Senate defeats limits on Birth control coverage

[Ausm]

I wonder what wedge issue the hard right is going after next? Maybe repeal a woman's right to vote? That sounds like a Political winner!

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_n...enate-defeats-limit-on-birth-control-coverage

 

[dank69]

I wonder what wedge issue the hard right is going after next? Maybe repeal a woman's right to vote? That sounds like a Political winner!

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_n...enate-defeats-limit-on-birth-control-coverage

Huh. I guess I will miss Snowe.

 

[Ausm]

Huh. I guess I will miss Snowe.

She voted in favor of tabling it that must have pissed off the hardline Right Wingers. :awe:

 

[dank69]

She voted in favor of tabling it that must have pissed off the hardline Right Wingers. :awe:

51-48 so her vote won it, you know they are pissed.

 

[The-Noid]

From a fiscal perspective, I side with the conservatives, however how do they continually get themselves into these horribly stupid issues.

As much as I hate to say it, the Republicans seem more inclined to want to cater to what seems like a small and fairly crazy base. I will give it to the democrats in that there are only about 10 or senators that really play hard to the liberal base.

How on earth could the GOP even get 45 votes on such a stupid bill? Long-term these types of decisions are going to alienate a large portion of the middle to appease what is an extremely conservative (both religious and fiscal) base.

 

[Ausm]

From a fiscal perspective, I side with the conservatives, however how do they continually get themselves into these horribly stupid issues.

As much as I hate to say it, the Republicans seem more inclined to want to cater to what seems like a small and fairly crazy base. I will give it to the democrats in that there are only about 10 or senators that really play hard to the liberal base.

How on earth could the GOP even get 45 votes on such a stupid bill? Long-term these types of decisions are going to alienate a large portion of the middle to appease what is an extremely conservative (both religious and fiscal) base.

I agree totally and I waiting with bated breath for one to be swooping down on this thread at any moment.

 

[Fern]

51-48 so her vote won it, you know they are pissed.

I don't think so. I could be wrong. But 50/49 still gives the majority to the 'No's".

(I'm curious who didn't vote?)

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

I agree totally and I waiting with baited breath for one to be swooping down on this thread at any moment.

Minnows? Worms? Crickets?

I await your reply with bated breath...

 

[Ausm]

Minnows? Worms? Crickets?

I await your reply with bated breath...

Spell checker failure?

Thx Spelling Nazi....

 

[Fern]

From a fiscal perspective, I side with the conservatives, however how do they continually get themselves into these horribly stupid issues.

As much as I hate to say it, the Republicans seem more inclined to want to cater to what seems like a small and fairly crazy base. I will give it to the democrats in that there are only about 10 or senators that really play hard to the liberal base.

How on earth could the GOP even get 45 votes on such a stupid bill? Long-term these types of decisions are going to alienate a large portion of the middle to appease what is an extremely conservative (both religious and fiscal) base.

I can't be bothered to research the specifics of this bill, it may have undesirable parts, but I think the larger issue of the 1st amendment is valid.

I'm not a Catholic nor do I oppose contraceptives, but I don't think the US govt should be easily allowed to force a religious group to violate it's religious beliefs.

Just because the ever-helpful-to-Obama media want to portray this as something other than a 1st amendment doesn't mean that's how the people will see it.

There are about 70 million Catholics in the USA IIRC. I think they see it as a 1st amend issue. Most of the other non-Catholic denominations see it that way too and support the Catholics.

This will NOT be dropping out of the news anytime soon as several states' AG's have joined together to file suit based upon the 1st. I don't see the Catholics or other religions dropping it either.

Aside from the (objective) issue of the 1st, there is a lot of politics to be mined here. I think it too early to see how that may play out. Those in a (faux?) rage over this screaming about "women rights" etc were always firmly in the Obama camp anyway. The Repubs lose nothing there politically. Most important to the election is how the indies see this, and it's too to tell IMO.

Fern

 

[lopri]

It's only 8 pages if you're interested -> Blunt Amendment (PDF)

The problematic part starts in page 5, section (2)(B):

FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.— Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. (emphasis mine)

I don't know how this can even be enforced in real world. Imagine a corporation with many many stock holders (including, say, some billionaire prince from middle eastern country). Who gets to assert on which religious/moral authority? A CEO? Or each regional headquarter? Do they have to vote in a shareholder meeting? Wouldn't that still violate individuals' religious beliefs or moral convictions? What if Walgreens' moral conviction (adopted by shareholders) conflict with that of a pharmacist employee? Whose conviction prevails?

 

[Jhhnn]

I can't be bothered to research the specifics of this bill, it may have undesirable parts, but I think the larger issue of the 1st amendment is valid.

I'm not a Catholic nor do I oppose contraceptives, but I don't think the US govt should be easily allowed to force a religious group to violate it's religious beliefs.

Just because the ever-helpful-to-Obama media want to portray this as something other than a 1st amendment doesn't mean that's how the people will see it.

There are about 70 million Catholics in the USA IIRC. I think they see it as a 1st amend issue. Most of the other non-Catholic denominations see it that way too and support the Catholics.

This will NOT be dropping out of the news anytime soon as several states' AG's have joined together to file suit based upon the 1st. I don't see the Catholics or other religions dropping it either.

Aside from the (objective) issue of the 1st, there is a lot of politics to be mined here. I think it too early to see how that may play out. Those in a (faux?) rage over this screaming about "women rights" etc were always firmly in the Obama camp anyway. The Repubs lose nothing there politically. Most important to the election is how the indies see this, and it's too to tell IMO.

Fern

You're all wet. The vast majority of Catholics use birth control in contravention of Church policy. It's the hierarchy that has their panties in a knot, not the rank & file. And Repubs lose a lot on the issue. Look at the furor over Komen's pandering to the Right Wing wrt PP. It's Elian Gonzales & Terri Schiavo all over again.

It's not like any religious organization is forced to run outside businesses, at all. They can divest any time they want. Hospitals only lose money on paper, if at all, and they provide employment for Catholic orders, as well. So the hierarchy has a choice- if they can't take the heat, they can get out of the kitchen. The rank & file won't care either way, but I rather suspect that a majority likes the idea of contraception being a covered service under the new health insurance plan, as do insurors. The Church makes enough money off it all that they'll probably choke it down... particularly with hte set-aside they've already been allowed.

They can handle it, if they don't back themselves into a corner first. Check out the convoluted logic used wrt ectopic pregnancy-

http://johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf

You can't just remove the embryo, because that would be killing it, but you can remove the fallopian tube or part with the embryo inside, knowing it will die...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Giving women the right to vote is giving married men two votes.

I'm for it.

 

[Fern]

It's only 8 pages if you're interested -> Blunt Amendment (PDF)

The problematic part starts in page 5, section (2)(B):



I don't know how this can even be enforced in real world. Imagine a corporation with many many stock holders (including, say, some billionaire prince from middle eastern country). Who gets to assert on which religious/moral authority? A CEO? Or each regional headquarter? Do they have to vote in a shareholder meeting? Wouldn't that still violate individuals' religious beliefs or moral convictions? What if Walgreens' moral conviction (adopted by shareholders) conflict with that of a pharmacist employee? Whose conviction prevails?

Firstly, I agree that the term "moral convictions" is problematic. I scanned the link you provided and didn't see it defined, nor see any reference to such a definition elsewhere in federal code. Undefined terms in law are problematic and are guaranteed to create litigation.

I also question whether "moral convictions" is covered under the 1st Amendment.

As to whether this "moral convictions" can be argued by a secular corporation, IDK. Personally, I have a problem extending morals to a (regular) corporation because IMO they are by definition amoral. Nor do I think the "moral convictions" aspect could be extended downstream to shareholder. Perhaps that's a bias due to my profession in tax law. Corps are quite simply separate entities. I see no basis for considering the moral convictions of any officer either. But that's just my opinion and one I don't think we'll see tested.

I do think this particular bill a poor piece of legislation. I simply see no reason to insert the "moral convictions" part. However, that does not change my opinion of the larger issue at question.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You're all wet. The vast majority of Catholics use birth control in contravention of Church policy. It's the hierarchy that has their panties in a knot, not the rank & file. And Repubs lose a lot on the issue. Look at the furor over Komen's pandering to the Right Wing wrt PP. It's Elian Gonzales & Terri Schiavo all over again.

It's not like any religious organization is forced to run outside businesses, at all. They can divest any time they want. Hospitals only lose money on paper, if at all, and they provide employment for Catholic orders, as well. So the hierarchy has a choice- if they can't take the heat, they can get out of the kitchen. The rank & file won't care either way, but I rather suspect that a majority likes the idea of contraception being a covered service under the new health insurance plan, as do insurors. The Church makes enough money off it all that they'll probably choke it down... particularly with hte set-aside they've already been allowed.

They can handle it, if they don't back themselves into a corner first. Check out the convoluted logic used wrt ectopic pregnancy-

http://johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf

You can't just remove the embryo, because that would be killing it, but you can remove the fallopian tube or part with the embryo inside, knowing it will die...

1. You want to link me up with something that says currently practicing Catholics use BC in huge numbers? I ask because the polls I saw asked if they had EVER used BC (i.e., even once, or even before they became Catholic). Those are two different things. You might as well force Southern Baptists to subsidize alcoholic beverage or porno purchases under that line of argument.

2. Just because someone uses them doesn't mean they approve of the US govt forcing religious organization to do things against their religious beliefs. E.g., I think contraceptives are great, but I don't support forcing it on them because I understand it's been part of their religious beliefs for a very long time.

3. No, religious organizations aren't forced to run a business. However, many such businesses are part of their mission, whether it's feeding the poor or helping the sick. These by necessity require employees. Precluding them from engaging in missions they feel, legitimately IMO, are part of their faith is a violation of the 1st. You are preventing them from fully practicing their religion.

Thus, the 'if you don't like, don't do it' is a false choice, and one that can be (mis)used to persecute certain religions.

As much as I like bacon, and I think it's good policy that all hospitals serve bacon (my state is a huge pork producer) I wouldn't support making Muslim hospitals offer it on their menu and just them tell "if you don't like get out of the hospital business".

We could find little 'rules' meaningless to us as a whole yet one-by-one we could force all religions out of hospitals etc. Because we aren't killing them all off in one fell swoop doesn't mean we aren't persecuting them.

Religious organization don't have any fewer rights than others. If others can operate hospitals etc, so can they. However, under the Constitution religions do have 'extra' protection from govt. We've long recognized that and religions have had other exemptions from law, whether it involves HC (IIRC, some children are exempt from immunization shots that are otherwise mandatory) or mandatory participation in the Social Security program (IIRC, the Amish are exempt due to religious belief).

Fern

 

[Tom]

Catholics or any other religious group are free to build hospitals and deny any service they want. Just pay for it all themselves.

Let's talk about the REAL issue. Using tax revenues collected from EVERYONE to enforce a particular set of religious rules.

 

[Fern]

Catholics or any other religious group are free to build hospitals and deny any service they want. Just pay for it all themselves.

Um. No. That's the discussion.

Let's talk about the REAL issue. Using tax revenues collected from EVERYONE to enforce a particular set of religious rules.

How much money are they receiving from the US govt?

Fern

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Did i mention the fail going on in this thread... I think I did.


So much couching everything in terms of religion vs. the state.

The real question is of tyranny vs. freedom.

 

[lopri]

As to whether this "moral convictions" can be argued by a secular corporation, IDK. Personally, I have a problem extending morals to a (regular) corporation because IMO they are by definition amoral. Nor do I think the "moral convictions" aspect could be extended downstream to shareholder.

Fern

That's another serious issue raised by this bill. It is extremely vague who/what exactly this bill attempts to protect. The bill mentions;

insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, (page 2, emphasis mine)

any actual or prospective plan sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering a plan, any actual or prospective purchaser or beneficiary of a plan, and any individual or institutional health care provider (page 7, emphasis mine)

Really, it's hard to discern whose conscience the bill set out to protect. At a minimum it should apply to the following groups:

1. Institutional providers (e.g. church-affiliated hospitals)
2. Individual Doctors/Nurses
3. Employers who provide insurance policies for employees (definitely corporations)
4. Insurance companies who cover the cost of treatments
5. Middleman who could be anyone/anything (e.g. a paramedic driving ambulances)

But the actual languages in the bill ("other stakeholders"? "prospective" sponsor? "prospective" purchaser or beneficiary?) are so ambiguous to the point of un-enforceability that it only leaves an impression that GOP is engaging in yet another obstructionism, under the disguise of the 1st amendment.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

This is the definition of a steak-holder:

Stakeholders are EVERYONE EVERYWHERE. I'm a stakeholders in everything because the world is inter-connected.

 

[Jhhnn]

1. You want to link me up with something that says currently practicing Catholics use BC in huge numbers? I ask because the polls I saw asked if they had EVER used BC (i.e., even once, or even before they became Catholic). Those are two different things. You might as well force Southern Baptists to subsidize alcoholic beverage or porno purchases under that line of argument.

2. Just because someone uses them doesn't mean they approve of the US govt forcing religious organization to do things against their religious beliefs. E.g., I think contraceptives are great, but I don't support forcing it on them because I understand it's been part of their religious beliefs for a very long time.

