Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty (30 second version)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/ | The controversy over the Obama Administration’s anti-conscience mandate and the fight for religious liberty only serves to highlight the inherent flaws in Obamacare. This conflict is a natural result of the centralization laid out under Obamacare and will only continue until the law is repealed in full.
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, and abortion need to be legal, affordable, and available to all.
The truth hurts, Obama's administration is violating religious liberty, WORD!!!!
You are ignorant.
your right. ignore that. just go to my comment that shows that yes amish do pay for military.
i know that i promised to keep a 2 reply limit but i found out something that makes your counterargument about the amish BS. The amish DO pay Income taxes which does pay for military expenditures (past/present). so nothing special about the Amish actually.
also for religious people religious conscience and moral conscience are the same thing for the most. though anyhow the amish do have to sign at the age of 18 and they can be drafted just in non combatant role. and a United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, est. conscientious objector status as a secular thing with the reasoning not having to be religious but a general moral admonishment to war.
The Amish are also exempt from social security bens unemployment bens,welfare bens. The Amish are special because they are a societal group that for the most part stays communal and removed from our general society. Catholic instiutions on the other hand are tax exempt,but get all the benefits of being a part of a high functioning society like America.
ok new scenario. it is against my moral conscience to pay for the military. according to your legal argument that the government cant force you to go against your moral conscience i can legaly not pay taxes that i know go to he military. your argument at best is a philosophical argument against obamacare. dont pass it off as a LEGAL/ECONOMIC argument against obamacare because it isnt.
no my point is just as we don't give religious people the right to burn witches,stone heretics, and or fire non religious employees from work we shouldn't give them the right to deny basic medical care to women just because it says in there magic book it's "murder". just as we don't allow christian scientists to deny antibiotics, Jehovah witness doctors denying blood transfusions etc your legal argument is flawed because we already have a law system that doesnt give religious people exceptions.
keeping it down to 2 replies now. yes i have debunked it (at the very least you haven't came back with a counter argument against the studies i gave you) i have shown that long term it's profitable due to a slightly less deduction in maternity coverage costs. your original claim that you would pay for it is really unfounded because employers would pay most of the cost (which are insignificant to begin with). also there are lots of employers ALREADY paying for birth control.
like being thorough.most people though do use plan b the morning after (hence the term "morning after pill"). true it works for over 5 days but at that point its as much as a life as bacteria. personally i could care less even if it did go against their moral conscience considering there ideology/entire basis of moral conscientiousness is irrational and not based on scientific fact. which I'd rather have my healthcare coverage being decided by medical professionals not religious leaders.
also on your other argument that people don't have to work for a catholic employer…yes they do when it's the only job you can get. if I'm a college student at Georgetown with student loans and need of work I'm economically forced to go to go to any employer that will offer me.since the job market isn't so well i might HAVE to work at the university whether it be in the admissions office or the cafeteria. this is the case for a lot of college students who use campus jobs as a LAST resort.
also we have to look at other religions like,for example, christian science says basically all medicine is bad/blood transfusion. now should an employer who happens to be a christian scientist refuse all healthcare coverage to his employees? this whole "moral conscience" argument is fallacious for employers to deny antibiotics coverage, chemo therapy etc. as i said originally this isnt a constiutional law issue (you'll have most constiutional law experts agree) its a labor law issue.
also on the whole moral conscience argument that you just brought up. if most Catholics believe birth control is murder then most of them should be arrested for murder (considering most Catholics use contraception when having pre marrital sex). though we don't arrest them because we live in a society that isn't a theocracy and can tell when people are being unscientific. which brings me to the fact that the sperm takes roughly 24 hrs to reach an egg therefore its not even a zygot when bc is used
no its not splitting hairs when i debunk your claim. the only argument you levied against me so far was that premiums will skyrocket(not the whole moral conscience bankrupt argument). its not just splitting hairs its splitting your argument. also maternity leave,employee replacements r the major factors in maternity coverage. what other maternity coverage is their besides little things that still would have nothing 2 do with premiums going up since contraception would HELP curb maternity costs.
it says in my comment "when the costs of contraceptives, unintended pregnancies, related absences and employee replacement ARE considered.". that wouldn't make sense if maternity coverage went up when contraceptives are being provided.
i will agree it will cost insurance companies money, but overall it saves money long term, and most of the cost does go to the employers of institutions that already get a tax exempt status. there is no economic evidence that the employee would (the overwhelming majority of Americans) would pay. so unless you make millions of dollars you aren't paying for anything.
2004 study published in the journal Contraception found that oral contraceptives resulted in cost-savings of $8,827 per woman over two years — compared with using no contraception at all. Global Health Outcomes Inc., a health care research firm, found that employers who provide contraception coverage annually save $97 per employee when the costs of contraceptives, unintended pregnancies, related absences and employee replacement are considered.
a 1998 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that insurance company adding “the full range of reversible medical contraceptives” would increase costs by $21.40 per employee per year. Most of the money, $17.12, would be covered by employers, while employees would pay $4.28 a year. not really much also when you consider long term benefits as in lower birth rates and controlling/lessening of vaginal cysts.
what? you misunderstand the law if that's what you think it is. its telling religiously ran businesses (not churches) to provide the OPTION of birth control for non religious employers. no one is forcing the catholic to take the birth control (even though most of them do) it is giving the atheist, Buddhist, Jew, less religious christian the option to have birth control if they work for a catholic business (like georgetown university,Notre Dame, and or catholic charities).
what? who's asking to pay for rosaries in ovaries? are you trying to say that magic prayer beads is equivalent to medicine that is accepted by over 90% of physicians? also your not paying for anything because its PRIVATE insurers/companies having to provide birth control .so unless your a shareholder of a health insurance company your not paying for anything. so my prescription for you is 60 mg of some smart pills to fix that dumbass complex you seem to have.
@johnnyvonrotten fuck religion what good has it done really
@Somai82 So I guess sandra Fluke wasn't hasn't been talking about liberal victims lately? lol