Republican Hearing on Contraception: No Women Allowed

[PokerGuy]

I know this is hard for you to understand but with President Obama's latest proposal they wouldn't have to pay for it.

1) that's baloney, they'll still have to pay for it. The insurance company isn't doing it for free. If they have to provide coverage for something, it's going to be included in the premiums. That's just smoke and mirrors.

2) That's not how this started out. The turtle and his minions only changed their tune when it blew up in their face and turned into a big political misstep, then they started trying to "work things out" -- that's what they should have done to begin with, but I would only expect that from actual leaders.

 

[Ausm]

Scott Brown committed political suicide over this. Nice. Keep it coming 😀

I know that was sweet! A huge boost for Elizabeth Warren too.

 

[fskimospy]

If the institution has an issue with it, they can negotiate with their insurance companies to not include that coverage. In other words, it's not part of a government mandate that they MUST provide that coverage. If there is such a mandate, it should be tossed out on the same grounds.

Look, if you have a problem with the 'crazy' beliefs of the institutions, that's fine, but that's NOT what this whole discussion is about. The discussion is not about their beliefs and whether they are hypocritical or justified or not. That's irrelevant. The issue is forcing religious institutions to pay for something that goes against their beliefs.

Did you miss the part where they are not required to pay for it?

 

[fskimospy]

1) that's baloney, they'll still have to pay for it. The insurance company isn't doing it for free. If they have to provide coverage for something, it's going to be included in the premiums. That's just smoke and mirrors.

Are you claiming that insurance companies will raise premiums specifically on Catholic organizations in order to provide this service? If so, what are you basing this on? If you believe that the industry will create higher premiums system wide for it, well then the Catholics have already been paying for birth control for years by contributing to the system at all.

2) That's not how this started out. The turtle and his minions only changed their tune when it blew up in their face and turned into a big political misstep, then they started trying to "work things out" -- that's what they should have done to begin with, but I would only expect that from actual leaders.

lol. This is a political misstep all right, but the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. Obama's position on this issue is overwhelmingly popular.

 

[PokerGuy]

However, seeing as how this is an issue regarding women's health, it seems prudent to have actual women involved in that panel.

It is NOT an issue of women's health. It's an issue of religious freedom. Nobody is saying women are not allowed access to the contraceptives, it's a matter of who is paying for them. Changing it so the organizations no longer have to directly pay for it themselves helps make it a little more palatable. Had that been done from the start there would not have been any big deal.

 

[PokerGuy]

Did you miss the part where they are not required to pay for it?

Did you miss the part where that only came to be AFTER the furor about the original mandate where they DID have to pay for it??

 

[Darwin333]

Did you miss the part where they are not required to pay for it?

So exactly who does pay for it? Sorry, I haven't really been following this story.

 

[woolfe9999]

Point of clarification: it doesn't seem that the OP was either an "exaggeration" or a "lie." It was an exact cut and paste of the title of the article he linked and quoted. Furthermore, the article's title wasn't a lie or an exaggeration either. That article was uploaded at the time the hearing was going on. There were two panels. The first panel had no women. It's very unlikely that the authors of the article even knew about the second panel. It probably hadn't even been convened yet. At worst the article was premature.

Moftbane on page 1 quoted an "update" to the article. Do we know if that update was present when the OP originally posted the link?

Perhaps the thread title should be amended to reflect later acquired information.

 

[PokerGuy]

lol. This is a political misstep all right, but the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. Obama's position on this issue is overwhelmingly popular.

Morals and principles are not a popularity contest. You have them, you live by them, and you fight for them, popular or not. The concept of freedom of religion is worth defending. I wouldn't expect you to understand that though, you're a liberal.

 

[actuarial]

If the institution has an issue with it, they can negotiate with their insurance companies to not include that coverage. In other words, it's not part of a government mandate that they MUST provide that coverage. If there is such a mandate, it should be tossed out on the same grounds.

Look, if you have a problem with the 'crazy' beliefs of the institutions, that's fine, but that's NOT what this whole discussion is about. The discussion is not about their beliefs and whether they are hypocritical or justified or not. That's irrelevant. The issue is forcing religious institutions to pay for something that goes against their beliefs.

I don't want to speak for HomerJS, but I think you completely missed the point of his post.

If providing access to contraceptives was a legitimate religious belief, they should not be providing access to contraceptives.

Since there isn't a mandate (that I know of) to provide for vasectomies, any church that provides them is doing it optionally, and therefore has no reasonable argument against providing birth control pills.

 

[Ausm]

1) that's baloney, they'll still have to pay for it. The insurance company isn't doing it for free. If they have to provide coverage for something, it's going to be included in the premiums. That's just smoke and mirrors.

