Archive

HHS mandate on Catholic and other religious institutions

  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1081177 wrote:Unless you are very forgetful you know my answer to your question for we have discussed it before. Minors are not able to enter into a legal contract.

    Can you provide one reason an incestuous couple or a polygamist adult should be restricted from such a basic human right as marriage?

    A State need not provide the service for there's no service required to get married other than a signature on a contract. Contracts are executed daily without State sanctioning. It is simply not needed. State involvement creates a potentially prejudice authority based on the the requirements defined in order to gain their permission of such a basic right.
    There are some requirements that are necessary to protect individuals and society. Incestuous relationships have a very great potential of serious physical and mental harm for any off spring. Sexual relationships within a family are rife for abuse. And we are on a very slippery slope when we get arguments like this
    Con_Alma wrote: The age of consent doesn't respect the clear differences in young people's development, and as such 'punishes' the fast developers in order to protect the slow developing.
    as a situation we may have in the future.
  • majorspark
    BoatShoes;1081507 wrote:Taxation in a representative democracy is not anything close to the arbitrary imposition of military rule by military authorities in which the citizenry nor their representatives have any say because the military as consumed all the power of the former legislative, executive and judicial branches...which is what full-scale martial law is.
    I should not have used the term "martial law". "Physical law" is what I should have said. In our representative republic we can outlaw alcohol in order to prevent its use or we can tax the hell out of it to prevent its use. The latter being a more palatable "choice" of the individual. If you attempt to evade the tax you will be subject to physical laws. All I am as saying is controling by economic force is not much different than by physical force.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    BoatShoes;1081498 wrote:The Law isn't singling out Catholics...it applies to all health insurance providers. It just isn't allowing certain Catholic Health Insurance providers to be exempt from a rule that it is applicable to all health insurance providers.
    And the point of the rule is what, that insurers can't decide not to provide coverage for certain issues - and with Obamacare they are forced to provide it? Awesome. The religious angle is only the foundation of the ridiculousness of this decision. What gives the federal government the ability to dictate what services a business may conduct?. I can see the Constitutional reasons for federal anti-discrimination laws, in that if a business decides to provide services, it cannot withhold services from people in a discriminatory manner. That is based in the Constitution. I don't see the Constitutional basis for this.
  • BoatShoes
    Manhattan Buckeye;1081605 wrote:And the point of the rule is what, that insurers can't decide not to provide coverage for certain issues - and with Obamacare they are forced to provide it? Awesome. The religious angle is only the foundation of the ridiculousness of this decision. What gives the federal government the ability to dictate what services a business may conduct?. I can see the Constitutional reasons for federal anti-discrimination laws, in that if a business decides to provide services, it cannot withhold services from people in a discriminatory manner. That is based in the Constitution. I don't see the Constitutional basis for this.
    Well according to the Supreme Court Congress can dictate the services that a business provides, because it's commercial activity, if it has a rational basis on which to conclude that the activity in the aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce. So if Congress believes that private health insurers, in the aggregate, choosing not to provide contraceptive coverage would substantially affect the national health insurance markets, they're free to tell Health Insurers to cover contraception.

    Maybe you don't agree with that and think that is outrageous but that's pretty much been the Constitutional Jurisprudence since the New Deal and has been ratified in opinions by conservative members of the court.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "if it has a rational basis on which to conclude that the activity in the aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce. "

    Key point, which has been argued for ages. There are rational interstate commerce issues, human sexuality isn't one of them, it belongs in the bedroom. It's just a piss-poor reason for our government to intrude into our lives.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1081516 wrote:There are some requirements that are necessary to protect individuals and society. Incestuous relationships have a very great potential of serious physical and mental harm for any off spring. Sexual relationships within a family are rife for abuse. And we are on a very slippery slope when we get arguments like this
    as a situation we may have in the future.
    All sexual relation have a potential for emotional strife and abuse. Slippery slopes are exactly what we are addressing. There are and can be very healthy sexual relationships with many different scenarios of adult humans. TO decide which should and should not occur is discriminatory and the State should have that ability.

    The State provides no benefit in requiring a license to become married and they discriminate in their selection of who can and can't be married.
  • HitsRus
    arbitrary imposition of military rule by military authorities
    let's change it a bitjust for fun.....

    "arbitrary imposition of of financial rule by civilian authorities"


    Now comes word that Obama is chnaging education mandates and granting exceptions to "no child left behind"....not arguing one way or the other for NCLB... but who is this guy ( what is this government) who can write and change laws with the stroke of a pen?
    Sounds like a "king" to me.
  • BGFalcons82
    Manhattan Buckeye;1081846 wrote:"if it has a rational basis on which to conclude that the activity in the aggregate substantially affects interstate commerce. "

    Key point, which has been argued for ages. There are rational interstate commerce issues, human sexuality isn't one of them, it belongs in the bedroom. It's just a piss-poor reason for our government to intrude into our lives.
    Ah yes, the Commerce Clause. The statist's lynch-pin for governmental edicts and control over the populace. This clause has been twisted, manipulated, and re-written such that the framer's word, "regulate", now means: control. mandate, coerce, invent, deny and/or rule any and all activities between the states...even if they aren't between states.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    Backpedal:

    http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-obama-change-birth-control-rule-133402851.html
  • fish82
    Wow...from "we're willing to negotiate," to full cave in 24 hours. Is that a record?

    Props to BO for realizing what an idiotic move it was in the first place. Perhaps there's hope for him after all.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    fish82;1081946 wrote:Wow...from "we're willing to negotiate," to full cave in 24 hours. Is that a record?

    Props to BO for realizing what an idiotic move it was in the first place. Perhaps there's hope for him after all.
    Reps
  • QuakerOats
    fish82;1081946 wrote:Wow...from "we're willing to negotiate," to full cave in 24 hours. Is that a record?

    Props to BO for realizing what an idiotic move it was in the first place. Perhaps there's hope for him after all.
    obama BS again ..... new position still not acceptable to bishops.

    Nov '12 cannot arrive soon enough.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    fish82;1081946 wrote:Wow...from "we're willing to negotiate," to full cave in 24 hours. Is that a record?

    Props to BO for realizing what an idiotic move it was in the first place. Perhaps there's hope for him after all.
    He didn't do shit. They still have to offer it and pay for it, just not promote it. They'll have the insurance companies promote it. What company does promote drugs for its employees?
  • Bigdogg
    BoatShoes;1081496 wrote:It is well established in First Amendment Jurisprudence that the government may regulate general conduct and is not required to provide exemptions from governmental regulations for persons whose religious beliefs prevent them from complying with the requirements of the law. The law regulates all providers of health insurance and not just Catholic employers and under the Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence such laws are totally fine.

    For instance, there was a case wherein an employer challenged the federal minimum wage law arguing that minimum wages interfered with its members' religious desires to work without compensation and the Court said the government didn't have to exempt them from paying the minimum wage.

    Religious Persons are mandated to comply with laws that violate their religious beliefs all the time.

    Furthermore, 28 States already require Catholic Organizations to cover Contraception and yet I don't hear much uproar about any of that.

    (Now perhaps somebody will say that this is a Federalism issue but that's not why Catholics are up in arms over this.)
    Also of those 28 states that mandate coverage, 8 of them have no exemptions for churches. Obama's proposal would have provided them with an exemption they did not have. Also the New York and California courts have already upheld the state mandates. Here is the case from New York

    http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/ab/Catholic%20Charities%20v.%20Serio%20-%20NY%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
  • fish82
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1082073 wrote:He didn't do ****. They still have to offer it and pay for it, just not promote it. They'll have the insurance companies promote it. What company does promote drugs for its employees?
    As it turns out...that's the case. The original article suggested he was dropping it altogether.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/white-house-religious-employers-wont-have-to-cover-birth-control-but-insura.html


    As suspected -- the obama sham continues .......

    Hopefully there is something left to save come November.
  • ZWICK 4 PREZ
    Obviously they think we're children and too stupid to understand anything.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1081860 wrote:All sexual relation have a potential for emotional strife and abuse. Slippery slopes are exactly what we are addressing. There are and can be very healthy sexual relationships with many different scenarios of adult humans. TO decide which should and should not occur is discriminatory and the State should have that ability.

    The State provides no benefit in requiring a license to become married and they discriminate in their selection of who can and can't be married.
    And there are a certain sexual relationships between adults that can not be healthy and are assuredly destructive.
  • I Wear Pants
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_then_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html?wpisrc=slate_river
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    Google Amanda Marcotte, she's clinically insane. Hilarious that she's the only one thinking this was a smart move by Obama. He managed to piss off everyone, and the first comment to the link (as of the time of this post) is 100% correct, contraception has little to do with but overextending government action.
  • stlouiedipalma
    QuakerOats;1081959 wrote:obama BS again ..... new position still not acceptable to bishops.

    Nov '16 cannot arrive soon enough.
    Fixed that for 'ya.
  • stlouiedipalma
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1082073 wrote:He didn't do ****. They still have to offer it and pay for it, just not promote it. They'll have the insurance companies promote it. What company does promote drugs for its employees?
    Those who offer health care. Every health care plan has drugs and procedures which are allowed and/or covered. You know, it's the "bureaucrat who decides your coverage" thing.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    stlouiedipalma;1082774 wrote:Those who offer health care. Every health care plan has drugs and procedures which are allowed and/or covered. You know, it's the "bureaucrat who decides your coverage" thing.
    And usually the health care plan decides what it insures and underwrites, not the federal government.
  • Con_Alma
    isadore;1082626 wrote:And there are a certain sexual relationships between adults that can not be healthy and are assuredly destructive.
    Not polygamists or incestuous relations. There's no guarantee that they will be unhealthy and they should not be denied the right to marry any more than a gay person should. We don't need the government denying a basic right from anyone.
  • isadore
    Con_Alma;1082797 wrote:Not polygamists or incestuous relations. There's no guarantee that they will be unhealthy and they should not be denied the right to marry any more than a gay person should. We don't need the government denying a basic right from anyone.
    there is no guarantee a drunk driver will injure or kill someone, but for the benefit of society we prevent them from driving. Incestuous marriages are rife with problems for off spring and in the family.