GOP Congressman tells women to give money to democrats

[Atreus21]

When the birth control is used for treatment of medical conditions like ovarian cysts it sure as hell is an assault on women's rights.

Okay, so we allow exceptions to define the rules. Negative.

If you want birth control covered, get with an insurance company that does it, or buy it yourself. Don't force those who object to it to conform to your standard, and then claim their assaulting your rights. The only rights being assaulted are those of religious institutions.

If you're so against birth control then you should support health insurance companies not paying for viagra or cialis since the less people have sex the less birth control would be used no? /sarcasm.

I'm not against birth control. I'm against using force against church-affiliated institutions to violate their principles.

 

[blankslate]

If you want birth control covered, get with an insurance company that does it, or buy it yourself. Don't force those who object to it to conform to your standard, and then claim their assaulting your rights. The only rights being assaulted are those of religious institutions.

I hope to God that there aren't enough politicians who share your views on women's rights elected to make them actual public policy.

 

[Ausm]

Yep, letting business decide how to run their business is insane, only in a liberal world. What's next, telling stores/pharmacies what drugs they have to stock and sell too people?

When you get a policy, it is specifically stated what is covered and what is not. If you don't agree, go find a new policy/insurance company. It shouldn't be a surprise when a non covered service is not covered under the policy you bought should it? If they refuse to cover a covered service under the policy that would of course be a problem and reason for litigation.

But you are right, its much better for the government to tell people, especially business how to run their lives. :whiste:

You are ok with your Boss deciding what covers you in your insurance? LMAO Moran


No insults or personal attacks.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[woolfe9999]

Wow, that's unusual. I've seen Congressmen cross party lines before when voting on a bill, but to encourage people to donate to the other political party is remarkable. I suspect it's going to make him a pariah in his own caucus.

 

[dphantom]

So you agree that insurance companies should be allowed to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions, right?

yes. It is their "private" business. For those who cannot get "private" insurance, it might be an appropriate role for a governmental entity to provide some minimal level of care.

 

[Ausm]

Okay, so we allow exceptions to define the rules. Negative.

If you want birth control covered, get with an insurance company that does it, or buy it yourself. Don't force those who object to it to conform to your standard, and then claim their assaulting your rights. The only rights being assaulted are those of religious institutions.



I'm not against birth control. I'm against using force against church-affiliated institutions to violate their principles.

Then you should be alright then because this will never happen.

 

[Atreus21]

Then you should be alright then because this will never happen.

That is precisely what happened.

 

[Ausm]

That is precisely what happened.

LOL how?

 

[senseamp]

Republicans are still fighting birth control, they are just using the employer based health coverage to fight it. Have employee dependent on employer for health coverage, then use it as leverage for employer to tell employee how to live their life.

 

[Atreus21]

LOL how?

How? Are you kidding?

 

[Ausm]

How? Are you kidding?

No not at all, please lay it out for me.

 

[lotus503]

This is why the Tea Party needs to either purge or destroy the GOP. When you have folks like this pretending to be Republican while joining the Democrat's war on forcing folks to pay specifically for birth control.

He is an enemy of ours and belongs with you.

You are whats wrong with America. Marking people who dont line up with your Idealogical point of view an enemy.

 

[Ausm]

Republicans are still fighting birth control, they are just using the employer based health coverage to fight it. Have employee dependent on employer for health coverage, then use it as leverage for employer to tell employee how to live their life.

+1 Feigned outrage detected.

 

[Jaskalas]

There is no basic human right to forcibly line item a specific cost.

This is why people have paychecks. If it is not sufficient then fight for higher wages.

 

[Ausm]

There is no basic human right to forcibly line item a specific cost.

This is why people have paychecks. If it is not sufficient then fight for higher wages.

Which is soon followed by your employer saying"Don't let the door hit you n the ass on the way out"

 

[Jaskalas]

You are whats wrong with America. Marking people who dont line up with your Idealogical point of view an enemy.

What's wrong with America is a centralized tyranny. For people's 'rights' we subjugate them into helpless sheep who cannot exist without their handout. As you did to the individual states, you now do to individual people.

Perhaps you don't understand or appreciate what happened to the states. Money was taken from them, and then handed back with requirements. Specifically to do as commanded or lose what was already rightfully theirs. Freedom to say no ended. They now do as their master says. TSA wants to sexually molest your children... say but a whimper and we threaten all federal funding. (see Texas)

Now such mandates are reaching the people themselves. You WILL purchase this, you WILL do that. Your employer WILL cost allocate out a specific line item as part of the expense of employing you. The choice is removed.

For a person, supposedly representative of conservatism, to jump on the Democrat's bandwagon proclaiming a 'war' against a 'group' for our basic opposition to centralized tyranny is an egregious affront to everything we stand for. He is a traitor to conservatism in every meaning of the word.

The Congressman dutifully belongs with those whose propaganda he uses. With whose goals he works towards.

 

[Atreus21]

No not at all, please lay it out for me.

Okay, uh, this may not have occurred to you, but Kathleen Sebelius, the head of HHS, decreed that all care-providers with no exceptions must provide contraceptives.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ius-church-groups-must-provide-contraception/

 

[Jhhnn]

What's wrong with America is a centralized tyranny. For people's 'rights' we subjugate them into helpless sheep who cannot exist without their handout. As you did to the individual states, you now do to individual people.

Perhaps you don't understand or appreciate what happened to the states. Money was taken from them, and then handed back with requirements. Specifically to do as commanded or lose what was already rightfully theirs. Freedom to say no ended. They now do as their master says. TSA wants to sexually molest your children... say but a whimper and we threaten all federal funding. (see Texas)

Now such mandates are reaching the people themselves. You WILL purchase this, you WILL do that. Your employer WILL cost allocate out a specific line item as part of the expense of employing you. The choice is removed.

