Forcing People to Pay for The Contraception and Abortion of Women is a Right for Women?

reply to post by windword

Again using a left leaning Soros funded organization.

Teh argument here is that Obama admin wants to force religious institutions to make decisions based on OBamacare directives. That is the bottom line.

Evidence has now sufficiently established contraception poster-woman Sandra Fluke specifically went to Georgetown University to protest their policy on contraceptives. In her testimony, she blames this policy for leaving friends with genuine medical ailments to rot out all because the college has an excessive concern over policing its students’ sex lives. Or does she?
Fluke’s testimony contains a notable passage which calls her entire story into question regarding Georgetown’s policy on covering contraceptives (emphasis added):


A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

Georgetown’s spokeswoman did not return repeated requests for comment regarding which forms of contraceptive use are, in fact, covered by Georgetown’s insurance policy.

www.theblaze.com...
Since you take liberty of posting liberal media, I will post from the Blaze.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Religious rules only apply to the practitioner. If there is a religious institution that is a legal business, they should follow the law of the land. They shouldn't make people have or not have abortions, but it should be offered as a choice for the individual. The institution can be against it, but not every individual in said institution should be dictated by their employer.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Are you denying that religious organizations and institutions are exempt from the birth control requirement? Are you denying the Georgetown University does now and has offered their employees and students contraceptive coverage?

Originally posted by mac420
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Religious rules only apply to the practitioner. If there is a religious institution that is a legal business, they should follow the law of the land. They shouldn't make people have or not have abortions, but it should be offered as a choice for the individual. The institution can be against it, but not every individual in said institution should be dictated by their employer.

So now you are telling me that a religious institution providing private services should be dictated to by govt? Again, where is your separation of Church and State? And why is Obamacare allowed to breach the separation of Church and State ? Liberals go to such great lengths to justify their positions.

Did you say you like fascistic nanny statism? Cause it sounds like it.

There are other Universities to attend, other insurance plans to purchase*at least for now before Obamacare runs all the private insurers out).

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Are you denying that religious organizations and institutions are exempt from the birth control requirement? Are you denying the Georgetown University does now and has offered their employees and student birth control coverage?

I just quoted from the Blaze. Would you mind reading that please?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Once religious institutions stop taking government money they should be able to do as they please but as it is now they bilk millions from the tax payer. This option was presented in the government but was shot down by the right. On top of everything studies have shown insurance premiums go down with institutions that provide contraceptives.

If this is solely a religious issue then I understand but disagree if this is a money issue then your argument is moot.

Separation of church and state. No one is forcing anyone to take contraceptives that is up to the individual. Individual freedoms are more important than institutions freedoms.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Grimpachi summed it up nicely.

2nd

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I read it. Will you answer my question? It's an easy one.

Another example of how the religious right tries to abuse the constitution against everything it was built on, to oppress yet another minority.

Funny how these arguments are never about viagra.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


It's never really been about "the rights of women". It's always been about eugenics, since the beginning. The worst part is that the most vocal supporters are the ones being targeted, and they don't even seem to realize that fact.

This is just another one of those ploys to divide people, make them think the opposition wants to "do them in" or some such nonsense, and continue to enslave their voting base further.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Once religious institutions stop taking government money they should be able to do as they please but as it is now they bilk millions from the tax payer. This option was presented in the government but was shot down by the right. On top of everything studies have shown insurance premiums go down with institutions that provide contraceptives.

If this is solely a religious issue then I understand but disagree if this is a money issue then your argument is moot.

Separation of church and state. No one is forcing anyone to take contraceptives that is up to the individual. Individual freedoms are more important than institutions freedoms.

Once the pro-abortion people stop taking government money, they can do as they please, withing the law. As it is now, they bilk millions from the taxpayers.

If contraception is, as you state, an "individual freedom", then the individual can pay for it themselves. No one has the right to demand that other people pay for something they want.

Originally posted by Pedro4077
It's sad how some people winge and complain all day long about welfare mothers, then in the same breathe oppose a solution to lowering the number of offspring the welfare mother has.

What people are saying is that these women should be financially responsible for their own decisions. That means caring for their own children, too, and not having more solely to get more welfare. If people were held accountable for their own actions, they would soon start making better decisions.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


No, she testified so that contraceptives would be put on the student insurance plan. Colleges have insurance options for full time students.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I am just trying to explain how I see your stand for the rights of religious institutions, mainly catholic institutions, as a threat to my and every other person's insurance coverage of birth control...
the constitutional rights are aimed more towards individuals than it is the rights of institutions.
obamacare mandates that insurance providers treat birth control as a preventive measure and thus entitled to be covered 100%. all insurance coverage...
so, well, just allowing a few religious institutions to be exempt this would not solve anything, since it would force all the believers to have insurance coverage that covered birth control 100%!!!
and well carry this on to those non-catholic religious institutions, and well, you are also forcing johova witnesses to buy insurance that covers blood transfusions, which is against their religion, which well, they have had to suck it up and accept the fact that if they want insurance, they have to pitch in to support that practice that they don't believe in....and well....
it just doesn't mesh...does it??

I think that if you position would be accepted, the legal precedent could be set to disassemble health insurance as we know it today even!!!

since, we all have beliefs, we all find things offensive that our money is pooled into and then used to pay for, and well...
why should catholic institutions be held of higher esteem than the followers of the religjon??
why should the catholic institutions and followers be held of higher esteem than the followers of the jahova witness religion??
and, why should any of them be held of higher esteem than me who find it offensive to use my taxdollars to pay for women to have baby after baby, after baby, which they cannot support, really aren't trying to support??

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I think it's the fact that it is the women who has traditionally been put in the position where they spend 18+ years caring for the child, cleaning up after the child, feeding the child (weather daddy is there to help get the money for the food or not), shelter the child, and on and on, is where the rights come in!!
not to mention, for some, childbirth is dangerous, having child after child is dangerous, and the danged religious institutions still cannot bring themselves to denounce a myth that is as old as time just about and are still trying to put women into this submissive, obedient role where she cannot even say no to the sexual advances of her husband!!!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


maybe the separation of church and state went when they in one way or another decided to accept money from the gov't??

catholic charities may be a religious non-profit organization, but many of their clients are referred to them by gov't agnecies, and when that happens, many times it is the gov't that pays for their services!!
if someone hires me to do a job, do they not have the right to dictate to me how I do that job??
and then there is the grants and funding directly recieved from the gov't both local, state, and national that are used for this program or that, new buildings, new equipment, ect. ect....

I find it ironic that when the state passes laws opposed to the church the church cries foul.. separation!! separation!! however when the state passes laws that legislate their moral beliefs on others.. that's perfectly fine.. that's great.. we need more legislation making everyone follow the churches moral ways...



When your church stops messing with my state and it's laws... then we'll talk.

PS. we pay for everyone's viagra... and I'd much rather pay for contraception than for an unwanted child for 18 years on the tax dollar...

This will save taxpayer money in the long run, I am sure wanted children will require on average much less government expenses than unwanted ones.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I do think contraceptives should be over the counter instead of requiring a prescription but right now it’s not, so it should be covered under all medical plans. That is the issue here even though the topic has strayed several times.

These topics should be broken down into two threads really.

One for contraceptives and one on abortion.

I know contraceptives reduce the amount of abortions nationwide but I think they should be two separate issues for the sake of this debate.

As for the debate over abortion on going here I do not wish to participate I have always found those debates turn to name calling.

reply to post by Grimpachi

I do think contraceptives should be over the counter instead of requiring a prescription but right now it’s not.

As a medical student, I dont think that would be good. There is a reason why they are on prescription - contraceptives can be dangerous for people who have increased blood clotting. Your doctor should always check for blood clotting problems in your medical history before prescribing them.