The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

Obama mandate on birth control coverage stirs controversy

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby at1with0 » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:39 pm

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"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby greeney2 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:26 am

Do you not understand the uncconsitutional part to this one, but understand it about the gay issue?
greeney2
 
Posts: 9632
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:20 am

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. :lol:
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby greeney2 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:43 am

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.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9632
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:16 am

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"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby at1with0 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:46 am

It's like saying the ban on polygamy forces certain religious beliefs on some Mormons.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby greeney2 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:40 pm

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.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9632
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby frrostedman » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:36 am

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. :lol:

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
User avatar
frrostedman
 
Posts: 3774
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:01 pm

Postby ricardo » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:52 am

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.)
User avatar
ricardo
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:10 pm

Postby at1with0 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:15 am

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"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Next

Return to General Discussion Topics

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests