Sex-Crazed Co-eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control

[Centurion1]

This is so annoying.

We should all be ignoring Lemur. He is throwing around arguments using "evidence" and examples which are frankly absurd and worthless. He ignores certain basic facts in defense of his ideas. And now he throws race into the equation. Absolutely classless approach.

[Lemur]

Could you please stop implying that people who criticize Obama are somehow racist?

I'm sorry, I should have gone with Marxist-Leninist anti-capitalist closet muslin who hates America and can't speak without a teleprompter because he is stupid. If only to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities.

It is much more effective than their weak arguments just to scream racism.

I've yet to see you address a single argument put forward in this debate, so you're not really in a position to hyperventilate.

We should all be ignoring Lemur. He is throwing around arguments using "evidence" and examples which are frankly absurd and worthless. He ignores certain basic facts in defense of his ideas.

And you're going to enumerate and clarify on those "basic facts" when, exactly?

Oh looky, I was so wicked as to mention the President's race, so every rightwing Orgah can now scream "victim" at the top of their lungs. We were saying something about crass and tiresome?

[Crazed Rabbit]

And saying something doesn't make it so. The Blunt Amendment, as written, would give any employer exemption from any medical coverage based on his or her "faith." And who decides what constitutes faith? If the Board of Walmart declares that their religion forbids dental care, what recourse would anyone have? It's a matter of faith and religious freedom, thanks to the GOP. You can declare that my hypotheticals are "absurd" all you like, but you also cannot construct a logical argument to defend the Blunt Amendment.

What recourse? Gee, not working for Walmart, not shopping at Walmart, and encouraging other people to not shop at Walmart. I don't see how you can say there's no recourse.

The Blunt amendment defends religious people who don't want to pay for what they consider immoral. Don't like it? Don't work and/or shop there. It should be a free country.

Your possibilities are absurd because they all go far beyond what were talking about; insurance for a willful action by paying for contraception.

Again, the whole reason this is an issue is because of government regulations restricting people's choice of insurance and forcing them to get insurance through their employer. That's the root cause of this.

EDIT: Lemur - just what is the point of saying this, then;

And the conniving president

CR

[Vuk]

I've yet to see you address a single argument put forward in this debate, so you're not really in a position to criticize.

I have not made an argument in this thread except about your posting behavior. Again you demonstrate your mastery of diverting attention from what is inconvenient to you.

And you're going to enumerate and clarify on those "basic facts" when, exactly?

How about I throw one out. You seem to completely ignore the separation of church and state. Religious institutions are tax exempt because of the belief in separation of church and state, and yet you use that as an argument for why churches should do whatever the government wants them to do. Citizens and their government have a give and take relationship, but churches and the government do not. You don't tax 'em, and you don't tell them what to do. Otherwise they turn into a control mechanism for the government.

Oh looky, I was so crass as to mention the President's race, so every rightwing Orgah can now scream "victim" at the top of their lungs. We were saying something about crass and tiresome?

Translation: I was crying victim (for Obama) and people complained that I was doing it, so now I am going to accuse them of crying victim.
Serious Lemur, you need to try some different tactics, because it is getting old.

[Lemur]

Your possibilities are absurd because they all go far beyond what were talking about

I'm not conducting a slippery slope exercise; there is no legal definition of who can and cannot claim whatever they like when it comes to religion. Part of being a free country is that your religious beliefs are whatever you say they are. By linking a permanent insurance waiver to religion, and not restricting it to religious institutions such as churches, synagogues or temples, you're opening up a world of possibilities. See the law of unintended consequences. By supporting this sort of broad waiver, you're inviting the law into the question of what constitutes your religion, what constitutes a legitimate tenet of your religion, etc. It's cracking open an angry wasp's nest of state and religion, and all to score a cheap political point.

If a religion owns a business (exemplum gratum, Rev. Moon and News World Communications), that business should play by the same rules as everyone else. Religious exemptions should only apply to directly religious institutions, as is already enshrined in law. CR, I think part of the issue is you just don't like the current or previous structure of healthcare in this country, and you'd like to see the whole thing re-ordered. Which is a very legitimate perspective, but confusing in the current debate about Catholic Unis and hospitals.

You seem to completely ignore the separation of church and state. Religious institutions are tax exempt because of the belief in separation of church and state, and yet you use that as an argument for why churches should do whatever the government wants them to do.

And you seem to have not read the thread. Quick, what is the practical difference between a church and a business owned by the church?

Lemur - just what is the point of saying this, then;

Since the professional victim class is getting 200 miles per gallon out of the word "," I edited it to read "Marxist." Which will not slow the terminal velocity of their outrage, but may give us some small chance of discussing something besides how victimized and oppressed they are when anyone has the temerity to mention the race of the President.

[Vuk]

What recourse? Gee, not working for Walmart, not shopping at Walmart, and encouraging other people to not shop at Walmart. I don't see how you can say there's no recourse.

The consumer is the greatest enforcer of the people's will. People seem to think the government needs to step in and regulate things, when often times the consumer is by far the best regulator. (which is not to say that there is not need for some government regulation, or that consumer regulation does not have its limits)

[Vuk]

I'm not conducting a slippery slope exercise; there is no legal definition of who can and cannot claim whatever they like when it comes to religion. Part of being a free country is that your religious beliefs are whatever you say they are. By linking a permanent insurance waiver to religion, and not restricting it to religious institutions such as churches, synagogues or temples, you're opening up a world of possibilities. See the law of unintended consequences. By supporting this sort of broad waiver, you're inviting the law into the question of what constitutes your religion, what constitutes a legitimate tenet of your religion, etc. It's cracking open an angry wasp's nest of state and religion, and all to score a cheap political point.

If a religion owns a business, that business should play by the same rules as everyone else. Religious exemptions should only apply to directly religious institutions, as is already enshrined in law. CR, I think part of the issue is you just don't like the current or previous structure of healthcare in this country, and you'd like to see the whole thing re-ordered. Which is a very legitimate perspective, but confusing in the current debate about Catholic Unis and hospitals.


And you seem to have not read the thread. Quick, what is the practical difference between a church and a business owned by the church?

I did read the thread Lemur, and while you made that distinction for other parts of your argument, you did not for that.
What you said came dangerously close to throwing the separation of church and state right out the window.
That said, I would like to point out several things. First of all, I agree with you Lemur that the Blunt amendment would have had unintended consequences and should only apply to religious institutions. That said, as far as religious institutions are involved, the government should have no right to force them to provide health care at all. The government should stay completely out of religion, and an amendment should be made to exempt churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions from the mandate.
The real heart of the problem here is Obamacare and the individual mandate, which should not exist. That said, though it does, there should definitely be exemptions for religious institutions. (whether those exemptions should carry over to the businesses those institutions run or not I really am not sure. I can see the arguments on both sides, and have been convinced either way)

[Lemur]

What you said came dangerously close to throwing the separation of church and state right out the window.

I'm not clear on how I did that. I support tax exemption and all sorts of exemptions for religious institutions. I do not support any exemptions for businesses they happen to own. Nor have I expressed otherwise in this thread.

The real heart of the problem here is Obamacare and the individual mandate, which should not exist.

Well, there are lots of alternatives, but that's what we've got right now. And within that framework, I think having exemptions for religious institutions, but not for their business subsidiaries, is pretty damn fair.

[Vuk]

I'm not clear on how I did that. I support tax exemption and all sorts of exemptions for religious institutions. I do not support any exemptions for businesses they happen to own. Nor have I expressed otherwise in this thread.


Well, there are lots of alternatives, but that's what we've got right now. And within that framework, I think having exemptions for religious institutions, but not for their business subsidiaries, is pretty damn fair.

I would agree with you concerning every business that is meant to make a profit (I am not sure, are religious institutions allowed to run those). If what you mean by business though is a charity, such as a relief organization or non-profit hospital, then I disagree with you, as that is just an extension of that religious institution.

[Lemur]

I would agree with you concerning every business that is meant to make a profit (I am not sure, are religious institutions allowed to run those).

They most certainly are. And it's entirely legal.

If what you mean by business though is a charity, such as a relief organization or non-profit hospital, then I disagree with you, as that is just an extension of that religious institution.

Yeah, that definitely gets a lot trickier. On the one hand, a hospital's business is healing people, so it can be seen as a direct extension of a religious mission. On the other hand, most hospitals generate profits and take serious coin from the state and the Feds. Moreover, most doctors and nurses are not Catholic, so the majority of their staff are not there for religious reasons, and do not operate as an extension of the church. Tricky.

I fall on the side of, "If it ain't a church, it doesn't get a church's special treatment."

[Vuk]

Yeah, that definitely gets a lot trickier. On the one hand, a hospital's business is healing people, so it can be seen as a direct extension of a religious mission. On the other hand, most hospitals generate profits and take serious coin from the state and the Feds. Moreover, the most doctors and nurses are not Catholic, so the majority of their staff are not there for religious reasons, and do not operate as an extension of the church. Tricky.

I fall on the side of, "If it ain't a church, it doesn't get a church's special treatment."

If it is not generating a profit, than the only purpose of its existence is to fulfill a religious, charitable mission. In those cases, I would say exempt that. If non-religious people don't like the terms, they don't have to take the job. If no one is taking the jobs, then the churches will realize they have to change things. Otherwise, then you get people who are ok with the terms. That would seem to me to make the most sense.

[Lemur]

If non-religious people don't like the terms, they don't have to take the job. If no one is taking the jobs, then the churches will realize they have to change things.

That satisfies the employment issue, but does not address the fact that universities and hospitals almost always take state and federal money. And to be honest, I don't think it really satisfies the employment issue. If Saint Vuk's Hospital is allowed to play fast and loose with any number of insurance and tax issues, I do not have supreme faith in the market to sort it out. Healthcare is not and never has been a functioning market.

[Vuk]

That satisfies the employment issue, but does not address the fact that universities and hospitals almost always take state and federal money. And to be honest, I don't think it really satisfies the employment issue. If Saint Vuk's Hospital is allowed to play fast and loose with any number of insurance and tax issues, I do not have supreme faith in the market to sort it out. Healthcare is not and never has been a functioning market.

State money is not the issue, Federal money is. If you are concerned with that, then you can give them the choice between Federal money or their own insurance options.
And who gives a rat's back-side what Saint Vuk's Hospital does with its employment policies if it is not breaking the law and is a non-profit organization?

EDIT: lol

[Lemur]

And who gives a rat's back-side what Saint Vuk's Hospital does with its employment policies if it is breaking the law and is a non-profit organization?

I think you might want to re-phrase that; as it reads now, it's ... odd.

-edit-

Ah, that's clearer. I get your point, but the question of breaking the law is self-reflexive when we're discussing what the law ought to be. I say religious-owned businesses should not get special treatment; you say that as long as they are not-for-profits, they should. We agree to disagree. I think it's safe to say that nobody is trying to stifle religious freedom.

Meanwhile, when the WaPo editorial board says a rightwinger has gone too far, it's worth taking note (especially given that the entire premise of this thread was an uncredited homage to Rushbo):

Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of reaching that audience, need to take special note. [...]

Mr. Limbaugh has abused his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them — and him.

[Rhyfelwyr]

lol at the way some people are using this distinction between religious organisations and religiously-affiliated institutions, as if they are dropping some bombshell on their opponents - the reactionary theocrats that fly off the handle and fail to comprehend such subtleties in their rage.

Whatever.

I completely get that religiously-affiliated institutions are in no way entitled to special treatment when it comes to obeying the law of the land, in this case being particularly concerned with legislation designed to give people relatively basic rights.

