More freedom. Less religion.
This article brought up a brilliant point. If it is so important to public
policy to have free contraceptives, why not expand existing government programs
to provide them to everybody instead of just the poor? After all, the US
Government is already the largest buyer of condoms in the world (yes, I know
that many go to 3rd world aids programs), but still - Why do we have to make
people who have conscientious objections pay for it instead?I'm
also confused as to forcing people to pay for something that really isn't
that expensive. Why do we have to violate others freedom of conscience for
something that costs $10-20 a month out of pocket? That's who much we spend
on contraception each month in my family, and it's worked perfectly so far
re: radically moderateUh, I'm not in favor of forcing people
through compulsory government means to fund others contraception either, but can
you explain how expanding existing government programs to provide more
contraceptives doesn't make people who have conscientious objections pay
for it? I don't think I get to check a box on my tax form restricting how
the government uses my money.
More religious freedom. This situation is being turned into a big mess. The
government has no business forcing companies to provide funded birth control on
employees. It's simply not their place.
This would not be a problem if we didn't have an employer, and private
insurance based system. Single payer like medicare for all eliminates the
religious freedom argument. And did you notice at the Olympics opening
ceremonies how much the British love their single payer "socialized"
health care system the "NHS"?
Yet another example of how the ACA is going to save us all money on
healthcare......NOT.Repeal and replace.Replace with
things that will actually drive the cost of healthcare down.-Increased
competition for insurance companies, providers and prescription drugs-Tort
reform on malpractice punitive damagesOh, wait, that won't
work. All these guys give too much to political campaigns.Then I
guess we also have to institute:-Sweeping campaign funding reform-Term limits for congressI'm good with that.
The danger posed to America is much greater from the imposition of religion into
government than from government into religion. World history is ripe with
information about governments who have used and now use religion to kill,
enslave and oppress people. There are probably cases where religion was not the
issue but they are amateurs in comparison.Nothing our government has
done is in any way a force against a person’s freedom of religion, except
in the protection of the rights and freedom of Americans. No one is forced to
use birth control or believe any thing about birth control. On the
other side, we, our society, our government, allows religious people much
latitude in promoting and advertising their religions. In the clothes they
wear, in the words they inject into coins, buildings and pledges, even the
public display of worship.The desire to keep government out of
religion can only be accomplished by keeping religion out of government.
There are no Constitutional rights or freedoms for business operations.
Government federal, State, and local have the right to define acceptable
business operations in their venue. Government can say what businesses, what
products, the quality of products, can exist in their community. Churches who choose to operate businesses in the public are expected to follow
the same rules as other businesses. Just because a public business is owned or
operated by a church does not extend the “freedom of religion” to
My religion says its a sin to fund a military or prison or any kind of
intelligence agency...where to I sign up so none of my tax dollars go towards
those things. Religious Freedom!
Women of the world.....You may be tackled, shoved in a dark alley, and
contracepted.There are those out there watching your every move.Be
I just hope this nightmare ends in November. I'm holding on to the hope
that a majority of Americans have enough of a moral compass to not vote for this
train wreck to continue.
Ultra Bob, I think absense of religion has a pretty bad record, too. Think USSR.
I don't think the Romans were gonna religious mission, either. Also, how
is forcing someone else to pay for contraception, which may be against their
religion, protecting anyone's rights or freedom? That doesn't make
sense to me. If contraception is a freedom and a right, isn't the
responsibility to pay for it also their responsibility? Leave those who disagree
out of the equation and then you are protecting rights and freedoms of two
individuals, not just one at the expense of others.
Much of the wording involved here suggests that contraception is now
'free'. That alone should send up warning flags. It's not free.
Someone has to pay for it, but it's a great word. Every time someone
spouts out the word, immediately the crowds gather and the vote is all but
unanimous. We like free stuff.Any time government offers something
for free, the costs begin to mount. A similar ploy is made by strange men in
odd cars offering free candy to children through a rolled down window, but
again, at what cost? In many cases, this is the agenda of someone wishing to
steer the masses into designed paths --- usually with tighter controls.
Ultra Bob,I guess you are forgetting that most of the many, many
millions that have been killed in the last century were killed by governments
that were and are atheist and/or collectivist. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler all
used these forms of government to kill. The commonality between all
these governments was the idea that the collective was more important than the
individual. Bad things happen when you subjugate the rights of individuals to
the will of any group. Even in societies where religion was and is
used as political power the big gotcha is the lack of individual freedom. Just
another form of collectivism really.Your worries about the influence
of religion in the government is silly at best.Your support of
collectivism is way more dangerous.History proves that.
This desire to force others to provide contraception to the collective is
a small stepping stone in the wrong direction. We are not likely to be subject
to mass political murder because it happens, but it is the wrong direction. All
the arguments for this initiative are collectivist arguments and take away
individual liberty and responsibility.That is why it is wrong and
No one has addressed the "cause" here. If you don't want
babies...don't................!Yes, SADLY, there are women
taken advantaged of against their will. Surely this doesn't represent a
large percentage of those seeking contraception.Self control and
personal responsibility should be the watch words here. But somehow that would
be construed to be unconstitutional.
mattwend. We have rights and freedoms because our federal government
acts to secure and protect those rights. There are no other rights than those
given us by our membership in the American society. As Americans we
are expected to obey and pay for the laws, regardless of whether we agree or
disagree with a particular law. Being an American is a totally voluntary
membership and if you choose to be an American you must pay your dues.
Captain Kirk. I actually have no proof of my opinion. Only to say
that my opinion comes from the information gleaned from history books and
movies. And that information has been supplemented by my imagination thus
giving my conclusions. Not as good as real facts and figures but it works for
me. Regards your opinion about collectivism, consider that every
step in the progress of human beings happened as the result of collectivism, the
getting together in a common cause. Whether or not the collective was forced
or voluntary didn’t really matter. Consider the American
Indian. The stories tell me he was a fiercely independent person living in a
loose collective only for defense and making war. He was totally individually
responsible for himself and his family. If he was taken out, his family would
starve because no one else would take another persons responsibility. He owned
only those things that he could protect. As I understand it, after
hundreds of years the Indian culture remained pretty much the same, with none of
the accomplishments we regard as progress.
@Oh please -- Contraception is a medication used for several purposes, only one
of which is pregnancy prevention. I'll say it's ok for insurance not
to cover it the day you agree that we can drop whatever medication you use from
@Oh, Please! You do realize that your comment just made you look
foolish, especially to many, many married couples that use contraception.
It's not, reading between the lines of your comment, for all those
hedonists out that just can't control themselves. Oh, let's just tell
married couples to, well, don't.....There are also, as @Wonder
said, a number of medical conditions that for which contraceptives are
beneficial. Some women are prescribed oral contraceptives for acne when other
medication doesn't work. That's just one example. Would you like
more to further invalidate your position? Or perhaps you should just quit
listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Hey... I think it was a dumb move by Democrats to include some of this.... but
you know what.... no one is making anyone have to use any of these services. If
you are morally against any of these, just don't use them. How easy is
that.But no....were all going to go all victimized about this. But
in Utah, the fact that this is a huge deal doesn't surprise me. I
don't drink... everyone knows that. That is one thing. But the Utah
mentality is I don't drink, therefor no one should have the right to choose
to drink (or smoke, or own a smoke shop evidently).If an
organization only hires people who promise not to do something - use birth
control for example - the fact that they have to offer it should mean nothing
because no one should be asking for it. It is available - just not needed.Go figure......
I didn’t think “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” was
followed by “unless the demon-rats in their wisdom dictate
otherwise”.And there is no such thing as free preventative
medicine. No co-pay at time of service just means higher premiums the rest of
the time.And I thought BO said he was trying to create jobs? How
does placing more expensive mandates, some of which people of conscience
consider morally reprehensible, help create jobs? What is
discouraging is that much seems to hinge on the RFRA, when it should hinge on
the 1st amendment. The ability of the government to present a compelling state
interest to override religious seems to override the constitution, because the
constitution contains no such exception.but then, what does the
constitution have to do with anything - to quote the (D) from Wisconsin
It is actually hard to believe that anyone thinks there is a good reason to get
stuff for free just because you can't control your actions or pay for it. I
mean, we allow you to actually execute your own babies so, rather than free
contraceptives, why not just keep your kitty on a leash!
J-TX. Have you noticed that employers are now getting health care premium
rebate checks?As a retired health care administrator for a Lww Firm
located on LBJ that watched and paid ever rising health care premiums before the
Affordable Health Care Act.I'm good with that.
Paying for other peoples behavior is a sign of a weak society.
So where is all the furor about Quakers being forced to pay for wars through the
compulsory power of taxes?Where is the rage from the LDS who are
forced to pay for the socialized distribution and sales of liquor through their
state taxes?Where is the anger for Jews and Muslims who are forced
to pay for swine subsidies in their federal taxes?But ask the
University of Notre Dame cover the contraceptives of a janitor at the football
stadium...Some people have a very narrow view of what constitutes
infringement of religious liberty.
Well next time some of you take your diabetes medication or your high blood
pressure medication or your cholesterol lowering medication that you got for a
very reduced price because of your insurance, just think that in my opinion you
all caused your own illnesses and in my opinion insurance shouldn't pay for
any of your medication. After all, I don't need that medication, so no one
else should. Makes about as much sense as you saying that someone else
shouldn't get medication they need.
@wonder,Very well put, could not agree with you more.
"Paying for other peoples behavior is a sign of a weak society."I agree.... no heart treatment for fat peopleNo joint
replacement or repair for former athletesAnd people who build in
known areas that have flooding or tornados.... hey, you knew there was a risk...
deal with it.And all those kids we now need to educate because of
others "behavior".... well you know how this goes.
@worf"Paying for other peoples behavior is a sign of a weak
society."You should stop listening to Fox, Limbaugh, and Hannity
and look into what is being offered. It is more than just contraception. The
part of the ACA that took effect for women dealt with a number of preventative
care issues, and yes, contraception is considered a preventative care issue.
You do realize that plenty of married couples use contraception, right?All the ACA is doing in this case is removing the co-pay, which has been a
barrier for many to get preventative health screenings, which when people
don't get these, the costs can mount later on- which you pay for through
increased health insurance premiums.But, hey, if you don't want
to pay for other people's behavior, drop all the insurances you have
(because they all pay into a "risk pool" that covers others) and move to
the desert. At least there, you might not get any TV or radio reception to hear
some of these "news" programs and "talking heads" screaming
about how we shouldn't help anyone else.
I personally think this is a silly argument. Where are the Jehovah's
Witnesses protesting against being forced to have insurance that covers blood
transfusions? Several religions and cultures don't believe in using all or
some part of medical practices. It should be covered, but it should be the
choice of the individual whether or not to use it.
Why am I being forced to pay for something that is 99% controllable? What a can
of worms we open when we say 'yes' to everything instead of practicing