The man is a genius. He's coming out smelling like a rose on this one, like he does everything.
The man is a genius. He's coming out smelling like a rose on this one, like he does everything.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Well, can the Dept. of Labor intervene in a union dispute at a Catholic hospital? Can religious hospitals even have unions? I'm not trolling (yet), but i'm curious. As you have expertise in this area, I'd like to learn.Originally Posted by Imran Siddiqui
There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.
Why would you think Obama is a woman? Seriously, that's dumb even for you.
"Our scientific power has out run out spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
ObamaFemale.jpg Now who looks dumb.
There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.
1. The Catholic Church isn't being mandated to provide contraception to its employees. All employers are being mandated to include contraception in their insurance coverage, except for those directly employed by the churches. Nobody is singling out the Catholic Church here.
2. It is in no way disingenuous to highlight the moral hypocrisy of those claiming to be anti-abortion by noting their unwillingness to seriously prevent abortions from actually taking place. Legal prohibition does not accomplish this.
Yes, data does indicate such, as I've already provided a couple of times. And if you want additional evidence, there's a pretty dramatic case in Russia. Prior to the 1990s, while abortion was state-funded in the USSR, there was virtually nothing in the way of family planning and contraception provisions. The Russian government started giving out free birth control in 1992, and that led to a massive 61% decline in the abortion rate:First: there is no data-driven basis to believe that mandating health insurance provide condoms and the pill to people will actually have a substantial impact on the number of people who use contraception correctly, to the point that there are fewer pregnancies, such that there are also fewer abortions. Second, holding the simultaneous ideas that abortion is wrong and so is forcing a church to give its employees contraception that they can easily acquire anyway is in no way contradictory. Even if they work across purposes, it is still consistent to hold the ideas that one violates religious freedom and the other violates the right to life.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html
Another thing to note is that of the countries where abortion is legal and relatively unrestricted, the U.S. stands out as having a dramatically higher rate than other such countries. The difference? Those other countries all provide contraception to their citizens as part of their universal healthcare coverage. While your insinuation that women are too stupid to use birth control properly when it's easily available is amusing, the data available shows otherwise.
The "violate religious freedom" argument doesn't wash. I'll quote a prominent Catholic American jurist on that front:
--Antonin Scalia, Oregon v. Smith 1990We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis,310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Id. at 166-167.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a
valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, supra, 310 U.S. at 595 (collecting cases). In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), we held that a mother could be prosecuted under the child labor laws [p880] for using her children to dispense literature in the streets, her religious motivation notwithstanding. We found no constitutional infirmity in "excluding [these children] from doing there what no other children may do." Id. at 171. InBraunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) (plurality opinion), we upheld Sunday closing laws against the claim that they burdened the religious practices of persons whose religions compelled them to refrain from work on other days. InGillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461 (1971), we sustained the military selective service system against the claim that it violated free exercise by conscripting persons who opposed a particular war on religious grounds.
Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual's religion was United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 258-261. There, an Amish employer, on behalf of himself and his employees, sought exemption from collection and payment of Social Security taxes on the ground that the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs. We rejected the claim that an exemption was constitutionally required. There would be no way, we observed, to distinguish the Amish believer's objection to Social Security taxes from the religious objections that others might have to the collection or use of other taxes.
If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.
Id. at 260. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner,490 U.S. 680 (1989) (rejecting free exercise challenge to payment of income taxes alleged to make religious activities more difficult). [p881]
The "religious freedom" argument fails because this doesn't in any way force an individual to use birth control against her beliefs, and the obligation being enforced is not singling out religious entities for persecution. Furthermore, considering that the RCC's objection to birth control is because it makes sex for fun instead of procreation, it's entirely reasonable to point out how silly and backwards that idea is to a non-Catholic and is utterly trivial if one does indeed believe that abortion is murder.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
I was specifically referring to the USCCB in my reference.
As for the CHA--since you were so concerned about what Sister Keehan thinks, did you note that she found the new non-compromise compromise to be "glorious?"
Then that's a silly point. Politicians are often wrong about the pulse of the electorate and act prematurely in such regards. Again, we've got actual data showing Catholics overwhelmingly are OK with this. Kaine in particular is also dealing with an electorate that has large numbers of white evangelicals, the only group to really oppose the measure. And not likely to vote Democratic anyway.That was the point of citing them among others. If it wasn't politically uncomfortable why would they be coming out against it rather than walking in lockstep with their party if it is as costless as you allege.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
Did you even read the details, or are you just reacting to headlines?
This "compromise" is a fig leaf, as Elok would put it. The goal of the rule was that employees of church-run hospitals, universities, etc. would have full coverage of contraception. This still achieves that goal, it just superficially transfers the burden to the insurance companies rather than the churches... that are paying the insurance companies for the plans. Since money is fungible, this really makes zero difference.
The only way to consider this a "cave" is to buy into the stupid smear that Obama is somehow waging a war against religion, and that their primary aim was to stick it to the church. While YOU might like that idea, that was never the administration's goal, so this change really doesn't make a difference in the matter hand: contraceptives being covered.
This whole situation has been full of political win for Obama, whether he intended it that way or not (and I doubt he did). Contraceptives get covered, the election focus is shifted to social issues (giving a huge boost to Santorum), women and liberals are galvanized in support of the president and the objecting Republicans will be painted into the "unreasonable social demagogue" corner if they keep harping on this.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
This is ****ing nonsense. Allowing one wrong to take place in order to prevent another isn't necessarily right. I don't blame our lack of freebies on people's propensity to commit murder. Certainly banning abortions would reduce abortions. And anyone stupid enough to do the whole coat-hanger-closet thing doesn't have my sympathy.
I am totally in favor of seriously preventing abortions from taking place. Jail time
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
In the meantime, Santorum has moved into a significant lead in the GOP primary race:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-surges-into-the-lead.html
Other polling has shown him leading Romney in Michigan, which is supposedly Romney's "second home turf." Although, given his "Let Detroit Die" editorial, I sincerely doubt he's very popular there anymore.
The GOP is the gift that keeps on giving, it seems. While I still think Romney's money, organization and institutional backing will win him the nod in the end, the trend is that this is killing him for the general election. Good times.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
A "wrong" that is utterly trivial ("Birth control lets people enjoy sex for sex's sake! EVIL!") and, as cited above, not actually a wrong according to the SCOTUS.
And why is it countries with more restrictive abortion laws have much higher rates of abortion than those who don't? Now, I'm sure Saudi Arabia has a very low abortion rate, but is that the model to emulate, hmm?
And you just gave away the game: "And anyone stupid enough to do the whole coat-hanger-closet thing doesn't have my sympathy." Oh? I thought we were talking about the "murder" of babies? Isn't that where sympathies should like? You just admitted that isn't your actual concern, it's actually having authoritarian control over people's bodies!
That's great logic: Freedom means not expecting a non-church religious employer to follow the same rules as everyone else while forcing women to endure pregnancies they don't want...
Tutto nel mondo è burla
You claimed in the past that killing someone is the right thing to do if it will save multiple lives.This is ****ing nonsense. Allowing one wrong to take place in order to prevent another isn't necessarily right. I don't blame our lack of freebies on people's propensity to commit murder. Certainly banning abortions would reduce abortions. And anyone stupid enough to do the whole coat-hanger-closet thing doesn't have my sympathy.
I am totally in favor of seriously preventing abortions from taking place. Jail time
"They [pets] can't be reasoned with when their instincts kick in and they remember that they're animals. Especially dogs which are genetically 100% wolves." - Al B. Sure!
Old data, but still:
EDIT: Hmm, still haven't figured out this internet thing. Can't paste a simple chart?
Anyway, the link I provided above shows how abortion rates were highest in countries with the more restrictive laws.
If one's concern is *really* to save babies, then prohibition simply doesn't work. Family planning and widespread contraception availability does. There's no way around that.
But at least we see what HC's real agenda is!
Tutto nel mondo è burla
I seem to recall reading somewhere (The Economist, maybe?) that the deal actually prohibits the companies from charging dissenting employers more to cover the "free contraceptives." Now, I only read that detail in that one news report, wherever the hell it was, nowhere else. So it may very well be a mistake. But if it's true, it basically means non-dissenting companies are going to wind up absorbing costs for dissenting ones. Either that or the insurance companies will wind up taking a hit on their profit margins just to be nice. I don't think so, though.
EDIT: Hah, it is true!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...s-institutions
So, there's a little win for the Catholics in there too.
SECOND EDIT: Wait, I'm not sure if I'm reading this sucker right. Who the hell winds up paying for this? From the Economist blurb making the claim:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...contraceptivesInstead, insurers would be obliged to offer contraception free of charge, with the guarantee that the religious employers’ premium would not rise accordingly.
But I can't find anything in the fact sheet cited to clearly support this.
Last edited by Elok; February 11, 2012 at 15:14.
Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door round about my lips.
You don't think insurance companies have figured out by now how to include such costs in their premiums without making it obvious?
Tutto nel mondo è burla
I'm sure he would have been tickled to see Gisella Perl sent to the chair.
Of course, that means Rick Santorum's wife needs to be prosecuted, too...
Tutto nel mondo è burla
The Church.
Rosbifs are destructive scum- Spiffor
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
If government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is also big enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford
Blackwidow24 and FemmeAdonis fan club
The fact that you don't understand why this is wrong is very revealing. I'll give you a little hint: it has nothing to do with the morals of protected sex.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
This is not a mutually exclusive choice. We can allow religious freedom and ban abortions at the same time.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Yes, it reveals I'm far more concerned with the practical reality of how human beings really are, and how to seriously stop unwanted pregnancies. That it might hurt the feelings of some old virgins who also think sex abuse of children is no big deal doesn't bother me in the slightest. Moral clarity.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
Oh really? Or perhaps I simply don't have sympathy for murderers? I personally find my ownAnd you just gave away the game: "[COLOR=#000000]And anyone stupid enough to do the whole coat-hanger-closet thing doesn't have my sympathy." Oh? I thought we were talking about the "murder" of babies? Isn't that where sympathies should like? You just admitted that isn't your actual concern, it's actually having authoritarian control over people's bodies!'s at the fact that you are totally convinced that I am all about controlling bodies rather than simply having a moral objection to abortion.
I'm not sure what makes you believe my sympathies don't lie with the dead children. I stated that I'm unsympathetic to women who would perform illegal abortions.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
But you're fine with legal abortions.
And you claim Alpert's education was wasted.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Boris is still totally convinced that I actually oppose widespread use of contraception, which is ludicrous.
The catholic church is ****ing crazy to oppose it, but hey, we have a first amendment for a reason, I figure.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Boris is correct. You may not have realized it, but your arguments require that you oppose contraception. This may not be what you meant.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Entirely possible, but conservative Catholics are already suspicious of this, and at least a few of them have to be insurance-savvy. They're going to be giving their insurance policies the inquisition treatment, and raising hell the moment they find the slightest evidence of higher costs due to contraceptives. This is just kicking the outrage-can down the road.
Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth, and a door round about my lips.
Since no one was asking about your sympathies for women who have illegal abortions, why did you even bring it up? Because that's where your focus lies, not in saving babies. Otherwise, you'd acknowledge that prohibition against abortion doesn't stop it.Oh really? Or perhaps I simply don't have sympathy for murderers? I personally find my own
I'm not sure what makes you believe my sympathies don't lie with the dead children. I stated that I'm unsympathetic to women who would perform illegal abortions.
During the 1950s and 1960s, when abortion was illegal across the country, it's estimated anywhere from 600,000-1.2 million abortions occurred each year. Today, the average number is less than 1 million per year. Given the increase in population, what does that tell you about the effectiveness of prohibition?
Your priority is authoritarianism, we get it. You don't believe there's a problem that can't be solved via brute force, OK.
Last edited by Boris Godunov; February 11, 2012 at 15:49.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
Where did I ever say that you opposed contraception in general, you tard? Nowhere.Boris is still totally convinced that I actually oppose widespread use of contraception, which is ludicrous.
The catholic church is ****ing crazy to oppose it, but hey, we have a first amendment for a reason, I figure.
I am specifically referring to your stated objection that the government ensure contraception is widely available and free.
And speaking of crazy, there are several religious beliefs of various churches that are similarly crazy but on which they are still obligated to follow the law. That's why a Mormon-affiliated hospital can't refuse to hire/serve black people, despite the (now hush-hush) belief in their scriptures that black people are cursed. I'm guessing you didn't bother to read Scalia's opinion on how religious entities are not entitled to abstain from any laws and regulations they wish.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
Meh, let them. As I said above, now that the progressive Catholics are appeased, this will only serve to bring social issues to the forefront of the election, which is something that will work in Obama's favor. He'll be happy to remind women of this again and again.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
Just because you ban abortions doesn't mean they won't happen. Even if you ban abortions, improving access to contraception would still make abortions less common.
"They [pets] can't be reasoned with when their instincts kick in and they remember that they're animals. Especially dogs which are genetically 100% wolves." - Al B. Sure!
You have to be a rabid misogynist to claim that you have no sympathy for a woman who is so desperate she would stick a coat hanger in her vagina in an attempt to get rid of her pregnancy, but still claim you value other human beings.
"They [pets] can't be reasoned with when their instincts kick in and they remember that they're animals. Especially dogs which are genetically 100% wolves." - Al B. Sure!
Having empathy for other, actual human beings isn't HC's strong point, though. I mean, he doesn't give two shits about what happens to the babies once they're born, I'd wager.
Last edited by Boris Godunov; February 11, 2012 at 17:16.
Tutto nel mondo è burla
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks