Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Obama tells Bishops off
Collapse
X
-
My wife is one of them. We pay $36 for a 3 month supply.Originally posted by Yale View PostThey're not considering that birth control is used by a lot of women for hormonal therapy, so they should cover it
Leave a comment:
-
Do you see constitutional authority for the federal government to make any mandate of any sort on insurance?Originally posted by racrguy View PostDo you not see the benefits of having birth control covered by insurance?
Leave a comment:
-
Driving is a privilege you have to take tests and get a license to exercise that privilege. You don't have to get a license to exist (yet) and there is no constitutional power for the FEDERAL government to say a word about insurance of any sort. If states want it, they are empowered under the 10th to enact it but the FEDERAL government lacks that powerOriginally posted by Yale View PostWhat about state mandated auto insurance?
Leave a comment:
-
"we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation."
That sounds like a line from Atlas Shrugged.
Leave a comment:
-
Sure. But it should NOT be MANDATORY. Our government has no business telling insurance companies what they MUST cover. Take religion out of it and look at the bigger picture.Originally posted by racrguy View PostDo you not see the benefits of having birth control covered by insurance?
Leave a comment:
-
Moral of the story is, women just need to get a job and buy their own birth control. It isn't even that expensive.
Leave a comment:
-
And anyone can lecture them for anything they want to, under the same first amendment protections. My point is more that they're making a decision that is correct on their own moral grounds, but is basically fruitless from an ethical standpoint. They're not considering that birth control is used by a lot of women for hormonal therapy, so they should cover it. Also, if we're bringing up first amendment protections, it bears mentioning that their refusal to cover birth control under any insurance plan for any (admittedly few) secular employees amounts to an imposition of religious belief onto those employees. By that, I don't mean that they are making those employees believe, but they're making those employees adhere to their relative morality. I personally have a problem with that.Originally posted by Forever_frost View PostNo, they're on the side of the 1st amendment and their religious beliefs. They cannot be on the wrong side with those two things. Religion has been protected since this country's founding and it has always been illegal to force someone to violate their strongly held religious beliefs.
EDIT: We may not see eye to eye on this one though, bud. My opinion is way more irrelevant than theirs is to them, I just want to get to the heart of the matter.Last edited by YALE; 03-07-2012, 11:45 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
No, they're on the side of the 1st amendment and their religious beliefs. They cannot be on the wrong side with those two things. Religion has been protected since this country's founding and it has always been illegal to force someone to violate their strongly held religious beliefs.Originally posted by Yale View PostFair enough. They're still on the wrong end of this BC thing, and that's what all this is about.
Leave a comment:
-
Who DOESN'T Obama lecture? That's all he does when he stands at his podium. His head is as big as a blimp. Arrogant SOB.
Leave a comment:
-
To you. To many, it provides hope for an afterlife, a prism to see the world through and a sense of communityOriginally posted by Yale View PostIrrelevant church is irrelevant.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: