conservatives vs women

[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.