Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 02-24-2012, 08:50 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
"Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."
__________________

__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 11:26 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
"Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."
Speak up for women now.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 11:54 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
Speak up for women now.
How about pre-born babies?

As a matter of interest try Googling "the party of death".
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:03 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
How about pre-born babies?

As a matter of interest try Googling "the party of death".
We're not talking about "pre-born babies" - we're not even talking about zygotes. Are you trying to suggest that sperm has rights?

Every link I have to "party of death" refers to either the Nazis, the GOP, or goth-themed social gatherings, none of which pique my interest vis a vis health care, religious freedom, women's rights, or state intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 03:42 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
This came from my Google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Party_of_Death

__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2012, 04:55 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Congratulations, you can use google. Do you have an actual argument to present, or should we just devolve to posting random propaganda?


Should an employer be allowed to determine if the health care insurance he offers to employees covers circumcision?

Should an employer be allowed to determine if the health care insurance he offers to employees covers STD medications?

Should an employer be allowed to determine if the health care insurance he offers to employees covers blood transfusions? (I'm looking at you, Jehovah's Witnesses)

Should an employer be allowed to determine if the health care insurance he offers to employees covers organ transplant?

I say no on all 4 counts.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 11:28 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
In case we may have strayed from the original.
Quote:
Religious Liberty - The Latest Target of Obamacare
Topics: Political News and commentaries

Let there be no doubt whatsoever, this is indeed dangerous to the very fabric of our society, and a crucial reason why the whole health law, with its centralized control over health-care decisions, must be repealed.

Grace-Marie Turner writes at NRO:

The Obama administration announced today it will wait for a year (coincidentally until after the elections) before requiring religious organizations to comply with an Obamacare mandate that they provide coverage for contraception -- including controversial drugs that can abort an early pregnancy.

This started with a decision by the Obama administration last summer listing the "preventive" services that must be covered by health plans under Obamacare without charge to patients, and the list included contraception.

This is another assault on the Constitution and the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) called the federal regulation an "unprecedented threat to individual and institutional religious freedom."

The Obamacare regulation gives faith-based institutions, like Catholic universities and hospitals, the choice of violating the fundamental tenets of their faith by covering the federally mandated coverage in their employee health plans, or of dropping health insurance for their employees -- in which case they would be fined for violating the employer mandate.

Much more about this outrage, here.

As outrageous as the Obama administration's unprecedented threat to individual and institutional religious freedom in regard to healthcare is, just as outrageous is the utterly corrupt Obama/Holder Department of (In)Justice's recent argument before the Supreme Court that "public interest' should overrule churches' freedom to choose their own ministers, and administer their own internal affairs. Both of these are examples of the Obama administration and the left's ongoing war against faith.
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 04:16 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
In case we may have strayed from the original.
How many times do you intend to post the same thing?

There's no religious freedom issue here.
There's no first amendment issue here.
There's no separation issue here.

What is here is a suggestion that non-profit and for-profit companies should be allowed to dictate what medical services their employees will be eligible to receive.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 03:17 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
This from the Carolina Journal:
Quote:
Obama Contraception Mandate Would Supersede N.C. Law
Critics say that Obama?s compromise is ?a shell game?
By David N. Bass
Feb. 13th, 2012

RALEIGH ? For the past decade, North Carolina has operated under a contraception mandate for private health insurers that hasn?t caused much uproar. It contains a broad exemption that allows faith-based employers who are opposed to birth control as a matter of conscience to opt out, and frees insurers to charge co-pays for the coverage.

But new federal guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would supersede the exemption. The regulations would narrow the opt-out to force some religiously affiliated charities and organizations to buy contraception coverage, without a copay or deductible, in violation of their faith?s teachings.

The Obama administration?s birth-control mandate, which takes effect fully in August 2013, has drawn condemnation from the Catholic Church, evangelical Christians, Republicans, and some Democrats. Critics say that the guidelines empower the federal government to coerce the faithful to violate their consciences, abridging the constitutional right to religious freedom.

On Friday, the administration tweaked the birth-control policy in what it billed as an accommodation for religious groups. Under the revision, religious employers still must purchase insurance, but the insurance company would offer the birth control benefits directly to insured employees in a separate agreement.

Critics assailed the concession as a difference without a distinction. Hannah Smith, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said that President Obama?s announcement doesn?t change anything.

?It?s really just an accounting shell game,? Smith said on Friday afternoon. ?Today?s announcement was not really a compromise, because it just shifted attention away from the religious employer and onto the insurance company, when in reality the religious employer will still be paying for these policies, and probably be paying higher premiums because the insurance company will not be paying for these services as an act of Christian kindness.?

Federal mandate

North Carolina?s state-level mandate hasn?t generated as much attention or controversy as the one pushed by the Obama administration. Enacted in 1999, the statute specifies that all private health insurance plans that cover prescription drugs also must cover contraceptives. The religious exemption appears to cover all organizations in North Carolina that might want to opt out.

David Hains, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, said that his organization informs new employees that their insurance policy won?t cover prescription contraceptives.

?We believe the North Carolina law clearly allows us to do what we currently do, which is not to offer the stuff,? Hains said.

That wouldn?t be the case under the new federal mandate, though.

?Our churches would qualify for the new HHS exemption, but our schools and our Catholic social services would not,? Hains said.

