| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/29/2012 09:13:26 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Okay. Well, I don't see any inherent reason to exclude pragmatic considerations from questions of morality, and there may well be very good reasons to include them. |
Possible, but some of the worst activities of the last century have been undertaken on pragmatic grounds. This is partly why I'm so leery of them. It clearly benefits society to remove the weakest/costliest members, but that doesn't mean I want any part of it. |
Wow, that's quite a leap to make based on my statement. I wasn't saying anything of the kind. |
Well, in a sense you were if you consider a fetus to be a member of society. BUT, I'm more against the idea because of what others have done through practical morality, not you. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 11:06:35 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I disagree with you at the end there Monica. Society has, aNd always had, the right to decide what rules it will operate by. There are arguments for not paying taxes that are every bit as powerful as a vegan argument (they both may be weak). But I don't think we can seriously apply your "I respect all positions" approach at a societal level. If we all did that, we would not have a society. We can't (and don't) look at the tax shirk and say, well that's ok if that's how you roll. I understand your opposition to the war and so you can not pay your taxes.
I do like your bringing up animal rights because I find it an interesting paradox of animal rights/pro-choice. It's the left wing version of capital punishment/pro-life (another seeming paradox). |
No I didn't say ALL positions. That's nonsense. I respect viable positions where a solution or answer cannot readily be available.
For example, there was a time when a large portion of the population believed that blacks were less of a person than a white (fraction of a vote, segregated schools, water fountains, etc.) Not a viable position. Govt. must step in by going against the opinion of the ignorant masses for the sake of equality and decency.
Of course we must live within a society and follow its rules. But currently, rules are abortion is legal, and so is birth control. There is a separation of church and state. THOSE are the rules currently and religious people keep trying to muddy the waters on one of the most fundamental tenants this country was founded on. Do whatever you want in a church (within reason of course), but once you are in the public sector, you need to play by the rules. And that includes paying for birth control when you provide insurance.
You just proved my side Doc, thanks. |
|
|
|
02/29/2012 11:18:59 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I disagree with you at the end there Monica. Society has, aNd always had, the right to decide what rules it will operate by. There are arguments for not paying taxes that are every bit as powerful as a vegan argument (they both may be weak). But I don't think we can seriously apply your "I respect all positions" approach at a societal level. If we all did that, we would not have a society. We can't (and don't) look at the tax shirk and say, well that's ok if that's how you roll. I understand your opposition to the war and so you can not pay your taxes.
I do like your bringing up animal rights because I find it an interesting paradox of animal rights/pro-choice. It's the left wing version of capital punishment/pro-life (another seeming paradox). |
No I didn't say ALL positions. That's nonsense. I respect viable positions where a solution or answer cannot readily be available.
For example, there was a time when a large portion of the population believed that blacks were less of a person than a white (fraction of a vote, segregated schools, water fountains, etc.) Not a viable position. Govt. must step in by going against the opinion of the ignorant masses for the sake of equality and decency.
Of course we must live within a society and follow its rules. But currently, rules are abortion is legal, and so is birth control. There is a separation of church and state. THOSE are the rules currently and religious people keep trying to muddy the waters on one of the most fundamental tenants this country was founded on. Do whatever you want in a church (within reason of course), but once you are in the public sector, you need to play by the rules. And that includes paying for birth control when you provide insurance.
You just proved my side Doc, thanks. |
But segregation WAS nevertheless the law. And the law was changed because the position was morally untenable. It's the position of the anti-abortion folks that killing human fetuses is morally untenable, and THEY want the law changed. Are you going to say their position has no validity because they are "religious people" and we have "separation of church and state"? That's such a perversion of the doctrine. Nowhere in the Constitution is "separation of church and state" mentioned.
Instead, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/29/2012 11:30:05 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I disagree with you at the end there Monica. Society has, aNd always had, the right to decide what rules it will operate by. There are arguments for not paying taxes that are every bit as powerful as a vegan argument (they both may be weak). But I don't think we can seriously apply your "I respect all positions" approach at a societal level. If we all did that, we would not have a society. We can't (and don't) look at the tax shirk and say, well that's ok if that's how you roll. I understand your opposition to the war and so you can not pay your taxes.
I do like your bringing up animal rights because I find it an interesting paradox of animal rights/pro-choice. It's the left wing version of capital punishment/pro-life (another seeming paradox). |
No I didn't say ALL positions. That's nonsense. I respect viable positions where a solution or answer cannot readily be available.
