Obama Compromises on Abortion / Santorum against Women in Combat

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Who do women love now?

Again, an example of Obama's pragmatism.

[ljb5]

Abortion?

I don' think that was ever part of the debate.

[S.V. Airlie]

what? No link? Oh right, you don't need to put in a link. We are just supposed to take this at face value.

[ljb5]

what? No link? Oh right, you don't need to put in a link. We are just supposed to take this at face value.

The internet if full of links, Jamie. No one is preventing you from finding them.

Within three minutes of the original post, I knew exactly what he was talking about, found the sources, fact checked it, found his error and responded.

Why can't you do the same? Why must everyone spoon feed information to you?

[Concordia 33]

When is a compromise not a compromise. When you can tell an employer that they are no longer required to include birth control in their health plan, but their health plan must still offer it for free. Isn't this effectively the same, we are just playing with the words a little. Maybe they are just trying to insulate themselves from an easy Supreme Court Challenge, but I don't really see a "compromise" in this. Can someone please explain to me how this is a compromise?

[ljb5]

When is a compromise not a compromise. When you can tell an employer that they are no longer required to include birth control in their health plan, but their health plan must still offer it for free. Isn't this effectively the same, we are just playing with the words a little. Maybe they are just trying to insulate themselves from an easy Supreme Court Challenge, but I don't really see a "compromise" in this. Can someone please explain to me how this is a compromise?

That's kinda the point.

No one believes that Catholics have the right to withold contraceptives from anyone, Catholics or non-Catholics.

It's never been a question of whether the contraceptives should be offered... merely a question of who handles the transaction.

The Catholics' objection has always been a word game, so you change the wording of the game and it's over.

The only way anyone could object to this is if they believe that the reach of the Catholic church extends to interactions between two non-Catholic parties.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

How hard is it to find MSN by yourself, SV Airlie. You ought to realize by now that I almost NEVER provide links; I really don't much care whether anyone here believes me or not.

[pefjr]

Abortion?

I don' think that was ever part of the debate.

The left confuses the two. They are so numb, they think the two are synonyms.

[pefjr]

The internet if full of links, Jamie. No one is preventing you from finding them.

Within three minutes of the original post, I knew exactly what he was talking about, found the sources, fact checked it, found his error and responded.

Why can't you do the same? Why must everyone spoon feed information to you?

No more than one hour ago, you could not find the President's religion and asked me for the link.

[S.V. Airlie]

How hard is it to find MSN by yourself, SV Airlie. You ought to realize by now that I almost NEVER provide links; I really don't much care whether anyone here believes me or not.

Of course you didn't bother to post a location did ya? How much googling should I have even tried to do to find your garbage..? The way some here link articles that are even more obscure than yours is amazing. Don't even have a clue where they were dug up.

[ljb5]

No more than one hour ago, you could not find the President's religion and asked me for the link.

Oh, I knew about his comments at the prayer breakfast.... but I couldn't find what got you so upset.

Still can't.

I kinda suspect you of making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

"Planned Parenthood, Contraception, (my error my concerning abortion) - - - " it's merely an example of how seriously I've been taking the whole current debate. BBTW the theme here is Obama's Presidential credibility versus Santorum's utter lack of same.

[ljb5]

Of course you didn't bother to post a location did ya? How much googling should I have even tried to do to find your garbage..?

MSN is the fifth most popular website in the world!

http://www.google.com/adplanner/static/top1000/

I wonder how long it would take Jamie to find it?

[ljb5]

BBTW the theme here is Obama's Presidential credibility versus Santorum's utter lack of same.

Rick Santorum never served in the military, but I heard him on TV belittling the professionalism of the troops.

He suggested that men in the military would not be able to follow orders or complete the mission if there were women around.

I've never been in the military either, but I understand that combat troops are extremely disciplined and take their duty and professionalism quite seriously.

Only Republican presidential candidates get to say they can't do their jobs.

[pefjr]

Oh, I knew about his comments at the prayer breakfast.... but I couldn't find what got you so upset.

