Obamacare Violates The Separation Of Church & State?

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: How times have changed
When JFK was running for president people worried that the Catholic church would have too much influence on US policy
Now it appears some are asking for the Catholic church to do just that...shape US policy.

I think you have that exactly bassackwards archer - the US is now attempting to shape Catholic policy, something it is specifically prohibited from doing by the Constitution.

In no way does this rule do that. It simply prevents religious institutions operating outside of their religion to discriminate against those employees who to have access to insurance provided birth control.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: How times have changed
When JFK was running for president people worried that the Catholic church would have too much influence on US policy
Now it appears some are asking for the Catholic church to do just that...shape US policy.

I think you have that exactly bassackwards archer - the US is now attempting to shape Catholic policy, something it is specifically prohibited from doing by the Constitution.

In no way does this rule do that. It simply prevents religious institutions operating outside of their religion to discriminate against those employees who to have access to insurance provided birth control.

No one HAS to have access to birth control at any level. It's not some sort of human right, it's not something guaranteed in the constitution, and it's not something that you have any right to on demand. No more than I can demand or have a right to any drug.

2milehigh wrote: Compromise is not in his vocabulary. He backed down due to election year pressure.

He didn't back down at all. His so called "compromise" just announced today, was to order that all health insurance companies are mandated to pay for reproductive services including abortion. This actually now mandates that Obamacare include abortions, something that Obama claimed wasn't going to happen. Obama didn't compromise, he made an end run and scored.

netdude wrote: So if I get this right... the Catholic Church is dictating what a womans choices are... the church does not believe that women cannot make up their own minds on contraception or medical care.

Not surprisingly, you don't have it right at all. Contraception is not a medical necessity, it is an elective choice which places one who is Catholic into a state of mortal sin. Now certainly, a Catholic may voluntarily choose to place themselves into such a state, but it is an unconscionable act, and unconstitutional to boot, to require the Church itself to enable them to do so as a matter of secular law. Such an act, in essence, requires the Catholic Church to assist in the act of placing one into a state of mortal sin, effectively placing the Church itself into such a state as well.

netdude wrote: You guys DO know that 'estrogen' (aka birth control) is not JUST for birth control right?

It's used to relieve the issues that peri-menopause and menopause cause...
It's used to control irregular and abnormal cycles....
Other hormone related issues.

And, under any of these circumstances, the primary purpose of the hormone therapy is not to make the womb inhospitable to life - an important distinction which it appears you wish to overlook for some reason. The purpose of the prescription is what separates medical care from elective actions which put one into a state of mortal sin.

I didn't include or comment on the other portions of your post because they were little more than religious bigotry and as such didn't merit any response.

archer wrote: Of course I expect to see the conservatives here bash him for compromising......

Not me. I am delighted the President is willing to put principal above his reelection chances.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Interesting that the conservatives have no issue with the majority of individual states, including Colorado, already have the same or stricter requirements for birth control to be provided even by religious institutions, but when the present administration applies across the board, it is an "outrage".

More lies from the Obama administration, serially repeated over and over and over again by syncophants in the hopes that the lie will somehow be fundamentally transformed into something you can believe in.

While true that there are state laws that require insurance companies to cover FDA approved contraceptive prescriptions the same as they do other FDA approved prescriptions; none, repeat none, of them specifically require them to be covered with no out-of-pocket expenses for the insured as this unconstitutional decree from the Obama administration does. Despite being serially repeated in the "progressive" echo chamber that 28 states already have this requirement, it is still a bald faced lie.

So your outrage is only directed at the fact that the poorest females should be able to get birth control at no cost rather than the business arm of religious institutions that provide insurance are required to ensure that those women have access to birth control?

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the claim is a bald faced lie Dog. No, what is unconscionable, and unconstitutional, is to require that the Church pay for the contraception through the also unconstitutional requirement that compels participation in commerce of the government's choosing. Birth control is elective in nature and the Church rightfully refuses to become an unwilling participant in placing itself into a perpetual state of mortal sin to comply with secular laws. If one wishes to place themselves into such a state there is little the Church can do about that. The states mandates that an insurance company offer the same benefits for prescriptive contraception that it offers in the case of every other prescription medication is not a mandate on the Church in the same manner that the Obama administration's mandate that those of the Catholic faith are required to provide these specific prescriptions, and no others, at no cost. I know you are intelligent enough to make the distinction Dog, but am confused as to why you refuse to do so.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

2milehigh wrote: Compromise is not in his vocabulary. He backed down due to election year pressure.

He didn't back down at all. His so called "compromise" just announced today, was to order that all health insurance companies are mandated to pay for reproductive services including abortion. This actually now mandates that Obamacare include abortions, something that Obama claimed wasn't going to happen. Obama didn't compromise, he made an end run and scored.

Time will tell. I find it hard to believe that the general government can compel a private company to provide one particular prescription at no charge to anyone. Why is this one class of prescriptions more necessary than, oh, I don't know, antibiotics for example, or pain medication, or the cocktail needed to stave off the advancement of HIV in the grand scheme of health care? Why is this class of prescriptive medicine more important to overall health than vaccinations for the flu, or tetanus, or polio, or whooping cough, or rubella?

I would expect a legal challenge to this new mandate as well to be forthcoming - a whole new round of litigation surrounding ObamaCare cropping up to remind the majority of voters just why they shouldn't be giving another 4 years to an administration which seems to be unable to do anything without shooting itself in the foot at least once during the process.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Interesting that the conservatives have no issue with the majority of individual states, including Colorado, already have the same or stricter requirements for birth control to be provided even by religious institutions, but when the present administration applies across the board, it is an "outrage".

More lies from the Obama administration, serially repeated over and over and over again by syncophants in the hopes that the lie will somehow be fundamentally transformed into something you can believe in.

While true that there are state laws that require insurance companies to cover FDA approved contraceptive prescriptions the same as they do other FDA approved prescriptions; none, repeat none, of them specifically require them to be covered with no out-of-pocket expenses for the insured as this unconstitutional decree from the Obama administration does. Despite being serially repeated in the "progressive" echo chamber that 28 states already have this requirement, it is still a bald faced lie.

So your outrage is only directed at the fact that the poorest females should be able to get birth control at no cost rather than the business arm of religious institutions that provide insurance are required to ensure that those women have access to birth control?

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that the claim is a bald faced lie Dog. No, what is unconscionable, and unconstitutional, is to require that the Church pay for the contraception through the also unconstitutional requirement that compels participation in commerce of the government's choosing. Birth control is elective in nature and the Church rightfully refuses to become an unwilling participant in placing itself into a perpetual state of mortal sin to comply with secular laws. If one wishes to place themselves into such a state there is little the Church can do about that. The states mandates that an insurance company offer the same benefits for prescriptive contraception that it offers in the case of every other prescription medication is not a mandate on the Church in the same manner that the Obama administration's mandate that those of the Catholic faith are required to provide these specific prescriptions, and no others, at no cost. I know you are intelligent enough to make the distinction Dog, but am confused as to why you refuse to do so.

Of course the remarks were not a 'bald-faced lie". Both LJ, myself and the Obama administration were discussing the APPLICATION of the regulation to all employers, which is the case in 28 states. Further, many of those states have even stricter applications, such as in Colorado, that provide NO exemption for religious institutions. Additionally, the regulation does not require any religious institution to provide contraceptives to its followers who choose to follow that particular dogma. Instead, where any religious institute operates as a business separate from its worship, providing goods and services to the public at large, and who employ a substantial number of employees that do not follow that particular dogma, then that business must operate as other businesses do.

In fact, polling is showing that the majority of Catholics support this regulation as proper.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

2milehigh wrote: Compromise is not in his vocabulary. He backed down due to election year pressure.

He didn't back down at all. His so called "compromise" just announced today, was to order that all health insurance companies are mandated to pay for reproductive services including abortion. This actually now mandates that Obamacare include abortions, something that Obama claimed wasn't going to happen. Obama didn't compromise, he made an end run and scored.

If the president can just order insurance companies to cover a particular medical area, i.e. reproductive services, can he now order them to NOT cover something?

Obama's "compromise" sounds like a cheat code to me. Fungible.