Little Sisters of the Poor Aiding in the Religious Right Wing's Agenda for a Theocratic Government

a reply to: AboveBoard

I missed your reply.

I don't believe that it's off topic at all. My query falls under the same premise as gay marriage. Other than that, I agree with nearly everything you've said except that my opinion is that the ACA provides protection on a national level as does marriage equality. Though they're two different topics, they can be intertwined. Well, you're right. It, as a whole, is off topic.

The topic at hand is over the filling out of a form. To which I have to wonder why anyone should be required to fill out a form so the government won't penalize for practicing their religion. I don't see the problem with wanting to make it easier to tell these objectors apart from the rest. However, I do see a problem in making it mandatory to do so.

a reply to: EternalSolace

The form is a necessary bureaucratic step that insures that the employees that are being denied health care can get it through Title X. If the government didn't do anything to ensure these women are given the same opportunity as other women, under the ACA, the government would be violating the 14th Amendment.

Without the form, these employees are lost in the wind.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Let's talk sheer opinions for a second.

Do you believe that it is a matter of religious belief to dictate what an employee's insurance plan covers?

If an employee uses insurance to ... do something the employer finds objectionable ... how far do we take that?

You can make the same argument that an employer's religious beliefs should be allowed to affect how an employee spends their wages.

a reply to: windword

Ah! You're awesome for the way you put that. As I think this is the topic stripped down to its very core with nowhere left to hide...

Do we violate the 1st Amendment so we don't violate the 14th amendment?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: EternalSolace

Let's talk sheer opinions for a second.

Do you believe that it is a matter of religious belief to dictate what an employee's insurance plan covers?

If an employee uses insurance to ... do something the employer finds objectionable ... how far do we take that?

You can make the same argument that an employer's religious beliefs should be allowed to affect how an employee spends their wages.

I've seen this argument before, but the prominent belief was flipped.

Can an employer's political beliefs effect how an employee can act? People say that an employer should have the right to fire or discipline an employee that does something politically offensive to their employer.

But to more directly answer your questions, no I do not believe that an employer should be able to dictate anything the employee buys... if they're not being forced to subsidize it.

Just as I don't believe an employer should be able to fire or discipline an employee for their beliefs.

a reply to: EternalSolace
it's a bad law, made with the intentions of correcting the aftermath of a bunch of other bad laws and policies. the fact the they are stretching the constitution to the extent where it appears that we have to choose is just a sign that we are pretty much at the end of the line.
the fact of the matter is that we shouldn't have so many people unable to afford their healthcare without gov't help in the first place!! and that my dear, is the fault of both parties!

a reply to: EternalSolace
well here's a question for ya, many christians believe that women shouldn't be working, unless of course, their husband's desire them to work...
so well, are the laws that prohibit these employers from discriminating against women also in violation of the religious freedom?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: EternalSolace
it's a bad law, made with the intentions of correcting the aftermath of a bunch of other bad laws and policies. the fact the they are stretching the constitution to the extent where it appears that we have to choose is just a sign that we are pretty much at the end of the line.
the fact of the matter is that we shouldn't have so many people unable to afford their healthcare without gov't help in the first place!! and that my dear, is the fault of both parties!

That I can wholly agree with.

Another interesting thing about this thread:

We are told over and over again that no one should be in anyone else's bedroom, and yet, at least one reply point-blank stated that the government has determined that it's in the best interest of all women to have birth control.

Well, since when does the government get to be in all our bedrooms? I thought that was what wasn't supposed to happen, and now we have the government mixed up in the business of the religious who would rather NOT have the government in their bedrooms where it has no business being for very different reasons than you all want them out of YOUR bedrooms.

Where does it end, and since when do you get to dictate what a valid place for the government is in everyone else's bedroom? If I shouldn't tell the government how to interact in your bedroom, then why is it OK for you to tell them how to interact in mine unless I sign a permission slip?

a reply to: ketsuko

We are told over and over again that no one should be in anyone else's bedroom, and yet, at least one reply point-blank stated that the government has determined that it's in the best interest of all women to have birth control.

Access to birth control. It's a public health issue.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Health insurance is generally considered part of an employee's compensation package.

Why should an employer's religious convictions restrict how I spend my "insurance dollar"?

Would they tell me where I can take my vacation, or what I can do while on vacation? (Leave time is also a compensation or benefit).

How about deciding how I will spread my investments in my 401K?

Crazy right?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Another interesting thing about this thread:

We are told over and over again that no one should be in anyone else's bedroom, and yet, at least one reply point-blank stated that the government has determined that it's in the best interest of all women to have birth control.

This would be a somewhat similar situation if there were (or had been) government mandates to use (or not use) birth control.

There are not.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: AboveBoard

I missed your reply.

I don't believe that it's off topic at all. My query falls under the same premise as gay marriage. Other than that, I agree with nearly everything you've said except that my opinion is that the ACA provides protection on a national level as does marriage equality. Though they're two different topics, they can be intertwined. Well, you're right. It, as a whole, is off topic.

The topic at hand is over the filling out of a form. To which I have to wonder why anyone should be required to fill out a form so the government won't penalize for practicing their religion. I don't see the problem with wanting to make it easier to tell these objectors apart from the rest. However, I do see a problem in making it mandatory to do so.

Annnnd we're stuck. Again.

Windword has put it very nicely. This is a bureaucratic form, like any other of the tons of forms we've all filled out in our lifetimes, and the reason to fill it out is that it allows women who are being DENIED coverage of birth control due to their employer's religious beliefs, the ability to go and receive it through Title X. Without the employer providing the insurance actually claiming the exemption by using the form, the women are further denied coverage, and illegally so. It is a small hoop to jump through. A very small hoop that says the company/institution is abiding by the law of the land by claiming exemption to the law, which is their right.

Is that clear? It's a little confusing, so I hope I said it in a way that makes sense. This doesn't mean the women WILL go to Title X or that they MUST go to Title X, but it allows them the opportunity to have another means of getting something that has been, whether folks like it or not, deemed part of women's health care and for their well being. No one is forcing anyone to use birth control, and no one is forcing anyone to make their insurance cover birth control if they are a religious institution or a closely-held for-profit.

I'm beginning to think there is simply a desire to argue, or a desire to not try to understand. I hope that's not the case.

Okay - it's late and I'm going to throw out there some final thoughts for the night, my apologies if they all run together:

As to the universality of the law regarding birth control? Yes, women have been given the opportunity to obtain it through health insurance (whatever form that is, including Medicaid), or, if not through health insurance due to their employer's or college's religious beliefs, then through Title X.

The exemption form for religious institutions/employers is not a yellow star pinned to anyone's chest or a permission slip to practice said religion, or any other kind of victimization. The form is simply a means to EXERCISE their RELIGIOUS RIGHT to claim the exemption, just as special tax forms and non-profit forms are used for exemptions from taxes for churches - it is NO different!

The universality of gay marriage AGAIN is for the STATES ONLY, it is for Government and Civil Marriage, NOT FOR CHURCHES OR HOUSES OF WORSHIP. Period. No one is going to lose their church's tax-exempt status (that they filled out all those forms to get) by refusing to marry gay people, or people from a different faith, or people they don't like, etc.

Okay. Enough of this for now. I bid you goodnight.

- AB

originally posted by: ketsuko
Is this like those videos about the little kids singing about how wonderful Obama was going to be? Remember all of those? That wasn't brainwashing?

When it from the left it is upraising and culturally relevant. If its from the right its religious dogma and raciest hate speech.

Didn't you read your pamphlets?

a reply to: ketsuko

I think you're confusing the Gov. forcing something on us and offering something to us. They are offering Birth Control to women, period. The reasons for this are long and detailed which I won't bother explaining but be sure there are various reasons why. That means whatever it is blocking that access from women will be provided some fix or workaround to make sure they have access.

Access was being stopped for "Religious Freedom" (Freedom for some but not others I guess). Only in certain situations is this needed. For those who profess "Religious Freedom" they can opt out of allowing such access through them. Fine. However, women, as individuals who are free people, can decide on their own to get access if such an organization decides to opt out and cut off access to a woman who is or was going through their insurance for Birth Control.

Nobody is in anyone's bedroom because they are offering something from them. If you want nothing to do with it, opt out by filling out a form which also documents that you qualify under special "Religious Freedom" laws that it's ok for you to do that. That way it's official. It also protects you from legal issues like being sued. You're already filling out papers for the Gov. for many other reasons. Sure this is one more, but then you did want to be "special". If you can't even be bothered to fill out a paper for all your "special exceptions" from rules and taxes then you shouldn't get them.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
but is instrumental in infiltrating the government with religious leaders and eventually, construct theocratic rule.

