conservatives vs women

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._old_one_.html


this is a new article on slate about the amended virginia ultrasound requirement. good article with great points made about doctors, their patients-and politicians who are trying to tell doctors how to do their job.

the last paragraph (and OH, the irony!) :

There is a debate raging now about whether it was a mistake for critics to focus on the transvaginal aspect of the law, as opposed to the fact that all mandatory ultrasounds represent an impermissible incursion into a doctor’s judgment and a woman’s rights. That, I suspect, depends on what women choose to make of Gov. McDonnell, who said yesterday that he was pleased with the passage of the new ultrasound legislation because "I think women have a right to know all the right medical information before they make an informed choice.” Yet the same McDonnell has loudly objected to TSA body scans and pat-downs in airports as crossing “the line” in regard “to people’s concerns about privacy” and “beneath the dignity” of air travelers. Everyone has a right to privacy and dignity, and if the government seeks to intrude on those rights it should be able to articulate a reason. “Women don’t really know what they’re doing” isn’t a reason. It never was.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

“Women don’t really know what they’re doing” isn’t a reason. It never was.

Bingo.

[Riot]

The GOP, the party of big government takeover of your life. Thank you, Senate Dems!

I was talking to my father and uncle ... both lifelong, ultra conservative (in the former meaning of the word) northwest suburban Chicago staunch Republicans. The current GOP has about zero historically recognizable "Republican" ideals. It's just crazy. The John Birchers rule, like back in the late 1950's.

Senate Blocks G.O.P. Bill on Contraceptives Policy

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 1, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday killed a Republican effort to let employers and health insurance companies deny coverage for contraceptives and other services to which they have religious or moral objections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us...on-policy.html

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._old_one_.html


this is a new article on slate about the amended virginia ultrasound requirement. good article with great points made about doctors, their patients-and politicians who are trying to tell doctors how to do their job.

the last paragraph (and OH, the irony!) :

There is a debate raging now about whether it was a mistake for critics to focus on the transvaginal aspect of the law, as opposed to the fact that all mandatory ultrasounds represent an impermissible incursion into a doctor’s judgment and a woman’s rights. That, I suspect, depends on what women choose to make of Gov. McDonnell, who said yesterday that he was pleased with the passage of the new ultrasound legislation because "I think women have a right to know all the right medical information before they make an informed choice.” Yet the same McDonnell has loudly objected to TSA body scans and pat-downs in airports as crossing “the line” in regard “to people’s concerns about privacy” and “beneath the dignity” of air travelers. Everyone has a right to privacy and dignity, and if the government seeks to intrude on those rights it should be able to articulate a reason. “Women don’t really know what they’re doing” isn’t a reason. It never was.

Until someone finds situations where women are receiving abortions without pregnancy the requirement for an ultra-sound is most definitely an attack on women’s rights. Women seeking abortion certainly know their pregnant and don't require a needless test.

Plain and simple, some women find abortion the equivalent of murder and that’s their right. Conversely, some find it a mere inconvenience and that’s their right. Most women, of course fall somewhere in between.

However requiring a religion to provide something that goes against their doctrine is wrong. Separation of Church and State goes both ways and I believe the State is most definitely interfering with the Church in regards to the contraceptive requirement.

A simple solution would be to require all insurance companies to offer women of childbearing age health insurance with or without contraceptive protection coverage, with zero co-pay. Then let women make a decision individually. This would include women working for church related entities. Their rights individually are supreme to any church doctrine IMO.

If we are to believe the President; choosing the contraception coverage should be cheaper to purchase then opting out since we’ve been told insurance companies would provide it free, as it’s a net money saver. I choose not to believe the president but should he be right the Catholic church would actually be on the hook for more money than say a private corporation making a blanket decision to accept the contraception/abortion clause irregardless of their female employees individual choices.

Ultimately what a woman chooses should be of no concern and require no involvement from anyone, government included. The government needs to protect the legal right to abortion and contraception not to provide it.

For those still inclined to believe the government is not overstepping its bounds I ask you this. Do you want to open the door to government requiring property insurance? Whether it be renters’ or homeowners’ with say a gun clause? Since it could be argued a firearm in the house/apartment is a superb theft deterrent, especially in poorer areas, insurance companies would provide a firearm with each policy for free. Federal law protects American women’s right to contraception and abortion, the Federal Constitution protects the right to own and bear arms for all Americans, men and women.

Bottom line is the government should stick to governing. Let Dr.’s and hospitals provide the healthcare and their individual patients, employers or insurance companies pay for it. Just as it should not be requiring insurance companies to provide guns it should not be requiring them to provide free contraceptives. A woman’s right to abortion and contraception is absolute. It being free is not.

BTW The President has been recently reciting ‘be thy brother’s keeper’. That’s fine and dandy for him personally as a religious minded individual but it has obviously infiltrated and influenced decisions he has made administratively as president and in doing so has molested the Constitution’s dictation of separation of Church and State.

Recently, the a$$hole known as Rick Santorium treated us to a old JFK campaign speech where he said, in essence, if his (JFK’s) religion ever got in the way of making a Presidential decision he would then resign.

Too bad this President is no JFK.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Until someone finds situations where women are receiving abortions without pregnancy the requirement for an ultra-sound is most definitely an attack on women’s rights. Women seeking abortion certainly know their pregnant and don't require a needless test.

Plain and simple, some women find abortion the equivalent of murder and that’s their right. Conversely, some find it a mere inconvenience and that’s their right. Most women, of course fall somewhere in between.

However requiring a religion to provide something that goes against their doctrine is wrong. Separation of Church and State goes both ways and I believe the State is most definitely interfering with the Church in regards to the contraceptive requirement.
******** I think you'd have a point here if it weren't for the fact that many states already have similar requirements in place that the church has signed off on. Also, it's not an attack on the freedom of religion. The church maintains all it's abilities and freedoms-it just can't dictate those rules and regs to employees in hospitals and other church-owned facilities. after all, if you go down that road, any employer could choose to not cover certain illnesses if he claimed religious reasons. then where does it end??


A simple solution would be to require all insurance companies to offer women of childbearing age health insurance with or without contraceptive protection coverage, with zero co-pay. Then let women make a decision individually. This would include women working for church related entities. Their rights individually are supreme to any church doctrine IMO.
******* This is already what obama had backtracked to-putting the onus on the insurance companies to provide it in their package. the church is still up in arms tho.
If we are to believe the President; choosing the contraception coverage should be cheaper to purchase then opting out since we’ve been told insurance companies would provide it free, as it’s a net money saver. I choose not to believe the president but should he be right the Catholic church would actually be on the hook for more money than say a private corporation making a blanket decision to accept the contraception/abortion clause irregardless of their female employees individual choices.

Ultimately what a woman chooses should be of no concern and require no involvement from anyone, government included. The government needs to protect the legal right to abortion and contraception not to provide it.

For those still inclined to believe the government is not overstepping its bounds I ask you this. Do you want to open the door to government requiring property insurance? Whether it be renters’ or homeowners’ with say a gun clause? Since it could be argued a firearm in the house/apartment is a superb theft deterrent, especially in poorer areas, insurance companies would provide a firearm with each policy for free. Federal law protects American women’s right to contraception and abortion, the Federal Constitution protects the right to own and bear arms for all Americans, men and women.

Bottom line is the government should stick to governing. Let Dr.’s and hospitals provide the healthcare and their individual patients, employers or insurance companies pay for it. Just as it should not be requiring insurance companies to provide guns it should not be requiring them to provide free contraceptives. A woman’s right to abortion and contraception is absolute. It being free is not.

BTW The President has been recently reciting ‘be thy brother’s keeper’. That’s fine and dandy for him personally as a religious minded individual but it has obviously infiltrated and influenced decisions he has made administratively as president, including the GM bailout, and doing so has molested the Constitution’s dictation of separation of Church and State.

Recently, the a$$hole known as Rick Santorium treated us to a old JFK campaign speech where he said, in essence, if his (JFK’s) religion ever got in the way of making a Presidential decision he would then resign.

Too bad this President is no JFK.

Rick Santorum has already said he wants the SCOTUS to overturn their ruling that legalized contraception. i shudder to think how many kids i'd have if BC wasn't available. hell, i'd still be having them at 44. it's scary that pols still want to fight this battle, or that others support his thinking. luckily, not enough for him to get into office!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Rick Santorum has already said he wants the SCOTUS to overturn their ruling that legalized contraception. i shudder to think how many kids i'd have if BC wasn't available. hell, i'd still be having them at 44. it's scary that pols still want to fight this battle, or that others support his thinking. luckily, not enough for him to get into office!

Rick Santorum has zero chance at Pres but it would be scary to see him on a ticket knowing he's one bullet or heart attack away from taking over.

The country may be dumb but it ain't stupid

[bigrun]

The country may be dumb but it ain't stupid

With the exception of 2000 and 2004...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

With the exception of 2000 and 2004...

imo we've had nothing but lightweights running for some time now for office, with both parties having unpalatable nominees. it's a disgrace when you look at leaders we've had in the last 50 years compared to previous. i have a hard time imagining history books in future talking about pelosi and boehner, obama and bush, kerry and gore, etc in the same vein as the book i'm reading now-about james k. polk...with a supporting cast of jackson, clay, daniel webster, john quincy adams, thomas hart benton, calhoun and the like.
where are our statesmen? why do we have what we have?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Rick Santorum has zero chance at Pres but it would be scary to see him on a ticket knowing he's one bullet or heart attack away from taking over.

The country may be dumb but it ain't stupid

wasn't sure if you saw what i wrote in the body of your previous post....

and i agree he has zero shot at prez. and i doubt the eventual nominee picks him as running mate. that would be a mccain-esque mistake.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

wasn't sure if you saw what i wrote in the body of your previous post.....

I did and if certain churches, archdioceses sign off that's fine, it's then their decision. I also don't think mandating contraceptive coverage violates religious freedom unless one is forced on the pill or to an abortion clinic but it does seem like a needless intrusion by the State on the Church.

Bottom line is let the individual decide what insurance is appropriate. If Obama is to be believed a woman/church-entity opting out of contraceptive coverage would be a bigger risk and thus more expensive to insure. I think if a woman was quoted say $225/month with full contraceptive coverage as opposed $250/month w/o it, only those following religious doctrine would opt out. This of course hinges on Obama’s actuarial skills being correct.

And I was unaware of Obama allowing individual women to opt out of contraceptive coverage? If that is the case I applaud him, but I think you may be mistaken.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I did and if certain churches, archdioceses sign off that's fine, it's then their decision. I also don't think mandating contraceptive coverage violates religious freedom unless one is forced on the pill or to an abortion clinic but it does seem like a needless intrusion by the State on the Church.

Bottom line is let the individual decide what insurance is appropriate. If Obama is to be believed a woman/church-entity opting out of contraceptive coverage would be a bigger risk and thus more expensive to insure. I think if a woman was quoted say $225/month with full contraceptive coverage as opposed $250/month w/o it, only those following religious doctrine would opt out. This of course hinges on Obama’s actuarial skills being correct.

And I was unaware of Obama allowing individual women to opt out of contraceptive coverage? If that is the case I applaud him, but I think you may be mistaken.

i think this is in reference to the previous long post you made? what i was saying is that obama originally was going to force all employers to provide contraceptive coverage but the church squawked. that's when obama suggested putting that mandate on the insurance co. instead. not sure why an individual would demand the right to opt out of certain segments of coverage. i do know tho that currently you must pay extra for maternity benefits, as that is something that obviously would only affect a certain segment of the insured's.

certain insurance requirements are already mandated by states-minimum liability limits on vehicle coverage for instance. obviously there are precedents set in regulating things like that. i never understood why the pill was never paid for by insurers back when i took them. and yet other sexually connected medications have been since their inception. just seems inconsistent to me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I did and if certain churches, archdioceses sign off that's fine, it's then their decision. I also don't think mandating contraceptive coverage violates religious freedom unless one is forced on the pill or to an abortion clinic but it does seem like a needless intrusion by the State on the Church.Bottom line is let the individual decide what insurance is appropriate. If Obama is to be believed a woman/church-entity opting out of contraceptive coverage would be a bigger risk and thus more expensive to insure. I think if a woman was quoted say $225/month with full contraceptive coverage as opposed $250/month w/o it, only those following religious doctrine would opt out. This of course hinges on Obama’s actuarial skills being correct.

And I was unaware of Obama allowing individual women to opt out of contraceptive coverage? If that is the case I applaud him, but I think you may be mistaken.

i don't view it so much as an intrusion on a church. if churches are going to run institutions other than their church, they are then employers with a larger and varied group of people working for them. to say that those employees must then bear a like burden based on their employers religion isn't something i would agree with. after all, if you open that pandora's box, where would it end??
for instance, washington state said pharmacists can opt out of dispensing the morning after pill because of their personal religious opinions...so how far could that go? could an employer then have arguments about his religious freedoms as far as his business goes? could he make arguments about hiring practices? other coverages? dress codes, firings, vacations? customers served?
if employers can opt out of offering birth control, what else could they claim is against their religion that they don't want to cover? vasectomy, hysterectomy? blood transfusions, organ donations, vaccines....the list can become endless.