For example, there was a time when a large portion of the population believed that blacks were less of a person than a white (fraction of a vote, segregated schools, water fountains, etc.) Not a viable position. Govt. must step in by going against the opinion of the ignorant masses for the sake of equality and decency.
Of course we must live within a society and follow its rules. But currently, rules are abortion is legal, and so is birth control. There is a separation of church and state. THOSE are the rules currently and religious people keep trying to muddy the waters on one of the most fundamental tenants this country was founded on. Do whatever you want in a church (within reason of course), but once you are in the public sector, you need to play by the rules. And that includes paying for birth control when you provide insurance.
You just proved my side Doc, thanks. |
But segregation WAS nevertheless the law. And the law was changed because the position was morally untenable. It's the position of the anti-abortion folks that killing human fetuses is morally untenable, and THEY want the law changed. Are you going to say their position has no validity because they are "religious people" and we have "separation of church and state"? That's such a perversion of the doctrine. Nowhere in the Constitution is "separation of church and state" mentioned.
Instead, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.
R. |
Sure. And I don't begrudge them fighting to get the law changed, if I really think about it. I'd do the same. I disagree with them, but I can see their stance. But birth control I do. Birth control must be defended and kept openly and easily available.
This whole protecting religions thing is a crock to me. Because it's not protecting all religions, just the main ones that the most people subscribe to and have the loudest voices. Buddhists and pacifists can go F themselves, they have to pay taxes that go towards war. Lack of certain religious beliefs is ALSO part of religion. As in, my religion does NOT say that birth control is wrong, so if I work for a Catholic group who is not paying for birth control based on their religion, they are interfering with MY religion.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2012 07:00:23 AM · #480 |
There is a war going on. It's a war on women. It has nothing to do with religion. Period.
From an email I received this morning.
Tomorrow morning, Senators Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio are putting a bill on the floor of the Senate to allow all employers -- not just religious organizations -- to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable."
For a brief moment this afternoon, it looked like Mitt Romney was showing some spine and opposing the proposal. But literally within minutes, his campaign walked it back, clarifying that he supports the bill that would let any woman's boss decide whether or not her preventive care is covered.
Crafted in response to President Obama's announcement that birth control will be available to women, without any co-pay or deductible, the Blunt-Rubio bill would let employers deny coverage for any medical services they object to. This is not about churches and houses of worship -- they're already exempt under the Obama administration's guidelines. This is about any employer -- a restaurant, a retail store, or a corporation -- having the power to decide what's best for you and choose not to cover the care you need.
It doesn't stop at birth control. Your employer could also deny coverage for a number of preventive services: mammograms, cancer screenings, and possibly even flu shots.
If the Republican bill becomes law, the nearly 80 million women who receive coverage through their employers could lose access to these preventive services, which many just gained under the Affordable Care Act. And the decisions being made about their care would more likely be left to men: Businesses are 80 percent more likely to be owned by them.
That's the agenda that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are endorsing. And it doesn't end with just this amendment.
Romney said he would have supported a "personhood" amendment for Massachusetts, which could have banned many common forms of birth control, including the pill, and fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. And he's supported legislation to force women seeking abortions to first view ultrasounds. Rick Santorum's actually called contraception "harmful to women" and "harmful to society."
|
|
|
|
03/01/2012 10:52:53 AM · #481 |
| Why do people think the only argument against abortion is religious? Nobody brings religion up in this thread except you guys... |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 11:05:14 AM · #482 |
Never got an answer to my previous question:
Can I claim my fertilized egg as a tax deduction? |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 11:15:19 AM · #483 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Never got an answer to my previous question:
Can I claim my fertilized egg as a tax deduction? |
We assumed the question was rhetorical. Answer: "No".
R.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:04:10 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Never got an answer to my previous question:
Can I claim my fertilized egg as a tax deduction? |
We assumed the question was rhetorical. Answer: "No".
R. |
Not even after it attains the rights of personhood, assuming it ever does? |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:22:58 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Never got an answer to my previous question:
Can I claim my fertilized egg as a tax deduction? |
We assumed the question was rhetorical. Answer: "No".
R. |
Not even after it attains the rights of personhood, assuming it ever does? |
That is a purely legal question. There is no moral right to a tax deduction. If/when fetuses attain personhood the law would be altered to reflect what makes sense in the tax code. Remember we can think of "legal personhood" and "moral personhood". I would argue that in 1855 blacks in the US did not have "legal personhood" but have always had "moral personhood" regardless of the law. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:23:53 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
There is a war going on. It's a war on women. It has nothing to do with religion. Period.
From an email I received this morning.
Tomorrow morning, Senators Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio are putting a bill on the floor of the Senate to allow all employers -- not just religious organizations -- to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable."
For a brief moment this afternoon, it looked like Mitt Romney was showing some spine and opposing the proposal. But literally within minutes, his campaign walked it back, clarifying that he supports the bill that would let any woman's boss decide whether or not her preventive care is covered.
Crafted in response to President Obama's announcement that birth control will be available to women, without any co-pay or deductible, the Blunt-Rubio bill would let employers deny coverage for any medical services they object to. This is not about churches and houses of worship -- they're already exempt under the Obama administration's guidelines. This is about any employer -- a restaurant, a retail store, or a corporation -- having the power to decide what's best for you and choose not to cover the care you need.
It doesn't stop at birth control. Your employer could also deny coverage for a number of preventive services: mammograms, cancer screenings, and possibly even flu shots.
If the Republican bill becomes law, the nearly 80 million women who receive coverage through their employers could lose access to these preventive services, which many just gained under the Affordable Care Act. And the decisions being made about their care would more likely be left to men: Businesses are 80 percent more likely to be owned by them.
That's the agenda that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are endorsing. And it doesn't end with just this amendment.
Romney said he would have supported a "personhood" amendment for Massachusetts, which could have banned many common forms of birth control, including the pill, and fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. And he's supported legislation to force women seeking abortions to first view ultrasounds. Rick Santorum's actually called contraception "harmful to women" and "harmful to society." |
The Blunt Amendment is an attempt to undermine Obama's health care reform, and the Republicans' path to it was via the so-called "conscience" fight led by the Catholic Bishops group over contraception. It would hurt everyone, not just women, but it began with a religious battle. Also, most of the anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation in the states and in the Congress, not to mention bills that will redefine rape and other such anti-women pieces of legislation, are being pushed behind the scenes by groups like Focus on the Family and other right-wing religious organizations. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:27:18 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Never got an answer to my previous question:
Can I claim my fertilized egg as a tax deduction? |
We assumed the question was rhetorical. Answer: "No".
R. |
Not even after it attains the rights of personhood, assuming it ever does? |
That is a purely legal question. There is no moral right to a tax deduction. If/when fetuses attain personhood the law would be altered to reflect what makes sense in the tax code. Remember we can think of "legal personhood" and "moral personhood". I would argue that in 1855 blacks in the US did not have "legal personhood" but have always had "moral personhood" regardless of the law. |
Right. So I'm asking, after it attains legal personhood, will I be able to claim my fertilized egg as a tax deduction? Perhaps it will be able to apply for a Social Security card, too. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:27:39 PM · #488 |
| I heard on NPR today that 25% of people think these laws are aimed against women. 25% think it's a religious rights issue and 50% think it's purely political... |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:28:33 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Right. So I'm asking, after it attains legal personhood, will I be able to claim my fertilized egg as a tax deduction? Perhaps it will be able to apply for a Social Security card, too. |
And my answer is you'll have to wait to see what the law says when that day comes. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:29:22 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Kelli:
There is a war going on. It's a war on women. It has nothing to do with religion. Period.
From an email I received this morning.
Tomorrow morning, Senators Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio are putting a bill on the floor of the Senate to allow all employers -- not just religious organizations -- to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable."
For a brief moment this afternoon, it looked like Mitt Romney was showing some spine and opposing the proposal. But literally within minutes, his campaign walked it back, clarifying that he supports the bill that would let any woman's boss decide whether or not her preventive care is covered.
Crafted in response to President Obama's announcement that birth control will be available to women, without any co-pay or deductible, the Blunt-Rubio bill would let employers deny coverage for any medical services they object to. This is not about churches and houses of worship -- they're already exempt under the Obama administration's guidelines. This is about any employer -- a restaurant, a retail store, or a corporation -- having the power to decide what's best for you and choose not to cover the care you need.
It doesn't stop at birth control. Your employer could also deny coverage for a number of preventive services: mammograms, cancer screenings, and possibly even flu shots.
If the Republican bill becomes law, the nearly 80 million women who receive coverage through their employers could lose access to these preventive services, which many just gained under the Affordable Care Act. And the decisions being made about their care would more likely be left to men: Businesses are 80 percent more likely to be owned by them.
That's the agenda that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are endorsing. And it doesn't end with just this amendment.
Romney said he would have supported a "personhood" amendment for Massachusetts, which could have banned many common forms of birth control, including the pill, and fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. And he's supported legislation to force women seeking abortions to first view ultrasounds. Rick Santorum's actually called contraception "harmful to women" and "harmful to society." |
The Blunt Amendment is an attempt to undermine Obama's health care reform, and the Republicans' path to it was via the so-called "conscience" fight led by the Catholic Bishops group over contraception. It would hurt everyone, not just women, but it began with a religious battle. Also, most of the anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation in the states and in the Congress, not to mention bills that will redefine rape and other such anti-women pieces of legislation, are being pushed behind the scenes by groups like Focus on the Family and other right-wing religious organizations. |
Oh, I agree with you 100%. But what I meant was even if you're religious, can you truly believe denying a woman (your wife, mother, daughter) a mammogram or cancer screenings is "Gods will"? That might be their intent. I don't know. But I believe it has more to do with politics than religion. I really believe religion should get their hands out of politics or lose their tax exemptions. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:31:19 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Okay. Well, I don't see any inherent reason to exclude pragmatic considerations from questions of morality, and there may well be very good reasons to include them. |
Possible, but some of the worst activities of the last century have been undertaken on pragmatic grounds. This is partly why I'm so leery of them. It clearly benefits society to remove the weakest/costliest members, but that doesn't mean I want any part of it. |
Wow, that's quite a leap to make based on my statement. I wasn't saying anything of the kind. |
Well, in a sense you were if you consider a fetus to be a member of society. BUT, I'm more against the idea because of what others have done through practical morality, not you. |
Pardon me, I forgot to include the little zygote people in my pragmatic considerations. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:34:44 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Kelli:
There is a war going on. It's a war on women. It has nothing to do with religion. Period.
From an email I received this morning.
Tomorrow morning, Senators Roy Blunt and Marco Rubio are putting a bill on the floor of the Senate to allow all employers -- not just religious organizations -- to deny insurance coverage for birth control and any other medical service they find "morally objectionable."
For a brief moment this afternoon, it looked like Mitt Romney was showing some spine and opposing the proposal. But literally within minutes, his campaign walked it back, clarifying that he supports the bill that would let any woman's boss decide whether or not her preventive care is covered.
Crafted in response to President Obama's announcement that birth control will be available to women, without any co-pay or deductible, the Blunt-Rubio bill would let employers deny coverage for any medical services they object to. This is not about churches and houses of worship -- they're already exempt under the Obama administration's guidelines. This is about any employer -- a restaurant, a retail store, or a corporation -- having the power to decide what's best for you and choose not to cover the care you need.
It doesn't stop at birth control. Your employer could also deny coverage for a number of preventive services: mammograms, cancer screenings, and possibly even flu shots.
If the Republican bill becomes law, the nearly 80 million women who receive coverage through their employers could lose access to these preventive services, which many just gained under the Affordable Care Act. And the decisions being made about their care would more likely be left to men: Businesses are 80 percent more likely to be owned by them.
That's the agenda that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are endorsing. And it doesn't end with just this amendment.
Romney said he would have supported a "personhood" amendment for Massachusetts, which could have banned many common forms of birth control, including the pill, and fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. And he's supported legislation to force women seeking abortions to first view ultrasounds. Rick Santorum's actually called contraception "harmful to women" and "harmful to society." |
The Blunt Amendment is an attempt to undermine Obama's health care reform, and the Republicans' path to it was via the so-called "conscience" fight led by the Catholic Bishops group over contraception. It would hurt everyone, not just women, but it began with a religious battle. Also, most of the anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation in the states and in the Congress, not to mention bills that will redefine rape and other such anti-women pieces of legislation, are being pushed behind the scenes by groups like Focus on the Family and other right-wing religious organizations. |
Oh, I agree with you 100%. But what I meant was even if you're religious, can you truly believe denying a woman (your wife, mother, daughter) a mammogram or cancer screenings is "Gods will"? That might be their intent. I don't know. But I believe it has more to do with politics than religion. I really believe religion should get their hands out of politics or lose their tax exemptions. |
I couldn't agree with you more. I think politics and religion are inextricably intertwined now. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is more than happy to do the bidding of the religious right. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:37:30 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Oh, I agree with you 100%. But what I meant was even if you're religious, can you truly believe denying a woman (your wife, mother, daughter) a mammogram or cancer screenings is "Gods will"? That might be their intent. I don't know. But I believe it has more to do with politics than religion. I really believe religion should get their hands out of politics or lose their tax exemptions. |
Kelli, right now I want you to link me a page that says a) mammograms should not be included in insurance coverage and b) it is based on religious considerations. I call BS and think no such thing is even under consideration for such reasons. Unless you can do this for me you are merely a sheep bleating the party line of fear-mongering. I don't believe you can even find such a thing except possibly on a blog where someone is fear-mongering themselves.
The gauntlet is thrown down...
Message edited by author 2012-03-01 12:37:42. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:42:06 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Oh, I agree with you 100%. But what I meant was even if you're religious, can you truly believe denying a woman (your wife, mother, daughter) a mammogram or cancer screenings is "Gods will"? That might be their intent. I don't know. But I believe it has more to do with politics than religion. I really believe religion should get their hands out of politics or lose their tax exemptions. |
Kelli, right now I want you to link me a page that says a) mammograms should not be included in insurance coverage and b) it is based on religious considerations. I call BS and think no such thing is even under consideration for such reasons. Unless you can do this for me you are merely a sheep bleating the party line of fear-mongering. I don't believe you can even find such a thing except possibly on a blog where someone is fear-mongering themselves.
The gauntlet is thrown down... |
I know you don't like this source... but I'll find more in a few minutes... //www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-kirsten-gillibrand/standing-strong-against-t_b_1313090.html
btw - It was defeated... //www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73497.html
Message edited by author 2012-03-01 12:44:23. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:42:32 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Oh, I agree with you 100%. But what I meant was even if you're religious, can you truly believe denying a woman (your wife, mother, daughter) a mammogram or cancer screenings is "Gods will"? That might be their intent. I don't know. But I believe it has more to do with politics than religion. I really believe religion should get their hands out of politics or lose their tax exemptions. |
Kelli, right now I want you to link me a page that says a) mammograms should not be included in insurance coverage and b) it is based on religious considerations. I call BS and think no such thing is even under consideration for such reasons. Unless you can do this for me you are merely a sheep bleating the party line of fear-mongering. I don't believe you can even find such a thing except possibly on a blog where someone is fear-mongering themselves.
The gauntlet is thrown down... |
She said she didn't believe it had anything to do with religion. And, yes, the Blunt amendment would make it possible for an employer to deny any health care coverage for any reason whatsoever. All an employer would have to do is use "belief" or "conscience" as a cover. What is there for Kelli to prove? |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:46:08 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Oh, I agree with you 100%. But what I meant was even if you're religious, can you truly believe denying a woman (your wife, mother, daughter) a mammogram or cancer screenings is "Gods will"? That might be their intent. I don't know. But I believe it has more to do with politics than religion. I really believe religion should get their hands out of politics or lose their tax exemptions. |
Kelli, right now I want you to link me a page that says a) mammograms should not be included in insurance coverage and b) it is based on religious considerations. I call BS and think no such thing is even under consideration for such reasons. Unless you can do this for me you are merely a sheep bleating the party line of fear-mongering. I don't believe you can even find such a thing except possibly on a blog where someone is fear-mongering themselves.
The gauntlet is thrown down... |
She said she didn't believe it had anything to do with religion. And, yes, the Blunt amendment would make it possible for an employer to deny any health care coverage for any reason whatsoever. All an employer would have to do is use "belief" or "conscience" as a cover. What is there for Kelli to prove? |
And yes, the employer needed to state the reason was because of religious beliefs. That's been in every article. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:46:19 PM · #497 |
Total BS. Here is the actual wording "contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan". It is fear-mongering and totally representative of the state of politics in our country to say that someone could claim a religious belief against mammograms and successfully defend it when challenged.
Now, I do think the statement is quite broad and I'm not even necessarily for it as written, but suddenly to declare this a "war on women" is hyperbole to the nth degree. Frankly it makes me want to vomit that our senators think this kind of rhetoric is worthy of discourse. |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:50:12 PM · #498 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Total BS. Here is the actual wording "contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan". It is fear-mongering and totally representative of the state of politics in our country to say that someone could claim a religious belief against mammograms and successfully defend it when challenged.
Now, I do think the statement is quite broad and I'm not even necessarily for it as written, but suddenly to declare this a "war on women" is hyperbole to the nth degree. Frankly it makes me want to vomit that our senators think this kind of rhetoric is worthy of discourse. |
Yes, the whole bill was total BS. I agree with you there. ;D |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:51:53 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly it makes me want to vomit that our senators think this kind of rhetoric is worthy of discourse. |
What degree of hyperbole would you assign this statement? |
|
|
|
03/01/2012 12:54:29 PM · #500 |
This is the relevant language from the amendment:
A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) â€Â¦ on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because— (i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or (ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage. |
|