For a person, supposedly representative of conservatism, to jump on the Democrat's bandwagon proclaiming a 'war' against a 'group' for our basic opposition to centralized tyranny is an egregious affront to everything we stand for. He is a traitor to conservatism in every meaning of the word.

The Congressman dutifully belongs with those whose propaganda he uses. With whose goals he works towards.

Yeh, I know- it's easier to implement state level tyranny, which is the whole point of States' Rights efforts. Why, you could bring back Jim Crow, outlaw unions, persecute gays, flush your toxic waste downstream & downwind with impunity, create absolute protection of corporate interests, even ban birth control entirely so as to assure another generation of poverty stricken, mindless & well indoctrinated proles. Hell, you might even be able to get back to the basics of Christian Reconstructionists & Dominionists, like witch burning, stoning of adulterers, and slavery.

Libertopia! Divide & Conquer! It's the wet dream of every ultra rich right wing power freak asshole on the planet, supported by a vast propaganda effort & people whose minds are too weak to resist.

 

[Jhhnn]

Okay, uh, this may not have occurred to you, but Kathleen Sebelius, the head of HHS, decreed that all care-providers with no exceptions must provide contraceptives.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ius-church-groups-must-provide-contraception/

Wrong. Churches themselves need not do so, but the businesses they own & control must. If you can't see the difference, you're willfully blind.

 

[Ausm]

Okay, uh, this may not have occurred to you, but Kathleen Sebelius, the head of HHS, decreed that all care-providers with no exceptions must provide contraceptives.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ius-church-groups-must-provide-contraception/

I take you are oblivious to President Obama's compromise proposal then?

 

[Atreus21]

Wrong. Churches themselves need not do so, but the businesses they own & control must. If you can't see the difference, you're willfully blind.

On the contrary, I think if you see a difference, you've got a razor particularly adept at splitting hairs.

 

[fskimospy]

On the contrary, I think if you see a difference, you've got a razor particularly adept at splitting hairs.

It's not really splitting hairs at all. The government can exert little control over how a church conducts its religious duties, but it can exert much more control when it goes outside of those religious duties into owning and operating other businesses.

If a business being owned by a church suddenly exempts it from labor law no matter how unrelated the business is to the church, why wouldn't everyone just start an anti-regulation religion? (remember, the government is prohibited from ruling on the validity of a religion.)

 

[Atreus21]

It's not really splitting hairs at all. The government can exert little control over how a church conducts its religious duties, but it can exert much more control when it goes outside of those religious duties into owning and operating other businesses.

If a business being owned by a church suddenly exempts it from labor law no matter how unrelated the business is to the church, why wouldn't everyone just start an anti-regulation religion? (remember, the government is prohibited from ruling on the validity of a religion.)

I didn't say the government is prohibited from ruling on the validity of religion. If I did, I revoke it. Mormons were disallowed from practicing polygamy. If a religion came to be that required one to sacrifice his first-born, that would be an appropriate role for government to be involved in.

But it seems we're being forced into one of two extremes. Either there is no religious liberty, or any practice can be excused by calling it religious practice.

What I find the most upsetting is the real effect of what will happen. Catholic institutions will not compromise on their principles, and to this affect they will close if forced to choose between their faith and HHS' decree. This has already happened with regard to other issues, such as homosexual adoptions. We would lose care providers, and those in their care would have to find other care providers.

The effect? Government is indirectly pushing out religious institutions.

Whenever I air this complaint, most leftists say something like, "Yeah, well if they're so backward as not to provide free contraception, they they have no business providing health care," at which point the true motive becomes apparent. This is why I'm amused when I hear complaints about the religious forcing morality on others, or religion tearing down the wall of separation between itself and the state. In my experience, it's always the government imposing itself.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say the government is prohibited from ruling on the validity of religion. If I did, I revoke it. Mormons were disallowed from practicing polygamy. If a religion came to be that required one to sacrifice his first-born, that would be an appropriate role for government to be involved in.

Oh I didn't say you said it, but that's the law of the United States. (US v. Ballard) The government cannot rule on the validity or sincerity of someone's religious beliefs.

But it seems we're being forced into one of two extremes. Either there is no religious liberty, or any practice can be excused by calling it religious practice.

What I find the most upsetting is the real effect of what will happen. Catholic institutions will not compromise on their principles, and to this affect they will close if forced to choose between their faith and HHS' decree. This has already happened with regard to other issues, such as homosexual adoptions. We would lose care providers, and those in their care would have to find other care providers.

The effect? Government is indirectly pushing out religious institutions.

Whenever I air this complaint, most leftists say something like, "Yeah, well if they're so backward as not to provide free contraception, they they have no business providing health care," at which point the true motive becomes apparent. This is why I'm amused when I hear complaints about the religious forcing morality on others, or religion tearing down the wall of separation between itself and the state. In my experience, it's always the government imposing itself.

That argument seems to boil down to the idea that we should allow religious institutions to act in bigoted or otherwise discriminatory ways because otherwise they will stop performing services. I don't find that compelling.

The government is not pushing out religious institutions, it is simply saying that religious institutions are not exempt from labor law that they disagree with when they choose (note: CHOOSE) to engage with the public in matters outside the practice of their religion. If the Catholic Church wants to open an ice cream stand they don't get to ignore labor law just because they happen to be Catholics while doing it. It's an ice cream stand, not a church.

 

[xBiffx]

So you agree that insurance companies should be allowed to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions, right?

Yes. As I have asked before, what happens when your insurance company goes bankrupt when they are forced to cover pre-existing and are forced to not have a maximum benefit. Fuck all those inured under that insurer amirgiht?