It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

as one of the few remaining left of center members here, what you say, has been SOP (standard operating procedure). by the way, there are certain posters on ATS, that would love nothing better than to see America have it's own violent revolution. the very act of polarizing the sides so far apart, creates a loss of faith and ability to govern ourselves....the old "destroy from within" method of downfall. it has happened numerous times in history, has been well documented, and yet the American people are engaging in it more and more....it's almost to the point where some are wishing for a dictator to decide for them, rather than work together to resolve problems.I was hoping that Americans could buck history by exposing ignorance, and embracing reason...sadly, I think the opposite is happening.


edit on 23-10-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You know thats absurd. Should I now tell you that you are being obtuse, to which you will reply with a condescending rebuttal? Come on man. How did it all work before? Did people starve in the millions because no one wanted to help others out?

I notice that you made a moral comparison. I see you still dont get my point. You cant argue morality in law because morality changes over time. It was once morally correct to pluck someones eye out for an eye they made you lose. Or a tooth. Is that what you want to go back to? What your generation thinks is the cats knees will not be that in even 1 generation. I guarantee it. The law of the land is more important than your one generation. It lasts and is respected because it doesnt need to be redefined at every whim of every generation.

So natural law it is. Ok, that says you cant force people to do something they dont want to or cant by spiritual mandate. That is awesome though, since if you dont want to help someone take bread from that childs mouth you mentioned earlier, you dont have to!

Nice huh?

Also, how about we just keep doing what has worked thus far? You know, before everyone acted like if we dont fundamentally change the interpretation of law in this country that the end of days will happen.

If the left wants to be respected, stop attacking the right over religious issues. You will lose this argument no matter the morality you think you defend. It was pretty immoral to oppose the king and his church back in the day, yet people flocked to the new world for religious freedom. EVEN BEFORE the US was a country. Morality is crap. Natural law is supreme. You have the inalienable right to practice your religion as you see fit if it doesnt encroach on the natural rights of others. To mitigate those interactions between the religious and others of faith or otherwise, we have organic law. Even organic law doesnt allow for the limitation of religious practice over moral issues.

Just cut the crap. You arent morally justified to us. More importantly, you aren't on sound legal grounds in your arguments. (if true, this is highly illegal).


edit on 10 23 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
The religious right has been on a frenzy lately, posting a lot of fake/half-true web content, trying to get their base all outraged and in a frenzy. I think they are a bit miffed with the recent gay marriage rulings or something.


I explained what I think is going on here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I'm about as pro-abortion as they come, but abortion is in no way, shape, or form a "basic" health expenditure.

You can make the argument for birth control maybe, seeing as how birth control pills are not only used for birth control but to treat everything from acne to endometriosis in women, but not abortions.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I was going to point out ts hypocrisy yesterday. Good job!


originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
... abortion is in no way, shape, or form a "basic" health expenditure.


Why not?

Abortion is a medical procedure. The emotion, shame, guilt and politicization some people have heaped at its feet really has nothing to do with what it is, in its basic form. It's no different (from a medical perspective) than a vasectomy, hysterectomy or childbirth. It's a personal, legal choice a person makes and should be between her and her doctor.

Many people think abortion is morally wrong. That's fine. They don't have to have one. But it's really none of their business if a woman decides to have one.



Abortion is basic health care.
A pregnant woman has two medical options: childbirth or abortion. Abortion is a safe medical procedure—indeed, safer than childbirth at every stage of gestation. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. One in three women will have an abortion by age 45.


Source
edit on 10/23/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: beezzer

I don't wish to discuss the actual issues, because it's all been done before and I doubt we could come to a compromise. My comments were about the extent that people are going to push back against the recent trend of equal rights and application of the law.

There's a lot of lies and disinfo going around to get the extreme right outraged. But that's par for the course, is it not?


And if/when there is a conservative ever in office, the left will be equally outraged and have a plethora of unusual sources and imflamatory rhetoric.