Still can't.

I kinda suspect you of making a mountain out of a molehill.

Would you like me to pull out the points for you? or, are you in training for the obtuse all stars again?

[Orange]

It will be interesting to learn if the President contacted the Catholic church to work out a compromise. I'm doubting that is the case. If so a Catholic representative probably would have been available to make comments.

Overall imagine with the current idea the President will remain appearing as a bully and unconcerned about religious teachings and freedom.

Thought this was a nice article I read this morning on the current event.

"Insuring the Freedom of Conscience"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...of-conscience/

[Wavewacker]

1. Birth controll pills are also used for other medical issues besides as a contraceptive.

2. Catholics as well as other doctrines that encourage large families were not out of any religious issue, but as a means to increase the church's population, to increase their numbers in society.

3. I did not see or hear any compromise whatsoever. Women will have access to health care regardless of who the employer is. We have a large religious publishing "company" here in town, everything that the Assemblies Of God publishes for their world wide "stuff" is printed here. They hire non-AGer's. Those employees should have every right to health services.

4. The "compromise" is the most reasonable alternative. Foremost it ensures services will be provided and it gives the religious righties the preception that they are not paying for it. I say that because if you have any idea of how insurances premiums are devised, all costs will be considered when providing any coverage. Specifically, they will not have a payment for the specific coverage, but it will be considered as a group when establishing premiums. Since each industry and each group is individually underwritten, the underwriters will be factoring in such services when presenting a bid to a religious based entity and probably won't when a bid is designed for Bass Pro for example (not that Bass Pro has great benefits, LOL).


As to the abortion issues, which was not part of this matter, I think that any rapist shoud only select victims based on their pro-life position, rape them and let their peers tell them that they need to carry a baby to term, adopt it out or keep it for the constant reminder of that day of creation. I think we men have really no business in this issue, we will never have our health, life or mental state put in such a circumstance, so why should we dictate the direction of such an issue?

[Concordia 33]

That's kinda the point.

No one believes that Catholics have the right to withold contraceptives from anyone, Catholics or non-Catholics.

It's never been a question of whether the contraceptives should be offered... merely a question of who handles the transaction.

The Catholics' objection has always been a word game, so you change the wording of the game and it's over.

The only way anyone could object to this is if they believe that the reach of the Catholic church extends to interactions between two non-Catholic parties.

But the church isn't isn't withholding contraceptives - their employees are free to purchase them privately, but they do not want to sponsor a health plan that provides it for their employee's. How would that be any be any different than them deciding not to cover injuries do to various high-risk sports? The employer decides to offer health insurance and what type of plan to offer. The employee decides to work there based on the job requirements, salary and fringe including the presence and type of insurance.

The employee is not compelled to work there and if they choose to work there, they are not forbidden form obtaining an abortion or using birth control, they just cannot use their insurance to pay for it.

[S.V. Airlie]

No more than one hour ago, you could not find the President's religion and asked me for the link.

Might be true. However, when a poster bring of a thread like this, one usually posts a link..I assume that he doesn't have to here anymore I was thinking about the Dem gov. (NC) who, during a talk the other day stated that Congress should not have to run during the next election cycle in order to assist in breaking the road block in congress. Her aids just said that she was just joking though.As I have a new, well old. computer, I have not learned how to post links yet. I'm not familiar with the program as I had an old Mac before As I couldn't do so, I didn't post it then when I first saw it.
ps. How many formites either ask for proof if not a link on practically every thread.Just start counting up the ones that do or that have in the past.

[Concordia 33]

1. Birth controll pills are also used for other medical issues besides as a contraceptive.

I don't know with certainty, but I doubt the plan would prevent a pre-menopausal woman from taking birth control pills to treat her symptoms, I think they just did not want to fund a health plan that paid for birth control. I have not yet seen an inalienable right to private health insurance that pays for the expense of birth control. It is an employer/employee matter.

[ljb5]

The employer decides to offer health insurance and what type of plan to offer.

Within certain parameters, yes...but there are (and long have been) minimum requirements for what health plans must cover.

Every state in the nation has an insurance commisioner who decides the minimum coverage requirements. No covered employer or provider is free to selectively exclude minimum coverage.

It is rather like the minimum wage laws... and has been for years (since before Obama was elected).

So, in a sense, you're right --- denying coverage for contraceptives is really no different than denying coverage of anything else that falls on the list of required coverage. -- It's not allowed.

That would be like some company paying people less than minimum wage for "religious' reasons.

27 (or is it 28?) states already require contraceptives, even for religious institutions.... and many major Catholic insitutions and universities have complied with these laws for year.

[ljb5]

It will be interesting to learn if the President contacted the Catholic church to work out a compromise.

I can't imagine why the President of the United States should have to negotiate with representatives of a Foreign Nation to establish legal policies inside this country.

How bizarre!

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Helpful hint: The simple way to posta link to to jot down the link appearing at the top of the page you are viewing, then simply retyping that line of characters in the text you write here. The line of characters turns blue in the text automatically. From there is is a simple progression to copy and paste the link.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Were President Obama to prefer getting his information concerning Roman Catholicism from the internet, or from an Aide who researched the internet for him in the interest of saving time, instead of sitting down in a meeting with my local Bishop in orde to get that information, I would understand entirely.

[Concordia 33]

Within certain parameters, yes...but there are (and long have been) minimum requirements for what health plans must cover.

Every state in the nation has an insurance commisioner who decides the minimum coverage requirements. No covered employer or provider is free to selectively exclude minimum coverage.

It is rather like the minimum wage laws... and has been for years.

27 (or is it 28?) states already require contraceptives, even for religious institutions.... and many major Catholic insitutions and universities have complied with these laws for year.

Yes they do, however, the separation of church and state would make it a little sticky for them to mandate that a church provide coverage that is morally objectionable to their beliefs. There are several precedents that would support this. Though no-one can be completely certain of the outcome of a Supreme Court case, the church is more likely to win on this matter.

Complying with the law does not make it a constitutionally legitimate law. It simply means that they don't want to spend the money and time to challenge it or possibly that they do not believe they are legally entitled to challenge it. You are laso saying that a little more than half the states require it which means that a little less than half allow it to be excluded from a health plan.

[S.V. Airlie]

That might work thanks. I feel that this machine is like a new chart. Easy to chart a boat and easy to figure out a new/old computer as well. I still feel though that it is up to a poster, or any poster to link what he has written. It is not the responsibility for me or any other person to do that.It would be expected of me to give a link for a thread or post I wrote. In fact it has been more than a suggestion. I could have replied in the manner you did as well and tell the person just to look it up himself.

[Mrleft8]

Insulate them from an easy supreme court challenge?
Any challenge is easy.... Winning is a different story. You could (any one) challenge me to a duel with foil or epee...... But winning?..... Mais Non! Mon cher! Je suis le fencier exceptionale! EN GARDE!!!!!!!

[Glen Longino]

Might be true. However, when a poster bring of a thread like this, one usually posts a link..I assume that he doesn't have to here anymore I was thinking about the Dem gov. (NC) who, during a talk the other day stated that Congress should not have to run during the next election cycle in order to assist in breaking the road block in congress. Her aids just said that she was just joking though.As I have a new, well old. computer, I have not learned how to post links yet. I'm not familiar with the program as I had an old Mac before As I couldn't do so, I didn't post it then when I first saw it.
ps. How many formites either ask for proof if not a link on practically every thread.Just start counting up the ones that do or that have in the past.

If you have continued problems with reading and linking, just let your ole Uncle Glen know and I'll help you! Okay?

[ljb5]

Yes they do, however, the separation of church and state would make it a little sticky for them to mandate that a church provide coverage that is morally objectionable to their beliefs.

Separation of Church and State does not mean that each Church is its own nation.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that religion is no justification for breaking the law. Justice Scalia (a staunch Catholic) wrote the ruling.

Also, I'd like to remind you that the issue here is not Churches (which are exempt), but rather employers such as hospitals and universities.

Since both hospitals and universities recieve funding from the federal government (and are subject to employment law), the "separation of church and state" argument does not apply -- and has not applied for decades.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

I consider not posting links to come under "freedom of information"; meaning the information I give is free, so I'm not about to expend a lot of effort with it. You will notice that I like to keep my posts short. You will also perhaps have noticed that I try not to take anything here, myself included, too seriously.

[S.V. Airlie]

If you have continued problems with reading and linking, just let your ole Uncle Glen know and I'll help you! Okay?

I have no trouble with reading, but you seem to have trouble linking the article you posted. That is not my problem, it is most certainly yours as you didn't bother to do it did, muchless try to do so did ya?

[Mrleft8]

You will also perhaps have noticed that I try not to take anything here, myself included, too seriously.

Oh! Thank GOD! I was afraid that I was the only one not taking you seriously!

[Glen Longino]

I have no trouble with reading, but you seem to have trouble linking the article you posted. That is not my problem, it is most certainly yours as you didn't bother to do it did, muchless try to do so did ya?

What "article" did I post, Jamie?
None!
I posted No article. I simply wrote my own post which needs no link.
Are you actually losing your mind?
If you are, I'm sorry!
If you're Not, you'll do until somebody comes along who Is losing his mind. "link"

[Concordia 33]

Separation of Church and State does not mean that each Church is its own nation.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that religion is no justification for breaking the law. Justice Scalia (a staunch Catholic) wrote the ruling.

Also, I'd like to remind you that the issue here is not Churches (which are exempt), but rather employers such as hospitals and universities.

Since both hospitals and universities recieve funding from the federal government (and are subject to employment law), the "separation of church and state" argument does not apply -- and has not applied for decades.

So if a school is Religiously sponsored, and accepts federal money, are you saying the CAN withhold birth control from their health plans? Obviously, the acceptance of federal dollars is often predicated on certain requirements, and acceptance of that money is volitional and conditional on the terms.


Breaking of the law for religious reasons, and the creation of a law which violates religious beliefs are two different issues.

for example:

The

Supreme Court

has sided unanimously with a church sued for firing an employee on religious grounds, issuing an opinion on Wednesday that religious employers can keep the government out of hiring and firing decisions.

[S.V. Airlie]

Time to wear the glasses. I never said or even thought that you had posted anything.Most of yours posts are directed at me and I doubt I would have missed one of those..In fact, highly unlikely to miss one as they are so entertaining. Worth a good laugh at the least.

[Norman Bernstein]

It will be interesting to learn if the President contacted the Catholic church to work out a compromise. I'm doubting that is the case.

Isn't that the problem? I mean, does the Catholic Church think it has a right to sit at the table, when the executive branch is trying to work out policy decisions? If so, doesn't that imply that Planned Parenthood has the SAME right?

There's a difference between giving an ear to a wide range of discordant opinions about policy... and granting one religious domination some sort of superior right, over any other interest group.

[Norman Bernstein]

The

Supreme Court

has sided unanimously with a church sued for firing an employee on religious grounds, issuing an opinion on Wednesday that religious employers can keep the government out of hiring and firing decisions.

And I agree with that opinion. However, we are not talking about purely religious institutions; we're talking about employers.... whose religious affiliation is irrelevant, because the employer is NOT a recognized 'church', per se... in which case, the are obligated to abide by the laws of the land regarding employment. The exemption for churches is unique.

[ljb5]

So if a school is Religiously sponsored, and accepts federal money, are you saying the CAN withhold birth control from their health plans?

No, I didn't say that.

The Supreme Court has sided unanimously with a church sued for firing an employee on religious grounds, issuing an opinion on Wednesday that religious employers can keep the government out of hiring and firing decisions.

Yes, I am aware of that, but that was a very narrowly directed decision.

The issue there was employment by a church for religious duties.

As I reminded you before, the issue here is not about churches, but businesses. It has already been decided that businesses that operate in the secular world (as hospitals and universities do) are not immune to employment law and may not descriminate.