3. No, religious organizations aren't forced to run a business. However, many such businesses are part of their mission, whether it's feeding the poor or helping the sick. These by necessity require employees. Precluding them from engaging in missions they feel, legitimately IMO, are part of their faith is a violation of the 1st. You are preventing them from fully practicing their religion.

Thus, the 'if you don't like, don't do it' is a false choice, and one that can be (mis)used to persecute certain religions.

As much as I like bacon, and I think it's good policy that all hospitals serve bacon (my state is a huge pork producer) I wouldn't support making Muslim hospitals offer it on their menu and just them tell "if you don't like get out of the hospital business".

We could find little 'rules' meaningless to us as a whole yet one-by-one we could force all religions out of hospitals etc. Because we aren't killing them all off in one fell swoop doesn't mean we aren't persecuting them.

Religious organization don't have any fewer rights than others. If others can operate hospitals etc, so can they. However, under the Constitution religions do have 'extra' protection from govt. We've long recognized that and religions have had other exemptions from law, whether it involves HC (IIRC, some children are exempt from immunization shots that are otherwise mandatory) or mandatory participation in the Social Security program (IIRC, the Amish are exempt due to religious belief).

Fern

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/kristof-beyond-pelvic-politics.html

2. Read 1. We ban polygamy, don't we? Human & animal sacrifice? Child marriage? Wife beating? Marital rape? Those & other things are all "deep seated religious beliefs" somewhere in the world.

3. Read 1. Bacon? Puh-leeze. It's not like that, it's like hospitals refusing to serve food.

The best part abut all of this is that it's coming from the same quarter that got all goofy about a mosque being built near the site of the WTC... Righties don't just flipflop seamlessly, they do so without even realizing as they follow their authoritarian herd mentality.

 

[lopri]

problem solved.

Reported

 

[Jhhnn]

But the actual languages in the bill ("other stakeholders"? "prospective" sponsor? "prospective" purchaser or beneficiary?) are so ambiguous to the point of un-enforceability that it only leaves an impression that GOP is engaging in yet another obstructionism, under the disguise of the 1st amendment.

Well, despite Repubs' best efforts, the economy is apparently improving, so they're desperate for issues of distraction & obfuscation, particularly anything that looks like a wedge. I'm sure they got Catholic Bishops' votes, but that won't make up for what they're losing wrt women in general.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Giving women the right to vote is giving married men two votes.

I'm for it.

Say what. I have never asked my wife who she voted for . She has told me . But I have never asked . I know she WAS a dem-on because her parents were, But she independent now. Neither one of us have been involved in polatics. she did serve 1 term as council person. But I insisted she resigned when she showed me the fiscal budget . We both new it was a lie and fraud and or money was embezzlement. I went to that meeting she resigned and threw their fiscal budget in their faces calling them liars and theives . About 1 year latter . $50,000 embesslement was found by the state . Yet NO charges were brought. 5 years later another $25,000 was embezzlement was found again outside of the village officals . This time they brought charges against the Woman . Who served 0 jail time . Justice my ass. But it did cause some old council members to rerun for election so as to better cover up their dirty little deeds. I got involved this year . But really isn't about politics . I wanted to see how the system works so far I can tell you its not good . But I only at county delegate level will see how this actually works . Their are just to many of us Paul delegates In MN for them to be stupid enough to try and pull something . Yes delegates do talk together so as to keep track of whats going on . In my state no ID required . We can change that at the delegate county level at our next caucus. There are 3 members of the county caucus that get to go to nationals all the time . That has to be changed. Delegates that go to nationals pay their own way . We need to make sure the 3 gop county officals PAY THEIR OWN WAY also . NO free ride. MN GOP has a tiger by the tail as we have more county delegates than any . Romney even has more delegates than tricky ricky in MN . A ricky won the state . Not likely. But I seen no election fraud . Voter fraud not sure as I did see many people I did not know . With NO ID check anything is possiable . I will say My state has never voted this consistanly across the counties . This is very odd. We shall see what the spy for we the people discovers.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well, despite Repubs' best efforts, the economy is apparently improving, so they're desperate for issues of distraction & obfuscation, particularly anything that looks like a wedge. I'm sure they got Catholic Bishops' votes, but that won't make up for what they're losing wrt women in general.

Proof that economy is better. Liberal news doesn't cut it anymore. with liberals who have found their sanity. Neo conservatives are far left liberials who have infiltrated the GOP. So we have NO reliable truthful MSM. The real inflation numbers for 2011 was 9% .

Here is example . A liberal speaks first . But I have to admitt this man does represent the majority of DEM_ONS . Than a libertarian . Speaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETvAUhHrbJ8