Forcing Religous Institutions To Provide Birth Control

ANT:

Hey lady, save me and all of us a buck and go buy some rubbers.

Birth control is friggin unhealthy also. I wouldn't want a GF of mine to be on it and I really wouldn't trust some rando who was on it.

Snooki is a case for sterilization, not birth control

i'd nail that broad

Birth control rocks, i don't want kids, i hate to pull out and i fucking HATE condoms. BC is my only option...

ANT, with all due respect, why don't you educate yourself on an issue and THEN formulate an opinion. You're highly qualified to speak on finance matters, but on social issues you seem to jump first and then think. I'm not going to comment on the issue, I'm commenting on your approach.

I say this as someone who does respect you. There are a legion of impressionable kids on this site and if some little monster in the workplace spouted this shit, he'd get himself in a world of trouble. Not because everyone left of nuts is a liberal, but because social issues are as nuanced as any other area, and it's in the interest of everyone to know what you're talking about before shooting off your mouth. While this may be little more than a passing interest or some thing you read in an article, it's an actual personal issue to some people....and they might not be at all caught up in the political war but don't want to become a casualty of the zealous ideology you adhere to.

If you don't want to really learn about this stuff, then kindly go about your business. But positing absurd positions that require lengthy rebuttals is a poor mechanism of learning compared to simply absorbing knowledge. Debate is good, but at the same time, starting with some rudimentary level of knowledge makes for a quality debate as opposed to warring rabble. ie, game time is after lots of skill building and practice. Again, I say this will a due respect and hope for the best.

Kind regards,

Little green men

In my opinion, this shouldn't even be an issue.

if I understand correctly, the insurance companies volunteered to supply free birth control because it was CHEAPER than the alternative (birth, abortions, you name it).

This whole "thing" is happening simply because it was initiated by Obama, who obviously can do no right.

I fail to see how I am not up to speed on this issue. Religious institutions don't want to have to pay for this and they shouldn't have to. You know what is cheaper than birth control? Condoms. They also prevent STD's.

If insurance companies want to pay for this I could careless. Making religious groups pay for something like this is stupid.

But please, someone, educate me on the true issue at hand.

People need to grow up. The insurance companies are only doing the cheaper and financially prudent thing. And besides, to think that in the real world, you don't need birth control is just asking for trouble. This is the 21st century.

Condoms can be cheaper, but it really depends how often youre doing it (unless youre reusing, then youve got bigger issues). bareback is just better, and if theres no fear of stds and the cost savings for condoms are negligible and you have your own med insurance then...WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?!??!

Didnt read the article though. religious groups paying for BC? I assume by "religious" we mean some sort of christian...i gave up taking bc for lent

I'm a fiscal conservative. I hate being taxed to death. I hate spending like crazy. This country is running a serious deficit and huge debt even though people are throwing their money away on income taxes. I mean, in Singapore, they have a 2 percent unemployment rate, a max tax rate of 20 percent (Washington needs to take notes) and were ranked as the 3rd fastest growing economy in the world. Washington needs to work to make our country like theirs.

But socially, while I may disagree with someone else's lifestyle, it's no one else's place to dictate to them how they should live behind closed doors. Religious groups and hardened social conservatives want to try and "put the baby back after the baby has already been conceived", meaning people are already having sex. Choosing to not pay for birth control is not only ridiculous but also irresponsible given the time that we live in. Abstinence may be ideal, but is not realistic in our society. To say that you don't feel comfortable with paying for birth control is like my above analogy. Stupid, but also unrealistic.

I completely agree, but I also don't understand why pork is unclean or why people don't eat shell fish. Doesn't mean I want to force them to do so. Religious groups don't like birth control. Don't work for them or go to schools affiliated with them.

Why is health insurance starting to cover all kinds of standard things. When will dental insurance start covering my Oral B electric and tooth paste. I mean brushing prevents cavities and it is cheaper in the long run so it might as well cover it. Same logic.

If insurance wants to cover preventative pregnancy methods, they should cover the cheapest and most unbiased, condoms.

If you are having sex on a regular basis BC is much cheaper and much less of a hassle then condoms. For randos condoms are a must, but if you have a GF it makes no sense for her not to be on BC. I hate having to put a balloon over my penis just to get my rocks off.