Perhaps, but you wont get that from me. I welcome a true conservative candidate and even tried to get one in office the last election. Problem is...there aren't very many around any more.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

WOW! That makes worlds of sense.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Yea, anyone who thinks that the Republican party is conservative is fooling themselves. Though the same can be said about the Democrat party and being liberal. Neither of them represent true conservative or liberal ideals and only worry about their own ingrained ideals that have become dogma.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: sheepslayer247

as one of the few remaining left of center members here, what you say, has been SOP (standard operating procedure). by the way, there are certain posters on ATS, that would love nothing better than to see America have it's own violent revolution. the very act of polarizing the sides so far apart, creates a loss of faith and ability to govern ourselves....the old "destroy from within" method of downfall. it has happened numerous times in history, has been well documented, and yet the American people are engaging in it more and more....it's almost to the point where some are wishing for a dictator to decide for them, rather than work together to resolve problems.I was hoping that Americans could buck history by exposing ignorance, and embracing reason...sadly, I think the opposite is happening.



It is true that I have beliefs that are left of center, but also some very conservative views. I think what I say and how I try to articulate my beliefs are actually very unorthodox compared to the strict party lines most people adhere to.

Also, I think there are many members on ATS that are left of center, they simply are not willing to engage in the political discussions because, frankly, it's pointless. The extreme right is a "special" group of people that are very difficult to have an honest debate with and happen to be one of the most intimidating forum gangs we have on ATS. So people tend to shy away from that.

Me...I'm hard to intimidate and do not shy away from a fight, and like to take them on when they are wrong. I welcome people to challenge my beliefs as well. I may be assertive and confident in my approach, but I am reasonable and have no ego to fluff, so I will admit it when I'm wrong.

As far as what's destroying this country, we will probably disagree. I think if you study Nazi Germany and the sociopolitical climate that was breed in that time, you will see many similarities to what we are witnessing today.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"STATES RIGHTS! STATES RIGHTS! STATES RIGHTS!"

"I'm a Tenther, yesirree; 10th Amendment, Baby, States have all powers reserved to them not ... "

"What, wait, what? ... so the State of California is doing WHAT now ... ???"

"WHAT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS OUTRAGEOUS ABUSE OF JUSTICE???"


Don't misquote the tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

California's actions violate the FIRST Amendment by impeding the freedom to practice one's religion.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
California's actions violate the FIRST Amendment by impeding the freedom to practice one's religion.


Now, all you have to do is explain (prove) how making health plans pay for basic health services violates religion...

Keep in mind :



Although health plans are required to cover legal abortions, no individual health care provider, religiously sponsored health carrier, or health care facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstance to participate in the provision of or payment for a specific service if they object to doing so for reason of conscience or religion. No person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of such objections.


www.dmhc.ca.gov...



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
You were not very vague or vague at all.

And yea it is becoming more common with me anyway to use similar hyped up tone when retorting to hard liberals. They love to toss around pejoratives but really get their backs up when its aimed toward them.


Well if that seemed detailed to you it explains why you're so misinformed.

I'm also far from being a "Hard Liberal" either, but I'm assuming you're so far right that a lot of people seem that way.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Which is why my personal approach is, as often as possible, to focus on the facts of a given matter, you know, numbers, quotes, reliability, rather than the silly we said/they said morass of "My opinion/belief/party/idea is better than yours, nyah."

Obviously I occasionally fall short of the latter glory.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

No they don't, because California ISN'T forcing churches to pay for abortions like this article is claiming. This whole thread is a sensationalized mess and apparently you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
I'm about as pro-abortion as they come, but abortion is in no way, shape, or form a "basic" health expenditure.

You can make the argument for birth control maybe, seeing as how birth control pills are not only used for birth control but to treat everything from acne to endometriosis in women, but not abortions.


And even most places that don't allow for birth control in their policies DO allow for it once it ceases to be birth control and becomes a necessary medication. Georgetown's insurance policy, the one Sandra Fluke mischaracterized when she accused it of not covering the pill for one of her friends who had horrible overian, made just such a distinction.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic and Kali74

And who knows how many other people.

Dear ATSers,

I don't know why it is so difficult to have a conversation. I've raised points, facts, questions, which I think go to the heart of the matter and they are ignored. It may be a reaction to me, but I believe the points are valid and should be addressed.

Kali74 and Benevolent Heretic now raise the point that exemptions go far beyond the very small number of women who are employees of churches.

1.) In looking at their source for that belief, we find that the footnote in the letter simply says that no individual (Doctor, nurse, whatever) can be forced to aid in an abortion, and

2.) Assuming that "health carrier" means insurance company, a health insurance company sponsored by a religion is exempted, and

3.) No hospital may be forced to participate in abortions.

We can see that 1.) and 3.) have nothing whatever to do with insurance. Why they're there in an insurance order is beyond me.

So, what about 2.) as a great and helpful exemption? The State of California's Department of Managed Health Care has a website. They provide information about health care plans in the state. www.dmhc.ca.gov... I looked around it and finally called their phone number, 888-466-2219.

I spent 15 minutes waiting before I could talk to a human (Oh, the sacrifices I make), and I asked her if California has any religion sponsored health plans. She said, "I've never heard of one."

So, exemption 2.) says, "You have the right to choose a non-existent plan. Isn't that big of us?"

There is no insurance exemption in California. May we return to points like the Weldon Amendment, which actually are relevant?



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
California's actions violate the FIRST Amendment by impeding the freedom to practice one's religion.


Now, all you have to do is explain (prove) how making health plans pay for basic health services violates religion...

Keep in mind :



Although health plans are required to cover legal abortions, no individual health care provider, religiously sponsored health carrier, or health care facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstance to participate in the provision of or payment for a specific service if they object to doing so for reason of conscience or religion. No person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of such objections.


www.dmhc.ca.gov...


nit-picking.

It's the same non-exemption exemption the little sisters of the poor were offered.

They don't have to directly do it, but since every policy on offer must cover abortion services, then they are still in the pool and the pool covers it. Hence, there money still goes toward it with every premium they pay even if they don't "directly" pay for it.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
This is really not hard at all:

1. While recent SCOTUS actions have decided otherwise, there is still no logical reason that insurance plans should not carry equal protection for women whether religious or not. When an employer pays a premium, or shares a premium, that establishes the coverage. That premium does not actually go to pay for each expenditure for treatment under the plan. That's the basic reason why the argument is illogical, although, currently enshrined in law thanks to a deceptive Majority Decision in the SCOTUS.

2. Religious organizations are exempt from providing for birth control and abortion under the ACA. That is true both in law and procedure at both the Federal and State levels with further restrictions. Evidence, links, so-forth provided above.

3. The California Constitution has specific requirements for health insurance plans offered in the State. The DMHC corrected earlier mistakes of its own making by informing carriers of these State requirements. However, the letter itself ALSO notes that religious organizations are exempt.

4. California has the right to enforce its laws subject to its own Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. If there were to be a conflict between CA law and Federal law, and if each are equally valid and Constitutional, then the Federal law supersedes (Supremacy Clause.)

5. Anecdotes are hardly proof of anything.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If the flow of money is such a vital area of concern then why was it when Hobby Lobby was shown to be investing in the same companies that produced "abortion pills" that they were opposed to paying for, it was dismissed as such a non-topic???

Because to me, it seemed to imply that that the "abortion" money flow was all good and well as long as it was making a positive inward flow, but not when that flow was going out. I don't know where your position was on that matter or if you are even aware of it. But I recall that for many of the Hobby Lobby supporters, the fact that they were making money off those companies was ok while the spending of money with those same companies was a "deeply held" principle worthy of dying for.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"STATES RIGHTS! STATES RIGHTS! STATES RIGHTS!"

"I'm a Tenther, yesirree; 10th Amendment, Baby, States have all powers reserved to them not ... "

"What, wait, what? ... so the State of California is doing WHAT now ... ???"

"WHAT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS OUTRAGEOUS ABUSE OF JUSTICE???"


Don't misquote the tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

California's actions violate the FIRST Amendment by impeding the freedom to practice one's religion.


I didn't quote anything. I offered an imaginary dialogue to make a point. I'm glad you got the point. LOL

California has exercised executive power under its Constitution.

Perhaps we need to quote the First Amendment as well? Let's, I really never get tired of hearing it:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


CA has not prohibited any action, belief, ritual, prayer, sermon, hymn, candle-lighting, incense-burning moment of anyone's "free exercise thereof."

Religious exercise does not encompass any and all elements, subjects, questions, issues, etc. that a given believer wants to claim it does. That's patently ridiculous. Religions are codified and established fact.

No one is being forced to use birth control against their will. No one is being forced to have an abortion against their will.

And no one is being forced to buy abortions for anyone else.

Again, wasn't honesty one of those tenets of most western faiths? I seem to remember that it was.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join