Catholics vs. Abortion vs. Obama's mandate...

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/180#post_3459567
Give me a break. The Catholic Church has had its doctrines in place for hundreds of years. It is not "today this and tomorrow that". They don't dream up new doctrines (as does the government) with the changing of the wind. Also, the Church does not dictate. People either follow what the Church teaches, or they choose not to. Can't say the same with all the intrusions that government has in our lives of which none of us have a choice but to submit to. Including excessive taxation on the middle class.
Also, contraceptives are not essential medical services. A hysterectomy is.
If insurance companies covered everything you and Flower want, then we might as well sign over our pay checks to the ins. co., because premiums will hit the ceiling.
Doctrines are known to change. One Pope may agree with one philosophy, the next Pope may do a 180 on the same philosophy. I grew up Catholic. I rememeber the hard-core policies the priest and nuns followed when I went to school. Here in San Antonio, they have two high schools - one for girls, one for boys. Twenty years ago, the mention of integrating the two schools for common classes was unthinkable. Now, it's standard practice. Back in the 50's and 60's, you didn't see nuns in public that weren't covered head-to-toe in their black and white outfits. Nowadays, you may see a nun in the store and not even know it. Church doesn't dictate? What do you call this contraceptive controversy? They are DICTATING they will not provide that medication in their healthcare plans. Again, a hyterectomy may be a medical procedure, but if you follow the same arguments the Catholic Church has with this contraceptive issue, there's nothing in the First Amendment or any other law that states the church has to provide coverage for that procedure if they were to deem it violates their religious beliefs. I'm not saying they would do it, but if they win out on this contraceptive issue, there'd be nothing that would stop them if they wanted to.

 

[flower]

Letting the Catholic church dictate, or not dictate the medicines or procedures is not going to affect the cost of premiums not one iota...Lots of policies cover those very things and cost even less. I don't want ANY church in power to dictate anything...let them preach to their own on Sunday about their version of right and wrong, and leave healthcare in the hands of the doctors and patients. I want everything that modern science has at my beck and call if I need it, and I want it covered by my insurance.

 

[beth]

You both act as if every other plan in the USA are currently equal, covering everything and anything, except for the plan the Church is using, and that is simply not the case.
If you guys want to say you believe in socialized medicine, and to hell with it, then ok. No point to argue with you.
I'm not a religious person myself, but I do respect the First Amendment, and I do appreciate all the charity work offered by the various religious denominations. It seems to me that you might have a bit of resentment going on with regard to religion, and perhaps Catholics in particular. That's not my business so I won't get in to it.

 

[darthtang aw]

Letting the Catholic church dictate, or not dictate the medicines or procedures is not going to affect the cost of premiums not one iota...Lots of policies cover those very things and cost even less. I don't want ANY church in power to dictate anything...let them preach to their own on Sunday about their version of right and wrong, and leave healthcare in the hands of the doctors and patients. I want everything that modern science has at my beck and call if I need it, and I want it covered by my insurance.
You do realize, "the church" is only dictating what heath plan can be offered to their own employees, not the country, correct?
I was going to go into the naive notion you have about the FDA and "Ingredient" labeling for foods. But then realized, why bother. Especially since it has nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[reefraff]

Zman, Long time no see!!!

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459604
You both act as if every other plan in the USA are currently equal, covering everything and anything, except for the plan the Church is using, and that is simply not the case.
If you guys want to say you believe in socialized medicine, and to hell with it, then ok. No point to argue with you.
I'm not a religious person myself, but I do respect the First Amendment, and I do appreciate all the charity work offered by the various religious denominations. It seems to me that you might have a bit of resentment going on with regard to religion, and perhaps Catholics in particular. That's not my business so I won't get in to it.
Like I said Beth, I grew up Catholic. My resentment regarding religion is they use the First Amendment as a tool to circumvent laws that every other non-religious person has to abide by. Don't want to pay any taxes? Create some religion, get enough people to follow it, and BAM, tax free income. Don't want to cover a particular drug or medical procedure in your healthplan? Claim it goes against your religious beliefs. I was reading in the paper this morning where there's this major controversy and upheaval in the Vatican about some bank money laundering going on, and possible tax evasion. Even a supposed plot to asassinate the Pope. You think the Italian Govt. will get involved? Of course not. His Holyiness won't allow it.

 

[reefraff]

I think Catholic teachings are nuts for the most part. That doesn't change the fact that the government doesn't have the authority to force them to go against their religious teachings. It's in the rule book.

 

[zman1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459660
Zman, Long time no see!!!
How is reefraff doing?

 

[zman1]

The so called birth control pill is one form of contraception. However, that drug is also prescribed for regulating hormones and control bleeding for some women and teenagers. Totally unrelated to Birth Control. Perhaps even some Nuns could benefit from this medical treatment.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459735
I think Catholic teachings are nuts for the most part. That doesn't change the fact that the government doesn't have the authority to force them to go against their religious teachings. It's in the rule book.
It's just a pill on a list, this is all political propaganda and mud slinging...just something to vetch and moan about. Nobody is forcing any good Catholic to go against their teachings. It is a pill on a long list that would simply be paid for by the insurance if is elected to be used by the patient and the doctor...the only dictator I see is the church. If you allow the church to dictate medicines based on their religion, than you open the door for all of them to do the same.
So there is no forcing anyone to go against their beliefs. There is no mandate to use anything...it is just on a list of what is covered.
I don't understand why anyone would have a fit over this anyway. Frankly I would like to see every available medicine and procedure that is approved by the FDA to be covered by insurance, that way no matter what me and my doctor should decide concerning my health, I'm covered....
I can't understand the stupitity of not wanting something covered by insurance.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459893
It's just a pill on a list, this is all political propaganda and mud slinging...just something to vetch and moan about. Nobody is forcing any good Catholic to go against their teachings. It is a pill on a long list that would simply be paid for by the insurance if is elected to be used by the patient and the doctor...the only dictator I see is the church. If you allow the church to dictate medicines based on their religion, than you open the door for all of them to do the same.
So there is no forcing anyone to go against their beliefs. There is no mandate to use anything...it is just on a list of what is covered.
I don't understand why anyone would have a fit over this anyway. Frankly I would like to see every available medicine and procedure that is approved by the FDA to be covered by insurance, that way no matter what me and my doctor should decide concerning my health, I'm covered....
I can't understand the stupitity of not wanting something covered by insurance.
What part of it's forcing the church to go against it's teaching don't you get? The government is specifically prohibited from meddling in religion by the constitution. It would be no different than if the government told the Baptists they had to cover domestic partners under their insurance plans.
As far as birth control goes I don't think it should be covered under insurance. I don't think the little blue pill should be covered nor reproductive therapy. Insurance should cover illness and preventative care to prevent illness. People moan and whine about the cost of insurance. Well, when we are paying to cover the cost of Octomoms test tube babies and Hugh Heffner's ****** it drives up the cost.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zman1 http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459889
The so called birth control pill is one form of contraception. However, that drug is also prescribed for regulating hormones and control bleeding for some women and teenagers. Totally unrelated to Birth Control. Perhaps even some Nuns could benefit from this medical treatment.
Doing well.
If the same drug is prescribed to control a different issue and a side effect is the woman can't get pregnant it isn't a deliberate act. It would be like a woman getting a Hysterectomy. Other issues lead to the result that a woman will no longer get pregnant. It's like the difference between murdering someone and shooting them if they are breaking into your home, Intent matters.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459904
What part of it's forcing the church to go against it's teaching don't you get? The government is specifically prohibited from meddling in religion by the constitution. It would be no different than if the government told the Baptists they had to cover domestic partners under their insurance plans.
As far as birth control goes I don't think it should be covered under insurance. I don't think the little blue pill should be covered nor reproductive therapy. Insurance should cover illness and preventative care to prevent illness. People moan and whine about the cost of insurance. Well, when we are paying to cover the cost of Octomoms test tube babies and Hugh Heffner's ****** it drives up the cost.
The government is specifically prohibited from meddling in religioin by the Constitution? OK, so why is polygamy illegal? Certain factions of the Mormon faith believe in that practice. Why is that against the law? Allowing Baptists to deny coverage to domestic partners if the are legally "married" is called discrimination.
I don't think nicotine gum, patches, or any other devices used to inhibit smoking should be allowed to be covered, but some insurance plans do. Some plans cover alcohol addiction treatments under the mental health part. Why should alcoholics be allowed to have those expenses covered? Let's not allow the coverage of Statins in the prescription plan. Eating healthy and exercising regularly is just as effective to treat high cholesterol. Just because you don't have a need for birth control pills, doesn't mean that millions of women in this country don't have a need for it.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459893
It's just a pill on a list, this is all political propaganda and mud slinging...just something to vetch and moan about. Nobody is forcing any good Catholic to go against their teachings. It is a pill on a long list that would simply be paid for by the insurance if is elected to be used by the patient and the doctor...the only dictator I see is the church. If you allow the church to dictate medicines based on their religion, than you open the door for all of them to do the same.
So there is no forcing anyone to go against their beliefs. There is no mandate to use anything...it is just on a list of what is covered.
I don't understand why anyone would have a fit over this anyway. Frankly I would like to see every available medicine and procedure that is approved by the FDA to be covered by insurance, that way no matter what me and my doctor should decide concerning my health, I'm covered....
I can't understand the stupitity of not wanting something covered by insurance.
To begin with it is not just a pill. It is all forms of contraception, including devises like an IUD that terminates embryo implantation in the uterus (terminates life which most Christian churches adamantly oppose).
Its nothing to do with politics on the part of the Church, and everything to do with politics on the part of the current government administration. The Church has held to the doctrine of no artificial means of contraception long before the pill was ever invented. It is a basic belief that humans should not interfere with God's will which is not to just have base sexual pleasure, but to procreate if God so wills it.
It may be archaic but it is their belief and there is biblical reference to support it. One may say even that the belief in any religion is archaic, but then again, do you want to live in a world where the government decides that? Apparently you do.
reefraff's analogy of religious denominations being forced to accept homosexually is a good one. Will the Catholic Church then have to marry gay couples? Include them in health plans? You may say they should be forced to do so, but then you are effectively eroding away at their belief system. Do we live in the the land of the free, or in a totalitarian state where the only god is all-knowing Government.

 

[ironeagle2006]

I grew up Methodist and we are Against Drinking. So if the President came out and said all Churches had to Supply all members of their Congregations with a Fifth of Jack every Year no one would have a Problem with it. Yes there would be an Issue with the Baptists and I know at my Old Church that is the ONLY DRY TOWN in the county. The Bar that serves Booze is OUTSIDE THE TOWN LIMITS and not subject to the towns rules.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459912
To begin with it is not just a pill. It is all forms of contraception, including devises like an IUD that terminates embryo implantation in the uterus (terminates life which most Christian churches adamantly oppose).
Its nothing to do with politics on the part of the Church, and everything to do with politics on the part of the current government administration. The Church has held to the doctrine of no artificial means of contraception long before the pill was ever invented. It is a basic belief that humans should not interfere with God's will which is not to just have base sexual pleasure, but to procreate if God so wills it.
It may be archaic but it is their belief and there is biblical reference to support it. One may say even that the belief in any religion is archaic, but then again, do you want to live in a world where the government decides that? Apparently you do.
reefraff's analogy of religious denominations being forced to accept homosexually is a good one. Will the Catholic Church then have to marry gay couples? Include them in health plans? You may say they should be forced to do so, but then you are effectively eroding away at their belief system. Do we live in the the land of the free, or in a totalitarian state where the only god is all-knowing Government.
I believe in a lot of things that other people disagree with. So if I follow your edicts, I should be able to do whatever I please because the government has no business intruding in my life. Where do you cross the line between believing in something, and violating the simple freedoms of choice? Look at the gay marriage issue. Whose business is it to decide whether two individuals of the same sex have the right to marry? Because some religion interprets some "Book", and that interpretation says that act is "immoral", so therefore the law of the land says they shouldn't be allowed to get married. You are allowing a sector of the population to determine individual rights, and they get to dicate those beliefs because of some protection of their First Amendment rights based on religious beliefs. So yes, all religions who disagree with same-sex mariages should be told it's none of their damn business, and if they don't like it, go find some other place to live where you can run your little dictatorship and do as you please. Catholics want their religious freedoms? Move to Vatican City. Your King awaits to tell you what you can or can't do in your personal lives.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459910
The government is specifically prohibited from meddling in religioin by the Constitution? OK, so why is polygamy illegal? Certain factions of the Mormon faith believe in that practice. Why is that against the law? Allowing Baptists to deny coverage to domestic partners if the are legally "married" is called discrimination.
I don't think nicotine gum, patches, or any other devices used to inhibit smoking should be allowed to be covered, but some insurance plans do. Some plans cover alcohol addiction treatments under the mental health part. Why should alcoholics be allowed to have those expenses covered? Let's not allow the coverage of Statins in the prescription plan. Eating healthy and exercising regularly is just as effective to treat high cholesterol. Just because you don't have a need for birth control pills, doesn't mean that millions of women in this country don't have a need for it.
I don't believe the government has the right to do diddly squat against polygamists as long as they don't do a legal marriage (government contract) nor have a minor as part of the harem.
If the insurance decides to cover alcoholism treatment or nicotine patches that's their call. Just like if the insurance wants to cover birth control. In that case the Catholics would just have to seek out a company that would write policies that don't violate their teachings. In this case ALL insurance companies are being required to cover BC by GOVERNMENT MANDATE.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459936
I believe in a lot of things that other people disagree with. So if I follow your edicts, I should be able to do whatever I please because the government has no business intruding in my life. Where do you cross the line between believing in something, and violating the simple freedoms of choice? Look at the gay marriage issue. Whose business is it to decide whether two individuals of the same sex have the right to marry? Because some religion interprets some "Book", and that interpretation says that act is "immoral", so therefore the law of the land says they shouldn't be allowed to get married. You are allowing a sector of the population to determine individual rights, and they get to dicate those beliefs because of some protection of their First Amendment rights based on religious beliefs. So yes, all religions who disagree with same-sex mariages should be told it's none of their damn business, and if they don't like it, go find some other place to live where you can run your little dictatorship and do as you please. Catholics want their religious freedoms? Move to Vatican City. Your King awaits to tell you what you can or can't do in your personal lives.
Marriage is a religious institution the government has inflicted itself in. I believe the government will have to remove itself from marriage all together in the not too distant future. If the feds recognize gay marriage it opens up a whole new can of worms where churches are concerned and they will have to provide civil union contracts and leave it up to the churches to decide if they will recognize same sex unions.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/390368/catholics-vs-abortion-vs-obamas-mandate/200#post_3459912
To begin with it is not just a pill. It is all forms of contraception, including devises like an IUD that terminates embryo implantation in the uterus (terminates life which most Christian churches adamantly oppose).
Its nothing to do with politics on the part of the Church, and everything to do with politics on the part of the current government administration. The Church has held to the doctrine of no artificial means of contraception long before the pill was ever invented. It is a basic belief that humans should not interfere with God's will which is not to just have base sexual pleasure, but to procreate if God so wills it.
It may be archaic but it is their belief and there is biblical reference to support it. One may say even that the belief in any religion is archaic, but then again, do you want to live in a world where the government decides that? Apparently you do.
reefraff's analogy of religious denominations being forced to accept homosexually is a good one. Will the Catholic Church then have to marry gay couples? Include them in health plans? You may say they should be forced to do so, but then you are effectively eroding away at their belief system. Do we live in the the land of the free, or in a totalitarian state where the only god is all-knowing Government.
Beth, there is no scripture forbiding contraceptives. while the chuch holds to that belief, it is not scripture. There is a scripture that says be fruitful and multiply, but it is a positive commandment, which means....according to Jewish tradition, where the original thought began...to do a possitive commandment brings blessing and no punishment if it is not fulfilled. It is not a sin to not have children. It is not a sin to have sex if you are dedicated to serving God either, but the Catholic church thinks it is.
On gay couples....if they live together as mates, and the government accepts the marriage as legal, then they should indeed be accepted by all insurance plans and any other right that a married couple is entitled to, even if they work for a company owned by Catholics. The church can refuse to marry any couple, not just gays. An insurance policy is not a church, it is not a church institution. It is run by government standards.
When in the church...folks do what the folks there believe, from handling snakes, to thinking it's a sin to not get pregnant...The church can teach and preach it, the people have the right to believe them and do what they say or not.
When it is a public institution, or is run by government standards, the government has the right to say by the power of the FDA that they set up to make those standards..what should be on an insurance policy. It isn't stepping on any toes to make any pill or procedure available to be paid for by your insurance policy.
The government is not saying you must partake, it is saying that it should be made available to all, not just those with big bucks. Why you would opt to partake or not, is up to you and your doctor, it isn't anybodies elses business. The government doesn't care, nor want to know if you do partake of it or not....just that it be made aqvailable to all people reguardless or sex, race or religion. It is as fair and unbiased as it can get.

 

[bionicarm]

So now we have Rick Santorum stating that amniocentesis tests shouldn't be covered on insurance plans because "more often than not" results in abortion, said Santorum, a strident anti-abortion politician, on the CBS program "Face the Nation." "People have the right to do it but to have the government force people to provide it free, to me, is a bit loaded."
How dense can one person be? More often than not cause abortions? The procedure is usually administered to test a fetus for Downs Syndrome or other problems in a fetus. I guess his logic is if a woman discovered her baby had a chromosonal disorder or some other major health issue, she would most likely abort the baby because she wouldn't want to deal with any deformities in her child. So will we expect some other religious faction to back Santorum's theory, and start screaming that they don't want to be forced to allow this procedure to be covered because it violates their religious beliefs?