christiefan915
Catalyst
I read this on Yahoo, maybe it'll be his Don Imus moment.
I read this on Yahoo, maybe it'll be his Don Imus moment.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Good point!
christiefan915
Catalyst
Just wondering how you'd know which companies to avoid if you were interviewing. I doubt this info would be on the company website.
christiefan915
Catalyst
christiefan915
Catalyst
Directive 47. Yet every priest or bishop wouldn't agree to give the dispensation, like that bishop in Phoenix who excommunicated the nun for allowing an emergency abortion to save the woman's life.
Fascinating. I'll never get the Catholic church... A nun can give these dispensations, but then lose her soul because some dude disagrees? Can the Archbishop override that one and have a huge internal battle over a nun's soul?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Apparently, the Bishop said to get out of the excommunication she would simply need to go to confession, and that her order would make the decision on whether she should be allowed to stay in the order...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072
BTW - Ehrich is the Bishop.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072
BTW - Ehrich is the Bishop.
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
Canon Law is full on contradictory stuff but I can't answer about the Archbishop, I just don't know. It all seems so silly to me.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Yeah, and how stupid is that. He doesn't have a say-so on whether she can stay in the order. Nuns are an independent organization, so to speak. If anybody could make that decision, and I don't know if they could, it would be the head of her order.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Nope. No matter how many times you say it, won't make it true. Firstly, you seem to be under the impression that the Bishops "right" to freedom of religion trumps MY rights. But only mine. Not yours. The Catholic church is hostile to women. You yourself express, why, one might say "astonishment" later in this thread over their policies towards women. Yet you want to privilege them over women's health. That's misogny, and it won't stand. That's why it didn't stand.
Most importantly for our purposes here, "a religious employer and states that such an employer may request a health insurance plan without coverage for contraceptive services and supplies. If so requested, the health insurer must provide a plan without such coverage."
To call this "facilitation" is to take this to an absurdity of human folly that the mind can hardly comprehend it. It isn’t. By any reasonable and even most unreasonable evaluations, it simply isn’t. That’s why well over 60% of Americans, nearly 70%, support this mandate, including Catholics. Because they know absurdity when they see it. Too bad you don’t.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Your other bullshit has already been dealt with, and repeatedly on this and other threads. As to your badly-worded "2."
-Approximately 80%. I don't know if that's "most all" since I am unclear on what "most all" means. However, 20% of all insurance plans is not a small number. Here is why the Obama adminstration moved to expand this coverage: because medical experts, in PEER REVIEWED work, determined that it would save women's lives and health. Details. Once again, this is about women's health people. Renowned Internet Doctors, Superfreak, Bravo, and Ice, don't have the cred, sorry.
Edit to note regarding above: a large portion of the 80% offer the coverage with copays, some prohibitively high for many women. This bill further expands access by doing away with those copays.
Regarding your first claim, please explain where an employed women gets "free birth control for a year". You earlier claimed that PP offered this. That's a lie. Unless an employed woman is going to Planned Parenthood and lying by claiming she is not employed and has no income. Now, some women, who are already likely to be on the taxpayer teat, can get birth control at no cost if they go to PP as a poverty case. But, and this may have escaped your laser-like attention, we are talking about women with health insurance here. Health insurance they have purchased through a combination of their wages and their labor. We are talking about employed women. First of all they don't want a hand out, or "free stuff". They want what they've earned. Secondly, they woudln't qualify. If you know a way around this, and someone like you may, let's hear it.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Going back to what this was originally about; the GOP War on Women. Now, some say, it’s not a war Darla! That’s just Dem hatred! That’s just you being a Dem! That’s just you being a girl! That’s just you being a New Yorker! Darla!
In fact, we have to try and remember what was happening before a 300 lb pig let loose with some of the ugliest misogyny we have seen in the public square since…since the last time he opened his mouth. He did a good job of distracting us from the GOP War on Women.
This began because the GOP convened an all-male panel on WOMEN’S reproductive health! They actually allowed this picture into the lexicon:
View attachment 1532
Who are these men? They must have been very learned doctors, you say! Oh they must have been so smart, like super-espn PENIS smart! And they couldn’t find any women who were their equals! That’s why! They wanted to have a woman testify but they couldn’t find any who were as learned about women’s health and medical issues as these…doctors. Doctors, right? Uh, no. The men were not doctors. They had no expertise on women's health.
Sandra Fluke first came into our consciousness precisely because House Republicans refused to allow her to testify. They told her to stfu, and stfd and the men would take care of this. Why did they do that? It must have been because like Rush Limbaugh said, she was going to testify that she had been fucking so much she couldn’t walk! Not even to the pharamacy! So by not having a Bishop come to her bed where she was fucking yet another guy! third that day! to hand her birth control, the institution she purchased her health care through, was placing an undue burden upon her! We can't have women testifying to all the fucking they are doing and loving in Congress Darla! My God, think of the children! Uh, no. Fluke was going to testify about among other things, a friend of hers who had lost an ovary due to the university’s policy.
Fluke was silenced. Then she was shamed for even attempting to speak. Silencing and shaming. Gee, if only there were a long history of those tactics being used against women to keep them down, keep them quiet, to silence them, to disallow them from speaking, just like men do, in the public sphere. Then we could say it was a War on Women. Oh, wait…
Yes, let’s not forget where all this started. It started when the GOP told American women to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, BITCH, and we’ll tell YOU how your birth control is gonna work. And that picture slapped a lot of women in the face. Now, in the end, is Rush actually doing the GOp a favor by getting that picture out of the news, and his ugly, GOP-approved mug into it? I don’t know. But it’d debatable. And he did get that picture, and its very loud and clear message (STFU BITCH), out of the news.
In fact, we have to try and remember what was happening before a 300 lb pig let loose with some of the ugliest misogyny we have seen in the public square since…since the last time he opened his mouth. He did a good job of distracting us from the GOP War on Women.
This began because the GOP convened an all-male panel on WOMEN’S reproductive health! They actually allowed this picture into the lexicon:
View attachment 1532
Who are these men? They must have been very learned doctors, you say! Oh they must have been so smart, like super-espn PENIS smart! And they couldn’t find any women who were their equals! That’s why! They wanted to have a woman testify but they couldn’t find any who were as learned about women’s health and medical issues as these…doctors. Doctors, right? Uh, no. The men were not doctors. They had no expertise on women's health.
Sandra Fluke first came into our consciousness precisely because House Republicans refused to allow her to testify. They told her to stfu, and stfd and the men would take care of this. Why did they do that? It must have been because like Rush Limbaugh said, she was going to testify that she had been fucking so much she couldn’t walk! Not even to the pharamacy! So by not having a Bishop come to her bed where she was fucking yet another guy! third that day! to hand her birth control, the institution she purchased her health care through, was placing an undue burden upon her! We can't have women testifying to all the fucking they are doing and loving in Congress Darla! My God, think of the children! Uh, no. Fluke was going to testify about among other things, a friend of hers who had lost an ovary due to the university’s policy.
Fluke was silenced. Then she was shamed for even attempting to speak. Silencing and shaming. Gee, if only there were a long history of those tactics being used against women to keep them down, keep them quiet, to silence them, to disallow them from speaking, just like men do, in the public sphere. Then we could say it was a War on Women. Oh, wait…
Yes, let’s not forget where all this started. It started when the GOP told American women to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, BITCH, and we’ll tell YOU how your birth control is gonna work. And that picture slapped a lot of women in the face. Now, in the end, is Rush actually doing the GOp a favor by getting that picture out of the news, and his ugly, GOP-approved mug into it? I don’t know. But it’d debatable. And he did get that picture, and its very loud and clear message (STFU BITCH), out of the news.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
SF, I know you think you are being clever by saying things like "womansplainin!" and "you're the sexist!", and you might even think you are getting to me somehow, I don't know. But all you're doing is making yourself look like an incredible jackass, as well as revealing just how clueless and childish you are.
You've embarrassed yourself. I'd urge you to stop, but I know you will come on here later and double down. At this point, I doubt I am the only one cringing for you. Not against you, for you.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
SF and Damo are arguing that the right to religious liberty, or so-called "religious liberty" is absolute. This is factually untrue, as explained by Abbie Hoffman below:
“One thing I think is crystal clear — there is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Abbie Hoffman, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”
The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.
“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,” wrote Hoffman, an avowed hippie Catholic and social conservative, quoting from a century-old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices.
Link
Damo and SF are reflexively insisting that one man’s religious beliefs do NOT end where another’s rights begin. Their argument is sexist; it automatically privileges male religious belief (and the voices against this are mostly the Bishops, and thus male, so no semantics please) over women’s health. We are raised in a sexist and racist culture and all of us are or were, sexist and racist to some degree. Some educate themselves out of it, others double down. Yet SF and Damo will not even stop for a moment, even after reading the above, and reflect on the possibility that unconscious misogyny may be driving their knee-jerk reactions. Instead Damo will regale us all with another “intellectual” meandering:
“oh this reminds me of an old Chinese proverb, that we tell in Buddhist circles while smoking the peace pipe with our native brothers; never pick up an otter and carry him across a field for when you get to the other side, he may pull out a pack of Wrigley’s. I think this shows that you can't do that“
And SF will post the same thing he has post over and over: You can’t do that. Which he then tweaked to really blow us away: YOU CAN’T DO THAT!”
I predict he will now come in here and post:
YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!
“One thing I think is crystal clear — there is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Abbie Hoffman, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”
The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.
“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,” wrote Hoffman, an avowed hippie Catholic and social conservative, quoting from a century-old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices.
Link
Damo and SF are reflexively insisting that one man’s religious beliefs do NOT end where another’s rights begin. Their argument is sexist; it automatically privileges male religious belief (and the voices against this are mostly the Bishops, and thus male, so no semantics please) over women’s health. We are raised in a sexist and racist culture and all of us are or were, sexist and racist to some degree. Some educate themselves out of it, others double down. Yet SF and Damo will not even stop for a moment, even after reading the above, and reflect on the possibility that unconscious misogyny may be driving their knee-jerk reactions. Instead Damo will regale us all with another “intellectual” meandering:
“oh this reminds me of an old Chinese proverb, that we tell in Buddhist circles while smoking the peace pipe with our native brothers; never pick up an otter and carry him across a field for when you get to the other side, he may pull out a pack of Wrigley’s. I think this shows that you can't do that“
And SF will post the same thing he has post over and over: You can’t do that. Which he then tweaked to really blow us away: YOU CAN’T DO THAT!”
I predict he will now come in here and post:
YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!
icedancer2theend
Verified User
You have a right to birth control i.e. the government cannot stop you from using it. You do not have the right to force others to buy it for you. Birth control is as little as 10.00 to 15.00 a month in most health care plans- If you are working that's affordable- but I digress, your freedoms don't trump another persons. That people such as yourself think its OK to force others to pay for their freedoms, while having no regard for theirs, always find justifications to do so. The Catholic Church; the private citizen; an insurance entity- all have rights. Free birth control is not a right.
FPBP is a New York State Medicaid program that provides family planning benefits to women, men and young people ages 10-64 with family incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level to prevent unintended pregnancies. For those who are eligible, FPBP pays the cost of birth control, STI testing, PAP tests, pregnancy tests, gynecological exams, and more at PPHP. There are no co-payments, monthly payments, or deductibles.
Who Qualifies?
· Women, men, and young people ages 10-64
· US citizens
· New York State residents
· Incomes up to 200% of the federal poverty level
Anyone under the age of 21 can qualify regardless of their parents’ income. The application process is confidential and we can help you obtain a copy of your birth certificate.
How do I know if I’m eligible for FPBP?
Staff at any Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic Health Center can help determine if you are eligible for FPBP or other programs. We’ll also help you fill out the application. To find out more, call 1-800-230-PLAN or email us at freebirthcontrol@pphp.org.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You're beating your head up against the wall. There are certain men who will never, ever be convinced that this is anything but a first ammendment religious rights issue. They will never see this from your point of view. What motivation do they have? On the upside. Don't let the charm and the manners fool you. You now know where you stand in their estimation.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well yea....yea you do have the right to force insurance companies to provide this for you. That's a false assumption on your part. This isn't a gift. This isn't welfare, this isn't a handout. Employer provided insurance is a negotiated compensation for your work. It's part of a persons wages they have EARNED and they have every right in the world to specify specific coverage for this PURCHASE! Just as you have a right to specify that the car you purchase has specified safety standards and fuel economy and meets specified performance criteria. this isn't the social welfare state your talking about this is a womans purchase and women have the right to specify what that purchase entails.
Damn, you are a fucking moron. No woman is working and living in NYC on 200% of the federal poverty level.
Furthermore, where is Darla asking anyone but herself to pay? You do realise that health insurance is a part of her wages?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
You know, I knew you'd know! Even though you changed your image here to that of a career woman who has to do extensive work-related travel (LOL) I am way too familar with your previous incarnation as the stay at home mom married to a man of little means who used to love bragging about all the "Free stuff" she got on the taxpayer's dime. Like a free computer and computer access paid for by taxpayers.
Healthy NY is an excellent program, and people like me pay higher taxes here for it. I'm happy to do so. But it only covers New Yorkers, and we are a liberal, high-tax state, which you cons always deride us for, and we have a larger safety net than many other states.
Working women do not have to go to a Medicaid program however, and ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for their birth control. You are egregiously wrong when you claim this is "free". Just like your computer was "free". Taxpayer money is not "Free". It's paid for by people like me. Working women are entitled to the dignity their work earns them, and this includes not being forced into asking for a taxpayer handout. Further, the same taxpayers who object to the mandate, would naturally object to their tax dollars being used to provide "free" (on the taxpayer teat) birth control. This position is deeply incoherent.
Your second egregious error is in claiming that this mandate "forces" anyone to pay for birth control. It does not. Health care benefits are paid for by the employee, through a combination of money deducted from their gross pay, and their labor. The women pay for this. It is a truly radical redefinition of the employee/employer relationship to attempt to claim that the employer owns an employee's wages and other compensation. That's one of the reasons the radical Blunt amendment failed.
Finally, you assume religious "liberty" is absolute. As pointed out and backed up above, it is not and it never has been. You want it to be absolute only in the case of Christian teachings that YOu agree with, and only over a woman's rights.
And I do have a right to "force" insurance companies to fully cover birth control. It's now the law of the land.