Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

    Affordable birth control should be tenet of basic health care | PennLive.com

    Boehner: Birth Control Mandate Is Unconstitutional | TPMDC

    A part of the health care overhaul was a law requiring employers and insurance plans to have to cover more preventive care things such as birth control and other methods of contraception.

    Churches and houses of worship themselves got an exemption from the administration, but hospitals and colleges and charities do not.

    There is an uproar going on right now fueled mostly by Catholic Bishops, elected Republicans and the like as to the constitutionality of having to offer their female employees the benefits of preventive medicine that every other working woman would get under the law, as a practical matter of business, should a female employee wish to seek it.

    From this AP story The Associated Press: House leader: US should review birth control order "Last year, an advisory panel from the respected Institute of Medicine recommended including birth control on the list, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius agreed, issuing a new federal regulation last summer.

    That rule, however, exempted houses of worship and their employees, as well as other institutions whose primary purpose is to promote religious belief. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other places would not be required to cover contraceptives, it specified. Neither would religious organizations whose purpose is to promote belief, and that primarily employ and serve people of the same creed."


    I don't really have a dog in this fight.

    I guess, mostly, I'm trying to understand the uproar better based off of what I already know and someone's going to have to explain it to me because John Boehner just sounds like an idiot carping about "It's unconstitutional!" all day without telling me why it is or how that is and what's so offensive, exactly.

    There is the political side to all this, with some saying it will cost Obama votes from Catholics, but I wasn't aware that real world Catholic women carried a huge grudge about birth control.

    To me, the difference between Christians and Muslims is that they listen to what their crazy preachers say, and then they follow it. But us Christians hear the Pope say stuff, and we just kind of shrug our shoulders and go, "haha, silly Pope, thinks we shouldn't use contraception". We hear the crazy shit, but we govern our lives in our own way regardless.

    What exactly is the controversy? That big, bad Nazi Obama who thinks like a Kenyan wants to make sure you have control over the choices you make? Or is he bad because he's not promoting unprotected sex and the ignorant philosophies that go along with it?

    I fee like you've got one side that is saying, "We are totally against birth control, and so if you make a mistake, you're not allowed to have an abortion" while you've got the other side saying, "We want the least amount of unwanted pregnancies, so in order to help you help yourself from making a mistake, here's free coverage of birth control so that YOU can choose when YOU want to have a baby".

    Or am I wrong?

    Discuss...

  • #2
    Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

    Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
    I don't really have a dog in this fight.

    I guess, mostly, I'm trying to understand the uproar better based off of what I already know and someone's going to have to explain it to me because John Boehner just sounds like an idiot carping about "It's unconstitutional!" all day without telling me why it is or how that is and what's so offensive, exactly. ....

    I fee like you've got one side that is saying, "We are totally against birth control, and so if you make a mistake, you're not allowed to have an abortion" while you've got the other side saying, "We want the least amount of unwanted pregnancies, so in order to help you help yourself from making a mistake, here's free coverage of birth control so that YOU can choose when YOU want to have a baby".

    Or am I wrong?

    Discuss...
    You are wrong and it seems dishonest in saying you do not have a dog in this fight while also lumping birth control with abortion. Child care is not a disease and abortion is not a cure.

    As far as why it is unconstitutional, that is easy. There is no provision that authorizes the federal government to provide health care, in general, and birth control, specifically.

    Putting that little detail aside, fewer are politically against conception prevention than abortion. You can choose when YOU want to have a baby and YOU can pay for it.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

      Wasn't it always the left that said that government should stay out of the bedroom?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

        Originally posted by tsquare View Post
        Wasn't it always the left that said that government should stay out of the bedroom?
        Yes, and a sensible policy to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves breaks that pledge how, exactly?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

          Originally posted by tsquare View Post
          Wasn't it always the left that said that government should stay out of the bedroom?
          Wasn't it the far-right that continues to advocate preposterous positions like claiming that a birth control mandate for everybody but churches is unconstitutional?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

            Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
            You are wrong and it seems dishonest in saying you do not have a dog in this fight while also lumping birth control with abortion. Child care is not a disease and abortion is not a cure.

