The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:This is about the Federal governmnt mandating a law, that violates the Constitution.

Answer the question did you and your wife ever used birth control methods pills or condoms in your lifetime and do not doge this question

Irrelevant, zoltan.

ricardo wrote:em ... what they don't pay in taxes , we collectively make up for , in services
in kind, additional taxes for their sucking the life blood out of local utilities,
land use displacement, pollution , police courtesy use , shall I go on brother.
if you will just admit it. I'm not adverse to working something out in the tax code.
it's not like the protected religions don't earn a profit.

Using that logic, then you should also direct your anger toward all nonprofit organizations, children, infants, the poor, the unemployed, the underemployed, the disabled, all who get paid "under the table," and anyone who isn't active in the work force, because they don't contribute tax dollars either.

The Church doesn't owe tax money. That's why they don't pay it. Their money is freely given to them and is spent on charitable efforts. Try to look beyond your biased opinions and see this for what it really is.

you got personal and you copped out. ! lol. that's ok.

anger ? I agree. disappointed in what our govt even by law characterizes as
"non profit" "not for profit " it would be funny if it were not so sad.

Ive seen a lot of organizations that pay over 85% of their profits to management
fees. now can we both be angry ? on the same team?

church's that do absolutely nothing for the community. spoken from someone with a Christian belief system. I'd be surprised if you could be offended by that statement

your church and belief system is not under attack , your faith appears stronger than ever. I have confidence in you.

at1with0 wrote:Irrelevant, zoltan.

Its not irrelevant Sir because the truth is that you and your wife have used contraceptives in your life.
And I am sure that you in your youth in the 60's used condoms.
So stop being more catholic than the pope now that you probably need 46 viagra pills to get it up.
You never practice what you preaching about birth control.
By the way since the 60s the Catholic rate of birth as dramatically decline because of Catholics using birth controls.
Thank God that the majority of Catholic Poeple are no longer fear monger of the Church and hell. They take and leave what they want.
95% are old crooners like you that attend the Church. Its bound to change things or else no one will attend. The attendance drop has been drastic since they are force to sell the churches.
Catholic Women were tired of being cows of giving birth every year while living because of this in miserable poverty.
The Church wants more tithers and sacraments buyers and for this needs constant breeding of fishes.
They need suckers like you but their Karma will reach up to them one day and the CC will be obsolete eventually

Whether greeney used or uses birth control or Viagra has absolutely no bearing on the contention that this mandate places a limit on religious freedom of those in the business of health insurance.

HHS Birth Control Mandate Is Not Like Requiring Vegan Stores To Sell Beef
by Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 25 Comments | Share a Tip

Today in my google news feed, I came across an item saying the Obama administration had mandated that all food stores selling refrigerated goods must sell beef, even if the store otherwise only sells vegetarian or vegan foods. What could possibly be the rationale behind that?, I wondered, clicking through to the “story”—which turned out to be a satire intended to demonstrate the unfairness of the administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans cover birth control. But requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control pills is nothing like requiring vegan stores* to sell beef, for two very simple reasons.

1. You can buy beef all around; not so for birth control. As it stands, the majority of (if not all) supermarkets and food-sellers carry meat (even convenience stores carry beef jerky, hot dogs, etc.). There would be nothing to gain by mandating that a few stores that didn’t start doing so. If a nearby vegetarian foods store didn’t sell beef, you could simply zip over to your nearest regular supermarket to pick some up. But most birth control is only available with a prescription, purchasable at a pharmacy, and affordable with health insurance. With the majority of insured Americans covered under employer-sponsored health insurance plans (and the individual health insurance market so pathetic and prohibitively expensive), it’s not like most women can just say, ‘Oh, my plan doesn’t cover contraception? I’ll just switch.” Health insurance plans are not like supermarkets.

2. The government has a legitimate interest in ensuring widespread access to contraception—not to beef. Contraception is incredibly important to women’s health. It helps prevent unplanned pregnancies, which helps reduce the number of low-income and/or single mothers who may need to receive government assistance or may turn children over into the foster system (not to mention reduces the abortion rate, something that’s not necessarily a ‘legitimate government interest’ but is, nonetheless, considered a good thing by many people—including religious conservatives and Catholics who oppose the birth control mandate). There’s no real reason, however, why the government would have a legitimate interest in promoting beef consumption or any sort of arbitrary dietary choice.

In the comments to the original comparison post, author Diane M. Korzeniewski writes:

One thing I’m certain of is that if vegetarian shop owners were forced to carry beef, a good many non-vegetarians would be in an uproar. There would be a much bigger stink.

Um, that’s because such a move would be a pointless, intrusive and unprecedented (in this area) exercise of government power. But regulating health plans and what sorts of coverage they must provide is already something the government does. Unlike some sort of weird beef carriage mandate, the HHS’ birth control mandate is not a novel or surprising regulation. Yes, some Catholic universities and organizations might have problems with offering health insurance that offers birth control, but people in all sorts of businesses and industries have all sorts of problems (ethical, political, practical) with all sorts of government mandates. You don’t get to pick and choose what regulations you follow.

* Let’s put aside for a moment the fact that there is possibly no such thing. Have you ever come across an all-vegan, or even all-vegetarian, store?

You can reach this post's author, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, on twitter or via e-mail at elizabeth@blisstree.com.

So, you're saying that paying taxes to fund helping impotent and older men get an erection is the same as us paying taxes to fund abortion? Yes, that is what you said?

I'm .... I don't know what. At a loss for words I guess

because if they didn't have an erection they would be less likely able to impregnate..
it takes an erection to have the sex and plant the seed

no viagra..no erection

if you cover a pill that can get someone pregnant then you should cove rone that prevents it, too..either way you are messing with nature..the natural order.."God's Plan"

that is, in a way,is messing with the natural order of things..this was my point

Maybe what humans do is a part of the plan.

Vasectomy, this has thankfully been covered by insurance for quite a long time. Unfortunately, most guys have this weird concept that they're only half a man for having this procedure. Usually because some idiot tells them a horror story about "some guy he knows". It's the responsible thing to do, it's less intrusive than it would be for your wife and way fewer risks of complications. Hell, my back surgery was way scarier and I wasn't awake for that one.

Things may have changed by now but last I checked, the procedure for women wasn't covered by insurance. That to me is crazy.