Jump to content

Random News Observations


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure what you mean here; I clearly understand the issue. She went before congress to demand that others pay for her birth control. What did you find erroneous in my description?
She went before Congress to lobby for the insurance plan that she paid for through her student fees to cover birth control which in fact would lower the cost of the health insurance plan so in fact she demanded that money be saved.People lobby all the time for things, this is no different.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The most interesting thing about the worlds largest beaver dam is that it was discovered via Google Earth and some guy trekked out there to see it IRL and was the first person to ever set foot in that

Beware of overcharging someone. Thats the #1 lesson learned from the Zimmerman case. He was guilty of avoidable behavior that ultimately culminated in a fatality- manslaughter- but he was not guilty

You should've tried to get on the jury and convince the rest that he was not guilty.

Posted Images

She went before Congress to lobby for the insurance plan that she paid for through her student fees to cover birth control which in fact would lower the cost of the health insurance plan so in fact she demanded that money be saved.People lobby all the time for things, this is no different.
But she went to a Jesuit college for the specific purpose of changing their policies regarding birth control for non-medical reasons to be challenged, then gets picked as a spokesperson for all young college girls who sleep with the entire Lacrosse team every day.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But she went to a Jesuit college for the specific purpose of changing their policies regarding birth control for non-medical reasons to be challenged, then gets picked as a spokesperson for all young college girls who sleep with the entire Lacrosse team every day.
so she would be a slut?!
Link to post
Share on other sites
She went before Congress to lobby for the insurance plan that she paid for through her student fees to cover birth control which in fact would lower the cost of the health insurance plan so in fact she demanded that money be saved.People lobby all the time for things, this is no different.
people lobby congress for a private school to provide birth control that is directly against the organizations rules...yep happens every day.
Link to post
Share on other sites
She went before Congress to lobby for the insurance plan that she paid for through her student fees to cover birth control which in fact would lower the cost of the health insurance plan so in fact she demanded that money be saved.People lobby all the time for things, this is no different.
She was lobbying congress to compel an institution to engage in an activity to which the institution is morally opposed. The institutions opposition is not secret and has been well known for hundreds if not thousands of years. For her to knowingly try to get those in power to compel an institution to sell its soul under the guise of saving a few bucks may not make her a slut, and it may not be against the law for her to do so, but it is still pretty darn sleazy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
She was lobbying congress to compel an institution to engage in an activity to which the institution is morally opposed. The institutions opposition is not secret it has been well known for hundreds if not thousands of years. For her to knowingly try to get those in power to compel an institution to sell its soul under the guise of saving a few bucks may not make her a slut, and it may not be against the lawtH2lCQaNnkhX45Mq for her to do so, but it is still pretty darn sleazy.
By law that educational institution I imagine can't make it a condition of either employment or enrollment that either employees or students are members of a particular religion. They provide medical insurance that is paid for by the students through their fees or paid for by their employees as part of their compensation. They should have to provide whatever the law requires and their religious views are meaningless on what the minimum coverage should be. If the regulations don't require they provide contraceptive coverage then they don't have to. If it does then they must. If somebody doesn't like the regulations then they can lobby the government to change the regulations to either require contraceptive coverage or not depending on their position.An employer's or eductaional institution's moral view of things doesn't give them the right to not provide requirements mandated by law.
Link to post
Share on other sites
By law that educational institution I imagine can't make it a condition of either employment or enrollment that either employees or students are members of a particular religion. They provide medical insurance that is paid for by the students through their fees or paid for by their employees as part of their compensation. They should have to provide whatever the law requires and their religious views are meaningless on what the minimum coverage should be. If the regulations don't require they provide contraceptive coverage then they don't have to. If it does then they must. If somebody doesn't like the regulations then they can lobby the government to change the regulations to either require contraceptive coverage or not depending on their position.An employer's or eductaional institution's moral view of things doesn't give them the right to not provide requirements mandated by law.
Why would you compel an orginization who is providing top notch education, health care, charity to the poor to do something that they are completely opposed to doing? We do have freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country. Especially when she has many other choices available to her. She is trying to dictate one "correct" point of view whcih is identicical to hers. I look at her with disdain for taking such action. To force these institutions into this situation is immoral. It amounts to religious bigotry and persecution.
Link to post
Share on other sites
She was lobbying congress to compel an institution to engage in an activity to which the institution is morally opposed. The institutions opposition is not secret and has been well known for hundreds if not thousands of years. For her to knowingly try to get those in power to compel an institution to sell its soul under the guise of saving a few bucks may not make her a slut, and it may not be against the law for her to do so, but it is still pretty darn sleazy.
It's a law that institutions must provide this coverage to people. Your moral views should never change how a law applies to you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a law that institutions must provide this coverage to people. Your moral views should never change how a law applies to you.
Freedom of relgion is covered in the Bill of Rights. Religious institutions are allowed by law to carry out their missions as they see fit without interference from government.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what you mean here; I clearly understand the issue. She went before congress to demand that others pay for her birth control. What did you find erroneous in my description?
No you said "subsidize her sexual activity". Now you changed it to "pay for her birth control" because it's a far less sexist and erroneous statement. Of course, you're still wrong. And she is saying that health plans should cover something the vast, vast majority of the female population uses....not always just for sexual purposes. You like every other conservatroll has tried to frame this as about fluke's sexual wants and needs. So, I found everything to be erroneous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No you said pay for her to have sex. And she is saying that health plans should cover something the vast, vast majority of the female population uses....not always just for sexual purposes. You like every other conservatroll has tried to frame this as about fluke's sexual wants and needs. So, I found everything to be erroneous.
Well it does directly go to sexual needs. The noncontraceptive medical use of birth control pills was already covered. If it were up to me I wouldn't cover that, but Georgetown does.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Freedom of relgion is covered in the Bill of Rights. Religious institutions are allowed by law to carry out their missions as they see fit without interference from government.
Unless that mission conflicts with the constitution and/or Federal law. Persecution doesn't mean not letting you do whatever you want. Sorry.
Link to post
Share on other sites
With no limitations?
Of course there are limitations, but certainly not in this case. These beliefs have been at the core of the Church for longer than this country has been in existence. If a religious organization is trying to circumvent the laws by declaring new religious reasons to be exempt from laws, then that is a case for the courts to decide.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless that mission conflicts with the constitution and/or Federal law. Persecution doesn't mean not letting you do whatever you want. Sorry.
They are not letting them do whatever they want, they are trying to stop them from doing what they have always done.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course there are limitations, but certainly not in this case. These beliefs have been at the core of the Church for longer than this country has been in existence.
If only the length of time these beliefs have been held was relevant to US law. If only. It's like you are the Bizarro man of Constitutional law. This is exactly what the courts get to decide and it's anything but "certain".
Link to post
Share on other sites
They are not letting them do whatever they want, they are trying to stop them from doing what they have always done.
Absolutely irrelevant. There is no "we believed this before you made the law" exception to Federal Laws.It's sad you can't see why. Do you think we should let Muslims institute community Sharia Laws because those beliefs behind them existed for a long time? Of course not. It's a silly, easily refuted argument.The wider you make these religious freedom exceptions for Christianity, the wider they become for all religions. Keep that in mind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If only the length of time these beliefs have been held was relevant to US law. If only. It's like you are the Bizarro man of Constitutional law. This is exactly what the courts get to decide and it's anything but "certain".
If the courts can decide against the Church in this case then the Bill of Right are absolute Bullshit, it would reduce the free exercise of religion to such a narrow scope as to be unrecognizable to what the founders intended. If the court can do this then they completely devoid of any restrictions to their power.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If the courts can decide against the Church in this case then the Bill of Right are absolute Bullshit, it would reduce the free exercise of religion to such a narrow scope as to be unrecognizable to what the founders intended. If the court can do this then they completely devoid of any restrictions to their power.
Nope. See post 1243.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No you said "subsidize her sexual activity". Now you changed it to "pay for her birth control" because it's a far less sexist and erroneous statement. Of course, you're still wrong. And she is saying that health plans should cover something the vast, vast majority of the female population uses....not always just for sexual purposes. You like every other conservatroll has tried to frame this as about fluke's sexual wants and needs. So, I found everything to be erroneous.
The school already supplies the pill for women who use it for medical reasons that benefit them separate from contraception.This 'woman' is asking for the school to pay so she can have sex without getting pregnant.So your obfuscation is overruled, and your brief is thrown in the trash.Next case.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If only the length of time these beliefs have been held was relevant to US law. If only. It's like you are the Bizarro man of Constitutional law. This is exactly what the courts get to decide and it's anything but "certain".
She didn't go to the courts though..did she?
Link to post
Share on other sites
If the courts can decide against the Church in this case then the Bill of Right are absolute Bullshit, it would reduce the free exercise of religion to such a narrow scope as to be unrecognizable to what the founders intended. If the court can do this then they completely devoid of any restrictions to their power.
The Bill of Rights does not say you can do whatever you want as long as it is a longstanding religious belief. There are some very old religions that believe in sacrificing virgins. I hope the law doesn't interfere with their religious beliefs.The BoR is there so that you cannot be specifically persecuted for exercising your religion, not so that your religion will provide you with an exception to laws that everyone else must abide by.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...