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.

 

Mother Jones: "Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years"

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Well well well... What have we here?

motherjones.com...


In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.


So in the rush to blame President Obama... we've overlooked the fact that this law is nothing new.

Crow anyone?
edit on 9-2-2012 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Here's a real gem for those who won't bother to read the article:


"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official told Mother Jones that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law."



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, but it seems that you could get out of the existing EEOC regulation by not offering insurance or by not offering prescription drug coverage. Under the Obamacare plan, insurance would have to be provided, and contraception would have to be provided paid for completely by the employer. If the employer wanted out he'd be hit with a big fine.

It seems that the new regulation is a bigger change than the article makes out.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Oh I see, it's all Bush's fault...hahahaha. Well, I am sure that no one will care, however, because then they can't bring up more straw man anti-Obama arguments with this evidence, or they will ramble on about states' rights or some such nonsense. The bottom line is, this mandate does nothing to abridge any church's freedom of religion, as it only applies to institutions that receive public funding. To put it simply, either the church needs to stop taking public money for public things, or start paying taxes. I bet we could tax the catholic church in America once and pay off our debt.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


So who's rights are more important, a non-catholic individual that works at a catholic hospital, or the non-taxpaying catholic church? If they get public money, they must abide by the country's constitution, if they don't want public money, then refuse it and save us a dime. Yes, I know, the non-catholic doesn't have to work at the catholic hospital.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
It's too bad with this supposedly new found " religious liberty" , that women who are insured by companies of this "faith", will have to fork out up to $600 a year on contraception, that other women get for free.


It's also not just for contraception, sometimes the birth control pill is the way they issue hormonal fixes for pms, and endometriosis.

Why is it that with religious liberty, the women get screwed?



I've heard lots of talk that this was already in 28 states, before Obama came into power.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
If they get public money, they must abide by the country's constitution, ....

And they DO abide by the Constitution - the First Amendment - which says the government can't force them to go against their belief system to pay for others to have free birth control. Those people who work at CATHOLIC hospitals can still get their birth control, it's just that the Church won't pay for it.


The thing that people aren't talking about is that Mitt Romney is all upset over the Obama Administration push to force the Catholic Church to pay for birth control in health insurance ... but Mitt Romney's Romney-Care in Mass had the exact same anti-Constitutional push. Hypocrisy.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


I think the folks over at Mother Jones are hitting the hash pipe a little to often at times. The Obamacare Mandate goes above and beyond that which is mentioned in the article (the birth control pill). The Obama mandate includes, sterilizations and the morning after pill as well and that it should ALL be FREE of charge. Let's just call it Obama's sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate.

The mandate violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Mother Jones is lost in left field once again.

Confusion sets in....

edit on 9-2-2012 by jibeho because: clarity

edit on 9-2-2012 by jibeho because: more clarity



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Guys! Slow down. Can we take this one step at a time? All I posted was that the article said the Obamacare regulation was no big change from the EEOC regulation. I disagree with the article, here's why.

The Obamacare regulations, whether they're good or bad can not be escaped without having to pay a large fine. The Church is being told "The State will tell you that you have to violate your religious beliefs, and if you don't we'll fine you."

With the EEOC regulations (as described above) the State tells the Church "If you don't want to violate your religious beliefs, you don't have to, just drop prescription drug coverage, or all insurance whatsoever."

It seems to me there is a big difference between the two, do you agree?

If there is no difference between the two, why did the Bishops get all angry about this when they have never been angry about it before, publicly supported Obamacare, and had 55% of their flock vote for Obama?

********************************************************************

If you're still with me, let's look at rights. What is the most accurate description of the right of the Catholic hospital worker. To me it seems that it is the right to have some one else pay for at least part of your health care. Please tell me what I am missing, but that doesn't seem to be a constitutional right.

What is the most accurate description of the right of the Church? The right to exercise their religious beliefs, First Amendment stuff.

Again, I may be misinterpreting. Please give me a clearer, more precise definition of the rights involved which I may have overlooked.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I don't know why they cannot just take the contraception issue out of the health insurance coverage altogether.

Just mandate that a woman can get free contraception if wanted (or needed), with a prescription from any doctor. The pharmacist just gives it to her free, and puts in an invoice to some other government agency.

We all know how much they like to make up new government agencies, and this would give all women free birth control, regardless of religion.

Or is that too easy?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
So, Bush did nothing about this interpretation of the civil rights act of 1964, Obama will do nothing about it, but somehow Obama is off the hook? Hasn't Ron Paul been slammed for saying the civil rights act would open the door for interpretations like this?
Yes, he did. They included women in the "civil" rights, and Paul called foul, and now we have this crap.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by negativenihil
 


I think the folks over at Mother Jones are hitting the hash pipe a little to often at times. The Obamacare Mandate goes above and beyond that which is mentioned in the article (the birth control pill). The Obama mandate includes, sterilizations and the morning after pill as well and that it should ALL be FREE of charge. Let's just call it Obama's sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate.

The mandate violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Mother Jones is lost in left field once again.

Confusion sets in....

edit on 9-2-2012 by jibeho because: clarity

edit on 9-2-2012 by jibeho because: more clarity


Good call. depopulation at it's best in the guise of "for your own good".



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


They call that socialism. Americans hate socialism...but love it at the same time.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
The Obamacare regulations, whether they're good or bad can not be escaped without having to pay a large fine. The Church is being told "The State will tell you that you have to violate your religious beliefs, and if you don't we'll fine you."


Yes, I think this is where the 2000 decision met up with Obamacare 2010.

The compromise should suffice, and Catholics United nails the Bishops' outrage as being a useful political tool:


“The Catholic bishops and their allies in the Republican Party are increasingly isolated in their desire to rescind the Obama Administration's compromise regulation affecting contraception services and religious liberty. Most of the leading Catholic institutions affected by the rule agree that the Administration is acting in good faith and is invested in drafting a workable solution acceptable by all parties. The bishop's blanket opposition appears the serve the interests of a political agenda, not the needs of the America people.”


Next thing you know you'll have some conservative Catholic Republican presidential candidate spouting crazy stuff like this..


They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.


From Santorum's Texas townhall speech 2-8-12



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


It's called political jujitsu.
Anticipating the opponents reaction and setting them up to be exposed.

Will the Conservatives' predictable reaction win them favor with women or moderate/independent voters? No.

There are going to be a lot of executive orders and action in the coming months designed to repeatedly remind the silent majority of Americans(Moderates) who is, more, on their side trying to move this nation forward and who is trying to drag us backwards.




top topics



 
8

log in

join