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.
Originally posted by daskakik
If everyone else is getting witch doctor coverage, than yes you should also be getting witch doctor coverage.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Charmed707
So birth control is just a "life-style" then? And that makes it okay for Catholic institutions to deny anyone in their employ, even non-Catholics, access to it?
Sex is no more a life-style choice than eating is, it's a fundamental instinct, and only in the twisted fantasies of religious zealots is protected sex with birth control considered the irresponsible choice.
Originally posted by WTFover
Everyone else does not get contraceptive coverage. I don't. My three sons don't. Roughly half of all insureds do not, because we are male.
Dammit!!! I'm doing it again. Falling into the trap of arguing something that isn't the real issue. You liberals are a sneaky bunch.
The only issue here is the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Originally posted by WTFover
[
Everyone else does not get contraceptive coverage. I don't. My three sons don't. Roughly half of all insureds do not, because we are male. Besides, birth control is extremely simple and inexpensive. A single condom costs about fifty cents. Use the condom and retain the package. After use, toss the condom. Thereafter, anytime a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, simply hold the package between her knees. A lifetime of birth control for fifty cents!
Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by Muttley2012
Freedom of Religion is limit of the government. It is both an individual and collective right that essentially gives you the right to believe whatever you want to believe. But as you said, your beliefs can not trample the beliefs of others and likewise they on yours.
Originally posted by Muttley2012
You see, there does come a point where one's religion does interfere with the livelihood of others. It is at that point where government must step in and say "your belief is outside the scope of the 1st Amendment".
"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
"The Constitutions of our several States vary more or less in some particulars. But there are certain principles in which all agree, and which all cherish as vitally essential to the protection of the life, liberty, property, and safety of the citizen: 1. Freedom of religion, restricted only from acts of trespass on that of others;….. 5. Freedom of the press, subject only to liability for personal injuries." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:489
Originally posted by daskakik
Nobody is infringing on the employers first amendment rights.
The employer, is in fact, infringing on the employees rights, because he is not letting them make the choice for themselves, but is making the choice for them, based on his beliefs.
Originally posted by Pixiefyre
Originally posted by Muttley2012
You see, there does come a point where one's religion does interfere with the livelihood of others. It is at that point where government must step in and say "your belief is outside the scope of the 1st Amendment".
One can find what the founders truly intended by the words they left behind.
"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
Originally posted by WTFover
In order for you to make this determination, you are deciding what constitutes a religious belief on the part of the employer. That is fundamentally infringing on their right to free exercise. There is no way way around it, no matter how badly you want there to be. The religious organization alone decides what their beliefs are and how they will practice them.
The employer is doing no such thing. The employer is not prohibiting the use of contraceptives in any way, shape or form. My employer doesn't pay for my Jack Daniels, but that doesn't prohibit me from enjoying a nice Jack and Coke, whenever I please. My employer doesn't pay for insurance coverage that provides for hair replacement, even though that vacancy on the top of my head is getting increasingly larger. Yet, I still have the right to pay for the services of the Hair Club for Men, if I so choose.
Originally posted by Pixiefyre
Contraceptives are not solely used as birth control, these same medicines are used to treat other medical issues, and are required to be used while taking some medications, one used to treat very serious diseases such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis etc.
Originally posted by daskakik
JD and Coke are not healthcare products.
Originally posted by WTFover
Originally posted by Pixiefyre
Contraceptives are not solely used as birth control, these same medicines are used to treat other medical issues, and are required to be used while taking some medications, one used to treat very serious diseases such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis etc.
This is an entirely different argument. First, everything I've ever hear about oral contraceptives is that they increase the risk of breast cancer. If that has changed, I am not aware of it.
Secondly, if an oral contraceptive medication is being used as treatment for a disease, then it is not a contraceptive. That's like using a baseball bat to break someone's arm. When you do, it's no longer a bat, it's a weapon. I would absolutely support the inclusion of mandated coverage of these medications for the uses you outlined, as long as they were medically necessary. There is a huge difference.
Originally posted by WTFover
Originally posted by daskakik
JD and Coke are not healthcare products.
Nor is birth control. Unless you want to now say pregnancy is a disease.
Originally posted by WTFover
Originally posted by daskakik
JD and Coke are not healthcare products.
Nor is birth control. Unless you want to now say pregnancy is a disease.
Originally posted by daskakik
But the actions of the insurance company and the employee should not to be restricted by the employer.
Originally posted by WTFover
This is an entirely different argument. First, everything I've ever hear about oral contraceptives is that they increase the risk of breast cancer. If that has changed, I am not aware of it.
Secondly, if an oral contraceptive medication is being used as treatment for a disease, then it is not a contraceptive. That's like using a baseball bat to break someone's arm. When you do, it's no longer a bat, it's a weapon. I would absolutely support the inclusion of mandated coverage of these medications for the uses you outlined, as long as they were medically necessary. There is a huge difference.
• Alleviation of menstrual cramps
• Reduction of amount and duration of menstrual bleeding
• Regulation of periods • Clearing up some types of acne
• Lowering the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers
• Treatment of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome