It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


California Forces Churches to Directly Fund Abortions, Churches Refuse to Comply?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 07:23 PM

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

I know what you means, I also have TMJ and can not get a doctor for that, my insurance doesn't cover it, I had to use massage and warming pads when its starts to act up.

I have tmj too- I found that a week of icing and heat, with massage and regular pain releavers keeps it away for months. Stress brings it back. I have a very minor case right now.
On topic, abortion is wrong. What is right about having a child carved out of your womb and tossed out with medical waste? It isn't birth control, and isn't private. Take some responsibility for being human.
Also, abortion is partially to blame for tmj...

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 07:29 PM
The letters sent to Aetna, et. al. regard the language in their insurance offerings.

That language, when inconsistent with the California Constitution, had to be corrected.

That is a general case.

The specific case, regarding religious groups and their Insurance Plans, is the exception.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 07:37 PM

originally posted by: InfinityandBeyond
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

I don't see anything wrong with it. Forcing churches (of which are tax free) to provide funding when everyone else has to is not a bad thing. So what if their religion forbids it? Unless you're an extremist religion isn't supposed to be used to control what people can or can't do with their bodies. Religion is a PERSONAL choice, not a rule of law we must abide to. What do you mean see what happens? What have you done to personally help avoid this "take-over"?

I don't see what 's wrong with it either. My I belief system is compromised when I have to pay taxes that go to military/defense yet I have to pay.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 08:08 PM
a reply to: igloo

Despite my belief that Fundamentalist Christianity (Fundamentalist anything) has gone off the rails, and that there is no shortage of sites and groups playing on Conservatives' emotions, I do actually believe and fully support religious exemption from just about anything... I draw the line at public because everyone should be free to be who they are without facing discrimination and carried out to it's extreme, being accepting of discrimination can break economies, local and large as well as be akin to genocide. None the less, there needs to remain a large amount of space where people can hold on to what is sacred to them, regardless of how ludicrous it may seem to others. Churches and other religious institutions, religious non-profits... take up a large amount of space, enough space for people to live and prosper without having to touch outside ickyness.

posted on Oct, 22 2014 @ 08:16 PM
Just for the record, I have no faith in any version of deity as existing anywhere except in the human mind.

That being said, I fully acknowledge that the concept of deity is a vital part of the lives of many people.

While the limitations that places on them, to my way of thinking, are often cruel, it is not really my place to say.

I am an American citizen and I support the Constitution of the United States. It is part of our cultural DNA that the government will not establish any kind of religion and will not keep anyone from worshipping as they choose.

I absolutely support anyone's right to believe any darn fool thing they like, but the line is very precisely drawn at where their actions start affecting others. The extreme and absurd case would be a religion that believed in human sacrifice.

No one has a right to act on those beliefs; that is called murder and is prohibited under the full body of law.

There are times, certainly, that religious rights and exemptions in the US are therefore abused. However, those abuses should never be used to shut down religious freedom entirely.

I guess that's about it; thanks for reading.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 12:42 AM
There has been a lot of discussion about what the California Constitution allows. This misses a large part of the controversy. To start, the reading of the Constitution says the State may not discriminate and so on. There is nothing there about private individuals and companies. That's what supports ATS's position that because they're not the State, they are allowed to violate the First Amendment. It's good for ATS, and it's good for insurance companies and religious groups. The State is not allowed under their own constitution to interfere.

Also, it's not automatic and final that once the Department makes a decision, and says they've looked at various laws, the discussion is over. There are also federal laws to consider. The problem comes with the Weldon Amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, passed in January of this year.

Basically, it says that none of the funds in the act can go to any person, State, program (or anything else, basically) if they discriminate against a health care plan (or other health care entity) for refusing to cover abortions (or provide and so on).

By banning plans that don't cover abortion, California is violating the Weldon Amendment. California filed a lawsuit against the Weldon amendment and lost, in 2006. In that suit they admitted that all of their Departments were subject to the Amendment in the areas of education, health and employment. Over $40 billion dollars was involved.

So, California has an interesting choice. Reverse the ruling. Fight it out through the courts again (and lose again) or start forfeiting billions of dollars. All just to force Insurance companies make elective abortions part of their plan, thereby making religious groups pay for them.

I can post all of the various quotes and things, but I'm pretty long already. In sum, California loses this one unless Obama rescues them in some new and mysterious way involving setting aside a passed and signed law.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 12:48 AM
Oh, that "Exemption" silliness? That's like saying "Sure, we can get into a water fight, but I get the hose, and your water is what you can wring from your clothes."