Now here's a subtelty you need to consider, Lemur. It is entirely appropriate for people to question how far it is appropriate for such legislation to go, whether their concerns be religious in nature or not.

Now I think that 99.9% of the population would agree that it is appropriate for this legislation to cover concerns that are medical in nature up until a fairly substantial point. What people might start to question is how appropriate it is for this legislation to cover things that are far less medical in nature - and seem in fact to amount to the government using taxpayers money purely to fund recreational activities that many people find morally reprehensible.

I'm perfectly happy to violate the conscience of religiously affiliated institutions when their objections are to such basic things are medical care (since it is appropriate for the government to ensure everyone has access to such things). On the other hand it is absolutely not appropriate to force these institutions to violate their own moral beliefs when the reason for doing so is that the government (or more accurately a certain political party) can promote their own.

Lets face it - one side here framed their arguments in the form of a openly promiscuous young woman whining that the taxpayer wasn't paying for her and her high-flying college friends to have sex.

They were never going to come out on top in this discussion.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If religious people don't want to treat employees right, then they don't have to start a business....

[Rhyfelwyr]

If religious people don't want to treat employees right, then they don't have to start a business....

Who is this addressed to?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who is this addressed to?

No one really. I am sure some one will take offense though.

[Lemur]

lol at the way some people are using this distinction between religious organisations and religiously-affiliated institutions, as if they are dropping some bombshell on their opponents - the reactionary theocrats that fly off the handle and fail to comprehend such subtleties in their rage.

That's a strange way of putting it. The blurring of lines between churches and their businesses has been the core of the GOP argument for why a relatively obscure insurance rule is a War on Religion. If anything, in this thread, I've had to hammer the distinction five or six times before anyone could be bothered to note it. I don't think that's a failure of comprehension; that's willfully ignoring a distinction that wasn't convenient to the outrage and look-at-the-stupid-sluts line of humor that constituted the first page of this thread.

It is entirely appropriate for people to question how far it is appropriate for such legislation to go, whether their concerns be religious in nature or not.

Sure, absolutely. We have no disagreement on that.

Now I think that 99.9% of the population would agree that it is appropriate for this legislation to cover concerns that are medical in nature up until a fairly substantial point. What people might start to question is how appropriate it is for this legislation to cover things that are far less medical in nature - and seem in fact to amount to the government using taxpayers money purely to fund recreational activities that many people find morally reprehensible.

Yeah, 'cause reproductive health concerns are recreational in nature. And a bunch of dudes are fit to make that judgement, rather than the stupid sluts. Oh, wait, you're getting to that ...

Lets face it - one side here framed their arguments in the form of a openly promiscuous young woman whining that the taxpayer wasn't paying for her and her high-flying college friends to have sex.

They were never going to come out on top in this discussion.

So not only do we have a Stupid Sluts argument, we cap it with "that was a dumb move, she looked bad, the Dems came out on the bottom so phooey" thing.

Problems with that argument: (1) The stupid slut has garnered far more public sympathy than you acknowledge. As a GOP lawmaker put it today, "Rush’s attempt to increase his ratings and get noticed again do hurt Republicans. Beating up on a college student is not good optics, and refocusing on her argument that this is about contraception [...] is simply not very helpful to the cause.”

(2) The rightwing bomb thrower who framed this entire thing as "sluts and prostitutes" is feeling the heat, and has come as close to apologizing as a demagogue can, and (3) you are a dude declaring that birth control is not basic healthcare. Which puts you off the reservation with just about any medical group anywhere.

I think the fact that most of the rightwing Orgahs just plain want Obamacare gone is making this more of a quagmire than it needs to be. Do any of you really think this is an assault on religious freedom? Seriously? I mean, I know that's the talking point, but you don't actually believe that bullhockey, do you?

[Strike For The South]

State money is not the issue, Federal money is. If you are concerned with that, then you can give them the choice between Federal money or their own insurance options.
And who gives a rat's back-side what Saint Vuk's Hospital does with its employment policies if it is not breaking the law and is a non-profit organization?

EDIT: lol

State money is still government money and is therefore part of the issue.

Places like Georgetown university should not be governed under the same rules as a church

Now what we should and shouldn't be governing is another issue

But this ceased being an issue when these places became buisnesses

And for the last time RHY For birth control to work you have to continually taking it. Yes she could've been banging 10 dudes a day or she could've been in a committed relationship only sleeping with one man or even still she could have not been having sex at all.

Anyone who calls this woman a slut doesn't understand birth control and is simply parroting b grade teen comedy

[Vuk]

State money is still government money and is therefore part of the issue.

Places like Georgetown university should not be governed under the same rules as a church

Now what we should and shouldn't be governing is another issue

But this ceased being an issue when these places became buisnesses

And for the last time RHY For birth control to work you have to continually taking it. Yes she could've been banging 10 dudes a day or she could've been in a committed relationship only sleeping with one man or even still she could have not been having sex at all.

Anyone who calls this woman a slut doesn't understand birth control and is simply parroting b grade teen comedy

No, state money is not an issue. You may argue that taking state money makes your obliged to your State, and that you then have to obey its decrees, but it does not make you obliged to the Federal government. We are talking here about Federal law.

[Lemur]

No, state money is not an issue.

And yet 26 states already require religious-affiliated businesses to insure birth control. That's 26 wars on religion that we're not paying attention to! Why should the states get a free pass for oppressing Saint Vuk's Hospital?

[Vuk]

And yet 26 states already require religious-affiliated businesses to insure birth control. That's 26 wars on religion that we're not paying attention to! Why should the states get a free pass for oppressing Saint Vuk's Hospital?

That is not the issue at hand, Federal law is. Just as I said with the Federal level though, the same applies to the State. If you State requires that, then don't accept the money, or accept the money and comply. Your choice. If your State does not require it, then State money is not an issue.

[Lemur]

If you State requires that, then don't accept the money, or accept the money and comply. Your choice. If your State does not require it, then State money is not an issue.

Hmm, I see what you are saying, but doesn't it strike you as odd that the majority of states already require birth control insurance of religious-affiliated businesses, but we never heard about it before? Somehow the Catholic Church and the Republican Party were okay with everything until now?

I think the truth of the matter is that the GOP wants to take down Obamacare any way they can, and chose to craft this minor quibble into a Freedom of Religion battle. And the Church, like a patsy, fell in with it. And now the issue is playing to the public as an attack on a settled issue of reproductive health, and it ain't going so well. As once (very) conservative columnist put it yesterday:

Finally, the less said about contraception the better, a lesson Santorum refused to learn. It’s a settled question. The country has no real desire for cringe-inducing admonitions from politicians about libertinism and procreative (vs. pleasurable) sex.

[Vuk]

Hmm, I see what you are saying, but doesn't it strike you as odd that the majority of states already require birth control insurance of religious-affiliated businesses, but we never heard about it before? Somehow the Catholic Church and the Republican Party were okay with everything until now?

I think the truth of the matter is that the GOP wants to take down Obamacare any way they can, and chose to craft this minor quibble into a Freedom of Religion battle. And the Church, like a patsy, fell in with it. And now the issue is playing to the public as an attack on a settled issue of reproductive health, and it ain't going so well. As once (very) conservative columnist put it yesterday:

Finally, the less said about contraception the better, a lesson Santorum refused to learn. It’s a settled question. The country has no real desire for cringe-inducing admonitions from politicians about libertinism and procreative (vs. pleasurable) sex.

Many in the GOP do see it as a way to defeat Obamacare I am sure, but I think it gets down more fundamentally to an issue of State's rights. There is a significant train of thought that the Federal government needs to keep its hands off religion completely, but State governments are not as restricted. Personally, I believe that the Founders meant the Federal government to protect religion from State governments as well, but whatever.

That said, why are you surprised that it has not been a national uproar when it has not been a national issue? When the Federal government mandates something, it is a national issue and there is often a national uproar. When a state government mandates something it is a state issue, and if people in the state care about it, there can be a statewide uproar over the law.

[Lemur]

That said, why are you surprised that it has not been a national uproar when it has not been a national issue?

I would call something mandated by 26 states a national issue, in much the same way that a small handful of states allowing gay marriage or legalized marijuana has been a national issue. Also, nobody in the GOP, the conservative media complex or the Catholic Church has been pitching this as a States Rights issue. It's been freedom of religion (or sluts and prostitutes) straight down the line.

[Hosakawa Tito]

So the wily, rascally Obama administration somehow lured Republicans into holding all-male birth control hearings with Issa. And the conniving president also secretly convinced the GOP to write and support the Blunt Amendment. WE ARE ALL UNDER HIS SPELL!


I'm sorry, have you been forced to change your health plan? Has anyone you know?


Yes, I've really noticed the forced collectivization lately, the elimination or private enterprise, the millions of people forced onto collective farms where they starve because of misallocation of resources. Clearly Obama is JUST LIKE the Khmer Rouge, except with a little less mass murder. (OR MAYBE NOT!)


Hosa, I love you man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere, and you haven't even read this thread. I have responded to this point at length. (Hint: What's the difference between a religious institution and a business subsidiary of a religions institution?)

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to. Even the Republican leadership play along and don't have the guts to call the media propaganda machine on it. There are many cheap options out there for birth control. It's not the issue, just a smoke screen to scare women voters to vote Democrat. No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything. Nor the authority to mandate a private business sell a product/service, nor set the price for it. This power grab and end run with the Commerce clause is illegitimate as stated in the link I provided. Do people actually believe that an insurance company is going to provide, at no cost, any service? Where do insurance companies get their money from?

When does this health mandate start for everyone to be required to buy health insurance? 2014 is the correct answer. Get back to me then about changing your health-care provider.

Lem, love ya man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere.

[Lemur]

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to.

Making hysterical, apocalyptic claims about the end of private property, free enterprise and capitalism seems to be the typical response from those who have no real argument to put forward. Does it work? Not really.

No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything.

Does the state have a right to demand that you purchase car insurance? Does the state have the right to mandate seat belts in cars? Does the state have the right to demand that you put your child in a car seat? By what right can the Feds build interstate highways?

You say, as though it were an absolute truism, that the state cannot mandate purchase of health insurance. (Even though that was the core of Romneycare and every proposal put forward by the Heritage Foundation until there was a Dem president.) This seems to be the root of your objection, rather than the bogus 1st A religious freedom argument that has been out in front.

This confirms what I have been arguing, that the "assault on religious liberty" is so much hokum and smokescreen, that the real objection on the part of rightwingers is Obamacare itself.

Which casts this all in a rather different light.

[Strike For The South]

Bringing race into the issue whenever there are legitimate criticisms of this president appears to be a typical response from his supporters. Does it work? Sure seems to. Even the Republican leadership play along and don't have the guts to call the media propaganda machine on it. There are many cheap options out there for birth control. It's not the issue, just a smoke screen to scare women voters to vote Democrat. No president from either party, any skin color, any gender has the Constitutional authority to mandate anyone buying anything. Nor the authority to mandate a private business sell a product/service, nor set the price for it. This power grab and end run with the Commerce clause is illegitimate as stated in the link I provided. Do people actually believe that an insurance company is going to provide, at no cost, any service? Where do insurance companies get their money from?

When does this health mandate start for everyone to be required to buy health insurance? 2014 is the correct answer. Get back to me then about changing your health-care provider.

Lem, love ya man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere.

The state manadates you buy many things. It's amazing how many stuanch consitiutionalists have come out of the wordwork post 2008 and by amazing I mean pitiful.

Every president since Washington has pissed on the constitution at one time or another the only logical position of a constitutional absolutisit is liberalterianism

[Vuk]

Being a constitutionalist is a bad thing? Man, you're in the wrong country!