Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on May 21, 2012, 08:39:26 AM
-
Notre Dame sues Obama Administration over HHS rule
The Washington Examiner ^ | May 21, 2012 | David Freddoso
In 2009, President Obama delivered the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. Now, Notre Dame is suing his administration over its insistence that Catholic schools and other institutions provide insurance coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives, and other abortifacient drugs without any meaningful opt-out for conscientious objectors.
Rev. John Jenkins, the university's president, was given much grief over his commencement invitation to President Obama in 2009. Today, he sent the following email to Notre Dame employees, announcing and explaining the lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtone xaminer.com ...
-
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/forty-three-catholic-organizations-file-lawsuits-against-hhs-mandate
Awesome. Fuck Obama and let him be put in steerage w an oar in hand shipping his ass back to wherever the fuck he came from.
-
Uphold religious freedom
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - Updated 10 hours ago
E-mail Print (4) Comments Text size Share
Even as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutional case against the health care mandates at the center of Obamacare, more than 40 Catholic dioceses and organizations have filed their own case against the law, charging a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
Twelve separate cases filed across the country focus on the plan’s insistence that Catholic organizations include coverage for sterilization and birth control that violate church teachings.
“We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress — and we’ll keep at it — but there’s still no fix,” said New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a statement yesterday. “Time is running out.”
The Washington, D.C., archdiocese is also a party to the suit, where Cardinal Donald Wuerl reiterated, “The lawsuit in no way challenges either women’s established legal right to obtain and use contraception or the right of employers to provide coverage for it if they so choose. This lawsuit is about religious freedom.”
The Department of Health and Human Services crafted such a narrow definition of religious institutions (priests are no doubt relieved the church does not have to provide free birth control for them) as to be virtually meaningless.
However, as a website set up by the Washington archdiocese notes, “By including an exemption at all, the government apparently agrees that, in keeping with decades of practice and precedent, religious institutions should not be compelled to purchase drugs or procedures that violate deeply held religious or moral beliefs.”
The church will argue in court that it isn’t the government’s role to define what counts as “religious ministry” and, therefore, whether religious schools, hospitals and social service agencies can be forced to adhere to a policy that violates religious beliefs.
It is, of course, what happens when government overreaches. And that is the real problem with Obamacare.
-
Cheer, Cheer for Old Notre Dame
Townhall.com ^ | May 23, 2012 | Terry Jeffrey
When President Barack Obama appeared at Notre Dame in 2009 to accept an honorary law degree and deliver the university's commencement address, he did not dodge the fact that he favored legalized abortion and that Notre Dame -- and the Catholic Church to which it belongs -- does not.
Obama went so far as to suggest that the wholesale state-sanctioned killing of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs was just one of those things that intelligent, well-educated people in a civilized society ought to be able to agreeably disagree about.
Indeed, he condescended so far as to say that in his health care policies he would protect the consciences of those who did not want to be complicit in other people's abortions.
"Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Obama said. "Those are things we can do."
This week, Notre Dame sued Obama's administration, filing a complaint in federal court that is a systematic expose of the utter contempt the administration has shown for the consciences of those associated with Notre Dame and of Catholics in general.
In its complaint, Notre Dame explains that Obama secured passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") only by convincing "pro-life" Democrats that no one in his administration would use the act to fund abortions or force people to act against their consciences.
"Congressman Stupak and other pro-life House members indicated that they would refuse to vote for the Senate version because it failed adequately to prohibit federal funding of abortion," says Notre Dame's complaint. "To appease these representatives, President Obama issued an executive order providing that no executive agency would authorize the federal funding of abortion services.
"The Act was, therefore, passed based on the central premise that all agencies would uphold and follow 'longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience' and to prohibit federal funding of abortion," says Notre Dame.
"That executive order," says Notre Dame, "was consistent with a 2009 speech that President Obama gave at Notre Dame, in which he indicated that his administration would honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft sensible conscience clauses."
Obama's executive order stated: "Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience ... remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."
Obama, of course, did not tell the truth at Notre Dame. He did not tell the truth to Bart Stupak. He did not tell the truth in his executive order.
Notre Dame makes this quite clearly in its court filing.
"In stark contrast with the agreement essential to passage of the Affordable Care Act and President Obama's promise to protect religious liberty, the HHS's new guidelines required insurers and group health plans to cover 'all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,'" says the university's complaint.
"FDA-approved contraceptives that qualify under these guidelines include drugs that induce abortions," says Notre Dame. "For example, the FDA has approved 'emergency contraceptives' such as the morning-after pill (otherwise known as Plan B), which operates by preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb, and Ulipristal (otherwise known as HRP 2000 or Ella), which likewise can induce abortions of living embryos."
Not only did Obama fail to protect the consciences of American Catholics and Catholic institutions, including Notre Dame, he directly attacked their freedom of conscience through a regulation that requires virtually all Catholic lay people to buy, and virtually all Catholic institutions to provide, health-insurance plans that cover, without any fees or co-pay, multiple practices that violate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
Notre Dame states this, too, repeatedly -- and with force -- in its complaint against the Obama administration.
"All of the required 'contraceptive methods' and 'sterilization procedures' violate Notre Dame's well-established and sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit contraception and sterilization to inhibit procreation," says Notre Dame.
"Notre Dame cannot, without violating its sincerely held religious beliefs, subsidize, facilitate, and/or sponsor coverage for abortifacients, sterilization services, contraceptives and related counseling services, which are inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church," says the university.
"This unprecedented, direct assault on the religious beliefs of Notre Dame and all Catholics is irreconcilable with American law," says Notre Dame.
Three years ago, when Obama spoke at Notre Dame, I optimistically wrote that a rising generation of Americans may see Notre Dame's greatest comeback -- not on an athletic field but in a conflict over fundamental questions of morality on which the Catholic Church takes an inalterable stand.
Well, the Fighting Irish just ran the first play in their comeback drive. It was nothing fancy -- just a crashing blow through the right side of the line, the sort of smash-mouth play a strong and confident team can run for first down after first down until they push across the opponent's goal line.
Americans who love our Constitution and individual liberty should send a volley cheer on high and shake down the thunder from the sky.
-
Fury Spreads: Catholic Leaders Join MRC Outrage Over Network Silence on Catholics vs
Newsbusters | May 23, 2012 | Staff
Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:16:12 PM by bkopto
Nine prominent Catholic leaders have joined the Media Research Center to voice outrage over the broadcast networks deliberately withholding news of the momentous 43 Catholic entities suing the Obama administration for violating their religious freedoms.
They represent major organizations including the Acton Institute, Cardinal Newman Society, SBA List and others. More are coming in every hour.
There are 60 million Catholics in the US. The Catholic vote will be the most important swing vote this year. So it’s not just a major policy issue, it is one with massive political implications. Yet, 19 seconds of news coverage remains the only attention given by the evening broadcast networks. Two days after news broke, the tally is:
- ABC World News – ZERO seconds of coverage. But, last night there was time for a full report on sleep apnea and Katie Couric discussing how she met Queen Elizabeth; how she wore a peach coat and "a lovely peach hat."
- NBC Nightly News – ZERO seconds of coverage. But last night there was time to squeeze in a story on a new computer app that shows America's eating habits, "graphic evidence" of how we eat badly late at night.
- CBS Evening News – a brief 19 seconds of coverage on the evening the lawsuit became public. ZERO coverage last night. But there was time in the broadcast for a Cincinnati Reds baseball fan lucky enough to catch two home runs in left field.
“The intentional, deafening silence continues,” stated Brent Bozell, MRC President, “and we are not the only ones concerned. This deliberate censorship must come to an end.”
-
Considering they supply and pay for contraception for their employees I don't exactly see how they can't complain about allowing students to join together as a group and pay 100% of their premiums to supply themselves contraception. The only thing the university is doing is allowing a group plan to be created and that's it. The University is not being forced to pay for it
-
Considering they supply and pay for contraception for their employees I don't exactly see how they can't complain about allowing students to join together as a group and pay 100% of their premiums to supply themselves contraception. The only thing the university is doing is allowing a group plan to be created and that's it. The University is not being forced to pay for it
What part of not being FORCED by Obama and and his gang of traitorous communists into compulsion do you not grasp?
-
What part of not being FORCED by Obama and and his gang of traitorous communists into compulsion do you not grasp?
what are they being "forced" to do exactly
the group plan already existed and the University didn't pay one penny of the premiums
the only difference is now the plan will include contraception
it will still be paid 100% by the students just like it was before
Considering that the University healthcare plan already provideds contraception (and I think also vasectomies) for their employees and the Univeristy actually pays part of those preimiums they really have no grounds to bitch and moan
-
what are they being "forced" to do exactly
the group plan already existed and the University didn't pay one penny of the premiums
the only difference is now the plan will include contraception
it will still be paid 100% by the students just like it was before
Considering that the University healthcare plan already provideds contraception (and I think also vasectomies) for their employees and the Univeristy actually pays part of those preimiums they really have no grounds to bitch and moan
No employer or individual should be forced to provide anything as dictated by the kenyan ghetto traitor IMHO.
Who the fuck is obama and that disgusting c unt rag pelosi to be forcing private businesses into what they have to provide?
I swaer - you leftists were always batty and mad, but you fools have no idea just how far you have delved into totalitarian marxism and communism by supporting this criminal junta aka obama admn.
-
No employer or individual should be forced to provide anything as dictated by the kenyan ghetto traitor IMHO.
Who the fuck is obama and that disgusting c unt rag pelosi to be forcing private businesses into what they have to provide?
I swaer - you leftists were always batty and mad, but you fools have no idea just how far you have delved into totalitarian marxism and communism by supporting this criminal junta aka obama admn.
and they are not being forced to provide anything
they already created the group plan and no one forced them to do that
they are not paying one penny of the premium and that is not changing either
so what are they bitching about?
-
Considering they supply and pay for contraception for their employees I don't exactly see how they can't complain about allowing students to join together as a group and pay 100% of their premiums to supply themselves contraception. The only thing the university is doing is allowing a group plan to be created and that's it. The University is not being forced to pay for it
You keep claiming that, but what's the source?
This sources says otherwise:
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/catholic_affiliated_institutions_that_provide_contraceptive_coverage_chart.pdf
33 - If they cover it like Straw claims...would they even have standing?
-
Simple - because the insurance they are. Forced to buy is forced to cover it.
-
43 Catholic organizations, including Notre Dame, sue Obama administration over HHS mandate
Life Site News ^ | May 21, 2012 | BEN JOHNSON
Posted on May 21, 2012 5:59:33 PM EDT by NYer
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, May 21, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a coordinated defense of religious liberty, at 11 a.m. 43 Roman Catholic organizations filed a dozen lawsuits nationwide to strike down the HHS mandate.
The plaintiffs include some of the most significant organs of the U.S. church, including the Archdioceses of New York, Washington, D.C., and St. Louis; the Dioceses of Dallas, Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ft. Worth, the Michigan Catholic Conference, Pittsburgh, and Rockville Centre; the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University of America, and the Franciscan University of Steubenville; and Our Sunday Visitor.
The Archdiocese of Washington has created a website dedicated to the new lawsuit. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., called the mandate a “government attempt to force the Church out of the public square.”
“The Catholic rebellion has begun,” said Catholic League President Bill Donohue in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com.
The HHS mandate “amounts to nothing less than a grave threat to our constitutionally protected First Amendment right to freedom of religion,” said Franciscan University President Father Terence Henry, TOR. He added, although they never envisioned taking such a step, the board of trustees unanimously approved the lawsuit.
Our Sunday Visitor linked its involvement to the legacy of its founder, Fr. John Noll, who fought the political clout of the Ku Klux Klan as that organization attempted to impose anti-Catholic policies at the turn of the 20th century. “Today, Our Sunday Visitor stands proudly with our fellow Catholic apostolates and with our bishops in resisting this challenge,” the publication announced in a press release.
Perhaps nothing so encapsulated President Obama’s fall from grace with American Catholics than the participation of the University of Notre Dame, where his invitation to deliver the 2009 commencement address stirred controversy.
“We have filed this lawsuit neither lightly nor gladly, but with sober determination,” wrote Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins in a letter explaining his actions. “Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the [g]overnment from providing such services…We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the [g]overnment not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings.”
Notre Dame does not qualify for the administration’s religious exemption because, although it is “firmly grounded in the tenets of Catholicism,” it does not primarily employ or serve other Roman Catholics.
“Notre Dame cannot be forced to give up its beliefs on abortifacients, sterilization, or contraception, nor its devotion to serving all mankind, without violating its religious beliefs and compromising its religious purpose,” the university’s legal complaint states.
Fr. Jenkins writes that he had registered his objection to the administration’s overly narrow religious exemption numerous times without satisfaction.
The university’s legal complaint states that after Obama announced an “accommodation” that would require insurance companies to directly provide contraceptives to employees and students for “free,” college officials “informed the White House that such a policy would not help Notre Dame, which is self-insured, and would not protect its religious liberties.”
The lawsuit argues the government has no compelling interest in the mandate, that forcing a religious institution to finance abortifacient drugs is not the least restrictive means of providing them, that the rule burdens the university’s free exercise of religion, and that it favors those religions that either favor abortion or have no interest in serving members of other religions.
The university’s health care plan is not grandfathered, and officials maintain they are not certain if it qualifies for the one-year “safe harbor” that extends the implementation of the HHS mandate past the election, into August 2013. The uncertainty over future regulations makes it impossible for the university to plan for its future.
If religious institutions fail to comply with the regulations promulgated next year, they could face a penalty of $100 per day per individual covered. In an online video, Chancellor Jane Belford of the Archdiocese of Washington said that could cost that diocese $4.2 million a year.
Although Fr. Jenkins does “not question the good intentions and sincerity” of administration officials, he warned if the HHS mandate were accepted, it “will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.”
Even some liberal Catholics have greeted today’s lawsuit as a positive step. Michael Sean Winters writes at the dissenting National Catholic Reporter, “The lawsuit, and Jenkins’ commentary, are very good news.”
“First, I doubt there is anyone who could charge Notre Dame with being unreasonably hostile to the Ibama [sic] administration,” he wrote. Yet “the administration has still refused to back off the four-part test” to grant an institution a religious exemption “that was, and is, for many of us, the principal difficulty in finding a solution.”
-
You keep claiming that, but what's the source?
This sources says otherwise:
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/catholic_affiliated_institutions_that_provide_contraceptive_coverage_chart.pdf
33 - If they cover it like Straw claims...would they even have standing?
your link is the source (I've posted this before back on one of the Fluke threads )
All you need to do is tell your doctore you need contracteption for something other than contraception and the Notre Dame happily pays for it. How many woman work at Notre Dame do you think are getting the pill to : reduce menstrual cramps, help keep their skin clear, reduce excessive menstrual bleeding, reduce hormone related migraines, prevent/reduce occurance of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, lower risk of Ovanian cander, etc...
somehow it's ok to prevent conception as long as it's not your primary goal
Shit, the Catholic church is against using condoms in Africa even though that country is ravaged with AIDS but somehow they don't mind paying for the pill if it helps keep your skin clear
Below are he plans at Notres Dame and Georgetown
IN
University of Notre Dame
University Employees
Covers oral contraceptives if for the “correction of existing pathologies of the reproductive system" (with letter from physician establishing medical necessity), but otherwise excludes coverage for oral contraceptives and contraceptive devices unless “specifically requested by a physician based on medical necessity and for purposes other than contraception.” (Plan Summary 2010)
Here is Georgetown (where Sandra Fluke attends law school)
Georgetown University
University Employees
“Plan Includes: …Contraceptive drugs and devices obtainable from a pharmacy.” (Aetna Plan, Effective Date 1/1/2012) Georgetown offers three other medical insurance plans to its employees. One of the three other plans explicitly mentions contraceptives by excluding coverage “of oral contraceptives for birth control.” It is possible that this plan covers oral contraceptives if prescribed for other reasons besides birth control. (Choice Plus, Plan 012M, Effective 1/1/2012)
-
Simple - because the insurance they are. Forced to buy is forced to cover it.
who do you think is forced to buy it?
the students pay for 100% of the premium and the insurance companies would rather given contraception because it SAVES THEM MONEY in the long run
-
who do you think is forced to buy it?
the students pay for 100% of the premium and the insurance companies would rather given contraception because it SAVES THEM MONEY in the long run
LOL. I love how. Leftists like yourself make that claim as if you clowns know more then the adjusters and actuaries at the companies.
-
You keep claiming that, but what's the source?
This sources says otherwise:
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/catholic_affiliated_institutions_that_provide_contraceptive_coverage_chart.pdf
33 - If they cover it like Straw claims...would they even have standing?
here's what my Alma Mater covers for their employees
CA*
Santa Clara University
University Employees
Covers tubal ligation, vasectomy.
btw did you notice the asterisk next to many of these institutions
* Indicates state law already requires contraceptive coverage
28 states already require any health insurance plance to require contraception and many Reulican Governors and Legisslatures passed these laws.
Where was all the bitching and moaning about religious freedom when Republican were the one enacting the very same requirements?
-
LOL. I love how. Leftists like yourself make that claim as if you clowns know more then the adjusters and actuaries at the companies.
I've read that in many places and if you think about it would an insurance company prefer to provide a cheap pill or would they rather provide cancer treatment or a bunch of other much more expensive servces
now, who do you think is being forced to buy insurance?
-
I've read that in many places and if you think about it would an insurance company prefer to provide a cheap pill or would they rather provide cancer treatment or a bunch of other much more expensive servces
now, who do you think is being forced to buy insurance?
under StalinbamaCare everyone is forced in to mandatory minimum coverages for bullshit that most will never use.
ghettobamaCare is the worst of All possible outcomes.
