Skip to main content

View Diary: Enraged by Wednesday's GOP Debate; Birth Control (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  some clarifications (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rickeagle
    Oh yes, it is so totally “Unbelievable” that Obama would want to provide health care for employed people.
    His unbelieveable comment referred to the 'attack on religious conscience', as that is what that whole paragraph was about.
    And since that indirectly means that an abortion would be covered by their health insurance, this somehow means he is infringing on their rights to “religious freedom” and we are religiously intolerant to leave the option to those whose religion does not prohibit abortions to have them if they chose.
    The Catholic Church believes abortion to be a grave sin. Not just having the abortion, but participating in the process. It is considered a sin for the doctor perforning the procedure. Providing material aid to the abortion process is likewise problematic. The regulation would in effect have the Catholic Church (or individual Catholics) paying for procedures it finds immoral. There is the infringement on religious rights.

    You need to understand the other sides position (which your use of the word 'somehow' suggests you do not) if you wish to critique that position.

    Religious tolerance means that we will not force any catholic person (as well as any other religion that rejects abortion) to have an abortion since it is against their religion.
    Yes, but it is more than that.

    Religious tolerance means that we will not force any person to do things that are against their religion.

    It is not, however, religious freedom to deny the right to an abortion for every woman because of certain religions.
    Unless there is a religion that treats abortion as a religious ritual(i'm pretty sure there are none), then preventing abortion is not a matter of regilious freedom at all.

    Nor is anyone in this case even attempting to prevent the right to abortion for every woman. Religious institutions simply refuse to be a party to the procedure.

    That would indicate that there is a preference for the people who believe against them. So, if you want to maintain religious freedom, don’t force other people to conform to your beliefs.
    That is exactly the position of the Catholic Bishops who are being required to conform against thier own beliefs.
    •  What they fail to realize is that.... (7+ / 0-)

      everyone has the right to freedom of religion.  It's not just the canidates or bishops that have that right, we all have that right as US citizens.  And when one person's freedom infringes on another person's freedom, that's where the line is. One's freedom is limited to activities that do not, in any way, infringe on another's freedom.  

      Having freedom of religion also infers freedom FROM religion.  They do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on others.  That infringes on other's religous freedoms.  

      They're just misunderstanding the Constitution, this idea of freedom is not a blanket statement or an absolute power.

      We are secular government, it's the way our founding fathers intend.  If they want a monarchy with state appointed religious views, they should really go back to England.

      •  also realize (0+ / 0-)
        Having freedom of religion also infers freedom FROM religion.  They do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on others.  That infringes on other's religous freedoms.  
        Correct but the only 'forcie' being applied is by the administration on people who have a moral objection to contraception/abortion.

        If you think its all hony-dory you remain free to do as you wish.

        •  how are they being forced, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rickeagle, adrianrf

          if they aren't forced to participate in either contraception or abortion?

          •  By being forced to pay for (0+ / 0-)

            the insurance that leads to the pill/procedure.

            If i think abortion is morally wrong (i do) then i would not pay for someone elses abortion. If the government required me to pay for it, that would go against my religious freedom.

            •  We are not allowed refuse to pay.... (4+ / 0-)

              taxes for war if we don't believe in war. Why should this be any different?

              You can continue to serve at Votevets.org

              by rickeagle on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 08:38:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you could (0+ / 0-)

                leave the country or choose to reduce your income to avoid paying income taxes.

                But the constitution is pretty explicit that the government may tax us. Likewise it is explicit that the government may make wars. That is why it is different.

                They do not violate the first ammendment like this does.

                •  Yeah, that's perfectly fricken reasonable... (0+ / 0-)

                  just stop making money, so you can avoid income taxes, which then pay for wars.

                  How about if an employer doesn't agree with providing full medical coverage to their employees, birth control included, then they should just shut down their business?  That would allow them to avoid something they don't wish to participate in, now wouldn't it?

                  That's brilliant logical, just fucking brilliant.  I'm glad you came up with that idea.

            •  Yeah, but... (4+ / 0-)

              if they're paying their employees money, and those employees turn around and blow it all on abortions, birth control pills and lap dances then they're paying for it either way.  They cannot control their employees choices to this extent, they're not minions, they're not followers of some cult, they're there to earn a paycheck and be provided health insurance.  

              For employers to think that they have a say in how their employees or their insurance company spends their money, that they earned, is fucking ludicrous.  

              •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

                once the employee has been paid, then the money belongs to the employee. So the employee is paying for it. Not the employer.

                For employers to think that they have a say in how their employees or their insurance company spends their money, that they earned,
                But the employer gets to deicde what goes into the contract before it is signed, before the employer consents. They have that right because it is the employers money which he may spend as he chooses.
                •  the reason that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rickeagle, Calamity Jean

                  insurance companies make any money at all to pay their employees and survive as a business is by making more money from what the people spend on their company than what they'll ever use. So, the money an individual spends for insurance will never go to an abortion if they don't choose to have one. Their money goes to their own medical costs plus paying for all of the company's other expenses. Unless by some chance you have such horrible medical problems that makes you spend less for your insurance than what they cover for you, which is rare or else they'd go out of business, then you aren't paying for anyone else's abortions.

                  •  additionally, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Calamity Jean

                    when what people pay is partially for paying for the procedures of others, that would include really expensive procedures. Abortions are not on the higher end of expensive procedures. Most range between $300 and $900 when the expensive medical procedures that are paid for in part by other people are the ones that are in the thousands.

                •  And once the insurance premiums are paid... (0+ / 0-)

                  that money is the insurance company's, it's no longer the employers, so what business is it of the employers what procedures or medications the insurance company provides with said money?

        •  Not really... (7+ / 0-)

          For a two reasons:

          1) This administrations decision to make birth control available to all people, regardless of employers belief, is the opposite of forcing a religious view, it's forcing a secular (completely free of religious preferation) view.  

          2) Employers do not have the right to force their religous views onto their employees, regardless of the context.  That infringes on the employees right to religious freedom, which is a violation of the Constitution.

          *Side note, for those that do have moral objections to birth control, etc - DONT TAKE IT! That's the pretty obvious solution.  I don't believe cheating on your spouse is a moral thing to do, so I don't do it, but of course others should have the freedom to make that choice for themselves.  That's how freedom works.  

          •  yes (0+ / 0-)
            is the opposite of forcing a religious view
            but it is requiring people to participate in something that the believe to be immoral. That is the 1st ammendment violation. That is the forcing against conscience. They become an accessory.
            Employers do not have the right to force their religous views onto their employees, regardless of the context.  That infringes on the employees right to religious freedom, which is a violation of the Constitution.
            Correct. And they are not. Employees are not being forced to not contracept. they remain free to choose it.
            •  No its not... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              googie, adrianrf, RoyaHegdahl, Sunspots

              you need to re-read the Constitution and all SC decisions made in the past 100 years.  I was a law student, I fully understand the extent of rights and how the SC has continued to shape those rights.

              Do you really, have such a narrow minded view, to believe that A) your personal opinions matter in the context of the situation, our world is extremely overpopulated, minimizing the number is unwanted/unneeded pregnancies is the LEAST we can do B) that anyone agrees with 100% of what their tax dollars are being used for and C) seriously?  are you trolling for a fight?  I know my rights.

              Oh, and heres's a suggestion - DON'T LIKE BIRTH CONTROL, DON'T FUCKING TAKE IT, stop crying about it like a child, no one agrees with 100% of what their tax dollars are used for.  I don't agree with war, but I didn't go around like a cry baby after 9/11 claim that Bush was "forcing" his war-loving beliefs onto me.  I didn't support it and I didn't participate.  This country cannot please everyone, all the time.  It's statistically impossible.  We can please most of the people most of the time.  Unfortunatley you're on the losing end of this one buddy.

              Please go read a book, preferable one not written by some right-wing nut job.  Go back to school, change the channel from the 24hr news stations.  You're clearly misinformed and I have better things to do with my time that school you in Constitutional Law.

              •  so what does the (0+ / 0-)

                free exercise clause mean? And don't neglect the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

                Do you really, have such a narrow minded view, to believe that A) your personal opinions matter in the context of the situation, our world is extremely overpopulated, minimizing the number is unwanted/unneeded pregnancies is the LEAST we can do
                Not a matter of my opinion, it's a matters of everyones rights. Our rights do not end when the world population exceeds 'X' people.
                B) that anyone agrees with 100% of what their tax dollars are being used for and
                We're not even talking about tax dollars. We're talking about the dollars of a religious institution, or individual.
                C) seriously?  are you trolling for a fight?  I know my rights.
                no, but some people seem to equate polite reasoned disagreement with trolling.
                •  I wrote a whole diary, just for you... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RoyaHegdahl, Calamity Jean

                  but I don't like arguing with brick walls, so for now, I'm done with this conversation.  I'm smart enough to know when a conversation is hopeless.

                  Religious Freedom from Some

                  •  Agreed! (0+ / 0-)

                    I tried to keep hope but I guess usually when people make their minds up about something they won't change it but did you see my comment about why you won't pay for other people's abortions if you're paying for health insurance? Btw, I like what you have to say so much, I'm going to follow you now :)

                    •  I agree, I did read your comment... (0+ / 0-)

                      some people get so wrapped up with their own little world, with their own warped views of morality that they cannot fathom people not agree with them.  

                      The difference is my opinions mirror those of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, while it seems other's mirror the Bible....as far as I know, the Constitution is still the law of the land here :)

      •  They don't want a monarchy, they want a theocracy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RoyaHegdahl

        So do a lot of different fundie groups, and none of them realize that the only thing between them and fratricidal multi-sided civil war is the US Constitution.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 07:17:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I do think I see (3+ / 0-)

      what you are saying, and I'm not trying to be combative in anyway but as a clarification, would you then also consider the right to gay marriage an infringement of religious freedom? It seems to me that this a congruent issue in which many people believe it to be a grave sin as well. And since married gay people use services provided by the state in their lives and the marriage process, then people who believe religiously against gay rights would then be directly paying for their services through taxes and other means.
      And I do agree with what you're saying about,

      "Unless there is a religion that treats abortion as a religious ritual(i'm pretty sure there are none), then preventing abortion is not a matter of regilious freedom at all."
      but how is this supported by the rest of what you were saying?
      •  Marriage as a secular legal definition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        or marriage as a religious ritual?

        The state permitting a judge to perform the ceremony would be fine as religion is not involved.

        The state requiring a Catholic priest to marry two men/two women would be an infringement.

        but how is this supported by the rest of what you were saying?
        I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you clarify, i'll try to respond.
        •  Okay agreed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rickeagle, googie, Clem Yeobright

          that it would be religious infringement to force any religious institution to perform a marriage between two men or two women. However, I was trying to reference the same point that you made how

          "The regulation would in effect have the Catholic Church (or individual Catholics) paying for procedures it finds immoral. There is the infringement on religious rights."
          In the same sense, parts of the procedures of homosexual marriages would be paid for by people who believe them to be grave sins, so this would too, by your reasoning be religious infringement.
          Then for the other quote, sorry for not being clear but what I understood from,
          "Unless there is a religion that treats abortion as a religious ritual(i'm pretty sure there are none), then preventing abortion is not a matter of regilious freedom at all."
          Preventing abortion is not a matter of religious freedom at all, is what you said. Since there is no (known) religion that has abortion rituals, it is not a question of a matter of freedom of religion and that the
          "religious institutions simply refuse to be a party to the procedure."
          I would say, other than paying a very minuscule amount through taxes that everyone must pay by living in the country, there is no forcing to be a party to the procedure that is any different than being a party to the procedure of gay marriages.
          •  i don't think so (0+ / 0-)
            In the same sense, parts of the procedures of homosexual marriages would be paid for by people who believe them to be grave sins, so this would too, by your reasoning be religious infringement.
            I'm not sure that the Church sees civil marriages between homosexuals as a grave sin. It is simply a civil legal declaration. It sees the homosexual act as a sin but tax money isn't going there.

            Oh OK, But the regulation requring the insurance to cover contraception makes the employer responsible for ALL of the costs of the pill as it is to be without any patient copay.

            It is not miniscule at all. Being mandated to be responsible for all of the costs is forcing.

            •  so then what do you think about my above comment? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean

              " the reason insurance companies make any money at all to pay their employees and survive as a business is by making more money from what the people spend on their company than what they'll ever use. So, the money an individual spends for insurance will never go to an abortion if they don't choose to have one. Their money goes to their own medical costs plus paying for all of the company's other expenses. Unless by some chance you have such horrible medical problems that makes you spend less for your insurance than what they cover for you, which is rare or else they'd go out of business, then you aren't paying for anyone else's abortions.

              •  I found it very confusing (0+ / 0-)

                read it like 6 times and still no comprendo

                •  Well I hope this helps. (0+ / 0-)

                  Each person that has health insurance pays their insurance company. This is the company's income. Part of their money goes to paying for the client's procedures. Part of the money goes to paying for rent, employee's salaries, and other things they need to run the company. These are called expenses. For the companies to make a profit, they need to have their income greater than their expenses. Their income is from the people who pay from the insurance. So, in order to make a profit, the people who pay for insurance are paying not just for their own procedures but for the company's other expenses and their profits. If a certain person has extremely high amount of expensive procedures, other people are paying for it who have less expensive procedures. This is because they are still paying every month and may not need to use the benefits.
                  If your procedures' costs are less than the average cost, then you are partially paying every month for the procedures above the mean. If you are having procedures that are above the mean cost, you may be paying more per month but overall, but someone else is inevitably paying for part of your procedure.
                  The cost of an abortion according to this source is about $405 but I have heard a range of $300 to $900.  
                  When other surgeries are generally in the thousands of dollars, a procedure that is a few hundred dollars will not be paid in the grand scope of things by other people.
                  Such as heart surgery: $25,000-$100,000
                  Chemotherapy: a range of $100 to $30,000 for only 8 weeks of treatment.
                  And when one of the most common surgeries in the US, eye surgery, costs about $3,600 to $4,600, a procedure that is between $300 and $900 dollars will be on the lower spectrum of costs and the only person truly paying for their abortion is themselves.
                  Also, like I said before, the total cost that most people pay for health insurance is less than the money they get back for it when insurance pays for their medical procedures. If this was not true, insurance companies would go out of business because they wouldn't be able to pay for all of their expenses (which includes medical procedures and other regular business expenses) and they would not be making the ridiculous profits that they do.

                  •  For most companies (0+ / 0-)

                    a large percentage of the cost of the policy is picked up by the employer. I think i pay a third of the cost of my healthcare policy. So you cannot get away from employer dollars are going for objectionable ends.

                    Of course the problem is that we have a bad system structure where you get your healthcare insurance through your employer. If it worked more like car insurance then the employer would not be in the equation and things would be much simpler.

                    •  even in that case (0+ / 0-)

                      the employer would be paying for the employee's procedures and insurance, as long as they are not getting abortions, the employer is not paying for them. The employer may pay a small part of other people's procedures but those procedures would be the ones that cost more than the average, such as the procedures that cost $20,000, $30,000 and more. Again, not the abortions.

                      •  and if the the (0+ / 0-)

                        employee does get contraceptives/abortions the employer is subsidizing them.  Which goes against their religious views.

                        The 'other peoples' procedures are not what is at issue. The employees covered by the employer plan are.

                        •  Well, the problem then (0+ / 0-)

                          would be with the integrity of the morals of the catholic church, not with the insurance since what he brought up was the employment of people in the catholic church.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (77)
  • Bernie Sanders (51)
  • Elections (45)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Climate Change (36)
  • Environment (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Culture (33)
  • Civil Rights (30)
  • Science (30)
  • Media (28)
  • Republicans (28)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Spam (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (20)
  • International (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site