Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

     

     

     

     


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     



    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  



    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     



    ED and contraception to prevent pregnancy are not the same thing.  

    I know you think there is a war on Women, but really all you have presented is a war on logic.

    I don't articulate a religous objection to contraception becasue I don't have one.  Doesn't mean the owner of this company doesn't have one, but, that misses the point:

    You are conflating providing a benefit, or not providing a benefit with an employer mandating that an employee can't use contraception.  that is simply not the case.

    That's the pointn, and it is further evidence that progressives are thicker than two planks nailed together, and can't seem to sort out even the most basic of societal rules.

    And, I know why progressives are doing it.  Once you breakdown the logic of a well ordered society, you can declare ANYTHING objectionable, and therefore force people to act against their will, beyond what you have already done with Obamacare.



    In terms of prescription drug coverage, they are indeed the same issue.  And prescription birth control even serves a broader need to menstrual and sexual health than ED drugs ever will (the latter of which is even more dependent on your "having sex is a choice" canard).

    I'm not conflating anything.  You're dodging the issue, as are those employers with phony "religious" objections to not providing fundamentally basic prescription drug coverage to their employees.

    What are these "societal rules" you're blathering about?  In any "well-ordered society", men and women should be treated equally under the law.  That you don't think so is your own intellectual failure, not mine.

    Again, that you don't have a religious objection shouldn't hinder your ability to explain it on behalf of the holier-than-thou employers you're defending...

    ...unless like the rest of your points, it makes no sense.  Instead, you revert to puerile insults. Typical.

     



    Do you consider abortion also a "public health issue", so that an employer, regardless of any moral or religious exception , can be mandated by Government edict to pay for his or her employee's abortion? Just wondering if you think there is any limit to what your beloved Government can mandate....

     



    Yes, I do.  But then, even though I understand why people don't like abortions, I don't see any moral issue with a woman deciding - with guidance of her doctor - to terminate a pregnancy within a reasonable, medically determined timeframe.

    The alternative in that case is for the employer not to offer insurance, and they can proselytize to their heart's content.

    But there is very little relationship between abortion and contraception; one is a surgical procedure; the other is preventative prescription drug coverage.  (Plan B is not an "abortion drug" despite what some people think; it's contraception.)

    The problem with "no abortions" mandates is when they don't allow for the health and well-being of the mother (much less the fetus).

    To refuse coverage for both is sheer lunacy.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

     

     

     

     


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     



    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  



    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     



    ED and contraception to prevent pregnancy are not the same thing.  

    I know you think there is a war on Women, but really all you have presented is a war on logic.

    I don't articulate a religous objection to contraception becasue I don't have one.  Doesn't mean the owner of this company doesn't have one, but, that misses the point:

    You are conflating providing a benefit, or not providing a benefit with an employer mandating that an employee can't use contraception.  that is simply not the case.

    That's the pointn, and it is further evidence that progressives are thicker than two planks nailed together, and can't seem to sort out even the most basic of societal rules.

    And, I know why progressives are doing it.  Once you breakdown the logic of a well ordered society, you can declare ANYTHING objectionable, and therefore force people to act against their will, beyond what you have already done with Obamacare.



    In terms of prescription drug coverage, they are indeed the same issue.  And prescription birth control even serves a broader need to menstrual and sexual health than ED drugs ever will (the latter of which is even more dependent on your "having sex is a choice" canard).

    I'm not conflating anything.  You're dodging the issue, as are those employers with phony "religious" objections to not providing fundamentally basic prescription drug coverage to their employees.

    What are these "societal rules" you're blathering about?  In any "well-ordered society", men and women should be treated equally under the law.  That you don't think so is your own intellectual failure, not mine.

    Again, that you don't have a religious objection shouldn't hinder your ability to explain it on behalf of the holier-than-thou employers you're defending...

    ...unless like the rest of your points, it makes no sense.  Instead, you revert to puerile insults. Typical.

     

     

     



    ED and contraception are not the same.  ED drugs allow for sex, contraception prevents pregancy, it has nothing to do with ability to have sex.  So, there is the difference.

    I don't need to defend the owners of the company from a religious point of view when logic makes the point.  They are not obligated to provide any specific healthcare to their employees, period.  Heck, under Obamacare, they aren't even obligated to provide insurance, so how could they be obligated to provide certain aspects of health insurance?

    That's the fact, jack.  It doesn't hinge on their religiousity.

    Insults?  Where is the insult in what I am says? it is pure logic, and it escapes you, because you are ideologically bound to hate people of faith, no matter what the issue.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

     

     

     

     


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     



    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  



    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     



    ED and contraception to prevent pregnancy are not the same thing.  

    I know you think there is a war on Women, but really all you have presented is a war on logic.

    I don't articulate a religous objection to contraception becasue I don't have one.  Doesn't mean the owner of this company doesn't have one, but, that misses the point:

    You are conflating providing a benefit, or not providing a benefit with an employer mandating that an employee can't use contraception.  that is simply not the case.

    That's the pointn, and it is further evidence that progressives are thicker than two planks nailed together, and can't seem to sort out even the most basic of societal rules.

    And, I know why progressives are doing it.  Once you breakdown the logic of a well ordered society, you can declare ANYTHING objectionable, and therefore force people to act against their will, beyond what you have already done with Obamacare.



    In terms of prescription drug coverage, they are indeed the same issue.  And prescription birth control even serves a broader need to menstrual and sexual health than ED drugs ever will (the latter of which is even more dependent on your "having sex is a choice" canard).

    I'm not conflating anything.  You're dodging the issue, as are those employers with phony "religious" objections to not providing fundamentally basic prescription drug coverage to their employees.

    What are these "societal rules" you're blathering about?  In any "well-ordered society", men and women should be treated equally under the law.  That you don't think so is your own intellectual failure, not mine.

    Again, that you don't have a religious objection shouldn't hinder your ability to explain it on behalf of the holier-than-thou employers you're defending...

    ...unless like the rest of your points, it makes no sense.  Instead, you revert to puerile insults. Typical.

     



    Do you consider abortion also a "public health issue", so that an employer, regardless of any moral or religious exception , can be mandated by Government edict to pay for his or her employee's abortion? Just wondering if you think there is any limit to what your beloved Government can mandate....

     



    Yes, I do.  But then, even though I understand why people don't like abortions, I don't see any moral issue with a woman deciding - with guidance of her doctor - to terminate a pregnancy within a reasonable, medically determined timeframe.

    The alternative in that case is for the employer not to offer insurance, and they can proselytize to their heart's content.

    But there is very little relationship between abortion and contraception; one is a surgical procedure; the other is preventative prescription drug coverage.  (Plan B is not an "abortion drug" despite what some people think; it's contraception.)

    The problem with "no abortions" mandates is when they don't allow for the health and well-being of the mother (much less the fetus).

    To refuse coverage for both is sheer lunacy.



    I guess the health of the fetus is not in play when aborted.  Sigh.  You liberals have all your passion in the things that don't matter, and have this in-human sterility on the issues that do matter.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

     

     

     

     


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     



    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  



    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     



    ED and contraception to prevent pregnancy are not the same thing.  

    I know you think there is a war on Women, but really all you have presented is a war on logic.

    I don't articulate a religous objection to contraception becasue I don't have one.  Doesn't mean the owner of this company doesn't have one, but, that misses the point:

    You are conflating providing a benefit, or not providing a benefit with an employer mandating that an employee can't use contraception.  that is simply not the case.

    That's the pointn, and it is further evidence that progressives are thicker than two planks nailed together, and can't seem to sort out even the most basic of societal rules.

    And, I know why progressives are doing it.  Once you breakdown the logic of a well ordered society, you can declare ANYTHING objectionable, and therefore force people to act against their will, beyond what you have already done with Obamacare.



    In terms of prescription drug coverage, they are indeed the same issue.  And prescription birth control even serves a broader need to menstrual and sexual health than ED drugs ever will (the latter of which is even more dependent on your "having sex is a choice" canard).

    I'm not conflating anything.  You're dodging the issue, as are those employers with phony "religious" objections to not providing fundamentally basic prescription drug coverage to their employees.

    What are these "societal rules" you're blathering about?  In any "well-ordered society", men and women should be treated equally under the law.  That you don't think so is your own intellectual failure, not mine.

    Again, that you don't have a religious objection shouldn't hinder your ability to explain it on behalf of the holier-than-thou employers you're defending...

    ...unless like the rest of your points, it makes no sense.  Instead, you revert to puerile insults. Typical.

     

     

     



    ED and contraception are not the same.  ED drugs allow for sex, contraception prevents pregancy, it has nothing to do with ability to have sex.  So, there is the difference.

    I don't need to defend the owners of the company from a religious point of view when logic makes the point.  They are not obligated to provide any specific healthcare to their employees, period.  Heck, under Obamacare, they aren't even obligated to provide insurance, so how could they be obligated to provide certain aspects of health insurance?

    That's the fact, jack.  It doesn't hinge on their religiousity.

    Insults?  Where is the insult in what I am says? it is pure logic, and it escapes you, because you are ideologically bound to hate people of faith, no matter what the issue.



    I don't know why I bother when all you do is throw meaningless fallacies around and demonstrate you don't understand even basic facts of what we're talking about.

    How you're unable to differentiate "same" from "same issue" is a mystery.  That you don't know what the health benefits of the Pill are make your rantings just...strange.

    So far, you've failed to make a single cogent point about the court's decision, i.e. the OP.  I wonder if you even know how logic works, much less how to debate rationally.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:


    My only objection is I dont think some should have to pay for other peoples birth control.

     

     

     

     


    Why not?  

    It's a public health issue like any other, whether it's diabetes or heart disease or gout or anemia, etc., etc....

    Perhaps not coincidentally, prescription birth control is only taken by women and represents a large percentage of prescriber medication in this country.

    Given your above statement, no doubt you would also object to paying for someone else's erectile dysfunction meds...right...??

     

    Gotta love the double standard here.  ED meds have been largely covered in prescription drug plans.  Birth control, less so (higher scrutability).  Now, health care reform tries to level that standard on behalf of women, and some people with obscure religious motivations summarily freak out.

     

    Hint: women don't like being told that their issues are less important than men's issues.  (Because they're not.)

     



    Heck, women don't like to be told anything, why should this be any different?

     

    Nice red herring you have there.  No one is saying anything of the sort.  



    Yes, they are.  Before reform, women were treated unequally by insurance companies and had to pay more.  They are entitled to the same protections and coverages that men are relative to their unique biology.

    You are still unable to intelligently articulate the religious objection to contraception even for married people.

    If ED meds are covered by insurance, then birth control/menopause drugs should be, too.  Both deal with sexual/reproductive health.  Anything less is borderline discriminatory.  Even so, the company has the right not to offer insurance at all and watch their talented workers flee to their competitors.

     



    ED and contraception to prevent pregnancy are not the same thing.  

    I know you think there is a war on Women, but really all you have presented is a war on logic.

    I don't articulate a religous objection to contraception becasue I don't have one.  Doesn't mean the owner of this company doesn't have one, but, that misses the point:

    You are conflating providing a benefit, or not providing a benefit with an employer mandating that an employee can't use contraception.  that is simply not the case.

    That's the pointn, and it is further evidence that progressives are thicker than two planks nailed together, and can't seem to sort out even the most basic of societal rules.

    And, I know why progressives are doing it.  Once you breakdown the logic of a well ordered society, you can declare ANYTHING objectionable, and therefore force people to act against their will, beyond what you have already done with Obamacare.



    In terms of prescription drug coverage, they are indeed the same issue.  And prescription birth control even serves a broader need to menstrual and sexual health than ED drugs ever will (the latter of which is even more dependent on your "having sex is a choice" canard).

    I'm not conflating anything.  You're dodging the issue, as are those employers with phony "religious" objections to not providing fundamentally basic prescription drug coverage to their employees.

    What are these "societal rules" you're blathering about?  In any "well-ordered society", men and women should be treated equally under the law.  That you don't think so is your own intellectual failure, not mine.

    Again, that you don't have a religious objection shouldn't hinder your ability to explain it on behalf of the holier-than-thou employers you're defending...

    ...unless like the rest of your points, it makes no sense.  Instead, you revert to puerile insults. Typical.

     



    Do you consider abortion also a "public health issue", so that an employer, regardless of any moral or religious exception , can be mandated by Government edict to pay for his or her employee's abortion? Just wondering if you think there is any limit to what your beloved Government can mandate....

     



    Yes, I do.  But then, even though I understand why people don't like abortions, I don't see any moral issue with a woman deciding - with guidance of her doctor - to terminate a pregnancy within a reasonable, medically determined timeframe.

    The alternative in that case is for the employer not to offer insurance, and they can proselytize to their heart's content.

    But there is very little relationship between abortion and contraception; one is a surgical procedure; the other is preventative prescription drug coverage.  (Plan B is not an "abortion drug" despite what some people think; it's contraception.)

    The problem with "no abortions" mandates is when they don't allow for the health and well-being of the mother (much less the fetus).

    To refuse coverage for both is sheer lunacy.



    I guess the health of the fetus is not in play when aborted.  Sigh.  You liberals have all your passion in the things that don't matter, and have this in-human sterility on the issues that do matter.



    I mentioned that.  You ignored it and sighed, because that's all you got.

    And clearly what matters to you is quite different than what matters to me.

    Opinions are funny like that.

    Not that you'd care in the least....

     

     

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Appeals Court holds that Obamacare contraception mandate violates First Amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [/QUOTE]

     I don't see any moral issue with a woman deciding - with guidance of her doctor - to terminate a pregnancy within a reasonable, medically determined timeframe.

    [/QUOTE]

    What is that "timeline"?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share