-
under StalinbamaCare everyone is forced in to mandatory minimum coverages for bullshit that most will never use.
ghettobamaCare is the worst of All possible outcomes.
28 eight states already have the EXACT SAME REQUIREMENT and many were passed by Republicans
why not a word about it until now?
-
28 eight states already have the EXACT SAME REQUIREMENT and many were passed by Republicans
why not a word about it until now?
because there is something called the 10th amendment you leftist thug.
-
Isnt it snobbery to decide what kind of birth control you want and the employer is forced to pay for it. Wear a fucking condom you snobby biyches. There are other methods of contraception. This is like an unfair benefit for fornicators. What if there is a lady there who don get the cock. Abstinent for religious or medical reason. And another lady who is a cock loving slut. The slut wants pills. The slut is getting more compensation than her. Jsut because she wants to throw her snatch around town? What is the uptight lady gonna get of equivelant value? Oh and the other lady when she goes off the pill, does the employer gitta pay for en vitro fertilization and then give the bitch a year off to raise the little rug rat? All while the abstinent lady has been working hard as fuck and more burden because of the sluts higher cost and less productivity. Nonsense. Wear a condom you snobby whores ::). Because you choose to have sex, your employer should not have to fork over money.
crude - but spot on.
-
Evangelicals respond to Catholic lawsuits: ‘We are all Catholic now’
LifeSitenews.com ^ | May 22, 2012 | by Ben Johnson
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 22, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Obama administration’s HHS mandate has united Christians of all stripes – evangelical, historical Protestant, and Roman Catholic – as they close ranks behind a flurry of lawsuits filed yesterday morning to overturn the controversial measure and stall government interference in religion.
After 43 Catholic institutions – including the major archdioceses, dioceses, universities, and publishing houses affiliated with the Church in the United States – filed a dozen lawsuits to strike the measure down on First Amendment grounds, the Christian and conservative communities quickly applauded the move. President Obama with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who is behind the controversial birth control mandate.
“I have said ‘We are all Catholic now,’ and this is why,” said Concerned Women for America (CWA) President Penny Nance. “The religious community stands together in the belief that this contraception, chemical abortion, and sterilization mandate would force us to pay for something many of us believe is morally repugnant.”
...
Note that Richard Viguerie is quoted towards the end of the article urging Church Leadership (Christian) to get involved in this fray
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
-
crude - but spot on.
and just as ignorant as ever
employers are not being forced to pay for it and condoms aren't the same thing as the pill EXCEPT For the prevention of contraception and the spread of disease and let's not forget that the church doesn't approve of condoms either, not even to prevent HIV
-
your link is the source (I've posted this before back on one of the Fluke threads )
All you need to do is tell your doctore you need contracteption for something other than contraception and the Notre Dame happily pays for it. How many woman work at Notre Dame do you think are getting the pill to : reduce menstrual cramps, help keep their skin clear, reduce excessive menstrual bleeding, reduce hormone related migraines, prevent/reduce occurance of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, lower risk of Ovanian cander, etc...
somehow it's ok to prevent conception as long as it's not your primary goal
Shit, the Catholic church is against using condoms in Africa even though that country is ravaged with AIDS but somehow they don't mind paying for the pill if it helps keep your skin clear
Below are he plans at Notres Dame and Georgetown
IN
University of Notre Dame
University Employees
Covers oral contraceptives if for the “correction of existing pathologies of the reproductive system" (with letter from physician establishing medical necessity), but otherwise excludes coverage for oral contraceptives and contraceptive devices unless “specifically requested by a physician based on medical necessity and for purposes other than contraception.” (Plan Summary 2010)
Here is Georgetown (where Sandra Fluke attends law school)
Georgetown University
University Employees
“Plan Includes: …Contraceptive drugs and devices obtainable from a pharmacy.” (Aetna Plan, Effective Date 1/1/2012) Georgetown offers three other medical insurance plans to its employees. One of the three other plans explicitly mentions contraceptives by excluding coverage “of oral contraceptives for birth control.” It is possible that this plan covers oral contraceptives if prescribed for other reasons besides birth control. (Choice Plus, Plan 012M, Effective 1/1/2012)
I don't know how many and clearly you're just grasping at straws guessing.
In any event, despite your attempted portrayal, it's clear that what they cover now is not what they will be required to cover under obamacare.
-
I don't know how many and clearly you're just grasping at straws guessing.
In any event, despite your attempted portrayal, it's clear that what they cover now is not what they will be required to cover under obamacare.
it's clear they provide contraception to their employees
-
it's clear they provide contraception to their employees
And your BF probably supplies them to you too. What part of COMPULSION do you not grasp?
-
And your BF probably supplies them to you too. What part of COMPULSION do you not grasp?
always fall back on the gay jokes when you're all out of ideas
the fact is that Notre Dame provides access to contraception to their employees and most likely pays for it too, in part or in whole
-
it's clear they provide contraception to their employees
lol...you know you've got a weak argument when you've got to assume the employees are doing something to circumvent the policy.
In a couple months the SCOTUS will put the issue to rest anyway.
-
lol...you know you've got a weak argument when you've got to assume the employees are doing something to circumvent the policy.
In a couple months the SCOTUS will put the issue to rest anyway.
the "argument" is the Notre Dame claims that providing contraception (which again, they wouldn't even be doing since the students pay the premiums) to their students violates their sacred religious beliefs yet somehow they have no problem providing the very same thing to their employees
-
:)
Why do you want to grant the fedzilla all these powers?
the "argument" is the Notre Dame claims that providing contraception (which again, they wouldn't even be doing since the students pay the premiums) to their students violates their sacred religious beliefs yet somehow they have no problem providing the very same thing to their employees
-
:)
Why do you want to grant the fedzilla all these powers?
I don't see any huge power grab
the federal law is an analog of the same law that exists in 28 states, specifically if you're going to offer a group health care plan then it needs to include contraception coverage
BFD
I don't buy the religious freedom argument because many of the same universities provide the so called objectionable product to their employees
If they really feel that strong about it then be consistent and don't offer it to your employees and if they really feel that strongly about it then don't take any federal funds
-
the "argument" is the Notre Dame claims that providing contraception (which again, they wouldn't even be doing since the students pay the premiums) to their students violates their sacred religious beliefs yet somehow they have no problem providing the very same thing to their employees
Because they don't provide it to their employees. That's your sad spin on it and the only way you can even get there is by assuming their employees are lying to the physicians.
You have zero evidence to support your assumption.
You cry about 33 doing this and here you are doing the exact same thing. ::)
-
Because they don't provide it to their employees. That's your sad spin on it and the only way you can even get there is by assuming their employees are lying to the physicians.
You have zero evidence to support your assumption.
You cry about 33 doing this and here you are doing the exact same thing. ::)
you posted the same pdf that I posted a month or two ago on one of the Fluke threads
Notre Dame has a health care plan for employees that includes access to contraception (aka - The Pill)
-
you posted the same pdf that I posted a month or two ago on one of the Fluke threads
Notre Dame has a health care plan for employees that includes access to contraception (aka - The Pill)
Pathetic spin.
They provide access if it's for non-contraceptive reasons.
For all you know...the student plan offers the same.
I know your small mind struggles, but some medicines have more than one purpose.
Welcome to CT/birther crowd.
According to you there must be a mass conspiracy. All the employees getting the medicine for contraception, all the doctors that must be totally fooled. And of course the insurance company hasn't picked up on it. ::)
And you mock the fucking birthers, lolololol.
Mods...could you please move to the CT board with rest of the tools.
-
Pathetic spin.
They provide access if it's for non-contraceptive reasons.
For all you know...the student plan offers the same.
I know your small mind struggles, but some medicines have more than one purpose.
Welcome to CT/birther crowd.
According to you there must be a mass conspiracy. All the employees getting the medicine for contraception, all the doctors that must be totally fooled. And of course the insurance company hasn't picked up on it. ::)
And you mock the fucking birthers, lolololol.
Mods...could you please move to the CT board with rest of the tools.
I agree, it is pathetic that Notre Dame would try to make an issue out of contraception when they already provide it to their employees
I don't know if the student plan mirrors the employee plan
do you?
I do know that Georgetown specifically does NOT offer it in their student plan even though the plan is paid for 100% by the students and the vast majority of students want it included and at the same time Georgetown offers many forms of contraception and doesn't even make their employees
DC
Georgetown University
University Employees
“Plan Includes: …Contraceptive drugs and devices obtainable from a pharmacy.” (Aetna Plan, Effective Date 1/1/2012) Georgetown offers three other medical insurance plans to its employees. One of the three other plans explicitly mentions contraceptives by excluding coverage “of oral contraceptives for birth control.” It is possible that this plan covers oral contraceptives if prescribed for other reasons besides birth control. (Choice Plus, Plan 012M, Effective 1/1/2012)
-
I agree, it is pathetic that Notre Dame would try to make an issue out of contraception when they already provide it to their employees
I don't know if the student plan mirrors the employee plan
do you?
I do know that Georgetown specifically does NOT offer it in their student plan even though the plan is paid for 100% by the students and the vast majority of students want it included and at the same time Georgetown offers many forms of contraception and doesn't even make their employees
Notre Dame doesn't provide it...that's your CT.
And you've yet to offer any proof.
Don't worry...being the same as 33 isn't a bad thing. He's a fairly decent guy.
-
Of course, I guess since you believe the post office will fine, this isn't a stretch for you...lol.
Too much fun today.
-
Notre Dame doesn't provide it...that's your CT.
And you've yet to offer any proof.
Don't worry...being the same as 33 isn't a bad thing. He's a fairly decent guy.
can we at least agree that this is from the PDF you posted (which I also posted a few months ago)
IN University of Notre Dame
University Employees Covers oral contraceptives if for the “correction of existing pathologies
of the reproductive system" (with letter from physician establishing
medical necessity), but otherwise excludes coverage for oral
contraceptives and contraceptive devices unless “specifically requested
by a physician based on medical necessity and for purposes other than
contraception.” (Plan Summary 2010)
contraception is provided as long as your primary reason for getting it is not to prevent contraception
how many female employees at ND go to their doctor and say "I need The Pill for birth control but we'll need to give them a reason other than contraception" and the doctor says no problem there are about 20 other reasons I can prescribe you the pill
The reason could be as simple as to prevent acne
-
Of course, I guess since you believe the post office will fine, this isn't a stretch for you...lol.
Too much fun today.
are you still getting your mail?
-
contraception is provided as long as your primary reason for getting it is not to prevent contraception
how many female employees at ND go to their doctor and say "I need The Pill for birth control but we'll need to give them a reason other than contraception" and the doctor says no problem there are about 20 other reasons I can prescribe you the pill
Ah yes, right back to the CT. Employees lying to the docs, docs supporting it, insurance company none the wiser. ::)
Proof? Any small shred of anything to support that assertion?
Oh that's right, you CT'rs don't worry about evidence, proof, or any of that shit. ::)
Can any of you other religion haters show any type of proof for this CT?
I'd imagine there must be a good number of women working at Notre Dame so this thing must be huge!
-
Ah yes, right back to the CT. Employees lying to the docs, docs supporting it, insurance company none the wiser. ::)
Proof? Any small shred of anything to support that assertion?
Oh that's right, you CT'rs don't worry about evidence, proof, or any of that shit. ::)
Can any of you other religion haters show any type of proof for this CT?
I'd imagine there must be a good number of women working at Notre Dame so this thing must be huge!
who said they are lying
there are a long list of reason to get the pill in additiona to preventing contraception and if you don't think doctors know full well how to get around rules in health care plans like ND then there is no point wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise
I'll leave you with one simple example
marijuana is legal in CA for medicinal purposes but not if you just want to get high
how many people in CA who get a prescription for medicinal pot are doing it for the primary purpose of getting high
-
who said they are lying
there are a long list of reason to get the pill in additiona to preventing contraception and if you don't think doctors know full well how to get around rules in health care plans like ND then there is no point wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise
I'll leave you with one simple example
marijuana is legal in CA for medicinal purposes but not if you just want to get high
how many people in CA who get a prescription for medicinal pot are doing it for the primary purpose of getting high
lol...something that makes people high being compared with contraception. And taking an isolated religious crowd and comparing the general public. Oh brother. ::)
Bottom line CT'r....you've got zero evidence to support this apparently large and wide-spread CT.
Any other religion haters have some tiny, miniscule, shred of evidence for this?
240...You don't let a little thing like facts get in the way. Give us some spin buddy!
-
This case is about the presidence being set. It is about limits on religious freedom. Or freedom in general. The government is about to own you and you cant object on religious grounds anymore....unless youre muslim ::)
And the health care bill the same thing. Forcing american citizens to buy a product from a third party. A business. Under penalty of law. This means there can be more of these that happen. The government can now tell you who you have to buy products from. Ir you can be fined or go to jail. Very dangerous presidence. You should be ashamed of yourself for arguing to limit the freedom of your fellow americans.
And shit
Agreed...and the SCOTUS will soon rule on this, so let's hope for the best.
-
lol...something that makes people high being compared with contraception. And taking an isolated religious crowd and comparing the general public. Oh brother. ::)
Bottom line CT'r....you've got zero evidence to support this apparently large and wide-spread CT.
Any other religion haters have some tiny, miniscule, shred of evidence for this?
240...You don't let a little thing like facts get in the way. Give us some spin buddy!
yeah zero evidence except the widely report number tha 98% of Caotholic woman use contraception
there is also the proof text of the ND Health Care plan that says they provide access to contraception
No CT needed
Why all the wasted energy trying to pretend otherwise ?
-
Agreed...and the SCOTUS will soon rule on this, so let's hope for the best.
Absolutely 100 percent... This shit needs to get done quick and it needs to go against Obama big time.
That healthcare bill was the biggest pile of shit ever.
-
Absolutely 100 percent... This shit needs to get done quick and it needs to go against Obama big time.
That healthcare bill was the biggest pile of shit ever.
how do you feel about the 28 states that have virtually the exact same requirements
-
Mmmmmmm, post proof of what you say.
go back to page 1 of this thread
-
how do you feel about the 28 states that have virtually the exact same requirements
They have organizations that police the people and determine whether or not they are meeting that requirement?
They use their tax entity to police whether insurance is purchased or not?
-
They have organizations that police the people and determine whether or not they are meeting that requirement?
They use their tax entity to police whether insurance is purchased or not?
I'm refering to the requirement of providing contreception coverage in a group healthcare plan
-
I'm refering to the requirement of providing contreception coverage in a group healthcare plan
That's not what my statement was referring too though.
It was referring to the bill as a whole.
Not just this one particular statute.
-
That's not what my statement was referring too though.
It was referring to the bill as a whole.
Not just this one particular statute.
I understand but my comments on this thread and the reference to the 28 states that preceded and mirror the federal requirement were just about access to contraception via group health care
-
I understand but my comments on this thread and the reference to the 28 states that preceded and mirror the federal requirement were just about access to contraception via group health care
I am on the fence as far as "requiring" birth control.
While I do not think it's right for the Government to mandate things like that... My tax dollar would certainly like to not have any more welfare babies being created.
-
yeah zero evidence except the widely report number tha 98% of Caotholic woman use contraception
there is also the proof text of the ND Health Care plan that says they provide access to contraception
No CT needed
Why all the wasted energy trying to pretend otherwise ?
Exactly...you can provide ZERO evidence to substantiate your bullshit claims.
Now you've got to resort to spin, read between the lines, "it's not CT...it's all out there" ::)
All the typical bullshit spun by CT/birther nuts.
As I said earlier, when you have to resort to making shit up and spinning...you've got no argument.
You've got a hatred for religion and it's blinded you into stupidity.
-
Mmmmmmm, post proof of what you say.
Don't hold your breath...I'm still waiting. :D
-
Absolutely 100 percent... This shit needs to get done quick and it needs to go against Obama big time.
That healthcare bill was the biggest pile of shit ever.
Agreed. The only thing I worry about is there are some good things that I like. Not excluding pre-existing conditions, medicaid/medicare reform, and data consolidation to save money.
If they have to wipe it all out...so be it. But, they need to address a lot of problems if that happens.
-
Don't hold your breath...I'm still waiting. :D
Posted multiple times on this thread already starting with the pdf link that YOU posted
-
Posted multiple times on this thread already starting with the pdf link that YOU posted
My source discredits you.
Claiming possible fraud doesn't support your claim.
Claiming fraud in Medical marijuana in the state of California doesn't support your claim.
Claiming Catholics use contraception doesn't support your dumbass claim.
Support your bullshit claim...is that too much to ask? Guess so.
I await some evidence.
-
Even funnier is you claiming the student plan should provide what the employee plan does...and you've got no fucking clue what's in the student plan, lololol
I love it when you leftist tools make shit up.
Guideline #1 rules the day!
-
My source discredits you.
Claiming possible fraud doesn't support your claim.
Claiming fraud in Medical marijuana in the state of California doesn't support your claim.
Claiming Catholics use contraception doesn't support your dumbass claim.
Support your bullshit claim...is that too much to ask? Guess so.
I await some evidence.
Here's what your source says
we've been over the details already
If you want to pretend tht it doesn't provide contraception then be my guest
I'm sure the female employees at Notre Dame would get a laugh out of it just as the 98% of Catholic women who use contraception
IN University of Notre Dame
University Employees Covers oral contraceptives if for the “correction of existing pathologies
of the reproductive system" (with letter from physician establishing
medical necessity), but otherwise excludes coverage for oral
contraceptives and contraceptive devices unless “specifically requested
by a physician based on medical necessity and for purposes other than
contraception.” (Plan Summary 2010)
-
;D.
Is it called politically progressive to champion the loss of freedom of the individual? One day the international socialists movement (trokskyists) Will be as maligned as the national socialist movement(nazi). You sir support intnational nazis. Only this time around they dont base their caste system on racial basis. It is based on ideological basis. This thing aint over. The world is only getting more volatile. Change is never good. It only ruins everyones life that is living through the attempted implimentation. It is at best a gamble. Saying the world wouold work better this way rather than the way we had it. You have no idea how this change will turn out. For the better or the worse. You cant be 100%sure about any change bein positive. It could backfire, It is arrogance and dangerous to gamble with the people of the worlds lives by playing with the social engines that drive our society. These people who want change are dissatisfied with our system because they arent happy. This is a dangerous group. Its not a police state. Its being se up to limit tye power of the majority and propel the minority. These people are political mafia, obama and co. Fuck em
-
Here's what your source says
we've been over the details already
If you want to pretend tht it doesn't provide contraception then be my guest
I'm sure the female employees at Notre Dame would get a laugh out of it just as the 98% of Catholic women who use contraception
Still struggling with your reading comprehension, eh?
Let me help you out.
"IN University of Notre Dame
University Employees Covers oral contraceptives if for the “correction of existing pathologies
of the reproductive system" (with letter from physician establishing
medical necessity), but otherwise excludes coverage for oral
contraceptives and contraceptive devices unless “specifically requested
by a physician based on medical necessity and for purposes other than
contraception.” (Plan Summary 2010)"
-
Still waiting for some evidence to support the claim..
Still waiting for you to show the student plan differs from the employee plan...
-
What part of "where. Does the fedzilla get the power to force everyone in to this in the first place?
-
What part of "where. Does the fedzilla get the power to force everyone in to this in the first place?
SCOTUS is about to decide that!
-
SCOTUS is about to decide that!
what I don't get with leftists like straw is that they love when Obama is forcing the hammer down on people under these crazy laws, but don't they realize that a palin or Santorum may come to power and likewise use such power to crush them too?
that is why I am at such a loss to understand why leftists like this power grab by Barry.
-
what I don't get with leftists like straw is that they love when Obama is forcing the hammer down on people under these crazy laws, but don't they realize that a palin or Santorum may come to power and likewise use such power to crush them too?
that is why I am at such a loss to understand why leftists like this power grab by Barry.
Because it's ok as long as it's something they agree with.
That and a pathetic hatred for people who believe other than he does, is why he'll desperately make shit up and try and spin things.
-
Still struggling with your reading comprehension, eh?
Let me help you out.
"IN University of Notre Dame
University Employees Covers oral contraceptives if for the “correction of existing pathologies
of the reproductive system" (with letter from physician establishing
medical necessity), but otherwise excludes coverage for oral
contraceptives and contraceptive devices unless “specifically requested
by a physician based on medical necessity and for purposes other than
contraception.” (Plan Summary 2010)"
just so we're all on the same page
you do agree that if a doctor prescribes The Pill to prevent acne you understand that it still works as contraception
right?
-
feel bad for you. Move to Cuba or NK.
just so we're all on the same page
you do agree that if a doctor prescribes The Pill to prevent acne you understand that it still works as contraception
right?
-
Democrat Commiteewoman Resigns from Party, Cites Her Catholic Faith
National Catholic Register ^ | 5/28/12 | Matthew Archbold
Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:42:20 AM by markomalley
Ann Nardelli has been a Catholic Democrat her entire life. Her father was one before her. And she couldn't imagine a day where that wouldn't be true.
But that day was Wednesday of last week.
I read a story about Jo Ann leaving the Democratic Party and was interested because she cited her Catholic faith as the reason.
So I gave her a call. I got her machine and as I was leaving a message she picked up. She said she'd been screening her calls because so many people have been calling to say nasty things to her or just pleading with her to change her mind. But when I called, saying I was with The National Catholic Register she picked up.
(snip)
Nardelli has always been a pro-life Democrat and felt that there was always room for that position in the party. But she said that for the past few years she's felt that the party was drifting further and further away from her. She said she never shied away from speaking about her Catholic faith or her pro-life views as a Democrat.
She said that for years she hoped that she could change the party from within, make it more in line with traditional values. "I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work," she said. "I noticed it that it’s been going more and more to the left. This is not my father’s party. I did not leave the party, the party left me."
In a letter of resignation to the Democratic party, Nardelli cited her Catholic faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
-
So, your name is straw man and you utilize the straw man argument in your posts. Hmmmm? Sounds gimmicky. Straw man constantly constructs straw men arguments. Wont fall for your shit again. Have fun trolling. Damn lot of gimmicks on here. Good one though. Straw man. ;D
your post makes it obvious that you don't even know what a "straw man" argument even is
-
Democrat Commiteewoman Resigns from Party, Cites Her Catholic Faith
National Catholic Register ^ | 5/28/12 | Matthew Archbold
Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:42:20 AM by markomalley
Ann Nardelli has been a Catholic Democrat her entire life. Her father was one before her. And she couldn't imagine a day where that wouldn't be true.
But that day was Wednesday of last week.
I read a story about Jo Ann leaving the Democratic Party and was interested because she cited her Catholic faith as the reason.
So I gave her a call. I got her machine and as I was leaving a message she picked up. She said she'd been screening her calls because so many people have been calling to say nasty things to her or just pleading with her to change her mind. But when I called, saying I was with The National Catholic Register she picked up.
(snip)
Nardelli has always been a pro-life Democrat and felt that there was always room for that position in the party. But she said that for the past few years she's felt that the party was drifting further and further away from her. She said she never shied away from speaking about her Catholic faith or her pro-life views as a Democrat.
She said that for years she hoped that she could change the party from within, make it more in line with traditional values. "I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work," she said. "I noticed it that it’s been going more and more to the left. This is not my father’s party. I did not leave the party, the party left me."
In a letter of resignation to the Democratic party, Nardelli cited her Catholic faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
she quit over Obamas support for gay marriage and I'd be willing to be money she's used some form of contraception at some time in her life
http://www.politicspa.com/pa-dem-leader-defects-cites-gay-marriage/36001/
-
she quit over Obamas support for gay marriage and I'd be willing to be money she's used some form of contraception at some time in her life
http://www.politicspa.com/pa-dem-leader-defects-cites-gay-marriage/36001/
How fucking stupid are you? Really?
Why cant you not grasp the difference between forcing one to pay for others and a choice?
Don't worry though - the Catholic Church is going to win this one too since a 1993 law written by schumer will carry the day on this.
-
How fucking stupid are you? Really?
Why cant you not grasp the difference between forcing one to pay for others and a choice?
Don't worry though - the Catholic Church is going to win this one too since a 1993 law written by schumer will carry the day on this.
you didn't even bother to read the link did you?
her decision had nothing to do with contraception
-
you didn't even bother to read the link did you?
her decision had nothing to do with contraception
I was reacting to your statement about catholics and BC.
Straw - what I find so amusing by you leftist progressive phonies is that you cheer on shit that Obama does that you were in the streets over when Bush did it, and now when Obama usurps even more power - you fools act like its ok - while ALL OF US KNOW THAN WHEN THE NEXT REPUB PRESIDENT DOES THE SAME THING YOU CLOWNS WILL AGAIN BE IN THE STREETS.
-
I was reacting to your statement about catholics and BC.
Straw - what I find so amusing by you leftist progressive phonies is that you cheer on shit that Obama does that you were in the streets over when Bush did it, and now when Obama usurps even more power - you fools act like its ok - while ALL OF US KNOW THAN WHEN THE NEXT REPUB PRESIDENT DOES THE SAME THING YOU CLOWNS WILL AGAIN BE IN THE STREETS.
When did Bush require Catholic institutions that provide healthcare coverage to include basic contraception in that coverage
I don't recall him doing that but if he did I would have been in favor of it
-
When did Bush require Catholic institutions that provide healthcare coverage to include basic contraception in that coverage
I don't recall him doing that but if he did I would have been in favor of it
Talking about presidential power and doing things ala a dictator. You leftists are all full of shit. Where is Code Pinko? Where is move-on? Where is Intl ANSWER? Where is the ACLU? Where are all the so called anti war groups?
The answer is that they, like you, deep down truly love the idea of a dictatorship, so long as it is run by a fellow leftist socialist like obama since you clowns can NEVEr get what you want at the ballot box.
-
Talking about presidential power and doing things ala a dictator. You leftists are all full of shit. Where is Code Pinko? Where is move-on? Where is Intl ANSWER? Where is the ACLU? Where are all the so called anti war groups?
The answer is that they, like you, deep down truly love the idea of a dictatorship, so long as it is run by a fellow leftist socialist like obama since you clowns can NEVEr get what you want at the ballot box.
yeah but I don't see requiring employers (not just Catholic institutions) who offer healthcare to include basic contraception in their healthcare plan as being a DICTATOR
That's the difference
requiring healthcare coverage is not the same as illegal wire tapping or holding someone in detention without charges or a trial or conducting an illegal war
of course I expect that simple nuance is well beyond your level of comprehension
-
yeah but I don't see requiring employers (not just Catholic institutions) who offer healthcare to include basic contraception in their healthcare plan as being a DICTATOR
That's the difference
requiring healthcare coverage is not the same as illegal wire tapping or holding someone in detention without charges or a trial or conducting an illegal war
of course I expect that simple nuance is well beyond your level of comprehension
LOL. Of course not - because its obama doing the ordering and bossing people around.
When its the next repub doing it - you leftists and the incompetent media will be melting down left and right and in the streets.
liberal = full of shit
-
LOL. Of course not - because its obama doing the ordering and bossing people around.
When its the next repub doing it - you leftists and the incompetent media will be melting down left and right and in the streets.
liberal = full of shit
kind of reminds me of those 28 communist states in this country that already require the exact same thing
That secret communist Mike Huckabee signed similar legislation when he was governor
here is another link that you shouldn't read if you want to remain uninformed on the history of both Dems and Republican in backing virtually the exact same thing as the requirements in the federal legislation
I know you'll tell me that it's pure American democracy at the state level yet unadulterated communist dictatorship at the Federal level
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216
-
kind of reminds me of those 28 communist states in this country that already require the exact same thing
That secret communist Mike Huckabee signed similar legislation when he was governor
here is another link that you shouldn't read if you want to remain uninformed on the history of both Dems and Republican in backing virtually the exact same thing as the requirements in the federal legislation
I know you'll tell me that it's pure American democracy at the state level yet unadulterated communist dictatorship at the Federal level
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216
10th amendment for 200 alex.
-
10th amendment for 200 alex.
didn't work for preventing civil rights legislation and since we already have social security and medicare I don't see how you think that's a valid argument against the healthcare legislation
-
didn't work for preventing civil rights legislation and since we already have social security and medicare I don't see how you think that's a valid argument against the healthcare legislation
So birth control is a civil rights issue now?
-
So birth control is a civil rights issue now?
you're the one who brought up the tenth ammendment so what was your point?
did you bring it up in regards to the requirement that all employers who provide a healthcare plan must include contraception in that plan (the topic of this thread) or did you bring it up for some other reason
I can never tell with you since you bounce all over the place in any given thread
-
you're the one who brought up the tenth ammendment so what was your point?
did you bring it up in regards to the requirement that all employers who provide a healthcare plan must include contraception in that plan (the topic of this thread) or did you bring it up for some other reason
I can never tell with you since you bounce all over the place in any given thread
Hey moron - I said from Day 1 that the Fedzilla should not be able to force A N Y employer to provide anything at all.
-
Hey moron - I said from Day 1 that the Fedzilla should not be able to force A N Y employer to provide anything at all.
yep and we'll see if that's the case
If so, the Repubs will be stuck needing to find a quick replacement since many people will want to keep the benefits of the healthcare legislation that have already gone into effect or are pending