The new policy already exempts churches. But hospitals and universities are not churches, even if they are associated with churches. Doctors, nurses and professors are not preists. They cannot be fired for their religion.

[ccmanuals]

Would anyone like to venture a guess as to who said this (just fill in the blank)?

___________________has called health care an “inalienable right,” and added that it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay."

[Paul Pless]

That's kinda the point.

No one believes that Catholics have the right to withold contraceptives from anyone, Catholics or non-Catholics.

It's never been a question of whether the contraceptives should be offered... merely a question of who handles the transaction.

The Catholics' objection has always been a word game, so you change the wording of the game and it's over.

The only way anyone could object to this is if they believe that the reach of the Catholic church extends to interactions between two non-Catholic parties.

What's amazing is that Obama even fell into this public controversy trap in the first place. It was so easily avoided from the get-go. Just another example of political ineptitude.

[ljb5]

What's amazing is that Obama even fell into this public controversy trap in the first place. It was so easily avoided from the get-go. Just another example of political ineptitude.

Either that, or someone is trying to gin up a controversy.

We know that at least 27 states already require contraceptive coverage. Many Catholic universities and hospitals have been covering it for years with no complaint.

Why get so upset about it now just because the year is evenly divisible by 4?

[Wavewacker]

CC, seems like our President would have said that. But, I'll say Regan!

Speaking of laws that contradict religious beliefs, how did that multi-wife Mormon thing work out anyway?

[Durnik]

Would anyone like to venture a guess as to who said this (just fill in the blank)?

_____has called health care an “inalienable right,” and added that it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay."

Sure, that would be a hypocrite wearing a white robe..
AKA, Pope Benedict XVI - your links did make that too easy.. ;-)


>Why get so upset about it now just because the year is evenly divisible by 4?

Answering your own questions does sorta guarantee a sensible response.. eh?

The real question might be.. Why does a religion which claims "it is as easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven as for a camel to thread the eye of a needle" while claiming kinship to a man who said "Sell everything, give to the poor & your riches in heaven will be assured. Then come & follow me" support a social/political party that worships greed and power & actively seeks to deny (to all) the "inalienable right" the Pope claims all have.

Boggles the mind. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Norman Bernstein]

What's amazing is that Obama even fell into this public controversy trap in the first place. It was so easily avoided from the get-go. Just another example of political ineptitude.

Hmmm... you seem to have some tinted shades on. This is a current 'controversy' because the religious right has made it so. Nobody is bothering to mention how many women (all of whom are potential voters) use contraception (98% of them, at least some point in their lives) and/or who derive their medical services from some charitable or tax-supported agency. Obama is speaking to THEM, not to the religious right.

You saw what happened to PP donations when Komen initially backed out of the program... those dollars are also votes.

[wardd]

No more than one hour ago, you could not find the President's religion and asked me for the link.

hye's a muslim, check fox

[wardd]

Of course you didn't bother to post a location did ya? How much googling should I have even tried to do to find your garbage..? The way some here link articles that are even more obscure than yours is amazing. Don't even have a clue where they were dug up.

seems to me you'd rather be someplace else, don't let us keep you

[wardd]

I have no trouble with reading, but you seem to have trouble linking the article you posted. That is not my problem, it is most certainly yours as you didn't bother to do it did, muchless try to do so did ya?

glen knows where he found it so it's not his problem, so it must be your problem

[Glen Longino]

glen knows where he found it so it's not his problem, so it must be your problem

Link, please!

[S.V. Airlie]

Oh Laurel and Hardy have arrived. It's too bad that they can't figure out that my post was directed towards someone else. I have been told that two heads were better than one. Well I guess that has been debunked big time.

[wardd]

Oh Laurel and Hardy have arrived. It's too bad that they can't figure out that my post was directed towards someone else. I have been told that two heads were better than one. Well I guess that has been debunked big time.

does this post mean you have 2 useless heads?

i'm confused