2) That's not how this started out. The turtle and his minions only changed their tune when it blew up in their face and turned into a big political misstep, then they started trying to "work things out" -- that's what they should have done to begin with, but I would only expect that from actual leaders.

1)The insurance company pays for the birth control pills 100% so why isn't that good enough?

2) who the hell is turtle?

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't want to speak for HomerJS, but I think you completely missed the point of his post.

If providing access to contraceptives was a legitimate religious belief, they should not be providing access to contraceptives.

It's not up to you or I to decide the tenets of their beliefs, or to determine what should or should not be allowed. That's up to them. That's the concept of freedom. Your argument that "hey, they allow this so they should be OK with that" has no merit, it's pointless to argue what someone's beliefs should be.

 

[PokerGuy]

1)The insurance company pays for the birth control pills 100% so why isn't that good enough?

2) who the hell is turtle?

1) Does the magical unicorn pay for it? Do you think those companies are going to be paying it out of the goodness of their hearts? Someone has to pay for it, and we all know it has to ultimately come from those paying the premiums.

2) the turtle that was placed on the post (ie the guy in the white house).

 

[fskimospy]

So exactly who does pay for it? Sorry, I haven't really been following this story.

The insurance company must provide it free of charge. While sure you could make the case that the premiums the Catholic organization are paying will support it anyway, by that logic, because money is fungible, everyone in America is in some way contributing to just about everything else.

ie: Pokerguy is acting ridiculous.

 

[actuarial]

It's not up to you or I to decide the tenets of their beliefs, or to determine what should or should not be allowed. That's up to them. That's the concept of freedom. Your argument that "hey, they allow this so they should be OK with that" has no merit, it's pointless to argue what someone's beliefs should be.

I never argued what their beliefs should be, I argued that they directly act against what they claim their beliefs to be.

There are already tons of limits on freedom of religion the moment you decide to employ people. I don't see how this is any different.

 

[fskimospy]

Morals and principles are not a popularity contest. You have them, you live by them, and you fight for them, popular or not. The concept of freedom of religion is worth defending. I wouldn't expect you to understand that though, you're a liberal.

lol. truly, the freedom of religion in America is under attack when Catholic entities must allow their employees to voluntarily receive free contraception from a third party.

Tyranny has arrived at our shores. God, sometimes I love the right wing culture of victimhood.

 

[CallMeJoe]

1) Does the magical unicorn pay for it? Do you think those companies are going to be paying it out of the goodness of their hearts? Someone has to pay for it, and we all know it has to ultimately come from those paying the premiums.

You do realize that insurance coverage of contraception actually reduces expenses for the insurance company? Pregnancy and childbirth are damned expensive. Contraception more than pays for itself.

2) the turtle that was placed on the post (ie the guy in the white house).

I thought that idiot pilot had stopped posting in P&N...

 

[Lemon law]

Well at Least Dr. Champion of Calvin college might be remotely qualified academically.

Until one reads about the policies of Calvin College is is examined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_College

Actually quite a liberal arts college, translation no science curriculum, and its main competitive academic qualification is that has won some college competitions with its women singing groups. Or you can read Calvin College's operating policies regarding civil rights and free speech policies to see Dr. Champion has no credibility as a cross section of US females.

 

[Ausm]

1) Does the magical unicorn pay for it? Do you think those companies are going to be paying it out of the goodness of their hearts? Someone has to pay for it, and we all know it has to ultimately come from those paying the premiums.

2) the turtle that was placed on the post (ie the guy in the white house).

1)Whoever isn't employed by a Catholic institution would pay for it...Do you understand how insurance works?

2)Well that's much better then what I called Bush.

 

[crashtestdummy]

You do realize that insurance coverage of contraception actually reduces expenses for the insurance company? Pregnancy and childbirth are damned expensive. Contraception more than pays for itself.

I thought that idiot pilot had stopped posting in P&N...

This. Note that you haven't heard a peep from the insurance companies. Them being required to provide generic BC pills makes everything cheaper for the church (assuming the difference actually gets passed to them directly or indirectly). This isn't a matter of churches funding a procedure, it's effectively paying the churches to allow their employees to use birth control.

 

[FaaR]

IMO opinion and obviously others she was not qualified.

You have no idea if she actually was qualified or not. Nor do the opinions of these other people mean she actually was unqualified; they could very easily have been knee-jerking on general principle to prevent her from appearing at the hearing.

 

[theeedude]

When is Reid bringing the Blunt amendment up for a vote?

 

[Ausm]

When is Reid bringing the Blunt amendment up for a vote?

I just heard next Tuesday...This should be good! 😉

 

[fskimospy]

I am excited by the way that the protectors of child rapists are trying to lecture Obama on morality. It's pretty fantastic.

 

[zinfamous]

the republican war on women's health continues.

sad.