But its o.k. to allow socialists and progressives to infiltrate every position in government, the courts and the media!!

You guys like to think that everyone is out to get you, but you've had the keys to the kingdom for decades now. And, you seem to be getting more of what you want everyday.

So, why do a few nuns scare you?

a reply to: Freenrgy2
why does a few little white pills scare so many people?
weather or not a person chooses to use birth control is no one's business and it should be considered a basic healthcare need, and would be if it wasn't for the fact that it empowers WOMEN to control the size of their families and by doing so takes away a valuable commodity from the collective- a future worker, which well if you believe in what some say is worth oh, I don't know about a million dollars or so to the fed's balance sheet. that child will also add one more person to the future pool of workers, a pool that well, needs to be bigger than the need for workers is, since well contrary to what they say, a 0 unemployment figure wouldn't be that grand for the economy. it would put too much power in the hands of the workers and their pay would start increasing far too much!
by being able to control when they reproduce and how often, women can chart their own path through life, have a role other than mother and housewife, they can have a stronger role in the economy than just a consumer of household goods and groceries.
so, well, why do those little pills scare the little sisters or the republican party??

I'm not afraid of a group of catholic nuns...
I am offended that some people would rather have people dying because they can't get what is just as valid a healthcare treatment as any other than to sign a simple paper! I'm offended when people go around secretly taping meetings they arrange with organizations like planned parenthood and turn around and edit the crap out of them so they can convey a different message, in hopes of bringing them down...because God forbid, women should rise above their role as subservient helpers and baby factories.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: EternalSolace

Let's talk sheer opinions for a second.

Do you believe that it is a matter of religious belief to dictate what an employee's insurance plan covers?

If an employee uses insurance to ... do something the employer finds objectionable ... how far do we take that?

You can make the same argument that an employer's religious beliefs should be allowed to affect how an employee spends their wages.

I'm an atheist now, but I was raised Catholic. The only thing I can offer in explanation from my memory is that Catholics believe that contributing to the sin is just as bad as doing the sin itself. For example, if the nun gave me ten bucks, knowing I'd just run out and buy a Hustler magazine to "have some me time with," she'd also be on the hook for the sin of reading the Hustler magazine, and "the me time."

Not justifying it--just pointing out the belief system behind it.

Humanae Vitae points out why Catholics are against birth control--although I don't follow that logic--if it prevents abortions, I'd figure they'd be all for it.

I'm against government mandating benefits to the private sector, however, I can't see how this could be a moral issue. As you said--they just supply an insurance coverage and it is up to the individual insured as to what it is used for. If they didn't cover healthcare but just paid in cash and the ladies went out and bought their birth control in cash, wouldn't that be the same thing morally?

Hi guys,

Would like to add a wrench into the discussion.

Religions are really just supporting documents for behaviours conducive to the better future of both populace and it's governers.

We state that our constitutions do the "same". But, we are witness to unaccountable leadership.

Tomaetoe, tomaaato.

Control systems - who is in charge?

Limitation of freedom to enhance productivity of co-operating citizenry.

Some people complain about the wars fought in the name of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism. Now, we fight wars to protect our incompetent, unnaccountable leaders.

Wonderful. Religion only poses theory. People have to practice it to realize it's benefits. Social structure and uniformity provided for protection of rights of people to improve their productivity and happiness. Who sets the rules - you get to pick. So, separate yourselves - there are people who are aetheists who don't believe in God, yet they strongly support and will take to task anyone who they argue is their brother in spite of the religion - others, who they can live alongside and fight for common causes that protect liberty and health. NOW, who do you wish to serve? Who's God are those aetheists protecting?

That is religion - true religion - it doesn't come from a book. It comes from the heart and basic understanding of the meaning of what true justice is.

Nations fall apart without justice. Our leaders obviously play us for fools and our justice and freedoms are being taken away because they think we are blind to their hiding the money, which belongs to us the people, and we need people who care about justice in power - not complex systems of protection based on science provided by the rich and powerful - to usurp your hard earned medals for their treasury and leave you for dead - the might is right rule. Every child is born altogether without the sense you and I have today after growing up in this world - their future depends on it too.

God approves of my statement - and I love truly godfearing people.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions. Doesn't a ruling like this mean that a JW business could deny health insurance coverage for life saving blood transfusion procedures on its employees?