U.S. 2012 Election

[Fishbone Jones]

I love the 'Ignore' feature  ;D

 

[cupper]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The problem with the issue is that it infringes on the rights of the individual employees who work for the organization, who may not be part of that religious organization. Catholic hospitals and Universities that employ non-Catholics. By denying their employees something because of a church doctrine can be construed as forcing the churches beliefs on their employees.

As for the States requiring religious organizations to cover contraception, it doesn't violate the establishment clause (as this clause does not apply to the argument), and has stood up to challenge under the free exercise clause at every level.

But all of this is irrelevant anyway, since a supposed work around in sheep's clothing has been developed.

And an interesting side bar on the whole Limbaugh rant, a couple of pundits on an NPR talk show today made the point that he essentially sabotaged the GOP's use of the issue by taking it from a religious issue to a woman's issue.

 

[vonGarvin]

The problem with the issue is that it infringes on the rights of the individual employees who work for the organization, who may not be part of that religious organization. Catholic hospitals and Universities that employ non-Catholics. By denying their employees something because of a church doctrine can be construed as forcing the churches beliefs on their employees.

Any person who works for, eg. a Jewish Hospital, and brings bacon sandwiches into work every day, is nothing but a rabble-rouser.  Same with a person who would work for a Catholic institution and then "demand" as a "right" something that the Church finds "sinful" (rightly or wrongly). 

That person isn't forced to work for that institution, so I find that argument to be somewhat of a stretch.

 

[Jed]

There's a reason Revenue Canada doesn't chase tax cheats except big fish. It's not worth it. They came after me for a full accounting of moving expenses last year, presumably thinking I'd claimed an excessive amount and they'd get more money out of me. I don't know how much civil service time was wasted, but it turned out that I'd estimated some costs conservatively, and when pushed to be detailed, they owed me a couple hundred bucks.
...

Rather naive of you, Redeye. The buggers zero in on the small fish.

 

[a_majoor]

Andrew Breitbart strikes from the grave. He had actually announced he had discovered video that would expose President Obama's past during his speech at CPAC 2012, I am presuming this is it. What is even more interesting is the comment about how the tape had been hidden during 2008 (which of course brings up the question yet again about what else has been hidden besides academic transcripts, speeches given at gatherings that may or may not have been in support of Palestinian terrorists etc.)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/07/buzzefeed-selectively-edits-obama-tape

OBAMA: 'Open up your hearts and your minds' to racialist prof

by Ben Shapiro 22 hours ago 3940 post a comment
Below is footage of Barack Obama praising and hugging Professor Derrick Bell.  It was spliced and diced by the media to avoid showing just how close Obama was to Bell. More than that, a close associate of the Obama campaign, Harvard Law School’s Professor Charles Ogletree, admitted on our exclusive tape, “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign. I don’t care if they find it now.”

Well, we found it. And it is damaging, because Barack Obama was as close or closer to Derrick Bell than he ever was to Jeremiah Wright. Obama didn’t merely sit in the pews – or not -- for Derrick Bell. He didn’t just hang out with Derrick Bell for prayers. He said:

    “Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.”

If we did, here’s what we’d be opening our hearts and minds to. This is a close associate of Jeremiah Wright, a man who was quoted by Jeremiah Wright regularly. This is a man who posited that the civil rights movement was too moderate because it accepted the status quo, and believed that the entire legal and constitutional system had to be transformed in radical fashion. This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.

There’s far more coming on Derrick Bell. This is just the beginning. And this video is a smoking gun showing that Barack Obama not only associated with radicals, he was their advocate.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Frankly, I'd rather foot the bill for contraceptives for all who want them than foot the bill for unplanned pregrancies, because that bill is a hell of a lot higher, and the consequences of not paying for the former is in fact the latter. That's as simple as I can make it.

That is probably the most absurd argument (supposition, really) making the rounds: that in the absence of someone else paying the bill, people not already at risk are going to willy-nilly risk becoming pregnant.  I propose an alternate hypothesis: people responsible enough to hold down a job that either provides health insurance or pays well enough to allow them to purchase health insurance directly are also inherently inclined by that sense of responsibility to take care of their contraception needs in the absence of contraception coverage; people inclined to be careless will not suddenly become more responsible any more than they take advantage of any other preventive health care provided "free" - they will continue to show up only after a problem has presented itself.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>(does it matter how old she is or her background?),

It matters.  "Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy

She is a bullsh!tter, and a servant of bullsh!tters.  Bullsh!tters poison the well of public debate by not finding honest ways of approaching the discussion.  IMHEO, she is many worse things than merely a "slut"; promiscuity - which is all being a "slut" is, notwithstanding the fact some people probably dislike the word purely for its acoustic impact - is no big deal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>By denying their employees something because of a church doctrine can be construed as forcing the churches beliefs on their employees.

For f*ck's sakes, does anyone use their head for anything but ballast anymore?  Catholic institutions are not denying contraception to their employees; anyone is free to acquire contraception.  Will you follow your logic consistently to the conclusion that the Government of BC denies me vision care because the cost of my examinations and hardware is not covered at public expense?

 

[Jed]

>(does it matter how old she is or her background?),

It matters.  "Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy

She is a bullsh!tter, and a servant of bullsh!tters.  Bullsh!tters poison the well of public debate by not finding honest ways of approaching the discussion.  IMHEO, she is many worse things than merely a "slut"; promiscuity - which is all being a "slut" is, notwithstanding the fact some people probably dislike the word purely for its acoustic impact - is no big deal.

Well that will get them frothing at the mouth! I agree with you though. ;D
op:

 

[cupper]

That person isn't forced to work for that institution, so I find that argument to be somewhat of a stretch.

It may be a stretch but that's what it boils down to. The rights of the religious group vs the rights of the individual.

And the courts have ruled that similar mandates do not violate the free exercise clause.

But again, it's all moot anyway.

If Obama is reelected, you get birth control.  :nod:

If Romney is elected, you may get it, maybe not.  :dunno:

If Santorum, Gingrich or Paul get in, affordable health care becomes a footnote in history before it even gets off the ground.  anic:

 

[cupper]

\does anyone use their head for anything but ballast anymore?

Actually, I use mine to keep my ears apart.  ;D

Catholic institutions are not denying contraception to their employees

I never said they were denying employees contraception.

They are denying coverage through their health insurance programs.

 

[cupper]

And since the world is going to end in December 2012, the whole election becomes moot. ;D

 

[GAP]

And since the world is going to end in December 2012, the whole election becomes moot. ;D

Not before someone is chosen though.................

 

[cupper]

Not before someone is chosen though.................

True. But if Obama wins, he becomes a one term prez, Mitch McConnell's dream comes true.

Anybody else wins, they don't get sworn in.

And all is well and good. ;D

 

[a_majoor]

C

The rights of the individual are well taken care of. If you choose to follow a religious faith, then that is your affair. If you choose to be employed by a faith based organization, then you, yourself, have decided to join hands with them.

No one who chooses to work for a Catholic hospital can claim they are not aware of the fact this is a faith based organization, nor should they be able to claim ignorance of the nature of the organization and its policy on various issues. The last time I checked, Catholic hospitals don't draft employees nor do they press gang them, so everyone there is there by choice.

Anyone who works for any faith based organization and chooses to publically oppose or flout their policies is only exercising their right to be an idiot and an a** in public.

 

[cupper]

C

The rights of the individual are well taken care of. If you choose to follow a religious faith, then that is your affair. If you choose to be employed by a faith based organization, then you, yourself, have decided to join hands with them.

No one who chooses to work for a Catholic hospital can claim they are not aware of the fact this is a faith based organization, nor should they be able to claim ignorance of the nature of the organization and its policy on various issues. The last time I checked, Catholic hospitals don't draft employees nor do they press gang them, so everyone there is there by choice.

Anyone who works for any faith based organization and chooses to publically oppose or flout their policies is only exercising their right to be an idiot and an a** in public.

All true.

But in no other case can an employer dictate what you can and cannot do outside your place of work, as long as it does not negatively effect the business or organization.

But again, this is all settled law at the state level, as there were laws brought in by many states (as part of GOP majorities mind you) as long as 10 years ago. So what makes a Federal mandate any different? Simply because it was brought in by Obama?

 

[a_majoor]

But in no other case can an employer dictate what you can and cannot do outside your place of work, as long as it does not negatively effect the business or organization.

Many business can and do dictate what employees can and cannot do outside of work because it may negatively affect the business. Spiritual matters are best left to the individuals IMO, and most American Catholics have decided to quietly ignore the teachings of the Church in this matter and to privately purchase contraceptives. This is the "good" solution, where individuals make their spiritual choices and can deal with any spiritual consequences on their own.

For anyone to suggest that the Church or its institutions must act against its own teachings is both directly in violation of the Constitution, and also incredibly arrogant, stupid and insulting besides.

But again, this is all settled law at the state level, as there were laws brought in by many states (as part of GOP majorities mind you) as long as 10 years ago. So what makes a Federal mandate any different? Simply because it was brought in by Obama?

It would be interesting to look at the exact wording of these laws to see if they could survive a constitutional challenge (maybe no one has ever actually done so).

As well, the Federal system is designed in part to act as an incubator. States are supposed to set their laws independently of the Federal government, and it was thought that each State could choose the laws that were applicable to their unique situations. Good laws should eventually be adopted by other States once they saw they worked, while poor laws would be dropped or at least not adopted elsewhere. Further reading of the Constitution (as well as associated documents like the Federalist Papers) will expand on the concept. In particular the Tenth Amendment severely restricts the powers of the Federal government:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm with James Madison here; contraception is one of those things reserved to "the people".

 

[Brad Sallows]

>They are denying coverage through their health insurance programs.

Ah.  Of course.  Just as my employer denies me $2.00/hour more than I currently earn.  Or $2.50.  Or any other arbitrary compensation.  Assuming the universe to be boundless, I am denied an infinite number of things.

 

[larry Strong]

All true.

But in no other case can an employer dictate what you can and cannot do outside your place of work, as long as it does not negatively effect the business or organization.

Have you ever had to pee in a cup, or take an alcohol breath test? That's a case of employer dictating exactly what you can and cannot do outside your place of work

 

[Haletown]

It is official . .  . Fluke is a joke