I know condoms are free for anyone to walk in and grab no questions asked, and I know you can get a prescription on-site for birth control pills, but I don't know if you can get the Pill for free, or if it's just heavily discounted. But I know at a minimum they assume you have no insurance, and the cost is going to be aimed at low-income budgets.

Here's another poser for you (collective you, but mostly people like merc who think the church should be able to opt out): if the catholic church - or their affiliated schools, hospitals, etc - doesn't recognize gay marriages as "marriage", should they still, in states where gay marriage is legal, have to acknowledge the civil compact between a gay employee and their spouse, when it comes to health insurance coverage or other benefits that extend to spouses?

Thats a good one, Ibs. I can respect them choosing not to marry within their religion, but on first thought I would have to say yes they should.

As I said in my post above, this fight is not about contraception.
It is a power struggle of the Catholic Bishop's Conference.


NY Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
February 11, 2012

Bishops Reject White House’s New Plan on Contraception
I think this says that an insurance company can have religious beliefs or moral convictions.
This argument will be used by corporations to push further their control into the lives of employees 24/7/365.

There was no compromise offered, money was never their issue AFAIK.


Ibs got me thinking too...
I wonder if Muslim hospitals be allowed to be run based on Sharia Law?

Sharia law is a red herring. Santorum is more their man.

@ Lamp - huh? I really know nothing about their medical preferences. Just curious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think the state or Feds should allow religious institutions to decide for us.
Then again, I really don't want the Gov't choosing either. (shrug)

Did you watch Meet the Press this morning.

This is a planned campaign
- "Not Romney"
- "Not Obama"
- Paul is unelectable
- Gingrich is uncontrollable
- Suddenly Santorum has $

Certainly this poses a problem for American-British same sex unions. In Britain they are accorded spousal status. In America the Brit has to queue separately as an Alien. The union is not legal and not recognised.

And the same worry occurs in case of injury or death overseas. Men who have been together 10, 20+ years (and the rest) with no rights and no say in the life of their loved one.

But of course we're talking about something as ridiculous as marrying your dog, so it doesn't matter.

What about the rights and conscience of the employee?

Can you spell D-E-T-E-R-I-O-R-A-T-I-N-G :)

Several years ago, the Oregon Legislature made Oregon Health Sciences University and Hospitals,
fiscally independent of the Legislature, putting them into competition with other health care providers.
So OHSU elected to become the sole health-care plan (insurer) to their own employees.
Reverberations of conflict of interest are now rumbling in the bowels of "Pill Hill".
.

Think of the precedent. If employer A is allowed to exempt certain things from being covered due to religious beliefs, where does that end?

Bill to allow employer to deny any preventative service

The bill failed, as well it should, but seriously...WTF is wrong with people? Offering coverage is not the same as forcing you to take the effing pills.

I literally had this arguement with an old friend on Facebook yesterday...he said, Obama wants to prevent us from having babies!!

ExCUSE me?

How would YOU go about reducing abortions and preventing unwanted pregnancies? How about we start with eduction and affordable contraception? And I'm not talking about the 5 month waiting list at the health department or braving the demonstrators screaming in your face at Planned Parenthood. I mean, my doctor checks me out, writes a prescription, I get it filled. Then, every month, I go to the pharmacy and pick it up.

Or, like in some places in Europe and in Mexico, buy the damn birth control over the counter without a prescription for pennies, or totally free with a prescription.

But no, that's anti-religion here in the land of the free, home of the brave.

Here, contraception is prescribed by a doctor, but is free of a prescription charge. I get my contraceptive implant free every three years, but pay just over £14 a month to get my anti-deoressants and acid reflux medication.

You can buy unprescribed "morning after" pills over the counter, after a consultation with a pharmacist (who asks questions about protection, chlamydia, AIDs etc) That's comparitively expensive though - £25 last I knew. It's free from sexual health clinics and in certain pharmacies, depending on region and age. Again, the same sexual health questions will be asked.
Said it before will say it again. America is so full of contradictions. We have a State religion, of which the Queen is Defender. We have far more freedom not to have a religion than you do.

You think I am a poser because I support the church's Right to not pay attention to Obama? Haaaaa.....

Oh, and no, the Church doesn't have to do that because DOMA is still being fought in the courts.

pos·er    [poh-zer]
noun
a question or problem that is puzzling or confusing.


And no, Merc, that's wrong. DOMA only applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. not to institutions. In states where gay marriage is legal, groups operating in those states HAVE to legally acknowledge the marriage in that state. Does that infringe on their religious liberty? Does it infringe on Catholics' religious liberty that insurance benefits to spouses have to be given even if said spouse is a second or third spouse after divorce?