Smith said that many religious organizations choose to opt out by self-insuring under the federal ERISA law governing employer-provided benefit plans. ?There are lots of ways that religious organizations, even in states with a contraception mandate with no express exemption, have been able to opt out,? she said.

The federal mandate, however, offers no such protections.

N.C. law

Twenty-eight states have a contraception mandate for private health insurance plans, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nine of those states don?t have a conscience clause. Of the states that do, only three have a religious exemption as narrow as the one pushed by the Obama administration.

North Carolina?s statute applies to any contraceptive approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, excluding the abortion drug RU-486 and forms of emergency contraception.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a national research organization formerly tied to Planned Parenthood, ranks North Carolina?s religious exemption as ?broader,? meaning it ?allows churches, associations of churches, religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to refuse [coverage], but not hospitals.?

In contrast, the Obama administration?s exemption applies only to churches and houses of worship. Religious hospitals, charities, and schools would have to buy the coverage. Then, the insurance company would contact each employee and offer contraception benefits.

In addition, the federal mandate would require insurers to cover abortion drugs specifically outlawed by the North Carolina statute, such as RU-486. Sterilization also would be covered.

?Close loopholes?

?The whole point of the federal mandate is to close any of the loopholes that are now available for religious organizations to opt out of these state-level mandates,? Smith said. ?The federal mandate would seek to require these organizations to cover these drugs and services.?

Under the Tar Heel State?s exemption, qualifying employers must provide written notice to all participants in the plan that prescription contraception drugs aren?t included. The statute defines ?religious employer? as an entity ?organized and operated for religious purposes and is tax exempt,? one in which the ?inculcation of religious values is one of the primary purposes of the entity,? and one that ?employs primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.?

The N.C. Department of Insurance couldn?t confirm how many employers have requested the exemption under North Carolina?s law.

?There is no requirement that insurers report to DOI employer groups that request an exemption from the mandate, nor does the department collect that information,? said Kerry Hall, a spokeswoman for the department.

State employees covered

Last summer, lawmakers in the General Assembly tussled over a revision to the N.C. State Health Plan, which covers state employees and public school teachers, that removed coverage for elective abortion, which are those deemed medically unnecessary. Under the revamped plan, abortions are covered only ?when the life of the mother would be endangered if the unborn child was carried to term or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.?

The State Health Plan covers birth control for both men and women, including ?oral medications, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, injectable contraceptives and implanted hormonal contraceptives.? It also covers sterilization and infertility and sexual dysfunction services. It doesn?t cover artificial means of conception, such as in vitro fertilization.
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 05:08 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
From: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#storylink=cpy

Quote:
From Dr. Jennifer H. Tang, a gynecologist in Chapel Hill and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health:

As a gynecologist practicing in North Carolina, I see patients for whom birth control is life-saving preventive care. The Observer's Jan. 24 editorial "With Contraception, an Uneven Exemption" suggests that my patients deserve insurance that covers their medical needs only if their employers' religion agrees.

I think of my patient Rebecca, who was recently married and wanted to start a family. However, she has a genetic condition that weakens her blood vessels and caused a stroke when she was young. Multiple doctors counseled her that a pregnancy could further damage her blood vessels and kill her. Rebecca and I decided on an intrauterine device (IUD) as a long-lasting, highly effective contraceptive that would protect her against the life-threatening risks of pregnancy.

Because Rebecca's insurance plan included birth control, most of the $913 IUD device and insertion fee was covered. But I have other patients whose health is at risk because their employers refused contraception coverage. These women can't afford such high upfront costs out of pocket.

I am thrilled that the new insurance rules will bring relief to most women whose employers don't provide birth control coverage. Everyone deserves this essential option, including women who work for religiously affiliated universities and hospitals. Indeed, many faith-based institutions already offer this coverage.

Misguided attacks by Catholic bishops

In his attack on the birth control rules, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has gone so far as to claim "the contraceptives mandated as 'preventive services' [to be covered by employers] will include abortifacients." This is false. Contraceptives prevent pregnancies. They do not end them. Otherwise, they would be classified as abortifacients, not contraceptives.

While the Conference rails against covering birth control, American Catholics are relying on contraception to space pregnancies and delay parenthood until they are ready. In fact, 98 percent of U.S. Catholic women who have had sex have used a birth control method other than natural family planning. For all American women, regardless of their faith, that figure is just one point higher at 99 percent.

Meanwhile, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida, has vowed that he will drop health insurance coverage for diocesan employees rather than comply with the new rules. It disturbs me that an employer would deny all of his employees health insurance just to avoid covering a woman's preventive health needs.

Most of my patients will benefit from the new contraception regulation, but a few will be left behind, due to the remaining exemption for certain faith-based institutions. I look forward to the day when every employer understands that women need a full range of preventive health services, including birth control, to have healthy and productive lives.
NOBODY is forcing anyone to use any form of contraception. NOBODY is forcing anyone to prescribe contraceptives, dispense contraceptives, etc. In the case of Rebecca, the contraception she is using spares her from "the life threatening risks of pregnancy". The same insurance that you would allow to prevent contraceptive coverage would be responsible for paying for the care of her life-threatening condition if she did get pregnant, and the expense of that is MUCH greater than the expense of simply covering it in the first place.

98% of sexually active catholic women have used contraception. This is NOT a first-amendment issue.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.