The exemption only applies to people who are employed by a church, no one else. A typical Church might employ, what, five people? And out of those five, how many are men? So the exemption covers maybe two people per church? That's an insult.

Besides, Hobby Lobby what ever it's faults, has destroyed that argument.

Sorry, that's not a real exemption and doesn't get them out of the Weldon Amendment problem

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 03:04 AM
"The Hobby Lobby decision is not setting a precedent; it only covers one specific company in one specific situation."

Citation: A lie told in the SCOTUS Majority Opinion and repeated by every Con who commented on concerns about the case being applied universally.

The creeping cancerous menace in our society trying to erode the Separation of Church and State is alive and well, ladies and gentlemen. It doesn't matter if it's one instance or a thousand: its disciples and acolytes work to infect every aspect of our lives. Today, the government allows the religionists to dictate to some women (not more than two or so at a time, mind you) what kind of birth control they can use or whether their bodies are theirs or held in captivity to someone else's religion.

What will those few infections turn into tomorrow, eh? How many have to tell us that they will settle for nothing less than establishing a Theocracy in the Land of the Free ...

... until we believe them?

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:09 AM
a reply to: charles1952

The claim is that Churches will have to pay for abortions in California. Untrue. Further, religious exemptions exist beyond the church as noted in my post.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:25 AM
This letter (or one similar) was sent out to 7 Insurance companies in california in August..

Please read the third footnote on the first page of that document!

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:01 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

Well well well. Looks like some more lies are being passed off as truth once again. When will it ever end??

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:11 AM
ya the poor persecuted christians aren't gonna be happy until all birth control coverage is removed from the standard insurance policy! And women who today doctors are advising to be on birth control or get abortions for valid health reasons are dying in childbirth!

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:18 AM

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: xuenchen

Let's just call it the church paying their fair share maybe?

I dunno, I'd give them the choice. This or pay taxes.

They'll get the exemption though I'm sure.

Al Sharpton will make sure of that.


Well why don't we just go back to the day when taxes supported the church? Yea thats right and its still that way in some nations today, the church supported by grants from state tax coffers.

Whats going to happen here is that the state will be able, in effect, to define what an an official church is in one or two ways. Highly unconstitutional.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:22 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

I have my doubts that even then they'll be happy or content in their pursuits. Lately it's been becoming more and more obvious just how extensive and entrenched some of these Religious Warriors really are and just how underhanded they are in their tactics.

It really shouldn't even surprise me anymore but just when I think I've seen the scope of it I stumble upon yet another way in which these people operate that disturbs me.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:25 AM

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Kali74

Thanks, !!!!

I think xuenchen did this thread as a satire, but you never know, taking into consideration all the stuff is going on with new laws behind the Obamacare, this issue will probably end up in the supreme court.

But then again Hobby Lobby won their claim that was just along the lines.

And yet this acts like the HL ruling never happened. So the system must get clogged up again with crap already ruled on save for on this case the lines are much clearer constitutionally than with HL.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:29 AM

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: dawnstar

I have my doubts that even then they'll be happy or content in their pursuits. Lately it's been becoming more and more obvious just how extensive and entrenched some of these Religious Warriors really are and just how underhanded they are in their tactics.

Nice rhetoric. We can see who is really entrenched in our governments. Anti constitutional warriors. The left is at its core a bunch of twisted and ignorant fanatics on the march, on the move, never ending. As Jim Morrison may have said "their brain is squirming like a toad".

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:38 AM
a reply to: Logarock

Right back at ya buddy.

You don't even know what it is I'm talking about. All I've done is make a couple of very vague comments without any details. But even then you must go on the attack. Well, go ahead. That kind of sh*t is becoming so common lately it would almost shock me more if it didn't happen.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:52 AM
a reply to: Logarock

Your outrage is misplaced. This is a non-issue being sensationalized by the pro-life media. It's already been exposed as a hoax and should be moved before more people like you who don't read the thread and post in it show up.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 07:53 AM
I love it when Theocrats get so wrapped up that they muse openly about trashing the Constitution:

"Maybe we should go back to the days when taxes support the church?"

Oh, and by the way, Morrison would have spit in the face of the idea of a state-sponsored church.

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:05 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your so caught in your position. That was a rhetorical question for Petes sake.

You far left folks are very edgy.

new topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in