Obama mandate on birth control coverage stirs controversy | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Obama mandate on birth control coverage stirs controversy
February 9, 2012
4:39 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... 53014864/1

Congressional leaders and Republican presidential candidates joined Catholic religious groups Wednesday in denouncing the Obama administration's mandate requiring health insurers to offer birth control coverage, but the White House stood its ground.

Carney: White House officials "are very sensitive and understand some of the concerns."

House Speaker John Boehner called it "an unambiguous attack on religious freedom" in a rare House floor speech decrying the mandate, a part of President Obama's health care law that has picked up Roman Catholic and conservative opposition in the past three weeks.

"If the president does not reverse the … attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must," Boehner said. "This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand."

Come again?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 9, 2012
5:26 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10166
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Do you not understand the uncconsitutional part to this one, but understand it about the gay issue?

February 9, 2012
6:20 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I am not understanding how mandating coverage of birth control is an unambiguous attack on religious freedom. House Speaker John Boehner might as well have said it's an unambiguous attack on the freedom to bare arms and it would have made as much sense. Laugh

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 9, 2012
6:43 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10166
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Becasue it passes a law that interfers with a basic religious right concerning birth control within a religion, and that is what OT posted the other day about "Congress shall pass no laws-----". That is an example of separation of church and state being violated by the state. The state can not mandate any law that conflicts with a basic belief in any religion. It would be forcing the Catholic Church to condone birth control when it is clearly seen as a mortal sin in that theology, by providing insurance coverage for it. It also forces religions to provide abortion insurance coverage I believe.

February 9, 2012
7:16 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"greeney2" wrote: It would be forcing the Catholic Church to condone birth control when it is clearly seen as a mortal sin in that theology, by providing insurance coverage for it.

How does the mandate do that??

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 9, 2012
7:46 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It's like saying the ban on polygamy forces certain religious beliefs on some Mormons.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 9, 2012
8:40 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10166
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

And you tell me I do not understand the constitution. If you do not see it as a clear violation of a religious belief, as do most of the country, I can't explain it any further.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Forcing the birth control issue prohibits religions from the free exercise of considering use of them is a sin and against religious teaching. It does no matter if you agree with the belief, other religions do, and they are being violated by this law.

February 10, 2012
8:36 am
Avatar
frrostedman
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3815
Member Since:
September 4, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: I am not understanding how mandating coverage of birth control is an unambiguous attack on religious freedom. House Speaker John Boehner might as well have said it's an unambiguous attack on the freedom to bare arms and it would have made as much sense. Laugh

Because it requires faith-based clinics and hospitals (There are countless such Catholic institutions) to dispense birth-control medication which is against their religious beliefs.

Today, if you go to St. [Whatever] Hospital, you will receive some of the best care available. But if you want birth control pills, go elsewhere. That's where they draw the line. Obamas healthcare mandate trumps their freedom to deny dispensing birth control medication on moral grounds.

It would be like Obama telling the Humane Society and all Animal Shelters to provide pet euthanization services for anyone that walked in with a pet they didn't want anymore. And sadly, I suspect the outrage would be a hundred-fold worse if the issue was about killing unwanted kittens instead of killing unwanted human babies.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein

February 10, 2012
12:52 pm
Avatar
ricardo
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1493
Member Since:
December 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

providing access and availability for ' programs' by organizations that benefit from massive government funding / tax exemptions... should not be interpreted
as imposition of services.

nor on their face value be in conflict w/ religious beliefs. my opinion. don't you think it's dubious attempting to interprit gods intent insofar as procreation is concerned ?

if that were the case , would not the time honored 'withdrawal method' be a part of the curriculum ? no pun intended. ( kats are trying to take over the world.)

February 10, 2012
7:15 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The people's religious freedom who are in the business of health insurance is not affected any more than obligating health insurance to not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Do health insurance companies get to say, "we won't cover your surgery because you are a sinner by my definition"? Do health insurance companies get to say, "we won't cover the treatment of your AIDS disease because you are gay"? Do health insurance companies get to say, "you're not one of us (religiously) so we deny your claim"?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
30 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10166

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 23674

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 32

Topics: 8552

Posts: 122760

Newest Members:

mike, Jones splatch, 7155304653, iluty, Donald Mitchell, skippy mccracken, Henweielts, Athena, Athena, Athena

Administrators: John Greenewald: 518, blackvault: 1777