            As far as why it is unconstitutional, that is easy. There is no provision that authorizes the federal government to provide health care, in general, and birth control, specifically.

            Putting that little detail aside, fewer are politically against conception prevention than abortion. You can choose when YOU want to have a baby and YOU can pay for it.
            No, I don't have a dog in this fight. Women should choose what's best for them.

            America leads the world in cancer detection and prevention. Places like Planned Parenthood are the reason for that, but they're under assault as well and for no good or practical reason other than the far-right has nothing better to do since they don't really care about passing anything close to a jobs bill?

            The government wouldn't be providing birth control; employers and their insurance policies would. And since health care is in private hands and the government is authorized to regulate commerce, that makes the law constitutional.

            "Lumping" birth control and abortion? How can you comfortably put aside the ignorance that says people should be making sex as dangerous as possible? American teens get pregnant between 4 and 8 times as much as their European counterparts, and that has everything to do with intelligent sexual health information, which includes using contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

            The usage of one has a causal effect of lowering the other, which is something we can all agree to no matter where we stand on abortion.

            I think it's baseless to say that this is a law that is some kind of war on religion, as we've heard the last couple days from too many blowhards.

            The Health and Human Services Secretary didn't just decide to go with it out of thin air. It was recommended by the Institute of Medicine.

            And to be fair to men, prostate cancer screenings should be included in all coverage as well. Saves a ton of money in the long-run.

            What are these mad candidates going to say next? That Americans should simply cut out sex from their diets? I don't think there's one independent voter in the land who wouldn't find that a tad pious.

            It's true, children aren't a disease, but it is what you apparently think I think children to be, which is a cynical projection of your own thoughts and not mine.

            People are going to have sex. Especially people who are getting married later and later. Taking preventive measures helps to reduce sexually transmitted diseases as well as unwanted pregnancies.

            I just don't see independent female voters going to the polls in November to vote against birth control, since it's so widely been accepted and used by women of all political leanings.

            It just seems to me that the outraged folks just woke up from a coma they've been in for 45 years and have just realized that birth control prevents life from occurring, and that is just way too much for a few folks to handle while the rest of knew that already.

            "Lumping" the two together has been a hard-right tactic, as if to say that a woman who uses it is someone who is basically performing an abortion on themselves every month they take birth control preventing that egg from being fertilized, and that's just so outside of the mainstream that I think women will reject that not-so-subtle hard-right accusation.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

              Originally posted by tsquare View Post
              Wasn't it always the left that said that government should stay out of the bedroom?
              Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
              Yes, and a sensible policy to encourage people to take responsibility for themselves breaks that pledge how, exactly?
              The "sensible policy" puts the government in the bedroom, pretty simple concept really. The sad part of this is it shows the true nature of politics. In this case for the left, the ends justify the means on reneging on a stance of staying out of the bedroom. To be completely far though, it is the right that cannot seem to stay of the bedroom with policy in the first place.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

                Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                The "sensible policy" puts the government in the bedroom, pretty simple concept really. The sad part of this is it shows the true nature of politics. In this case for the left, the ends justify the means on reneging on a stance of staying out of the bedroom. To be completely far though, it is the right that cannot seem to stay of the bedroom with policy in the first place.
                You see, I don't see it as the government doing anything about anyone's bedroom.

                It's a mandate on employers and insurance policies, not on women, correct?

                If the gov't were to rule that prostate cancer for men must be covered in the plans, that's not something that is forcing men to do anything. They don't even have to get their prostate checked if they don't want to. However, since prevention of unwanted prostate cancer is something every man over the age of 40 worries about, and the gov't requires policies to cover that, I wouldn't say the government wants to be in your ass either. What the gov't is saying is that if you want to check out your own ass as a practical health issue, than we're saying we support the idea that you are taking responsibility for yourself.

                And shouldn't responsibility be supported instead of reckless behavior?

                To me, the idea of lessening the burden on young women who work at jobs that don't pay much by covering something a lot of them have to pay for now makes good business sense, because then they've got money to use or save on other things as well as having easier access to controlling when they are ready for a baby.

                And most women are waiting longer anyway, so I think for them it's about as practical an issue for the below 40 set as prostate cancer would be for the above 40 male.

                Ask a working professional woman is she thinks she'd benefit from this law, and I think you'll hear a resounding yes on that note. It goes beyond politics to me. A nurse at the General Hospital gets to choose the same health care policy as one working at Our Lady of Perpetual Misery. They can choose to get their birth control covered or not. So I'm still not seeing the "liberals wanting to be in your bedroom" thing. I don't think the Institute of Medicine was relaying their opinions from some maniacal leftist conspiracy somewhere.

                More women do vote for Democrats while more men vote Republican. And women are a huge lobbying force. And if men can go around with concealed weapons, than I think women ought to be able to have choices in their health care coverage. At the end of the day they'll be deciding what they do with their bodies, not the government or their employer.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

                  I believe the Constitutional issue is raised if you force, for example, a Catholic hospital to pay for birth control. This would be forcing them to pay for something that conflicts with their religious beliefs, or so the argument goes.

                  Bear in mind that in at least some of these organizations, they run their own health insurance plans. They even offer health insurance to the public in some places, e.g. Fidelis Healthcare in New York.

                  This also raises some interesting side issues. Catholic employers will sometimes fire people for conduct that conflicts with the Catholic belief system. Let's say Mary works for Holy Cross Hospital, and goes to get her birth control prescription filled at the local secular pharmacy. Holy Cross might well fire her for doing so, except that HIPPA prevents the use of that kind of data for non-clinical purposes.

                  What Boehner might be saying (I'm not sure, he doesn't state his reasoning) is that if you require Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, BCBS, etc to cover birth control and exempt religious insurers, this might raise a Constitutional issue under the Equal Protection clause. Might be a damned if you do, damned if you don't

                  For the record, I find the church's objection to birth control to be wrong. But they do have a right to their beliefs and I believe the question of whether they can be forced to pay for care that conflicts with their beliefs to be an interesting one.

                  Ultimately, I feel that the rights of the patient should prevail here. Hopefully, we can discuss it in the thread without a bunch of partisan noise.

                  Matt

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

                    Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                    I believe the Constitutional issue is raised if you force, for example, a Catholic hospital to pay for birth control. This would be forcing them to pay for something that conflicts with their religious beliefs, or so the argument goes.

                    Bear in mind that in at least some of these organizations, they run their own health insurance plans. They even offer health insurance to the public in some places, e.g. Fidelis Healthcare in New York.

                    This also raises some interesting side issues. Catholic employers will sometimes fire people for conduct that conflicts with the Catholic belief system. Let's say Mary works for Holy Cross Hospital, and goes to get her birth control prescription filled at the local secular pharmacy. Holy Cross might well fire her for doing so, except that HIPPA prevents the use of that kind of data for non-clinical purposes.

                    What Boehner might be saying (I'm not sure, he doesn't state his reasoning) is that if you require Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, BCBS, etc to cover birth control and exempt religious insurers, this might raise a Constitutional issue under the Equal Protection clause. Might be a damned if you do, damned if you don't

                    For the record, I find the church's objection to birth control to be wrong. But they do have a right to their beliefs and I believe the question of whether they can be forced to pay for care that conflicts with their beliefs to be an interesting one.

                    Ultimately, I feel that the rights of the patient should prevail here. Hopefully, we can discuss it in the thread without a bunch of partisan noise.

                    Matt
                    That's the thin line here. The church does have a right to their beliefs, so places of worship are exempted, but not their places of business, which are not.

                    The people who run Holy Cross Hospital can have their beliefs, but business is business and that's what health care still is.

                    I see it a bit in reverse. Like, if you exempt Holy Cross Hospital, than you have a situation where an employee there does not get the same choice in coverage as a counterpart at the General Hospital. Mind you, even though I believe the percentage of employees at both places would be the same in terms of who uses it and who doesn't, I believe that even with the law that the Holy Cross employees who do would still probably buy it and not tell their employer. Just like how they buy it now but don't feel so bad when the Pope or whoever else tells them what for.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

                      Originally posted by Formaldehyde View Post
                      Wasn't it the far-right that continues to advocate preposterous positions like claiming that a birth control mandate for everybody but churches is unconstitutional?
                      It wasn't exactly said that way I believe but.

                      If something violates your religious beliefs the Government cannot make a law to violate them That is part of the 1st Amendment.

                      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
                      The birth control mandate is putting a prohibition on someones beliefs. My wife is a Surgical Technoligist (look it up if you dont know) and should have the Right to NOT assist in performing an Abortion as it goes against her religious beliefs. Obamacare changed that as it used to be something a Nurse or Doctor or other person in the operating room could legally do without fear that they would get fired for it.

                      It is bad enough that Free Speech for people who have Christian beliefs is under attack. When someone can say happy Ramadan but will get in trouble for happy Christmas there is a problem. This is no different.

                      Though I doubt you see the legal aspects and your responses are going to be more ad hominem than critical thinking I am not holding my breath for any sane or intelligent comment.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

                        Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                        I believe the Constitutional issue is raised if you force, for example, a Catholic hospital to pay for birth control. This would be forcing them to pay for something that conflicts with their religious beliefs, or so the argument goes.
                        Last i looked pacifists paid taxes that go into the war-machine as Rastafarian pay taxes used in the war on drugs. I have yet to see a line on my tax forms that let's me prohibit where my tax dollars go based on philosophical or religious beliefs.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

                          You know, the best preventive measure to having babies is putting the vagina and the penis away. The second thing is a condom and birth control pill/patch/whatever and these are all things that involve personal responsibility. As time goes, I am becoming more and more pro-life with exception to cases involving rape. It should not be prerogative of employers, corporations or any form of government to legislate and execute personal behavior or to provide an escape route from it. Really, this is only an issue of common sense.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

                            Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
                            You see, I don't see it as the government doing anything about anyone's bedroom.

                            It's a mandate on employers and insurance policies, not on women, correct?

                            If the gov't were to rule that prostate cancer for men must be covered in the plans, that's not something that is forcing men to do anything. They don't even have to get their prostate checked if they don't want to. However, since prevention of unwanted prostate cancer is something every man over the age of 40 worries about, and the gov't requires policies to cover that, I wouldn't say the government wants to be in your ass either. What the gov't is saying is that if you want to check out your own ass as a practical health issue, than we're saying we support the idea that you are taking responsibility for yourself.

                            And shouldn't responsibility be supported instead of reckless behavior?

                            To me, the idea of lessening the burden on young women who work at jobs that don't pay much by covering something a lot of them have to pay for now makes good business sense, because then they've got money to use or save on other things as well as having easier access to controlling when they are ready for a baby.

                            And most women are waiting longer anyway, so I think for them it's about as practical an issue for the below 40 set as prostate cancer would be for the above 40 male.

                            Ask a working professional woman is she thinks she'd benefit from this law, and I think you'll hear a resounding yes on that note. It goes beyond politics to me. A nurse at the General Hospital gets to choose the same health care policy as one working at Our Lady of Perpetual Misery. They can choose to get their birth control covered or not. So I'm still not seeing the "liberals wanting to be in your bedroom" thing. I don't think the Institute of Medicine was relaying their opinions from some maniacal leftist conspiracy somewhere.

                            More women do vote for Democrats while more men vote Republican. And women are a huge lobbying force. And if men can go around with concealed weapons, than I think women ought to be able to have choices in their health care coverage. At the end of the day they'll be deciding what they do with their bodies, not the government or their employer.
                            It is all well intended. Not sure I am really disputing that, but it still puts the government in the bedroom. Really what it does is put government in the business of supporting what it says is acceptable heath. Not everyone may agree, but that does not matter to "regulated" health standards.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: To Birth-Control or Not to Birth-Control

                              If this is about "the pill" (I can't make out from the article what exactly "birth control" is) I am with the conservatives that it should not be for free.

                              It has nothing to do with birth control being "bad". I actually favor that people plan their children while still being able to have sex.

                              The point is that I think insurance should be a a way of managing risks that people can't afford. The Pill is dirt cheap. I don't understand where the article gets the "15 to $50 a month" figure from: market price is around $3,50 per month. Funding a cheap drug that people use for the biggest part of their entire life has nothing to do with managing risks: it is income redistribution. The U.S. is in dire need of some income redistribution but doing it through health insurance is not the way it should be done.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X