• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Separation of church and state on birth control

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,739
4,602
126
This is going to backfire on GOP. They are going to lose women's votes. I guess they didn't get the message after the Komen mess.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
By setting guidelines for religious organizations, isn't the government promoting a centralized religion? Or rather a form of centralized religion?
Just the opposite. They are saying that, just because you are a religious organization, you are not allowed special exemptions to a law that every other employers is bound to.

While they're at it, they should get rid of their tax exempt status also. There is very little doubt that the smaller churches are putting most/all of their money back into the communities they serve. However, some of the megachurches and larger subsets (ie the RCC) are pocketing huge amounts for themselves.

There should be a requirement that they should have to prove that they have to show proof that 90% has gone for charitable work instead of the preacher's multi-million dollar house, a private jet and multiple cars.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,243
5
76
Because the federal government has no business mandating this on a national level.

Please tell me why a personal choice should be subsidized. Maybe government should mandate that employers pay for employees cigarettes.

The more I read about the health care law and the changes that will be implemented in the future the more I am convinced this is a very bad idea. I think what this is creating is a new financial system, one where instead of cash being the currency, the currency is health. When you start talking about health care exchanges for trading of benefits , insurance companies will become the new banks. Instead of focusing on making it more affordable we are looking at how to finance the cost via insurance.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
This issue really has nothing to do with "woman's health", freedom of religion, or access to birth control rather the rights of any business to decide what benefits they will provide to an employee.

Don't know where the "progressives" got this idea that things, especially those involving choice (like sex) should be subsidized by everyone else.

So an employer provides a health plan that doesn't cover birth control, does that limit access to birth control? Nope.
Bull. There are many reasons besides contraception that women take birth control. Sometimes, there are even medical reasons why a woman should avoid pregnancy. My wife is epileptic, and her medications would do some very nasty things to her and a fetus during an unplanned pregnancy. If I worked for one of those institutions, I'd damn sure want it covered - and I'm catholic! As far as your last statement there, it most certainly does limit access to birth control. You cannot blind yourself to that economic reality. For many people, if their employer provided health insurance doesn't cover it, they often go without despite the risks. You want to remove this from the equation, make birth control available over the counter...
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,148
1
76
Since how is having BC on insurance a subsidy?

We are conflating issues here in an attempt to get a moral ground on something that is not really assailable in the context it was originally presented.

IOW, there is nothing wrong with the health care requirement, so poo is being flung at it in hopes that something will stick, making it possible to criticize the poo.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I disagree with zinfamous' statement as much as you do, but lets not bring unions into this. It isn't relevant, and neither is tax-exempt status.

Yeah, that is what I was attempting to show via unions. Tax status is irrelevant to this and is simply a way of trying to shift the conversation.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Did the employees know they would not receive contraceptives via their health care policy when they asked for a job?
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
8,204
2,102
136
Why didn't they make the law so that all insurance had to cover BC as opposed to the employer having to buy the option? If it was required that all insurance cover BC, this would really be a moot point.
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
8,204
2,102
136
Did the employees know they would not receive contraceptives via their health care policy when they asked for a job?
It is hard as hell to get most employers to give you any information about health benefits before starting. When they do provide information it comes in the form of a single page summary. The fact that BC is not covered is usually buried much deeper than the little summary table.

In my city every hospital is catholic ran, so if you are an ER nurse you are SOL.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The White House is expected to announce as early as Friday a plan to accommodate religious organizations and others that are opposed to a new policy requiring contraceptive coverage for employees.

A senior adviser to President Obama confirmed to Fox News that there will be an "accommodation" -- but advisers said the announcement does not represent a "compromise."
The move comes as several prominent Democratic lawmakers have urged the Obama administration to reconsider its position, which some consider an infringement of religious freedom. Vice President Biden said in an interview a day earlier that he was "determined" to work out the dispute.

Biden is among a string of Catholic administration officials who reportedly voiced concerns with the policy as it was being hashed out.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-on-contraceptive-policy/#ixzz1lzmA16jb

Wow, even Biden did not agree with Obama on this. That is a pretty big issue, considering a bunch of Dems are also in the Biden camp.

With the pending loss of a lot of Catholic support in the upcoming election, I expected Obama to change his stance. It appears he will be giving a religious exemption to the rule. The administration is correct, it is not a compromise. A compromise is when both sides give something. I applaud this change of heart by Obama, even if it was done for the wrong reasons.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Why didn't they make the law so that all insurance had to cover BC as opposed to the employer having to buy the option? If it was required that all insurance cover BC, this would really be a moot point.

Many companies are self insured, so they would be able to get around this rule. I suspect this was the reason.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It is hard as hell to get most employers to give you any information about health benefits before starting. When they do provide information it comes in the form of a single page summary. The fact that BC is not covered is usually buried much deeper than the little summary table.
Hmmm...good point. It has been awhile since I changed jobs and forgot about that.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,898
4,019
136
This is going to backfire on GOP. They are going to lose women's votes. I guess they didn't get the message after the Komen mess.
Well, when you have no economy game, got to pull out the old culture war cards,
 
Last edited:

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
<snip> You want to remove this from the equation, make birth control available over the counter...
I'm all for that.

The religious wing nuts have screwed us all in this country regarding this point.

Get rid of all abstinence only education. It doesn't work and only makes the problems associated with having sex much worse.

All birth control pills, morning after pills, mifeprestone and misoprostol all to be over the counter medications. Make it a mandatory class that everyone in both middle school and high school goes through as part of their education on how to USE those pills correctly. Allow generics of all those pills on the market because they are now over the counter.

Then one can remove the need to have insurance cover the costs of birth control and abortion. Why? Because it won't cost fucking ridiculously too much, and be a pain in the ass to get as it currently is.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,710
20,070
136
I'm all for that.

The religious wing nuts have screwed us all in this country regarding this point.

Get rid of all abstinence only education. It doesn't work and only makes the problems associated with having sex much worse.

All birth control pills, morning after pills, mifeprestone and misoprostol all to be over the counter medications. Make it a mandatory class that everyone in both middle school and high school goes through as part of their education on how to USE those pills correctly. Allow generics of all those pills on the market because they are now over the counter.

Then one can remove the need to have insurance cover the costs of birth control and abortion. Why? Because it won't cost fucking ridiculously too much, and be a pain in the ass to get as it currently is.
A lot of women have issues of one form or another with birth control, it usually takes several different ones to find the one that works well. I'm not sure if having people try to figure that out for themselves is a good idea.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Did the employees know they would not receive contraceptives via their health care policy when they asked for a job?
Not necessarily. Many states already have this as a required part of employee benefits.

Besides, a more important question would be how many people would turn down a job, especially in this economy, based on bc not being included in a benefits package... Employees don't have any real leverage to negotiate beyond the standard benefits package.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,284
0
0
LOL - Obama is an idiot.
So the charity/church won't have to pay for birth control rather the insurance company.

Where exactly does Obama think that the insurance company gets the money to pay for the birth control.

What a joke.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
And what does that have to do with overreaching federal mandates?
Nothing. My point in that post was only that many people that work for Catholic institutions may not be aware of any exclusions in their policy for bc despite the institution being catholic. It is not a reasonable assumption to state that just because someone works for a catholic institution that they are aware such an exclusion exists in their policy. It had nothing to do with any opinion on the scope of the policy.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,739
4,602
126
LOL - Obama is an idiot.
So the charity/church won't have to pay for birth control rather the insurance company.

Where exactly does Obama think that the insurance company gets the money to pay for the birth control.

What a joke.
It's a regulation of insurance, not church. Just like if regulations required health insurance to cover blood transfusions that Jehova's witnesses object to, it would not be an infringement on anyone's religious rights, just a reasonable regulation to cover actual health care.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY