no one has commented on the "compromise" that the "workers at such institutions will be able to get free birth control coverage directly from health insurance companies."
I find the compromise more arbitrary than the original mandate, what's next? McDonald's must give everyone a free cheeseburger and fries?
This is ridiculous, the president now dictates that private companies must offer a service for free? What a pompous ass!
Jersey said:
"In this case, the proper government action would be to withhold any federal monies it grants the Catholic Church."
LOL! Yeah, I'm sure the Catholics would love that!"
You're absolutely right Jersy, I would love that.
Catholic Charities can certainly function without our tax money.
If anything they are doing the government a favor by providing free use of their distribution network.
By all means... tell Uncle Sam to Screw Off!
I may be paraphrasing, but as SF says: When you get in bed with government you're going to get screwed!
Finntann,
Thanks for the link.
I can't see that Obama's "compromise" has been any real compromise. If employers are providing health insurance plans to employees and ALL insurance plans provide free contraception, then those employers with religious objections are STILL paying for access to something to which they object.
Am I missing something?
The clear-headed logic in SilverFiddle's post is IRREFUTABLE. Only an IMBECILE would try to argue against it.
Imbeciles always seem to enjoy arguing for argument's sake -- a lamentable practice.
"Hi Yo Silver -- AWAY!"
~ FT
Thanks, FT. I try to ground it in logic, but progressives love fanciful and self-gratifying flights of high dudgeon.
AOW:
You're not missing anything. As usual, you are right on top of it. It's still a gross constitutional violation, the federal government telling an insurance company they must give something away for free.
Silver,
"It only takes one non-religious instance to logically prove it is not a religious issue."
Silver, c'mon man. You can't be serious. This isn't some law of physics. It's a theo-political. You can't apply Occams Razor to subjective, political, religious arguments. There's no scientific theory at play here. But there's a simple way to intellectually prove it's a religious issue: If you took the religious part of the argument away, do you honestly believe abortion would still be a serious political issue? If you do, then you're retarded.
Finn,
"Jersey, contraceptives and abortifacients are not medicine or healthcare, your redefining them as such is another example of newspeak in the modern world."
"Newspeak." LOL! You guys do realize where the expression comes from, right? It's not from a viewpoint of pro-conservative thought.
No, it's not "newspeak," but nice try. We're talking about women's bodies and their health, here. So no matter how you look at it, it is still a medical and health issue. But I suppose, since men don't get their periods, or have any of the myriad of women's health issues, and since conservative men have a very hard time ever imagining themselves in anyone else's shoes, you would think such nonsense.
JMJ
"I hope you will be as understanding of government action when a future religious conservative president decrees that businesses do not have to provide contraceptives in their insurance plans."
If you really believe such a president would do that, you are truly living in a fantasy world.
Birth control is vital to a woman's health; and for the anti-choice people, birth control cuts down on abortions.
We had a conservative president, GWB, who had the executive, legislative, and SCOTUS on the conservatives' side. Neither he nor his party introduced any legislation to abolish abortion. Why do you suppose that is?
So, do you really think another conservative president would repeal insurance to cover contraception for women? Really?
That's not the issue Shaw, the principle is.
Empower government to give you something, and that same government can take it away.
My point is simply that government should stay out of it. This is in the sphere of personal liberty, and government has no right intruding there.
Let the drug makers make the drugs, and let people who want them buy them.
If health insurance were decoupled from employment much of this controversy would go away.
Jersey: Occam's Razor? I think you need to go look that one up. This has nothing to do with that.
But their is a proper role for logic, so let's break it down.
You posit that the Hyde Amendment is essentially the government "imposing religious strictures," to which I prove to you that there exists opposition to the practice by the non-religious (Charles Krauthammer is another).
Therefore, opposition to abortion is not strictly a religious thing. Have you known any secular humanists? There are millions of them who are opposed to abortion as well as the death penalty.
By your logic, laws against murder and stealing are also "imposing religious strictures," since they are prohibited in The Ten Commandments. Do we take those laws off the books now?
Here's the important distinction:
Murder and stealing violate not just God's laws, but the natural rights of others, so laws against these acts are grounded in the bedrock foundation of the political philosophy this republic was founded upon.
Laws against sodomy, adultery, birth control and firearm ownership should rightly be called out as unconstitutional because these laws violate the fundamental rights of individuals to order their personal lives without government interference.
Can you see how this is a coherent approach to viewing our rights?
Please stay tuned. I have an article on this subject planned for Monday, and I would love to hear what you, Shaw and others have to say about it.
Venocci's argument is basically that any private institution that is lured by government candy is under government control.
Jersey said: "Newspeak." LOL! You guys do realize where the expression comes from, right? It's not from a viewpoint of pro-conservative thought."
It certainly doesn't come from an advocate of state power.
Get off your high horse and stop assuming you are more intelligent or better educated than everyone else.
I know who Eric Arthur Blair was and I know he was marginally a Democratic Socialist, he was also an Anglican and was intensely opposed to totalitarianism and the authoritarian state.
"The fallacy is to believe that under a dictatorial government you can be free inside."
"The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians."
"In a Society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law."
"Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen. "
You redefine contraception as medicine in an attempt to legitimize your political argument.
Are shoes medicine?
Are gloves medicine?
Should they be provided free of charge by your health insurance?
Shoes prevent ringworm, hookworm, abrasions, cuts, infection... etc.
Gloves prevent a similar range of possible medical conditions.
Contraception prevents pregnancy, pregnancy is not a disease or illness, or for most people at some time or another, it is not an undesirable condition.
Your argument is specious.
How about this... I'll go so far as concede that health insurance should provide contraception where there is a documented medical necessity to prevent pregnancy and that for anyone on assistance it should be provided free of charge by the state. Please note that I said provided by the state, not mandated by the state or provided by employers, insurerers, or anyone else.
When you have a lifestyle or financial reasone to prevent it, you can pay for it your god damn self!
Cheers!
Everyone talking about this birth control kabuki and completely ignoring that he got down on his knees to the banksters again.
Wonder if this was intentional.
Shaw said "Birth control is vital to a woman's health; and for the anti-choice people, birth control cuts down on abortions."
I am not aware of anyone here advocating banning contraceptives.
The issue isn't over the legality of it, the issue is over who pays for it and whether or not the government has a right to mandate it.
There are a myriad of things that are vital to health that are not covered by health insurance. As I pointed out to Jersey previously: food, clothing, vitamins, etc.
Malnutrition is a medical condition yet food is not covered under your health insurance plan.
Pregnancy is the result of a voluntary act, pregnancy is the consequence. If you don't want to get pregnant, either don't have sex or buy contraceptives yourself.
Sure if your doctor says you shouldn't get pregnant for a medical reason, contraception is healthcare and should be covered if a medical necessity. If your accountant says you shouldn't get pregnant because you can't afford it... well then it is your responsibility to ensure that you don't.
I think a simple and legitimate compromise would have been something along the lines of:
In cases where pregnancy is contraindicated by an existing medical condition coverage of contraceptives and abortifacients is required.
But then, while providing necessary medical coverage, that wouldn't meet the true agenda of providing free birth control to all paid for by someone else.
Like I said before, do you want us to pay for the dinner and a movie too?
Cheers!
Of course it was intentional Ducky, it's all part of the smoke and mirrors.
It's like throwing a steak over the junkyard fence so you can sneak past the dogs.
This subject has been a reliable distraction from the real issues for decades.
Cheers!
Yeah, I was being rhetorical.
Guy's a pro.
We're talking about women's bodies and their health, here.
We're also talking about the child a pregnant woman is carrying in her womb and that child's health, unless you're one of those sorts of psuedoscientific "pro-choice" dolts that believe the pre-natal medical and surgical professions are quackery.
Republicans are the real Divisionists:
http://youtu.be/cMuk5XP3mLY
Wow, Bill Maher... that proves it. Thank god we have someone to lead us now that Carlin is dead, I don't know what we'd do without comedians!
FRANKEN 2016!!!
'scuse me, I gotta run down and join SPUSA, thanks for enlightening us!
Finntann,
Excellent comment from you at 2/11/12 12:35 PM!
And what will Obama next mandate that health insurance policies cover?
Obama appears to perceive pregnancy as an illness that should be prevented via his mandate for wellness coverage.
Well, what isn't wellness on some level? Sheesh.
Furthermore, who is to say that Obama can't decide that a woman should have only two children as her own wellness and preventive care?
AOW: For the nanny state, this is just another executive decree.
This is a seriously pernicious argument. By alleging that the Federal Government can not mandate that religious-affliated organizations can not treat members differently and making this a false choice of religious liberty for "churches" you reach a fairly evil conclusion.
A question, Can the Federal Government try religious persons for secular crimes? Clearly, the Catholic Church or others can hide behind the 1st Amendment and say the government has no rights to stop actions by religious persons, even those involving 3rd parties.
Basically, conservatives are siding with the cultists, like Koresh, who indoctrinate people and then do unspeakable things to them in the name of religion.
Unlike government that indoctrinates people and then does unspeakable things to them in the name of the party.
The Catholic Church is treating all of its employees equally, they do not proide birth control because it is in violation of their beliefs. What's next? Mandating that Mormans provide caffeinated products and that Jews provide bacon in their cafeterias? That Chik-fil-a must open on Sunday's because their non-christian employees have a right to work on that day?
You have a right to work, that is not to be discriminated against due to actionable factors such as Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Age, Sex, Familial Status, Disability, etc.
You do not have a right to work at the time and place of your choosing, nor do you have the right to dictate your own terms of employment and compensation.
Finntann, you analogy is exactly backwards, what the catholics are doing is withholding benefits because sometime, somwhere, someone may use them to do something they disagree with...
It's as if the Mormons decided to dock your pay because they found out you used their money to buy coca-cola or a Jewish-affliated hospital cut your salary because some of the money they owe you went for bacon.
So, get your head properly around the issue.
If the Catholic-affliated hospital provides benefits a healthcare plan) to one group they can't provide less benefits (a healthcare plan that may include contraceptives) to another.
And are you saying that a person can't dictate the terms of their pay and employment? Good call for slavery.
This issue is clearly showing people the Totalitarian Nature of the Right-Wingers, especially the Zealous ones.
The church is not treating different groups differently. They are treating all employees the same.
There is no right to force someone to give you something, period.
And your analogy is inapt. You mix up docking someone's pay with benefits offered. Finn's argument is right on.
A person can dictate the terms of their pay? Where? I'd love to have that!
Your arguments are confused and unconvincing.
No one is denying anyone anything. If somebody wants these things, they can go buy them. The federal government may not tell once entity that it must buy somebody something.
Please tune in on Monday. I am blogging about natural rights and the constitution. I would love to hear your take on it.
"So, get your head properly around the issue.
If the Catholic-affliated hospital provides benefits a healthcare plan) to one group they can't provide less benefits (a healthcare plan that may include contraceptives) to another."
Yes you bloody moron, and if the Catholic Church provided contraceptives to Catholics but not anyone else you would have a frigging point. You, however, are dictating that they provide more benefits to all their employees.
The point is contraceptives are contrary to their belief system and they are not providing them for anyone (equality!).
" And are you saying that a person can't dictate the terms of their pay and employment? Good call for slavery."
Little experiment.
Go down to your local McDonald's. Tell them you want to cook fries and you want $80,000 a year for it, with full medical/dental/vision benefits. Four weeks of vacation a year, stock options, and a profit participation plan.
When they get done laughing at you, come back here and we'll talk.
Grung said: "And are you saying that a person can't dictate the terms of their pay and employment? Good call for slavery."
Answer this. Do you favor "right to work" protections? Or oppose them?
Ducky said: "But many of those who think it's wrong to forbid Americans to buy contraceptives"
No one is proposing this. Unlike the mainstream views (supported by a very large percentage of the population, often a clear majority) you "fringe", this one is actually a fringe view.
A straw-man. Not even the Catholics running the hospitals in questions are proposing this. Nice try.
Grung_e_Gene: << Basically, conservatives are siding with the cultists, like Koresh >>
That is one of the weirdest analogies I have ever heard.
Shake yourself. You just gave me the shivers.
Finntann, I already know the answer but when Pharmacists refused to fill birth control prescriptions based on their moral concerns with whom did you side? The person wanting the healthcare or the person who didn't want to do their job?
finntann, try this out I told a *unnamed* DoD affiliated corporation I want a 3 year deal @ $125K with full tricare equivalent coverage and got it...
Workers often tell employers what they want and based on their skills they sometimes get it. Your conservative alternate reality matrix really has you twisted in mental knots...
dmarks, I don't favor "right-to-work".
Gene, and God bless you for being in a position to negotiate like that. Unfortunately, most Americans are not, but that doesn't make it slavery.
Grung_e_Gene,
As far as Pharmacists not wanting to fill birth control prescriptions that is entirely at the discretion of the employer, notice I said employer, not government.
If the employer wishes to accomodate the person, fine. If the employer does not... then they can go find a pharmacy willing to accomodate them or they can find another occupation. Choosing to go to school to be a pharmacist, it is their responsibility to understand that they may be tasked to fill those prescriptions and they suffer the consequence of their own moral choices.
From a consumer standpoint, if Pharmacy A doesn't fill birth control prescriptions you are free to take your business elsewhere. If enough people do that they will reconsider their business model.
Constitutionally, the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.
As far as negotiating a compensation package with a defense contractor...good for you.
I never said you couldn't negotiate a compensation package. I said the company was under no obligation to accede to your demands.
They could have easily counter offered with $110K and an 80/20 split on medical, and would have been perfectly within their rights to do so, or to just pass on your offer and hire someone else.
It is the way the market works... but understand this also, if you were applying in a state without right to employment for a position in a closed union shop, you would have been stuck with whatever the union negotiated.
Cheers!
Post a Comment