Not if they work for the Federal Government, they do not have to follow those rules, regardless of what state they work. And it is being challenged in every state in one form or another, for or against.

No.

Good question. I believe they still provide benefits since the only place I know that you are identified as the second or more wife is in the military. But it does not effect your ability to get benefits. There is a huge difference here when you try to isolate the desire of same sex people to get "married" and the desire of the Federal Government to infringe a rule passed down by the Feds on a Religious organization.

Frankly they just need to change the laws to state all civil unions are subject to the same rules and benefits of a "marriage". Then the radicals who want to tell people who and cannot be married won't get their feelings hurt.

Challenged, and lost, in states like Vermont. And I'm specifically referring to religious institutions like hospitals or schools, not federal institutions.


but IF the catholic hospital knew you had been divorced, should they LEGALLY be ALLOWED to deny insurance to your new spouse? I say, no, they shouldn't. Because the civil institution of marriage (LIKE the civil institution of defining "basic health care coverage") outweighs the selective and exclusionary definition they use. I think CHURCHES, actual proper CHURCHES, can define marriage, or deny birth control, whatever way they want, and if you work for a CHURCH you surrender your rights to having civil institutions recognized, but if you work for a hospital or a college, your employer should be held to the same civil standards as any other secular institution.

So why is a catholic hospital in Vermont being "forced" to cover gay spouses legitimate, but a catholic hospital being "forced" to cover birth control illegitimate?

I would argue that's another "separate but equal" principle, and unconstitutional unless civil unions were the ONLY institution the government recognized.

I think you are mixing the issues all up and trying to say they should all be treated as one thing. They can't, issues dealing with same sex marriage and the issue of the Federal Government telling a religious organization what they can and cannot do, or in this case telling them what they must do are completely different. Why? Because that is what the Constitution says. Many of the other issues are really just legal juggling that will drag on for years in the courts, along with Obamacare.



The Vermont issue is an issue that deals with States Rights and is local to that state. The other issue deals with the Federal Government telling private religious organization what they must do. Completely different.

All I'm saying is, the catholic church as an example is against both gay marriage and birth control, but to say that one of those things, they HAVE to recognize legally, and the other, they CAN'T be forced to cover like non-religious institutions do.

If it's unconstitutional on first amendment terms at the federal level, it's unconstitutional at the state level. But, okay, switch "gay" to "divorced" in my example. As the law now stands, i believe, employers can't pick and choose which marriages they recognize, even if they're a religious hospital or school or whatever. By your logic, the federal government saying that all marriages count as marriages in Obamacare would be equally illegal and unconstitutional, because that's the fed telling a religious institution that it has to acknowledge divorced-and-remarried marriages against their faith. Why is including remarried spouses in mandated health care coverage not a breach of the first amendment, but including birth control in mandated health care coverage unconstitutional?

Again, you are mixing things that happen at the state level and the Federal level. It is not a two way street.

Any First Amendment issue that restricts the Federal Government also restricts the states.

Anything that states are not prohibited from doing by the First Amendment also is not prohibited by the First Amendment to the Federal Government.

Other parts of the Constitution delineate differences in powers between the state and federal levels, but since the 14th Amendment, if you're making a First Amendment argument, Vermont and federal jurisdictions are both subject.

If you want to say it's OK for Vermont, but not the Federal Government, you'll have to use something other than the First Amendment.

And I don't know what, other than the First Amendment, could be a Constitutional block based on religion.

You are late to the party. I am not making those arguments for the gay, divorced, insurance issue. I did not bring them up and don't know if they specifically apply in that case. I am only talking about the BCP issue and what Obama wants the Catholic hospitals to do by the King's edict.

Further, states, Vermont in his case, can't tell the Feds or other states what to do or how to do it. Same goes for the whole issue of civil unions and what various states do about it. It is a red herring in this issue IMHO.

I didn't make any argument that was particular to the gay, divorced, insurance issue. I mentioned Vermont as an example of a state that had already come up, but my point stands if you replace it with a generic state.

A state can't tell the Feds what to do, but if a state can do it, then so can the Feds, as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.

How?

Tonight I watched part of a documentary on the Loving case, which caused the Federal courts to overturn miscegenation laws against interracial marriage. Listening to the opinion of the judges supporting enforcing the law, wrapping prejudice in the name of G-d, and listening to all of the people who were so sure that segregation and miscegenation laws made sense and were G-d approved, showed me how important a role the Federal government plays.

Because each state's citizen is a citizen of the United States. And while rights flow to the states through the 10th Amendment, the core Constitution itself and the 14th Amendment give the Federal government the right to protect the unalienable rights of it's citizens from the states.

I recommend watching The Loving Story on HBO. Listening to all of these people, some obvious jerks but many well meaning, talk about their belief in the inevitability and 'rightness' of these laws, brings so much into focus. Seen through the lens of history, their arguments fall flat, but in that day a majority either believed them or lacked the will to oppose them.


From here
FYI, the judge's archive page at the Virginia Historical Society makes no mention of the Loving case.

I am fed up with a Christian fundamentalist god always messing with our State and Federal Government. The fact that the concept of separation of Church and State exists proves that god doesn't want the Republicans sneaking in rules about birth control or homosexuality and turning them into laws. This is such major hypocrisy for the "party of less government" that I am astonished. Maintaining the nation's infra-structure and ensuring food and health care for our children is too grievous an oppression by the government, but government mandates on private sexual choices, birth control, abortion, women's rights etc. are perfectly acceptable because that's what god wants. God is horrified by two happily paired off lesbians but indifferent to the suffering of a child. Go figure.

Nor did I, that's the point.

You can't be that dense.

What one state does at a state level has nothing to do with what happens at a national level. What the Fed does as a mandate has to do with all the states at every level, and in this case it violates the Constitution and Obama lacks the power to do it. If I were my state I would give him the finger and completely ignore the fool.

HOW is it unconstitutional to force religiously-identified private employers to insure birth control, but LEGAL and constitutional to force them to insure, for example, remarried employees?

You have NOT yet answered what the difference is.

Simple, your example used state court findings which were confined to what the states did. Obama is using the Federal pulpit, which, IMHO and many others, is an unconstitutional mandate. It is really not all that difficult.

Yes, I got "the point" that you werent talking about the gay, divorced, insurance issue. That's why I said my argument was equally relevant to the birth control issue.

If the First Amendment doesn't block a state from requiring employers to cover birth control, then it doesn't block the Federal Government from requiring employers to cover birth control.

And several states already require non-church employers, including Catholic-run hospitals and universities, to cover birth control, exactly as the proposed Federal rule will do.

Again you fail.

It is not about what the states regulate.

It is about what Obama wants to regulate to the states from the Federal pulpit.

BUT THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, MERC. You can be POLITICALLY against it, but you can't say ONE is CONSTITUTIONAL and the other is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. thats not how the first amendment WORKS, merc. Unless it's a tenth-amendment issue - in which case, the religious nature of an employer is irrelevant.

Why are you shouting. I don't care.

You can't take what is a State's issue and apply it nationally.

So you're saying that your opposition IS or ISNT about religious liberty?

Are you against it as a 10th amendment, states-rights issue, or a 1st amendment, freedom of religion issue?

Where does the Constitution stop the Federal Government from "telling them what they must do"?

Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.

What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.

So how is it legal for states to do it, but not for the fed, under the first amendment? the first amendment applies to states too under the 14th amendment.

In many cases it is a "States Right" issue. You guys are on a merry-go-round. It is quickly becoming no longer important to me if you understand it or not. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. You are not going to change my mind as to the facts of the Constitutional aspect of this issue and so far you have completely failed to put up a cogent argument which disputes my position. We don't have to agree. Let's see how the courts settle the issue as a final resolution. It is not important to me that you see it my way, really, I just don't care.

If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.

I know YOU don't care if I understand, but I -do- want to understand your argument. At this point, I only know that you think it's unconstitutional. But again, HOW is it unconstitutional? I feel like you FIRST were arguing it was unconstitutional on religious liberty grounds, in which case it does not matter if it's a state or the fed, with regards to constitutionality, and then you changed to a states-rights tenth amendment argument.

No, you introduced the issue of States Rights issue by trying to compare it to same sex union court battles. Apples and Oranges.

Ok, prove it. I never made such an argument about it applying equally to both. They are completely different. One is top down, the other bottom up. I would be glad to watch you show how they are the same. Please cite as you go.

No, I didn't. I didn't compare it to court battles. I asked if in states where it IS legal, you think colleges or charities or hospitals should be able to deny spousal insurance coverage only to gay couples, but provide it to hetero couples? Or rather, I said that as far as I know they ARE required to provide benefits to ALL spouses (or none I suppose), and that they can't pick and choose, even if gay couples violate their beliefs.

I'm still talking ONLY about insurance coverage and ONLY about how it relates to religiously-affiliated institutions.

You are beating a dead horse. You specifically ID'd states where this was an issue that had been or is being challenged in various levels of courts. This issue is being challenged at a state level or at least regionally from the point of STATES in-acting laws which then have been challenged in court. This has nothing to do with what Obama did via the FEDERAL government from the top down. I just don't understand what you don't understand about the difference between those processes.

See above.... repeatedly.

Are you saying that they can't be both?

YES. YES I AM. The first amendment applies to both the fed, and the states. The tenth amendment says that anything not given, as a power, to the federal government, is reserved to the states. How is the FED "infringing religious liberty" unconstitutional, according to you, but the STATES doing it constitutional? If it's unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds, it's unconstitutional no matter whether it's fed or state. If it's unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds, then you're arguing that this and EVERY OTHER provision of Obamacare is illegal (which i'm sure you believe) - but in that case, why is the religious provision MORE unconstitutional? If it isn't MORE unconstitutional, we come back to my original question - why is it okay to infringe on their beliefs about the definition of marriage, when it comes to insurance? And again I want to equate, in this instance, the gay marriage controversy with the catholic church's non-recognition of remarried couples.

The issue is one of what the States are doing vs. what the Federal Government wants individual businesses to do. You are completely and repeatedly mixing the issues. The are not the same even though they may have similar issues with Constitutionality.

Oh, and I do think Obamacare is a whole other set of issues and problems as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid foisted it on the American people, on both constitutional grounds as well as numerous other areas where there are problems with it. But as Pelosi said, we had to pass it to see what was in it.... We will just have to see what the SCOTUS has to say about the numerous lawsuits that they are going to have to deal with over the next year.

WHICH issue? The issue of birth control coverage, but NOT Obamacare more widely?

You are mixing the issue of gay marriage and the most recent issue of King Obama's edict of mandated BCP coverage. Obamacare is a THIRD issue you recently dragged in...

Ok, look at it like this..

There are issues concerning the BCP edict by King Obama which involve a number of Amendments as well as Section 2 of the constitution. It was MHO that it at least violated the First Amendment. There may be an argument that Obama does not have an enumerated power to even make such an edict. We will have have to see where it goes from here. But to drag the issue of Gay Marriage and now Obamacare into it will not allow you to see the BCP issue more clearly. Each one will be measured differently and alone.

Mandated birth control is PART OF Obamacare. That's why it's being talked about at all. To separate Obamacare from the birth control debate reveals your ignorance on the topic.

But, okay. If we IGNORE GAY MARRIAGE, if you honestly don't see how they are parallel legal arguments, let's talk about divorced and then remarried people.


The catholic church does not believe in birth control.
The catholic church does not believe in divorce.

You posit: catholic-affiliated organizations should not have to insure birth control.
I ask: should catholic-affiliated organizations have to insure remarried spouses?

Really? My ignorance? Don't be a little bitch if you want to discuss this issue with adults. You fail on so many levels. If it was part of the original Bill he would not have had to come out and make an edict about it, the issue would have been inherent in the writing of the original Bill. But what Obamacare did do was give powers to the HHSS to make such edicts. Which is another huge problem with Obamacare.

They are completely separate issues, they come from completely different angles and issues.


Sort of, but yea, I give you that much....

Gay marriage and or divorce of anyone is not just an issue of the Catholic Church. The issues have not just been an issue of the Catholic Church.

It just so happens that the Catholic Church has been dealing with the issue head on, but it still is not an issue of just that religion. They happen be the ones dealing with it head on.

Actually, what the bill says is that exemptions to the UNIVERSAL provision IN the text of the bill (that is, the bill says INSURANCE HAS TO INCLUDE BIRTH CONTROL) can be granted by the executive. Sibelius (with Obama's blessing) decided NOT to EXEMPT religiously-affiliated groups from the provision, but DID exempt churches.

What I'm saying is, Catholics could argue that having to recognize people that were remarried as legal spouses for purposes of insurance is infringing on their right to reject second marriages as illegitimate. Do you think they should have the right to reject remarried spouses from their health care coverage?

This law simply puts the FREEDOM in the hands of the people, NOT the healthcare provider.
Whats the church so worried about?
(insert stats of Catholic women who use BC here)
Next!

Not much different from what I said.


And my point is have they? Is anyone in the Federal government saying they must do this? Or is it just being challenged at the state level and the issue has never come up at a Federal level?


Haven't really thought about it much, guess I just don't care.

Yeh, this kinda pisses me off. Apparently I have to get an annulment now.
Talked to the church about it ... $$$$$$$$ makes it all OK.

Like I said I am not against BC or the governments desire to provide it. I just don't think they have the Constitutional Right to make Religious organizations to go against their beliefs.

I don't think the Church should have EVER had the right to not offer it to patients.
Its the PEOPLE who are being given the choice, as it should be.

No. It is Big Government telling Religious organizations what they MUST provide by Presidential edict. And that goes against everything we stand for. Like I said, let them set up a free BCP stand across the street and give the shit out for free, I would support that, the more people on BC the better, they have no Right or Power to mandate that they have to do it and this action is not supported either by enumerated powers of the Office of the President and is prohibited by the Constitution. It really is black and white. I would guess it will go to the courts.