Cool bro. BC is pretty cheap then and I am sure you can afford it. I mean condoms do the same thing, but if you want the luxury option it is on you to provide. I personally think it is unhealthy for women to be on it, but some chicks are down with it. Just don't make me subsidize your personal behavior.

when did / why do religious groups dislike birth control again? is this recent or is this like the whole its bad to let your seed fall on the ground?

Pork and shellfish (and by extension promiscuous sex) are outdated religious concepts tied to the fact that people would get sick when they ate pork or shellfish (or fucked the dirty ho down the street), thus by experience they assumed god didnt want them to engage in such activity.

I do like the toothbrush analogy though. going further and relating that to BC, why not just give everyone a doritos bag? cheaper and works just as well.

It is mainly the Catholic Church. Not really sure about the reasoning, but whatever. Why is forcing personal beliefs based on religion onto others wrong, but if you are liberal it is open season for shoving misguided beliefs onto others.

And why the hell is only birth control supported. Let me see. A woman decided on the abortion because it is her body. A woman gets free birth control because it is her body. The baby comes out and it is my financial responsibility.

Love that logic train. See guys, fairness only applies when you are not a male.

As long as it pisses religious people off I'm all for it. Obamacare is such a clusterfuck it seems like there are more important issues than "free" (it's not really free) BC.

Why is this about religious freedom? The executive order requires (mandates) that private health plans cover birth control. We can talk about religion all day, but that only seeks to manipulate the argument between those who morally oppose birth control (slim proportion of the population) and those who do not. The real argument is whether or not the government has the authority to tell private enterprise what services they can and cannot provide. I see the birth control debate as irrelevant, it's really a debate about dictating away personal liberty.

eating, drinking, breathing and fucking are natural parts of life. we evolved to eat to excess so we can survive winters and to fuck everything in sight. i know that those of us who grew up being taught the mythology of sugarcandy mountain believe that the world's about 6000 years old and that we have to adopt a morality based on some bronze age con-men who claimed to have texts written by the pencil of God, but for the rest of us who accept human nature as it is, the idea that we would deny birth control as part of a health care plan that these students PAID for while NOT denying heart surgery for fat-asses who have lived a life of fatty foods and cigarettes is absurd beyond words.

I endorse not paying for fattie to have triple bypass. Maybe if there were consequences in life people would think twice.

Why are condoms not paid for by health care? WTF

i think being a disease-ridden slut and being a fat bastard are the same thing. it seems that the religious types are quite selective in their sin-bashing. bad sins: homoseuxality, fucking around. acceptable sins: gluttony, etc.

a person who does not have a bestial sex life would not need diaphragms, and a person who ate normally wouldn't need heart surgery and cancer treatments.

but we're all just fucking animals following instincts and if we were to put a morality test to every way we can destroy our health we'd be denying coverage to everyone and health insurance as a concept would vanish.

should we give surgery to people who wear out their joints doing sports?

should we treat hearing loss for kids who blast their ipods?

should we treat diabetics who brought it on themselves with too much sugar?

it is all or nothing.

Here's the answer: http://i.imgur.com/RtJ17.jpg

I don't see how what I said is political rhetoric. When the Catholic Church tries to implement their views on insurance they cover, people complain or the government steps in. But it is kosher for liberals to do the exact same thing. I fail to see the difference.

The best idea would be to have insurance cover things outside your control. If you get into an accident, randomly sick, weird disease, etc. You smoke 2 packs a day for 30 years and eat a block of cheese, you caused this.

Personal responsibility is pretty scary for most people. I think it is time we start having them own up to stuff.

Birth control pills can be taken safely by most women, but is not recommended for women who are over the age of 35 and smoke. If you don't smoke, you can use hormonal contraceptives until menopause. In addition, you should not take hormonal contraceptives if you have had:

Blood clots in the arms, legs, and lungs
Serious heart or liver disease
Cancer of the breast or uterus

If you are not sure if you are affected by one of these conditions, ask your doctor. Also, inform your doctor if you have a first-degree relative (parent, brother, sister, child) who has had blood clots in the legs or lungs.

Also, the FDA is investigating birth control pills that contain drospirenone, including YAZ and Yasmin. The decision is based on two new studies that suggest an increased risk for blood clots in women taking pills containing drospirenone, a man-made version of the hormone progesterone. Other brands containing drospirenone include Beyaz, Safyral, Gianvi, Loryna, Ocella, Syeda, and Zarah.

Besides that, why would you give up YOUR reproductive rights.

Men, gather round and let gramps drop some knowledge. Women piss and moan about THEIR reproductive rights until it comes time to cut a check and then it is YOUR problem. I know plenty of dudes who are no dads because their GF "forgot" to take a pill or was a moron taking it. Take control of YOUR reproductive rights and make sure you don't breed until you want to.

Condoms FTW

sure bc isnt healthy, neith are potato chips, but if they made my gf's tits bigger then i sure as hell want her eating them

That is fine and well my friend and everything is a calculated risk. I just prefer controlling my world as much as possible. Last thing I want is to find out an accident is now my financial ruin.

I wouldnt be surprised to see ANT hop in the GOP race

So only conservatives were pissed about the Islamic Center in NYC? Not normal New Yorkers? Sureeee

Catholics pay for the insurance they should be able to dictate some things on it. Real simple. Birth Control is a personal decision anyway. What is with this mission creep when it comes to what is insurable.

And if a Muslim wants to have a business and require an employee uniform, perfectly fine. I mean it would be the like a shitty Hooters.

haha that shitty hooters comment is gold

Naah, it's not big and it's not funny. Ant thinks he's the dogs bollox because he's doing pretty good in a shitty economy.

The average american doesn't have the choices people on here have, most times due to no fault of theirs. Why should they lose out on opportunities because some dude in rome who used to tumble choirboys says so?

There have to be rules otherwise the weak will suffer.

ANT, while it is clearly wrong to force shit on private institutions (religious or otherwise), I think we ought to make an exception just this once. I am extremely fiscally conservative, but every time the issue of contraception/abortion comes up, I always vote to make them more accessible. Besides, the worst thing for a child is to have parents who resent and neglect it. Think about it, do you really want the kind of liberal scum who whine for free shit, to reproduce?

just can't wait until muslims and hindus start opening their own colleges and try to impose their wacky views on american society. catholics are weird enough without having people who worship meteorites and 300 gods at once getting into the fray of delusional lunatics that we call the religious.

Ant you are a pleasure to read

Catholics do not run this country, Kennedy being the only Catholic President (and we know what happened to him lol). Catholics have some hospitals and a handful of universities. Not a huge deal. If isn't as if not working for a Catholic affiliated organization is a hard thing.

I also believe in government as did the founding fathers. But I believe in a limited one, one that takes care of stuff that the person or state cannot do. This country is in a mess because of too much government. Government is always bad, always inefficient and always power hungry. Such is the nature of man. We must force a limited and small government to exist to ensure that our freedoms are protected.

And no, liberals cannot ever do good. They intend to, but intentions lead to ruin. If they care so much they are free to do as they please with their own money, but not implement their personal opinions and take my money for their purposes.

Kind of unrelated, but the only thing pulling the GOP down is the social-manipulation angle (ALL Blacks are criminals, ALL Muslims are terrorists, etc). I personally know many fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal Muslims who are Democrats, simply because they fear that if Republicans come to power, they would be sent packing for Guantanamo Bay without any proof/warrant, despite the fact that they're born 'n bred US citizens. I know equally numerous Black Democrats who loathe the tone of retards like Newt. The fact that many Blacks guilt-trip them if they don't vote for Obama only makes things worse.

IMO: Paul>Romney>Obama. The rest should not even be under consideration.

I am a protestant and believe in eating meat during Lent, doesn't mean I speak for the entire religion. My whole point is if we are going to preach tolerance we should be tolerant of others intolerance. Tolerance is not a license to destroy what we perceive as other peoples intolerance, just let them be.

Tooth paste is expensive and preventative. So is my gym membership. So is my sun screen. So is my Brita filter and organic food. When can I deduct these things or have health insurance pay for it.

Where do we draw the line?

The nature of man is to abuse power. Government is like a nuclear reaction. Controlled and watched creates clean energy, turn a blind eye and it goes bomb.

And the general populace will always be taken advantage of.

Who dictates what tolerance is and the second you begin to not tolerate something you don't like, you become intolerant. Freedom of speech isn't there to protect popular speech.

Republicans might have spent to the hilt, but the masses still see the Republicans as small government, budget cutting. Thank you Tea Party.

Like I have said in countless posts, I really don't care. Minimize your personal taxes, make money and let the rest fend for themselves. I no longer donate money to any cause that benefits people directly other than the arts and zoos. If the government wants to supplant private charities, don't expect me to hear the cries for help when the tax man is busy shaking me down.

Let them eat cake.

This whole thread is tl;dr. All I know is ANT started a topic about social issues, so I thought, oh shit everyone duck, and then ... his OP was pretty reasonable. Not that that stopped the usual suspects from flaming him.

This is why I should only read finance topics on here. The funny thing is, a lot of it is libertarians who don't want "nutty religious people" to have freedom.

Also, MELVVARRRRR ... of the HILLLL PEEOPLE ....

oh shit an SNL watcher

i've been busted out

1.) BC isn't only taken to prevent pregnancies, it's also taken for other female anatomy issues (extended, painful periods, and other such things that make me queasy.)

2.) Ok, so, let's say that a Catholic run hospital doesn't want to cover BC in their health insurance plans. Aren't they in-turn imposing their religious views on their employees, not all of whom share those beliefs?

3.) More importantly, this could have some unintended slippery slope type consequences.

This nonsensical position is based on religious beliefs which cannot be proven and are based upon a thousands of years old book filled with contradictions that doesn't even mention contraception and is therefore being interpreted by a group of celibate old men (who institutionalized the raping of little boys).

Given the belief-system based nature of their objections, couldn't ANY organization refuse to pay for ANY sort of health insurance coverage based upon a belief system? I mean, I could run a business and say that it is my deeply held religious belief that only prayer can be used to heal the sick or injured and therefore refuse to pay for ANY health insurance coverage.

Or, maybe I'm a young Earth creationist who interprets the Bible literally. I could then refuse to pay for coverage for employees who eat shell fish and don't pray on the Sabbath.

Or, maybe I'm a Pastafarian and my belief system morally won't let me pay for health insurance procedures to anyone who eats Spaghetti.

I'm honestly sick of the cow towing to backward religious groups that goes on this country. It's a fucking joke.

I'll add this. If a religious group does not want to comply with a law because of it's religious beliefs, then it should have to defend it's beliefs. Simply asserting their beliefs is not enough.

Ant, you said this in your initial post:

"Now, unlike Rush, I do not think this chick is a slut. She is some haggard liberal, yes, but no way she can reach the hoe status. What she really is an oppressor and a thief, someone who uses her own personal belief system and then gets government to force other people to subsidize it. Her criminal and biased behavior makes me sick, but then again she testified in support of the current administration so she fits the bill."

I don't think she is pushing a personal belief system, she is arguing that a group, the Church, should not be able to push THEIR belief system on employees who may or may not share it. She's arguing from a reasoned, rational position with an understanding that BC is not just for stopping babies from being made, but also for women's health issues. Reason is not a belief system.

Also, why the need to call her a haggard liberal? Nice ad hominem attack.

i'd love to see a Christian Science university's health plan. the only treatment they'd cover is prayer and faith healing.

I mentioned in my first post that I support BC being covered for medical reasons.

A private institution should be able to set their own standards. The Catholic Church is not a proponent of BC and should not be forced to pay for it. No one is being forced to work for a religious organization.

Whether you believe in god or not or worship something else, freedom of personal belief needs to be protected. If you don't want religion forced on you, you should not force non religious view points on them.

Tolerance works both ways.

Right, but you also shouldn't be able to force your religious views on your employees. Catholic hospitals don't solely employ Catholics.

Either way, I don't think the Catholic Church has any legs to stand on given what it did to so many young boys for so many years and the subsequent cover-up. They have zero moral authority and can eat a dick.

Fact: I'll have premarital sex with a girl on BC up front of the Pope while I wear his silly hat.

Also - I don't have to tolerate shit when it's put out in the public square. "Oh you have to tolerate their religious beliefs!" If it stays in their Churches and homes, sure. But, when they push it into the public square and try and push laws based on their so-called faith, then I don't have to tolerate jack shit. You want to push laws based on your non-sense? Fine, but first...prove your non-sense.

1) If you do not like a groups beliefs, don't work for them. The Federal government makes me sick, hence why I will never work a government job. I don't like unions and would never unionize. A lot of people don't like Monsanto and choose not to work for them. The Catholic Church can choose to pay for whatever it wants. Providing health insurance is not a requirement, but a nice benefit.

2) How is this in the public square? This issue is being broadcast because the government thinks it has a right to dictate what religious groups should do.

And finally, once again with the religious hate. Who fucking cares. I can never understand why people get so uptight about people who have faith in something else. No matter what you believe of don't believe, there is an element of faith in everything. Maybe there is no God, maybe their is, who fucking knows. To bitch and moan about it is childish though.

Frankly, I think it is rather nice that Catholic institutions even offer health insurance to begin with.

I'm not bitching and moaning about people having faith in something. People can believe whatever they want to believe. My issue, again, is with them pushing their views onto others and/or pushing laws based on religion.

Again, I am not an atheist, as you seem to portray me. That said, I'm smart enough to not look to ancient books of easily refuted non-sense for my belief system.

Btw, if a Catholic institution didn't offer health insurance coverage at all, it would be so hysterically hypocritical of them. Not as hypocritical as institutionalized raping of little boys and conspiring to cover up the rapes, but still hypocritical.

Can someone even point to the part of the Bible that says that contraception is immoral? Seriously. I'm highly curious to see what lines from the book a group of old white virgin men use to justify this silly stance.

The separation of Church and State goes both ways. Forcing religious institutions to provide payment for services to which they are diametrically opposed directly violates the founding principles of this nation. It doesn't matter if you agree with their religious worldview - that is what makes (or "has" made) America great.

TheKing:

Can someone even point to the part of the Bible that says that contraception is immoral? Seriously. I'm highly curious to see what lines from the book a group of old white virgin men use to justify this silly stance.

Learn the reasoning behind the stance before condemning it outright. The Catholic Church does not preach a completely literal interpretation of the Bible and it does not predicate its stances on social issues on whether it can "point to a specific part of the Bible." Biblical fundamentalism is not a major tenet of the Church.

Vatican leaders are quick to acknowledge that the Bible was written in a significantly different context than the world we live in, yet they believe that the messages it contains can provide useful insight into how to live a "good" life. The Catholic interpretation of the Bible developed a worldview which holds that "pro-human" actions are morally right and "anti-human" actions are morally wrong. This philosophy is what underlies the Church's position on the issues of abortion, contraception, etc. They consider contraception to be wrong because it "denies the fullness of human sexuality" and eliminates the production of new life, which they believe is intrinsically valuable.

Note: I attend a Catholic institution and have had to take a bunch of world theology / Catholic philosophy classes. While I definitely disagree with some of the Church's stances, it is important to note that the reasoning behind them are philosophical and not based upon textual reference.

Just a question - did the Catholic church protest about proving Viagra through insurance?

EPS - does that mean that I'm destroying the possibility of life everytime I rub one out? Do you see how silly this line of thinking is on the part of the church?

I understand, to a degree, people who are opposed to abortion. I don't think you need religion to feel one way or another on that issue. But, being against contraception? What a joke.

This is clearly a violation of the first amendment. Students are free to go to whichever institution they want. At no point is a student or employee forced to work with her institution. I agree with ANT. Limbaugh is clearly an idiot but Fluke clearly represents a group of elitist liberals who want to impose their warped worldview on others. It is amazing to see people just silently accept this as anything short of a violation of employer rights.

I'm a christian and also a libertarian. I find the mainstream republican party repulsive and the democrats just a group of self interested elitists who take advantage of minority groups. As for those who usually bring up the question, "why should we allow one religious group to impose one view on the other ?", the constitution is, if you didn't know, pretty much as religious as a document can get.

Where did the founders get the ideas of "liberty" and "equality" from ? It had to come from somewhere, because there are plenty of countries that don't assume equality and liberty and the ideas of private property etc. .The american constitution wasn't the first to stress private property etc., as it was actually inspired by people like John Locke etc. Private property, in Locke’s view, existed under natural law before the establishment of political authority. It followed that a principal purpose of government was to safeguard natural property rights. Now where did John Locke get these ideas from ? From Christianity and from the Bible. Even if you're loathe to concede that, you'd still have to assume a creator and subscribe to some sort of deism.

A few more points

1. The Bible is NOT against contraception. The Catholic church may or not be. I don't know why.
2. If you argue for liberty, you'd have to argue for liberty of the unborn child. Therefore the argument against abortion is not just a religous argument, but also an argument for liberty. The thing is if you justify the murder of an unborn child there is good reason to even kill a new born child. Ethicists are now on their way to making the argument. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-…
3. It is hard to see the western world where it is without its great educational institutions. And its greatest institutions, the ivy league, with the exception of Cornell, were established by christian people for christian education. If you don't believe me, look at the mottos of Columbia,Yale,Dartmouth etc..
4. Isn't it funny to see the probable decline of America coincide with the rise of "liberal" thought ?