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

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Obama mandate on birth control coverage stirs controversy
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
February 9, 2012 - 4:39 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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"

Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10317
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
February 9, 2012 - 5:26 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

Avatar
at1with0
Member
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
February 9, 2012 - 6:20 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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"

Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10317
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
February 9, 2012 - 6:43 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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.

Avatar
at1with0
Member
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
February 9, 2012 - 7:16 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"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"

Avatar
at1with0
Member
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
February 9, 2012 - 7:46 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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

"it is easy to grow crazy"

Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10317
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
February 9, 2012 - 8:40 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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.

Avatar
frrostedman
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3816
Member Since:
September 4, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
February 10, 2012 - 8:36 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"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

Avatar
ricardo
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1494
Member Since:
December 11, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
February 10, 2012 - 12:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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.)

Avatar
at1with0
Member
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
February 10, 2012 - 7:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

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"

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Online:
155
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10317
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Newest Members:
C
Murray
ninurta
ShannaCOdell
mark
Sunshine64
Maboo25
MadisonLynch
Rainabrainz
Jeff
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9252
Posts: 124683

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25015
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault