# Birth Control Mandate: Is this taking the Religous Liberty Exception too far?



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.

Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR

That emanated from this:

Sonia Sotomayor halts contraceptive rule for Denver center - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

The matter  in this case boils down  to     filling out a short form form.  Just filing an automatic waiver.

That's it.  

*Catholic Employers Claim That Filling Out an Obamacare Form Violates Their Religious Freedom*


> *"L*ate on New Year's Eve, Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a small number of religiously affiliated groups a temporary injunction from a provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows them _not_     to cover contraception in their health care plans if they fill out a     form that states that they want an exemption from the law for   religious   reasons.
> 
> Go ahead and read that sentence again.
> 
> ...


Justice   Sotomayor grants temporary injunction to Catholic groups who say   filling out an Obamacare form about contraception violates their   religious freedom.

Yes, filling out  a form. Nothing more.

Their religious sensibilities are  insulted by merely stating on paper they have religious objections. 

Now, you may agree that religious organizations should not be forced to  contribute to a health plan that makes them pay for Birth Control - and I  do too, 

but do you think the mere act of filing out a form is taking the Religious Liberty exception  just a bit too far?

Does religious liberty extend to the right to not have to fill out paperwork?


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

The DOJ's response says that "Applicants claim a right to extraordinary relief.":

"Basically, the Justice Department is making the case that all the nursing home the nuns operate has to do is:

   "Self-certify  that they are non-profit  organizations that hold themselves out as  religious and have religious  objections to providing coverage for  contraceptive services, and then  provide a copy of their  self-certification to the third-party  administrator of their  self-insured group health plan. At that point,  the employer-applicants  will have satisfied all their obligations under  the contraceptive  coverage provision."



What's more, Justice  argues that "this case involves a church  plan that is exempt from  regulation under the Employee Retirement  Income Security Act of 1974.  

*Employer-applicants' third-party administrator therefore will be  under  no legal obligation to provide the coverage after applicants  certify  that they object to providing it.*"


   Those who support the nuns'  case, though, argue that just the act of  signing such a  self-certification is tantamount to issuing a  "permission slip" for the  use of contraceptives, and violates the  Catholic orders' rights."

Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR

So before people think the Nuns, or their "church plan" insurer have to provide BC, they do not have to.  They are exempt.

It just seems bizarre to me filing out a one-page form is such an onerous and _sinful_ act, all unto itself.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 3, 2014)

A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.


I believe they have a right to object -  and the government accommodated them -- I just can't understand why they have pushed it to the point of 

_Nope.  Not gonna file the paperwork to say we object._


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

Filling simple paper work neither is onerous nor a violation of the 1st Amendment


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It is a lifestyle option, not a healthcare option.

And it is an extremely discriminatory mandate - not only on religious grounds, but it is a perfect example of gender discrimination. If it should be covered for women, why shouldn't it be covered for men?


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.




why won't you create your own religion where the poor take the place of god? 
the hypocrisy of the militantly atheist left is just hilarious.

Catholic faith is NOT centered around helping the poor. It is a secondary and even a tertiary problem. Neither is it a centerpiece for any religion, for that matter - and it should not be.

So, creating the Church of Pauperes Cultus can be your next business
 project, Moonglow 
l'll ke 10% of profits for providing the idea


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 3, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.



Exactly. They are making this a political issue and wasting money and energy on it when they could be doing what they should be doing, which is focus on those in need, not in doing everything they can to prevent women from getting birth control.  Absolutely shameful.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It is a lifestyle option, not a healthcare option.
> ...


I see you didn't even bother to read the OP.

The organization does NOT have to provide BC coverage.  They are exempt.

Their objection is to filling out a short form claiming they are exempt.


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> ...



Good. Their objection is valid as it is the same as providing the coverage.

But since you are a militant ignorant atheist you won't understnd it.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
> ...



Helping those in need is indeed an essential tenet of Christianity. Absolutely. Anyone who says differently is off his rocker.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


I see, saying you object on religious grounds is the same as providing BC.

That makes sense



You second sentence is pathetic and false.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It is a lifestyle option, not a healthcare option.
> 
> And it is an extremely discriminatory mandate - not only on religious grounds, but it is a perfect example of gender discrimination. If it should be covered for women, why shouldn't it be covered for men?



Contraception has EVERYTHING to do with health care.  Pregnancy is a health care issue.  Getting pregnant has a massive effect on the body.  Pregnancy is not a 'lifestyle choice' it is a physical condition that affects the entire body of a woman in the present and in the future.  It is a condition that requires a great deal of health care, and preventing a pregnancy is part of that health care issue.  Anyone who objects to a woman preventing an pregnancy is living in the Stone Age.  What kind of monsters want to force women to have babies they don't want?


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Your ignorance of Christianity is glaringly obvious.

Poor are the tertiary problem and they are not the only ones.

Pauperus cultists can help the poor themselves instead of delegating that to the others.

But you don't want to help the poor from your OWN money, do you? 

the leftards and their lying hypocrisy


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


The militancy and ignorance are on his part,  not on yours.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



You have a focus on ORGANIZED religion and what such institutions do. You have a total lack of understanding of what Christ stood for.


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> ...



It has NOTHING to do with health care.

Pregnancy is a NORMAL state and is avoidable if the woman choses to.

It is a lifestyle option and as any other lifestyle options should be covered by the women themselves.

As it is done everywhere else - starting with the single payer systems


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



a militant atheist in her hypocritical stance of "knowledge" what Christ stood for 

for promiscuous sex with anything moving and the taxpayer to pay for the abortions the day before deliviery - that is what Christ stood for per militant atheis feminists


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
> ...



I am not atheist but you may indulge your fantasies all you like.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Exactly. They are making this a political issue and wasting money and energy on it when they could be doing what they should be doing, which is focus on those in need, not in doing everything they can to prevent women from getting birth control.  Absolutely shameful.



Obama and the ACA are violating the 1st Amendment. There is no provision for Congress to violate the religious freedom of the Catholic Church, which Obamacare is doing.

The farce that the Church is exempt - if they fill out a form that makes them not exempt - is absurd.

This is simple - IF you want birth control and abortion - don't work for the Catholics. BUT Lord Obama and the dims want to FORCE their views on the Catholics.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Being ALIVE is a normal state, yet people go to the doctor for check ups to make sure they are in good health. Cleaning your teeth is normal, but it is still a health care issue.  A million things are normal and not illnesses, yet we still use health care to address them.

You live in the Stone Age.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> I see you didn't even bother to read the OP.
> 
> The organization does NOT have to provide BC coverage.  They are exempt.



If they fill out a form that the employee can use to get BC coverage.... 

Not so exempt. 



> Their objection is to filling out a short form claiming they are exempt.



A form which makes them not exempt.

Prisoner - you are exempt from execution - provided you commit suicide... 

Yo leftists - stop violating the Constitution.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



I'm not a militant anything; and I was raised a Christian, am baptised and everything.  I chose not to practice any religion, doesn't mean I'm an atheist and definitely doesn't mean I am militant.  You are the one who is militant.  A militant Stone Age thinker.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 3, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I see you didn't even bother to read the OP.
> ...



No, what they are doing is trying to prevent women from getting birth control elsewhere, women who work for them but may not be Catholic. They are attempting to force women who work for them to adhere to a tenet of the Catholic religion and trying to manipulate the law to do so.  It's absolutely shameful.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> I'm not a militant anything; and I was raised a Christian, am baptised and everything.  I chose not to practice any religion, doesn't mean I'm an atheist and definitely doesn't mean I am militant.  You are the one who is militant.  A militant Stone Age thinker.



Regardless, the Catholics alone have the right to define their religion. IF you don't like their faith - don't work for them.

Violating the 1st amendment is not acceptable. Look, I realize this is just part of the war the democrats are waging on civil rights, but knock it the fuck off.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> No, what they are doing is trying to prevent women from getting birth control elsewhere,



Really?

How do they stop her from marching into Walmart and buying a case of condoms?

"They," the Catholics, aren't doing anything. This is purely Obama and the left violating the 1st Amendment as part of the general war on civil rights that the left is waging.

Claiming that an exemption from providing contraceptives - which violates the Catholic faith, is dependent on filling out a form that provides contraceptives, is the sort of head-spinning double-talk that one expects from Soviet Commissars or the Khmer Rouge.

This is Congress creating law which infringes the free exercise of religion. IF you don't agree with the Catholic views - don't fucking work for them. BUT you don't get to remove their civil rights - as Obama is attempting to do.



> women who work for them but may not be Catholic.



A vegan who works at Lone Star Steak House has no right to demand a "meat free environment." No one forces a person to seek out and take a job with the Catholic Church. If they do, and they don't like the provisions of the religion - fuck them.




> They are attempting to force women who work for them to adhere to a tenet of the Catholic religion and trying to manipulate the law to do so.  It's absolutely shameful.



That's right - IT'S THE CATHOLIC CHURCH....

You of the left are at war against civil rights - pure and simple. This is a battle for the 1st Amendment. IF you win, civil liberty is a thing of the past.


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



Birth control is NOT a healthcare problem.

pregnancy IS a normal state and is avoidable by lifestyle options.
Government has no role in mandating the lifestyle choices.

Period.

If you want to live under gubmint total control - move to Cuba or North Korea and enjoy.


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



what you were born and raised does not change the pure fact that NOW you ARE a militant flaming leftard atheist and a feminista fascista


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > No, what they are doing is trying to prevent women from getting birth control elsewhere,
> ...


You obviously haven't read the case.

The Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust - which is the ins. company these religious orgs use -- has no plans to offer Birth Control.

*They are exempt.*

Get it?


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


Birth Control is also used to treat medical problems, doof.

In this case, it still doesn't matter - as the org do not have to provide   BC, nor does their  insurance company - the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust.

EXEMPT. Both.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> ...



It is not that simple. 
Their legal advice was to NOT SIGN THE PAPER.
I noticed this was included in Fox News's story, but not ABC News's story.
As the paper was written, the NHS could require them to still pay the cost for a second, separate policy an individual would get. So they would not be required to provide the coverage - but could still be required to pay for it...which is of course no difference as they would obviously still be providing the service. 
So in other words - as written - the form was a lie.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> You obviously haven't read the case.



I obviously have.

The "exemption" is a farce. They are only exempt IF they fill out a form which provides contraceptive coverage to their employees.



> The Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust - which is the ins. company these religious orgs use -- has no plans to offer Birth Control.
> 
> *They are exempt.*
> 
> Get it?



The form then provides Birth Control - get it?  They are NOT exempt. This is a farce of Khmer Rouge proportions.

You want employee provided birth control? Don't work for the fucking Catholic Church.

Oh, and I STRONGLY support birth control. 

However, this is a fight over civil rights - Obama is attempting to revoke the first amendment.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

iamwhatiseem said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


Not true.  The insurance company is exempt as well.  They provide

"a "church plan" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,* meaning that it is exempt from regulation by the government.*"

Government: Little Sisters Have No Case | Religion Dispatches

There is nothing in the filings or in the case which would require them to pay for any second policy to provide coverage.  Read the case.

I'll post the short form they have to fill out if you like.


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 3, 2014)

iamwhatiseem said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Thats what I got from this,the real question is why are the board detractors even care what these nun do or don't do.Its the nuns and Catholic churches money.

The intolerance and just plan school girl blubbering about something they are not involved with what so ever.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

The nuns and Christian Brothers Trust do not have to provide BC coverage, and  the issue comes down to having to filing out the paperwork. 

"Last month, U.S. District Judge William J. *Martinez agreed with the  nuns that they were a religious organization* under the act even though  they are not a church. Based on the group's history and mission, he  said, *all  they had to do to avoid the substantial penalties the  government  levies against employers who violate the law was fill out and  submit a  form to the group administering their employee health care  plan.*

The form  amounts to nothing more than a self-certification that *"on  account of  religious objections, the organization opposes providing  coverage for  some or all of any contraceptive services that would  otherwise be  required to be covered; the organization is organized and  operates as a  nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out  as a religious  organization."*


That, presumably, should not be offensive to the  nuns' religious beliefs; rather, it affirms them. 

What they seem to be  objecting to is the fact that the form also  includes instructions for  how the health plan administrator should  process claims for  contraceptive services to ensure that the Little  Sisters are not  involved in either the paperwork or payment for them. *Since  the nuns'  health plan administrator, Christian Brothers Services,  another Catholic  charitable group, says it has no intention of  providing contraceptive  coverage, that, too, would not seem to be a  problem. As Judge Martinez  put it, the nuns' continued objection  "ignores the factual and legal  realities of the case."*


Read more: Catonsville nuns group not required to provide birth control under Obamacare, judge says - baltimoresun.com


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

This

is the form.  The major problem they have is _filling it out._

*
CERTIFICATION*

(To be used for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014) 
This form is to be used to certify that the health coverage established   or maintained or arranged by the organization listed below qualifies  for  an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover   certain contraceptive services without cost sharing, pursuant to 26 CFR   54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, and 45 CFR 147.131.  

Please fill out this form completely.  This form must be completed by   each eligible organization by the first day of the first plan year   beginning on or after January 1, 2014, with respect to which the   accommodation is to apply, and be made available for examination upon   request.  This form must be maintained on file for at least 6 years   following the end of the last applicable plan year.


Name of the organization      
Name and title of the individual who is authorized to make, and makes, this certification on behalf of the organization      
Mailing and email addresses and phone number for the individual listed above      
I certify that, on account of religious objections, the organization   opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services   that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is   organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds   itself out as a religious organization.  

Note: An organization that offers coverage through the same group health   plan as a religious employer (as defined in 45 CFR 147.131(a)) and/or   an eligible organization (as defined in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a); 29 CFR   2590.715-2713A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)), and that is part of the same   controlled group of corporations as, or under common control with, such   employer and/or organization (each within the meaning of section 52(a)   or (b) of the Internal Revenue Code), may certify that it holds itself   out as a religious organization. 

I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of   my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. I also declare that   this certification is complete.  


______________________________________

Signature of the individual listed above  


______________________________________

Date
The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification   to the plans health insurance issuer(s) (for insured health plans) or   third party administrator(s) (for self-insured health plans) in order   for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive   coverage requirement. 

Notice to Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans 

    In the case of a group health plan that provides benefits on a   self-insured basis, the provision of this certification to a plans   third party administrator that will process claims for contraceptive   coverage required under 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) or 29 CFR   2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) constitutes notice to the third party   administrator that:

    (1) The eligible organization will not act as the plan administrator   or claims administrator with respect to claims for contraceptive   services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive services; and  

    (2) Obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 26   CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A. 

    This certification is an instrument under which the plan is operated. _____________________

http://cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Form...es/Downloads/cms-10459-certificationdocx.docx


----------



## percysunshine (Jan 3, 2014)

You would think that Obama would get the hint from his own selected Supreme Court judge that he will loose this if it comes before SCOTUS.

If he wants to do it the hard way....


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


In this case, the nuns are not being asked to fund Birth Control -- the extent of their_ participation_ is signing a form saying they wish to be exempt.

That's it. Their religious sensibilities are insulted by merely stating on paper they have religious objections.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Here is the Order from the judge.

It states right there the government can't fine them.

 "...Plaintiffs Little Sisters of the Poor, who provide health insurance   for their employees through the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit   Trust, may opt out from the Mandate by completing a self-certification   form and providing it to the third-party administrator, Christian   Brothers
Services, and (2)* in addition, because the Trust is a self-insured &#8220;church plan&#8221;** exempt from ERISA, the third-party administrator, Christian Brothers Services,** would not be subject to fines or penalties*. "

The Sisters use The Christian Brothers Services Ins trust -- and it's the other groups that use this trust that are included.


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



A from their legal council told them not to sign. This is not hard stuff


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

So Catholic Organizations don't have to violate their beliefs by assisting employees in regards to receiving birth control ... As long as they fill out the paperwork that assists the employees in receiving birth control.
Typical government solution ... Never address the problem ... And simply think that dictating a stupid workaround excuses any responsibility.

.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...


 
Actually, hormones are used to treat medical problems.

Birth control is used to control birth.


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



Once again what do you care,why the blubbering,it effects you not!


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

"Everyone, it seems, knows better about how to live one&#8217;s faith in the public square than the nuns who have to facilitate contraception coverage for people who are sworn to celibacy. The New York Times editorial board followed the White House lead on arguing that the nuns aren&#8217;t _really_ violating Catholic doctrine by facilitating access to contraception, despite what they themselves believe. And even if it did, the requirement doesn&#8217;t place a big burden on religious expression:
A careful review of the matter should persuade Justice Sotomayor and her Supreme Court colleagues, who may also become involved now, that the alleged threat to religious liberty is nonexistent and the stay should be lifted while litigation proceeds in the lower courts. &#8230;"

You gotta love it when anti-Christian extremists think they have the authority to tell believers whether or not they are violating their religious beliefs.

This is, of course, the ultimate in violation of separation of church and state, of course. Funny that leftist extremists have screamed all along that actually ENGAGING in religion is a violation of church v. state, if you do so publicly...while at the same time desperately attempting to facilitate state control over the churches.

NYT: We also know better about religious fidelity than a bunch of nuns « Hot Air​


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

"Like the cases of the private employers, the suit by the nuns&#8217; group boils down to an unjustified attempt by an employer to impose its religious views on workers."

Oh the irony. Those who claim they have the right and the authority to impose mandates upon employers that violate their religious beliefs claim that if you refuse to allow them to do it, it's an unustified attempt to impose religious views on workers, lol.



NYT: We also know better about religious fidelity than a bunch of nuns « Hot Air


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Paperwork. One page.  A real burden, apparently/



> Before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor presided over the Times Square ball drop on New Year's Eve, she temporarily blocked Obamacare's contraceptive mandate from being enforced on two religious non-profits.
> 
> 
> The Colorado- and Maryland-based Little Sisters of the Poor and  Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services were granted a temporary  injunction, preventing Obamacare's contraceptive mandate (which would  have gone into effect on New Year's Day) from applying to these  non-profits, reports Reuters.
> ...


Obamacare's Contraceptive Mandate Blocked for 2 Religious Non-Profits - Decided


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


If  all you're interested in is trolling,  take your blubber and shove off.


----------



## chikenwing (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Its a legit question ,there bucko,why would you care? 

That's it. Their religious sensibilities are insulted by merely stating on paper they have religious objections.[/QUOTE]
 And you are bitch en about trolls?? see above sentence?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It is a lifestyle option, not a healthcare option.
> 
> And it is an extremely discriminatory mandate - not only on religious grounds, but it is a perfect example of gender discrimination. If it should be covered for women, why shouldn't it be covered for men?



Are the monasteries required to file the exception, which is neither onerous or unconstitutional?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
> ...



So you are anti-Catholic, as well?  Very modern.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



No, it is not, and your stance as a far right anti-1st Amendment reactionary stands solid.


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



birth control is NOT used to treat hormonal imbalances. Hormones are. Some of the hormones are also used in the birth control preparations.
But they are not the same "pills" 

educate yourself before you pose as a knowledgeable, doof.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> Thats what I got from this,the real question is why are the board detractors even care what these nun do or don't do.Its the nuns and Catholic churches money.
> 
> The intolerance and just plan school girl blubbering about something they are not involved with what so ever.



Hmmm. might have something to do with Church doctrine. While I understand that Paperview and other leftists demand that Obama alone will determine doctrine, under the Bill of Rights in the old republic, there was a provision known as the 1st Amendment that constrained Congress from creating any law that infringed on religious liberty - including the liberty to determine church doctrine.

But dictatorship under Obama is so much better than civil liberty that no one should complain.

Obama Akbar.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> "Everyone, it seems, knows better about how to live ones faith in the public square than the nuns who have to facilitate contraception coverage for people who are sworn to celibacy. The New York Times editorial board followed the White House lead on arguing that the nuns arent _really_ violating Catholic doctrine by facilitating access to contraception, despite what they themselves believe. And even if it did, the requirement doesnt place a big burden on religious expression:
> A careful review of the matter should persuade Justice Sotomayor and her Supreme Court colleagues, who may also become involved now, that the alleged threat to religious liberty is nonexistent and the stay should be lifted while litigation proceeds in the lower courts. "
> 
> You gotta love it when anti-Christian extremists think they have the authority to tell believers whether or not they are violating their religious beliefs.
> ...



Obama and the NY Times stated "If you like your celibacy, you can keep your celibacy..."


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Paperwork. One page.  A real burden, apparently/



The 1st Amendment is something the democrats WILL NOT LET STAND.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


  You're wrong. Birth control pills for example are also used   to treat  endometriosis.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

*"With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves  the relief they seek from this court &#8212; an exemption from the  requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision &#8212; and the  employer-applicants' employees (and their family members) will not  receive contraceptive coverage through the plan's third-party  administrator either.* The application should be denied," Verrilli  argued.


Gov't: Birth Control Mandate Should Not Be Blocked - ABC News

The argument against filing a form is absurd.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Birth control pills for example are also used to treat  endometriosis.



So are Medroxyprogesterone, Norgestrel Acetate, Danazol and GnRH analogs.

.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> *"With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves  the relief they seek from this court  an exemption from the  requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision  and the  employer-applicants' employees (and their family members) will not  receive contraceptive coverage through the plan's third-party  administrator either.* The application should be denied," Verrilli  argued.
> 
> 
> Gov't: Birth Control Mandate Should Not Be Blocked - ABC News
> ...



*"If employer-applicants' third-party administrator were nevertheless to decide to provide contraceptive coverage, applicants' employees and their covered dependents would receive such coverage despite applicants' assertion of their religious objections, not because of those objections."*

If you need a link ... It came from your source already linked.

.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Birth control pills for example are also used to treat  endometriosis.
> ...


and?


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



There is more than one treatment for Endometriosis ... And therefore birth control pills are not a requirement ... Duh


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > *"With the stroke of their own pen, applicants can secure for themselves  the relief they seek from this court  an exemption from the  requirements of the contraceptive-coverage provision  and the  employer-applicants' employees (and their family members) will not  receive contraceptive coverage through the plan's third-party  administrator either.* The application should be denied," Verrilli  argued.
> ...


As I pointed out earlier, the Christian Bros. Trust (the Insurance Co. who handles the Catholic orgs named in this suit) -- have no intention of providing BC Coverage.

"What's more, Justice  argues that "this case involves a church  plan  that is exempt from  regulation under the Employee Retirement  Income  Security Act of 1974.  

*Employer-applicants' third-party  administrator therefore will be  under  no legal obligation to provide  the coverage after applicants  certify  that they object to providing  it.*"

   Those who support the nuns'  case, though, argue that just the act of   signing such a  self-certification is tantamount to issuing a   "permission slip" for the  use of contraceptives, and violates the   Catholic orders' rights."

Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR

This  "church plan" insurer does not have to provide BC   They are exempt. And Christian Bros. will be under no obligation, nor desire to provide it. 

It's about filling out a form.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Strawman.   No one said it is *required.*  Many doctors do, however, prescribe BC pills for that, and for other medical reasons.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Strawman ... So what, they can choose to prescribe any number of treatments for medical reasons.
In fact ... GnRH analogs are prescribed precisely for people who don't want to, or cannot take birth control pills.

.


----------



## rdean (Jan 3, 2014)

Birth Control Mandate: Is this taking the Religous Liberty Exception too far?

What's strange is the way right wingers fight for it and them completely ignore it by using contraception.  The small size of their families tell the tale.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



It is absurd to think that the government indicating objections the Catholics have are meaningless is not an insult to their religious sensibilities.
The suit was brought by the nuns ... But is in no way restricted to their individual case any more than Roe vs Wade.

.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

See?

"The Little Sisters, in their reply to  the government&#8217;s brief on Friday afternoon, *said that signing a piece  of paper allowing contraception &#8212; even if it doesn&#8217;t result in  contraception being handed out &#8212;is itself a violation of their religious  protections.*
Read more: Sonia Sotomayor faces health law contraception decision - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
​


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Huh?  It has not reached SCOTUS, but the case was specifically in reference to the orgs that use the Christian Brothres Trust -- which is exempt, under the Church Plan.


*"This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of Catholic    employers who participate in the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit    Trust (the &#8220;Christian Brothers Trust&#8221.*"

Sotomayor now has to decide what to do.  This case was narrow, but if it reaches SCOTUS, (and I suspect it will) -- it will then likely be enjoined with other suits, and then would have a reaching affect.

The problem the orgs will have is trying to say with a straight face filling out a form is an undue burden.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

> The premise was that an insurer or administrator would not have the  same objection to providing such products. But the catch here is that  the Little Sisters&#8217; administrator &#8212; the Christian Brothers Employee  Benefits Trust &#8212; is also run by a religious order.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read more: Sonia Sotomayor faces health law contraception decision - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
​


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

This is   interesting part of the Solicitor General's brief:

"Applicants draw flawed analogies when they say that under the court of  appeals&#8217; reasoning, 
&#8220;Quaker conscientious objectors would suffer no  penalties if they would just join the military; Jewish prisoners would  suffer no burden if they would just eat the pork; Seventh Day Adventists  would not lose their benefits if they would just work on Saturdays.&#8221; 

Appl. 26-27. To mirror the situation here, the question in all of those cases*  would be whether the religious objector could be required to sign a  certification form in order to secure the religion-based exemption he  sought. *

It is applicants&#8217; position, not that of the court of appeals, that would  lead to absurd results in those cases, for it would seemingly mean that  the Quaker could not be made to attest to his status as a conscientious  objector before being absolved of his military obligations; 

that the Jewish prisoner could not be required to fill out a form saying  he had a religious objection to the consumption of pork before he was  provided an alternative meal; 

and that the Seventh Day Adventist could not be obligated to state that  he had a religious objection to working on Saturdays before being  relieved of his shift.


*When extending religious accommodations, the government must be allowed  to provide for regularized, orderly means of permitting eligible  individuals or entities to declare that they intend to take advantage of  them. 

That is what the self- certification under the regulations accomplishes,*  and it does so by requiring only that employer-applicants say something  that they have said repeatedly in this litigation, namely, that they  object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage to their  employees. *To interpret RFRA to negate even such a certification requirement would be extraordinary.*

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Little-Sisters-Injunction-Opp-13A691.pdf

Filling out a form.  That's their objection.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



You need to educate yourself; you are not an expert in this field.

This an issue between doctor and patient, not you and anyone else.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



So you want to mandate that government interfere in patient decisions?


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> 
> Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ...



This isn't a religious freedom issue and it shouldn't be handled as such. It's a general freedom of conscience issue. None of us should have to fill out a fucking form to get 'permission' from the state to make these kinds of decisions.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> ...


So the Quaker doesn't have to   _attest to his status as a conscientious  objector before being absolved of his military obligations?

_Th_a_t a_ Jewish prisoner could not be required to fill out a form saying  he had a  religious objection to the consumption of pork before he was  provided  an alternative meal?_

That a _Seventh Day Adventist could not be obligated to state that   he had a religious objection to working on Saturdays before being   relieved of his shift_?

You think a "general freedom of conscience issue" means you are not obligated to literally just state for the record you object - by signing  a form that takes all of about 2 minutes?  It goes against a persons religion to say formally it goes against their religion?

Think through what you are saying.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

What military obligations? We no longer have the draft.

And yes, if you are in prison, you do have to fill out paperwork, if you don't like the accomodations. Because when you are in prison, many of your rights are suspended.

And a Seventh Day Adventist should not apply for a job that requires him to work on his Sabbath. If people could get time off on the weekends just because their religion calls this day or that day the Sabbath, there would be nobody working in any of the places that run round the clock. 

Gads you loons are thick, and have such a limited understanding of everything.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> What military obligations? We no longer have the draft.


We did.  And could again.

The Quaker would still have to attest to his status, and has had to in the past.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I've thought it through. I don't think those kinds of exemptions should exist. That interpretation actually perverts the intent of the First Amendment, which was to prevent government from writing laws that targeted religions for persecution, or to promote them as state religions. By using the religious clause of the First Amendment to, instead, grant special exemptions to 'qualifying' religions, the Court has turned the amendment against its purpose, setting the government up to judge which religions are valid and which aren't.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > What military obligations? We no longer have the draft.
> ...


 

In your imaginary world, perhaps.

Let's try to stick to reality, shall we?


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

> The reason why it matters that the plaintiffs in the case are  claiming that such an insignificant requirement burdens their religious  faith is because federal religious liberty law provides that &#8220;[g]overnment shall not _substantially burden_ a person&#8217;s exercise of religion&#8221;  except when a specific exemption applies. So a person with a religious  objection the law cannot immunize themselves from following it merely  because they don&#8217;t like the law, they have to show that the law imposes a  burden on their faith that is substantial.
> 
> 
> That is why these plaintiffs  should have no case. Being required to inform the government that you  are invoking your legal rights isn&#8217;t a substantial burden. It&#8217;s barely a  burden at all.
> ...


Here's What's Really At Stake In That Birth Control Case Involving The Colorado Nuns | ThinkProgress

The loons here are the people who say simply stating for the record they object is a violation of their religious freedoms.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Think Progress! Awesome propaganda/hate speech! You rock!


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Really?



 


 John T. Neufeld was a Mennonite World War I conscientious objector sentenced to 15 years hard labor in the military prison at Leavenworth.  He was paroled to do dairy work and released after serving five months  of his sentence. His diary of army and prison life is published in a  collection with three other WWI Mennonite conscientious objectors.


 During the American Revolutionary War,  exemptions varied by state. Pennsylvania required conscientious  objectors, who would not join companies of voluntary soldiers called  Associations, to pay a fine roughly equal to the time they would have  spent in military drill.[73] Quakers who refused this extra tax had their property confiscated.
 The first conscription in the United States came with the Civil War.  Although conscientious objection was not part of the draft law,  individuals could provide a substitute or pay $300 to hire one.[74] By 1864 the draft act allowed the $300 to be paid for the benefit of sick and wounded soldiers. Conscientious objectors in Confederate States  initially had few options. Responses included moving to northern  states, hiding in the mountains, joining the army but refusing to use a  weapon, or imprisonment. Between late 1862 and 1864 a payment of $500  into the public treasury exempted conscientious objectors from  Confederate military duty.[75]
     We were cursed, beaten, kicked, and compelled to go through exercises  to the extent that a few were unconscious for some minutes. They kept  it up for the greater part of the afternoon, and then those who could  possibly stand on their feet were compelled to take cold shower baths.  One of the boys was scrubbed with a scrubbing brush using lye on him.  They drew blood in several places.
      Mennonite from Camp Lee, Virginia, United States, 16 July 1918.[76]​    In the United States during World War I, conscientious objectors were  permitted to serve in noncombatant military roles. About 2000 absolute  conscientious objectors refused to cooperate in any way with the  military.[77] These men were imprisoned in military facilities such as Fort Lewis (Washington), Alcatraz Island (California) and Fort Leavenworth  (Kansas). Some were subjected to treatment such as short rations,  solitary confinement and physical abuse severe enough as to cause the  deaths of two Hutterite draftees.[78]
 Eventually, because of the shortage of farm labor, the conscientious  objectors were granted furloughs either for farm service or relief work  in France under the American Friends Service Committee. A limited number performed alternative service as fire fighters in the Cascade Range in the vicinity of Camp Lewis, Washington[79] and in a Virginia psychiatric hospital.[80]

During World War II,* all registrants were sent a questionnaire  covering basic facts about their identification, physical condition,  history and also provided a checkoff to indicate opposition to military  service because of religious training or belief. Men marking the latter  option received a detailed form in which they had to explain the basis  for their objection.*[81]

Conscientious objector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

The koshergirl crank can't take anyone providing alternate views -- that's why she has to neg rather than actually debate the points being made.

Suck on it, wench.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

"
_*ThinkProgress*_ is a liberal American political blog that "provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies".[2] It is an outlet of the Center for American Progress."

a.k.a....

"Progressive propaganda site."

Even wiki knows it, you poor, deluded cultist.

ThinkProgress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Interesting...

" It was edited by Faiz Shakir from January 2007 to May 2012 when it was announced that he would leave to join Nancy Pelosi's team as Director of New Media"

LOLOl!

ThinkProgress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> "
> _*ThinkProgress*_ is a liberal American political blog that "provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies".[2] It is an outlet of the Center for American Progress."
> 
> a.k.a....
> ...



Attacking the messenger.  How Alinski of you.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Also funny:

"[ThinkProgress&#8217;] parent 501(c)4 nonprofit doesn&#8217;t disclose its donors.&#8221;[6]"

ThinkProgress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

You're the messenger, twit. I'm attacking your ridiculous source.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Koshergrl is as ignorant as you on these matters, come to think of it.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Why are you talking to yourself, liar?

Koshergrl is quite well versed in these matters, as a matter of fact.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Almost all of your posts follow this same pattern: "_So-and-so_ is _such-and-such_ and should therefore be dismissed." 

Have you ever considered conversation and debate, as an alternative to childish games?


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

No, he has not.

He's been doing this here for years. Not likely to stop any time soon.

He's dismissed equally by both sides.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



My posts point out ignorance posing as reason, such as yours.  But if you want to discuss and debate, go ahead.

I have always told you that if you were polite, our relationship on board would be fine.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

You've never pointed out a thing, except your own dishonesty.

You funny, fake.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Huh?  It has not reached SCOTUS, but the case was specifically in reference to the orgs that use the Christian Brothres Trust -- which is exempt, under the Church Plan.
> 
> 
> *"This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of Catholic    employers who participate in the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit    Trust (the Christian Brothers Trust).*"
> ...



*Okay ... There is the rub ... Why are they required to fill out and sign the forms?*

If there is nothing for them to object to ... What are they supposed to be objecting to with the forms ... And why are the forms required?
If there is something to object to ... Why should they fill out the forms so that what they object to can be acquired by filling out the form?

*Make a choice ... And if your choice is that it doesn't matter whether or not they fill out the forms ... Then it doesn't matter whether or not they fill out the forms.*

.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Huh?  It has not reached SCOTUS, but the case was specifically in reference to the orgs that use the Christian Brothres Trust -- which is exempt, under the Church Plan.
> ...


Your post seriously makes no sense.

The only thing the orgs here need to do is to self-certify they are exempt.

You're seriously asking *why* they need to take 2 minutes to file the form to state they are exempt?


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

They object to being mandated. ACA is the law of the land.

These religious orgs simply need to file a one page form to say they are exempt.

They are then exempt.  Are people trying to make the case this 2 minute signature they need to apply to a form results in an undue burden?


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> [
> Your post seriously makes no sense.
> 
> The only thing the orgs here need to do is to self-certify they are exempt.
> ...



Why ... Why fill out the form if they are already exempt?
Why do they need to state they are exempt with a form?
What are they going to do with the form?

The form is for some reason or for no reason ... What is the reason?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> You've never pointed out a thing, except your own dishonesty.
> 
> You funny, fake.



So you back away from an offer to be polite with each other.  OK.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

The orgs need to certify they are exempt.

It is their burden, as light as it is, not the government to investigate if they are.  Saves time and taxpayers' dollars.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


What's to prevent anyone from saying "I object" -- without formally proclaiming a religious exemption? 

Is this a serious burden?


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> What's to prevent anyone from saying "I object" -- without formally proclaiming a religious exemption?
> 
> Is this a serious burden?



This is what you posted in the OP ... Make up your mind.



paperview said:


> Why? Because their employees need that form in order to get birth control directly from their insurers (which they need to do because their employers&#8212;these Catholic non-profits&#8212;are exempt, as they want to be)."



Or keep throwing out parts of the OP to meet your moving goal posts.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Again:  This

is the form.   *

CERTIFICATION*

(To be used for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014) 
This form is to be used to certify that the health coverage established    or maintained or arranged by the organization listed below qualifies   for  an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover    certain contraceptive services without cost sharing, pursuant to 26 CFR    54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, and 45 CFR 147.131.  

Please fill out this form completely.  This form must be completed by    each eligible organization by the first day of the first plan year    beginning on or after January 1, 2014, with respect to which the    accommodation is to apply, and be made available for examination upon    request.  This form must be maintained on file for at least 6 years    following the end of the last applicable plan year.


Name of the organization      
Name and title of the individual who is authorized to make, and makes, this certification on behalf of the organization      
Mailing and email addresses and phone number for the individual listed above      
I certify that, on account of religious objections, the organization    opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services    that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is    organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization  holds   itself out as a religious organization.  

Note: An organization that offers coverage through the same group health    plan as a religious employer (as defined in 45 CFR 147.131(a)) and/or    an eligible organization (as defined in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a); 29  CFR   2590.715-2713A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)), and that is part of the  same   controlled group of corporations as, or under common control  with, such   employer and/or organization (each within the meaning of  section 52(a)   or (b) of the Internal Revenue Code), may certify that  it holds itself   out as a religious organization. 

I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of    my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. I also declare that    this certification is complete.  


______________________________________

Signature of the individual listed above  


______________________________________

Date
The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification    to the plans health insurance issuer(s) (for insured health plans) or    third party administrator(s) (for self-insured health plans) in order    for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive    coverage requirement. 

Notice to Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans 

    In the case of a group health plan that provides benefits on a    self-insured basis, the provision of this certification to a plans    third party administrator that will process claims for contraceptive    coverage required under 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) or 29 CFR    2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) constitutes notice to the third party    administrator that:

    (1) The eligible organization will not act as the plan administrator    or claims administrator with respect to claims for contraceptive    services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive services; and  

    (2) Obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 26    CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A. 

    This certification is an instrument under which the plan is operated. _____________________

http://cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Form...es/Downloads/cms-10459-certificationdocx.docx


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The orgs need to certify they are exempt.
> 
> It is their burden, as light as it is, not the government to investigate if they are.  Saves time and taxpayers' dollars.



It's self incrimination, a violation of the fifth amendment. By certifying they are exempt, these organizations are nominating themselves for said investigation. That may save tax payers money, but it's wrong. It's more of the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" mindset that seems to be gaining a foothold across the board in government these days.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > What's to prevent anyone from saying "I object" -- without formally proclaiming a religious exemption?
> ...


If you read the link I placed there:

Justice Sotomayor grants temporary injunction to Catholic groups who say filling out an Obamacare form about contraception violates their religious freedom.

you'd see the insurers in this case DO NOT have to provide BC Coverage.  They too are exempt.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Then why do they need to fill out the form ... If the form isn't going to make a difference?

.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The orgs need to certify they are exempt.
> ...


Bull.  Even the Sisters themselves didn't make that case.

They said it amounted to a "permission slip" -- when it did no such thing.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


To claim the exemption.

This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The orgs need to certify they are exempt.
> ...


 

Too complex and factual for fake, I'm afraid.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The Sisters should have given it more thought.


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Why are you talking to yourself, liar?
> 
> Koshergrl is quite well versed in these matters, as a matter of fact.



and as afar as I remember there is no disagreement on the issue between Koshergirl and me


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> They object to being mandated. ACA is the law of the land.
> 
> These religious orgs simply need to file a one page form to say they are exempt.
> 
> They are then exempt.  Are people trying to make the case this 2 minute signature they need to apply to a form results in an undue burden?



No, they simply should be exempt apriori from the mandate and should not be obliged to sign any papers.

signing ANY papers makes you liable.

so - NO.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > They object to being mandated. ACA is the law of the land.
> ...


That's ridiculous.


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



to you, not to anybody with an understanding that succumbing to the idiocy of guilty until proven otherwise is not going to fly.


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 3, 2014)

Wow, with the libs today, we have no Freedoms from THEM


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

This has never been about religious liberty or objections to birth control on religious grounds. 

If it had anything to do with religious objections to birth control, all of the Hobby Lobby wives would be pregnant. 

Its a scam to screw over women. Period. 

If these assholes want to cut women's pay in this way, they need to give the cash instead because THAT is what health insurance is - pay. Any of you who get insurance as a benefit know its in lieu of money in your pay check. If employers want to cut women's benefits, they should pay it in another way - cash. 

If it were men's benefits that were being cut, this would not last more than five minutes.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



It is ridiculous ... What does claiming the exemption do?
In the OP you mentioned that claiming the exemption and supplying the form allowed employees to get birth control covered by the insurers provided by the Catholic Organizations.

I guess that part of the OP was wrong and you have abandoned it ... The only part that talked about "why" the exemption was necessary.

.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

And, of course, no catholics use birth control.

Fucking hypocrites will do whatever they can to screw over women.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

Maybe instead of filling out the forms, they could just wear some kind of patch or something.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

What stops anyone from just saying they are exempt from taxes?

All they need to do is say "_hey, too bad -- Ima church. 

Suck eggs, gov._"

Duddn't work that way.


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

birth control is NOT a healthcare issue and should not be covered by ANYBODY.

Period.

you need birth control? you BUY it in Walmart.
Or CVS


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


You're not paying attention.

*The insurers are exempt.*  They fall under the "church plan" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,* meaning that it is exempt from regulation by the government.*"

Read the damn case.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> Maybe instead of filling out the forms, they could just wear some kind of patch or something.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> It's self incrimination, a violation of the fifth amendment. By certifying they are exempt, these organizations are nominating themselves for said investigation. That may save tax payers money, but it's wrong. It's more of the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" mindset that seems to be gaining a foothold across the board in government these days.



I think the only mistake some people are making is thinking the Catholic Organizations believe their objection to or exemption from providing birth control comes from the government.

.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe instead of filling out the forms, they could just wear some kind of patch or something.


Oh brother.

Talk about jumping the shark.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> What stops anyone from just saying they are exempt from taxes?
> 
> All they need to do is say "_hey, too bad -- Ima church.
> 
> ...



That's part of the contradictory nature of such exemptions in the first place, and why they shouldn't exist.


----------



## Norman (Jan 3, 2014)

Birth control has about as much to do with health care as a helmet.

And contraceptive insurance is not a proper insurance either, it's a service deal. A terrible one that no one would buy if it was their own money at that.

And yes birth control pills can be used for different conditions. Which has nothing to do with this, as you could still do that even if contraception wasn't covered by insurance. Further, I don't think pregnancy is the same as contraception, when did it become the same thing?

Up next: Insurance to cover your gas bills, and some stupid religious idiots (It's not the christians this time) believing that it's a good idea because of their ideology.


By the way, I am very pro contraception and abortion. But I am also pro sane economics. There is NO POINT in buying this type of "insurance". Everything you can do with it you can do without it, but much cheaper.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



So you are saying they need to fill out a form stating they are exempt from doing something they are not required to do in the first place.
I read the case ... I read the articles and your OP ... That is not what it said.

*Again ... This is what you posted ...

*


paperview said:


> Why? Because their employees need that form in order to get birth control directly from their insurers (which they need to do because their employersthese Catholic non-profitsare exempt, as they want to be)."


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Think so? Seems like a valid analogy. And potentially as dangerous. There's good reason to not have government in the business of deciding which religions deserve which special perks.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

These freaks are actually trying to say that filing a one page form that guarantees a religious exception is just like the Jews being carted off to concentration camps.

Wayyyyy too much Glenn Beck and Alex Jonesianism here.

My gawd.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> 
> Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ...



This is amazing. The government routinely says that it is illegal to make deposits under $10,000 in order to avoid the reporting requirement built into the law, and has even prosecuted lawyers for merely telling people they could do it, yet you question whether filing paperwork is a burden.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> birth control is NOT a healthcare issue and should not be covered by ANYBODY.
> 
> Period.
> 
> ...



Of course it. 

Long before The Pill was used for contraception, it was used for medical issues. It is still the go-to drug for many very serious medical issues. 

If you were a woman or a doctor or could read, you would know that.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Let's hear from that raging liberall, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

*We   have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse  him  from  compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that   the  State is free to regulate.* On the contrary, the record of more than  a  century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that   proposition.

 And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


 Conscientious  scruples have not,* in the course of the long   struggle for religious  toleration, relieved the individual from   obedience to a general law not  aimed at the promotion or restriction of   religious beliefs.
*
 And, also, too:


*Subsequent decisions have consistently   held that the right of  free exercise does not relieve an individual  of  the obligation to comply  with a "valid and neutral law of general  applicability on the ground  that the law proscribes (or prescribes)  conduct that his religion  prescribes (or proscribes)."
*
 And, finally:


*It may fairly be said that leaving   accommodation to the political  process will place at a relative   disadvantage those religious practices  that are not widely engaged in;   but that unavoidable consequence of  democratic government must be   preferred to a system in which each  conscience is a law unto itself or   in which judges weigh the social  importance of all laws against the   centrality of all religious beliefs.*


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Jews weren't carted off to concentration camps until they were first had their rights stripped from them. That was justified by criminalizing them....

Which progressives the world over applauded.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.



Funny how you aren't worried about how much the government is pending on litigation, especially when you consider that it is considerably more than all the people challenging the law combined. That tells me you don't care about the money, you just want to look smart, and forgot that being smart is more than saying stupid things.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe instead of filling out the forms, they could just wear some kind of patch or something.



EGGGS-zackly what popped into my mind. 

WHAT are people thinking???


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Filling simple paper work neither is onerous nor a violation of the 1st Amendment



Apparently, unless you suddenly reversed your position that Sotomayor was correct to issue the injunction.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



edited: yeah, I actually agree with Scalia here. Do you realize his statement contradicts the idea of the exemption, and implicitly the need to fill out a form?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> ...



No it isn't.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
> ...



Well, you're right about one thing ... no one would ever mistakenly think the right doesn't care about money first, with people WAY down the list. 

the catholic church could feed the whole damn planet if they just sold their gold. 

NO, I'm not saying they should sell their gold. I'm saying they lie when they say they give a fuck about a starving child. If you want to to see what is wrong with out planet, look to the catholic church. 

Let the lawyers live. *XXXXXXX*


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Filling simple paper work neither is onerous nor a violation of the 1st Amendment
> ...


We don;t know *why* Sotomayor  issued the injunction.

It may have been to force the gov't to refine their argument re: religious objections. 

These orgs *are* exempt.  That's not in question.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


You're wrong. As usual.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


I got a real problem with this post.

Not cool.  *Not cool at all.*


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > birth control is NOT a healthcare issue and should not be covered by ANYBODY.
> ...



no it is not.

and nowhere else it is covered neither by insurance or single payer system.

ask brits or canadians - they BUY it.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


There's more than one court who disagrees with you.

*"On the contrary, the record of more than  a  century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that   proposition."*


----------



## Intense (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> 
> Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ...



Here is the problem, a perceived Right, has now been turned into a Privilege. You may be fine with a Law that requires the Church to fill out forms, go through a process, getting permission or consent from an Arbitrary Power, that legislates on whim, but, I personally, take offense.

Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973


----------



## Vox (Jan 3, 2014)

Norman said:


> Birth control has about as much to do with health care as a helmet.
> 
> And contraceptive insurance is not a proper insurance either, it's a service deal. A terrible one that no one would buy if it was their own money at that.
> 
> ...



the WHOLE insurance at it's rates becasue of Obamacare is unneeded - you pay every month ridiculous sums of money - not less than 500$  per single person and than have to shell off not less than 6000$ before ANYTHING kicks in.

for that amount of money one can have ANYTHING, including minor surgery paid out of pocket.
and surgery does not happen every year.

routine visits to the doctor, including the cost f the drugs can be covered out of pocket - by that amount EASILY.

this is simple robbery and is called "insurance"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> 
> Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ...



Of course it doesnt.

Just as religious beliefs dont justify not obeying the law, such as the ACA: 



> To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling" -- permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," _Reynolds v. United States_, 98 U.S. at 167 -- contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.  [n2]
> 
> EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF OREGON, et al., Petitioners v. Alfred L. SMITH et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Intense said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> ...


I don't think you're helping by pointing to abortions.

Contraception helps_ prevent _abortions.  In any case, the orgs here are not being forced to provide contraception.  They are exempt.

All they need do is fill out a one-page form.  Bam. That's it.

If you think just stating you are exempt is enough, sans official declaration,  what's to prevent anyone from saying their religion exempts them from paying taxes?  You actually have to file forms to be exempt, yanno.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

So explain why we have more abortions now than we had before contraceptives were readily available?

Obviously, you didn't think that one through, genius.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I think you may be confused as to my position here, which may be partly my fault because my views aren't as clear-cut as other posters in this thread.

To clarify, I don't think there should BE any special exemptions granted to religions in regards to following general laws - which is what Scalia was saying. None the less, no one should have to fill out a form to exercise their freedom to make conscientious decisions based on their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise. Regulations that violate that freedom should be struck down for everyone, not cut up with special exemptions for favored religious groups.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Urging that people be killed is a violation of the Board rules and should be reported.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


 
Let's hear again how progressives are in NO WAY similar to Nazis.

"He used very powerful propaganda techniques to convince not only the German people, but countless others, that if they eliminated the people who stood in their way and the degenerates and racially inferior, they - the great Germans would prosper. 
Neighboring Poland - The First Target:  &#8220;All Poles will disappear from the world.... It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles.&#8221;   _Heinrich Himmler"_

_"_Thousands of Catholic priests and Christian pastors were forced into concentration camps. A special barracks was set up at Dachau, the camp near Munich, Germany, for clergymen. "

Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust | Jewish Virtual Library​


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

I'd like to see them lose the power they have over innocent people.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Then report it but ask yourself why you never got all crazy over other calls to REALLY kill people. 

Lets have one standard of behavior for all.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Why don't you link that, pudly? I haven't seen anyone say any of that stuff.

but I have heard progressives say that christians should be locked up, killed, have their children taken from them, denied entry into politics, shut up.....

In other words...you're a liar.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

I think this thread is ready for badlands now.

It should have been there from the beginning...


----------



## Intense (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Setting a new and controversial precedent, is both causing friction and dissent. Why should this surprise you? If the Federal Government passed a Law Tomorrow that stated that No One could Buy Sell or Trade, unless they received a chip, a mark on their forehead or wrist, where would you stand? 

Just a thought. You know that Dermatologists can routinely prescribe Birth Control pills to battle acne, something which the Catholic Church has no problem with, right? PPV, seriously, this mandate crap just comes of as Totalitarian, it's destroying an industry, almost by design. Watching Keystone Cops play out here, with implementation, does not help.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Intense said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


I disagree.

We will see how this one goes as Sotomayor rules, and where it will go.

(yes, I think it's headed for the full SCOTUS)

From there, the Sisters (et al) will have to explain why filling out that pone-page exemption form is an onerous burden upon them.

I can't see how that could be the case.


----------



## Intense (Jan 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I'd like to see them lose the power they have over innocent people.



You see flagrant violations, report them. You have a real prejudice against Priests, Ludly. Do you actually think Anyone here, would not want to see a Predator brought to Justice? Seriously? Do you seriously believe that the average Priest is a Child Molester? I don't. 
You are on a Witch Hunt. Should reality find meaning in your life, you might want to play catch up, here. 
VIRTUS® Online


----------



## Barb (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It is a lifestyle option, not a healthcare option.
> 
> And it is an extremely discriminatory mandate - not only on religious grounds, but it is a perfect example of gender discrimination. If it should be covered for women, why shouldn't it be covered for men?





> Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare.



Have you lost your fucking mind?



> If it should be covered for women, why shouldn't it be covered for men?



Show me ONE instance where religion has objected to the little blue pills being covered. ONE.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

I repeat:

It just seems bizarre to me filing out a one-page form is such an onerous and _sinful_ act, all unto itself.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Jews weren't carted off to concentration camps until they were first had their rights stripped from them. That was justified by criminalizing them....
> 
> Which progressives the world over applauded.



Not true.

Not even close.


----------



## Intense (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Let's try living in the past, just a little bit.  
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeT5otk2R1g]Five Man Electric Band - Signs with Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

What's the biggest distinction between a soft tyranny and a hard tyranny? Time? Circumstance? The flavor of the Day? The extremes or arbitrary rule? When will "We The People" matter? When it comes to Liberty, Property Rights, Privacy? Be someone rich or poor, shouldn't these things matter? Shouldn't what's right matter? If any law found itself opposed to what is just and fair, is it enough to say, It's the law and that is the end of the matter? What would Thoreau do there? MLK? Mother Theresa? One question.... Where are the Clinics? Where is cheap healthcare? Any Tyrant coud come up with a thousand ways to justify screwing both you and I, and just as many reasons. That doesn't make it right. The end does not justify the means.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> I repeat:
> 
> It just seems bizarre to me filing out a one-page form is such an onerous and _sinful_ act, all unto itself.






> Forty-five such nonprofits have filed suit in federal court saying that filling out a form for someone else to get birth control is a substantial burden on their religion.





> Theyre saying, I cant fill out permission slips for abortion, sterilization or contraception under any circumstances.



Do these quotes from the article help?


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 3, 2014)

U.S. Government Asks Supreme Court Not To Extend Catholics' Temporary Contraception Exemption


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat:
> ...


What article are you pulling that from?

None placed here.

The case in question does not force the Sisters or their Ins company to supply BC.  BOTH are exempt.


----------



## Barb (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...



The whole issue is that by signing the exemption form, their employees can then obtain that coverage elsewhere. Oh the fucking HORROR! Its the Reagan GAG ORDER all over again, but applied nationally, where it couldn't be applied then, because it didn't pass the constitutional scratch and sniff test, and STILL can't today. 



Cry me a mutherfucking river. 

You would think that an organization so supposedly "pro - LIFE" would be all over the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy. But its not about being pro - LIFE, its about being pro- CONTROL over and LIMITING other peoples lives and CHOICES.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

We're well acquainted with progressives who maintain that if we don't do things their way, they'll see to it that people (in this case, children) will die.

Sometimes you're lying, and sometimes you actually intend to follow through. 

The thing about this lie is just the blatant nature of it. Widespread contraceptive use hasn't reduced abortions at all, or there would be fewer abortions now than there were in the, say, 1920s. Or the 1950s even.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

But don't let that stop you from repeating the lie ad nauseum. After all, the end justifies the means...and the end is dead babies! Yay!


----------



## Barb (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



They most certainly are too, you ass. My daughter was put on them at age 14 to control hormonal imbalances that made her sick as hell every month to the point of high temperatures and debilitating illness.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

Barb said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



Yep. But its not babies or human life they care about. And, it has nothing to do with religious "sensibilities". Nothing at all.


----------



## Barb (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> But don't let that stop you from repeating the lie ad nauseum. After all, the end justifies the means...and the end is dead babies! Yay!



Access to contraception leads to FEWER abortions, you graceless cow.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Ah, Luddly the "let's kill the babies and the priests but don't compare us to Nazis" dude.

You're always such a treat. Can't wait to see what amazingly foul things you utter next...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 3, 2014)

Barb said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



As I pointed out earlier, before The Pill was prescribed for birth control, it was used for nothing but medical issues. 

And, besides, since when are we going to allow a bunch of backward and archaic people who do not lie in the real world force us back to having another baby every time we have sex?

Do any of the rw's ever really thing about this?


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Barb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > But don't let that stop you from repeating the lie ad nauseum. After all, the end justifies the means...and the end is dead babies! Yay!
> ...



Oh, so we have fewer abortions now than we did in 1920?

And fewer than we had in 1970?

Stop lying, in other words.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 3, 2014)

Sigh.  The requirement to sign the certification is neither onerous nor unconstitutional.

To compare it to Nazis is ludicrous.


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 3, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> U.S. Government Asks Supreme Court Not To Extend Catholics' Temporary Contraception Exemption



Sounds like the Obama Administration is hell-bent on destroying the First Amendment Privilege that says "The government shall pass no law against religions..."

I hate the disparagement of the Christian Church.

Reverend Wright commanded his paritioners to "God damn America."

That's happening here, except insert "government" where the Lord's name is invoked in vain.

I'm tired of government harassing churches, churches WHO DID BUILD THE BUSINESSES OF CHRISTIAN CARE, in accordance with the scriptures.

And for Jeremiah Wright, chief hater in American History, he built a church around taking God's name in vain, causing racial hatred in his congregation and through its most prominent member, racism from coast to coast to goad people into doing things against themselves or being disparaged as racists, which is a false allegation I've heard time after time from the bully pulpit. It's beginning to be the bullshit pulpit, and punishing the Little Sisters of the Poor is pure dee genuine bullshit.

I've met some Little Sisters of the Poor who helped the poorest of the poor in the community on a shoestring. They've turned lives around, cared for sick and dying and people so poor they have no roof over their heads, the Little Sisters provided them with so much. What a dynamite charity they are. I'm a protestant, but my hat's off to the Little Sisters of the Poor who operated mercy and kindness to all who needed their special caring and beneficence in the humility of hard poverty themselves. They did without to see to it that poor people got a lease on life, health, education, and shelter.
What effective people the Little Sisters of the Poor are in communities I have lived in. They're something else.

The government has become a harassment outfit against churches and against the best charitable institutions we have.

They're just bent on destroying wealth to bring America down, and I'm tired of government that beats up on the Little Sisters of the Poor as their convenient whipping boy. It's flat out evil.


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


They're grounded in the highest of principles of morality and right according to their beliefs, backed up by scripture.

The government needs to butt out of religious bodies who have built hospitals and funded care for the poor for centuries, generation after generation.

How dare the government violate the First Amendment.

I'm calling a very foul ball on the Obama Administration over trying to push churches around.


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Jews weren't carted off to concentration camps until they were first had their rights stripped from them. That was justified by criminalizing them....
> ...



She's telling it like it is, Luddly. Nothing satisfied the Nazis with penalizing the Jews even before Chrystalknacht. Their behaviors against people of Jewish extraction were heinous prior to hauling them off to Auschwitz for the express purpose of annihilating the Jewish population of Europe in its entirety. The Nazis were proud of their abuse of Jews and kept fastidious records about every detail of their persecution of them from the minute the Nazis began rising to power based on anti-Semitism from their very first meeting. They left hundreds of thousands of photographs of dead Jews wherever they were slaughtered. Every instance. That's how we know exactly how many people they are recorded killing. There is pictorial evidence of everything. They celebrated their deeds much like cereal murderers do.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It is a lifestyle option, not a healthcare option.


Where have you been?  What do you mean that contraception has nothing to do with healthcare?  It's not just to keep you from getting pregnant.....geez, you need to read more.

The conditions for which the American Academy of Family Physicians endorses the use of oral contraceptives are:

Non-Contraceptive Benefits Of The Pill - Other Benefits of Oral Contraceptives




> And it is an extremely discriminatory mandate - not only on religious grounds, but it is a perfect example of gender discrimination. If it should be covered for women, why shouldn't it be covered for men?


Really?  But Viagra is covered for men....don't you think that's gender discriminatory?

According to the article, they are being given the opportunity to be exempt....all they have to do is fill out a damn form, for goodness sake.....how hard is that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > birth control is NOT a healthcare issue and should not be covered by ANYBODY.
> ...



Do you find lying beneficial in some way? There is no history of using hormones derived from yams, which occurred in 1951 in Mexico City, prior to the effort to develop a birth control by Margaret Sanger pill in 1952. But, please, keep lying if it gets you off in some way.


----------



## MeBelle (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> 
> Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ...





paperview said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



From your link.

*Catholic Employers Claim That Filling Out an Obamacare Form Violates Their Religious Freedom*


> *"L*ate on New Year's Eve, Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a small number of religiously affiliated groups a temporary injunction from a provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows them _not_     to cover contraception in their health care plans if they fill out a     form that states that they want an exemption from the law for   religious   reasons.
> 
> Sotomayor delays birth control mandate for Catholic groups | MSNBC


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Do you understand that, according to the government, the reason this rule does not apply to the Sisters is that federal law already exempts them as a church? That means that any argument you use has to take into account the declared position that they are already  exempt from the law, not that the law is neutral toward religion.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2014)

Vox said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
> ...


Your assumption that everyone on the left is atheist is just hilarious.  And God happens to be concerned for the poor, mentioned more in the Bible than homosexuals, so why are those on the right, who are supposed to be Godly, not concerned for the poor, too?



> Catholic faith is NOT centered around helping the poor. It is a secondary and even a tertiary problem. Neither is it a centerpiece for any religion, for that matter - and it should not be.


Christianity is, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have mentioned it so many times.  He even told a rich man who wanted to know how to get into heaven, to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor....but he couldn't because he had so much.  
What is your opinion about what Christianity is centered upon?  Getting rich?  Not paying taxes?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Exactly, the very fact that the government is arguing that they are exempt proves that the argument against filling out the form is valid on some level. The only real question here is if the government can convince the court that the accommodation is enough to counter the religious objections.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
> ...




Same thing as the Republicans in Congress writing up repeal bills for Obamacare, 44 times!
What is so amazing is that they claim to be the party that wants less spending....but they sure don't mind spending it on wasteful projects....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



I am saying you entirely missed my point.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




Maybe not according to the new revised GOP Bible.  I understand that Phyllis Shaffly's son is rewriting the Bible.....  he's taking all the parts out that they have a hard time with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Actually, we do know why. The rules for issuing injunctions of the type she did are spelled out in Rule 65.



> (1) _Issuing Without Notice._ The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
> (A)  specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show  that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to  the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
> (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.



In other words, she believes that the Sisters proved that they would be irreparably harmed if the injunction had not been issued. Since the government, apparently, did not address the harm, my guess is that she will allow the injunction to stand until the case goes to trial. Further, given that the courts have pretty consistently ruled against the government on the issue you think is the biggie here, the entire mandate, as written, will probably be scrapped.

Would you like to know a really simple step the government could take to remove the issue completely from the courts? Or is your only interest imposing your beliefs on other people?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Actually, that is what the government claims their objection is. The fact that one party in a lawsuit makes a claim on what the other people think is not proof that is what they think, which is why we have trials. What they say is that the act of certifying, which the government dismisses as filling out a form, would enable their insurer to charge them for something they object to.


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...


God's people deserve better than having the F word hurled at them in addition to evil government poops farting out their little unconstitutional rules against the good of the land.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


No.  You obviously have not read the Solicitor General's reply.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 3, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a militant anything; and I was raised a Christian, am baptised and everything.  I chose not to practice any religion, doesn't mean I'm an atheist and definitely doesn't mean I am militant.  You are the one who is militant.  A militant Stone Age thinker.
> ...


 Nobody is redefining their religion.  You seem to not understand the issue.



> Violating the 1st amendment is not acceptable. Look, I realize this is just part of the war the democrats are waging on civil rights, but knock it the fuck off.


Please explain how the 1st amendment is being violated.   You seem to be a tad confused...seems to me that these Catholics that are being extremely difficult are the ones that are violating women's rights.


----------



## paperview (Jan 3, 2014)

> The administration says just because it might, doesnt mean it would.  The government wrote in its filing Friday morning that the insurers to  whom the nuns would submit their certification have already said they  will not provide contraceptive coverage because they are exempt from the  mandate. Concern that [the nuns] are authorizing others to provide  coverage lacks any foundation in the facts or the law, the  administration wrote in its response.
> 
> 
> *The most likely outcome of the current exchange at the court is that  Sotomayor will send the case back down to the Tenth Circuit to be  decided there. Sotomayor could leave the injunction in place for the  nuns, or lift it, at her discretion, and the Supreme Court could  reconsider whether to take the case and rule on it later. The nuns have  asked that if she lifts the injunction that the Supreme Court hear the  case before the lower court rules, something the court rarely does.*



Read more: Obamacare: Obama Rebuts Nuns After Sotomayor Supreme Court Injunction | TIME.com Obamacare: Obama Rebuts Nuns After Sotomayor Supreme Court Injunction | TIME.com
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 3, 2014)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I suggest you read page 3 and the government's discussion of the Employment Retirement and Income Security Act before you tell me I haven't read the brief.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/13a691-little-sisters-injunction-opp.pdf


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

You're barking up the wrong tree, and still trying to derail the thread.

I, and everybody else with a brain, objects to the very  nature of mandated health insurance, so yes, we should be free to choose no insurance, without the government exacting a fine against us.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

*xxxxxxxxxx*


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

Nope. Obamacare is just wrong on multiple levels.

It's wrong on a lot more levels as well..and the wrong levels are going to continue to pile up until they reach the moon. Because it's unconstitutional at its very core.


----------



## dblack (Jan 3, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Nope. Obamacare is just wrong on multiple levels.
> 
> It's wrong on a lot more levels as well..and the wrong levels are going to continue to pile up until they reach the moon. Because it's unconstitutional at its very core.



Right, but what I find frustrating Is the way people who ought to be united in opposition to ACA are falling for the divide and conquer strategy. Each group with strong opposition is peeled away from the fight with carve outs and exemptions until enough of us are mollified. We'll lose again.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 3, 2014)

*xxxxxxx*


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 3, 2014)

dblack said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Obamacare is just wrong on multiple levels.
> ...



It's that willingness to make deals with the devil that got us into this mess in the first place.


----------



## paperview (Jan 4, 2014)

This is from the Director  of Catholics United:

"On the surface, the optics of this case could not be more sensational:  Obamacare forces Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptive  coverage for celibate women, which is against their beliefs.
*
But when examining the details of the case more closely, it became  apparent the circumstances of this case before the Supreme Court are in  actuality irresponsibly frivolous.
*
As per the religious accommodation finalized by the Department of Health  and Human Services in November 2012, the nonprofit Little Sisters of  the Poor are seeking relief from the requirement that they self-certify  as a religious entity. If the Little Sisters self-certified, they would  be exempted from complying with the contraceptive mandate. That is, the  Little Sisters of the Poor and their legal defense team, the Becket Fund  for Religious Liberty, are protesting the fact that a religious  employer has to sign a piece of paper stating they are religious.

 The Becket Fund claims doing so constitutes a substantial burden on the Little Sisters&#8217; free exercise of religion.

*The Becket Fund also falsely claims that self-certifying as a  religious entity would trigger a third party health care administrato*r  (TPA) to begin providing birth control, a medical provision they deem  immoral, to their employees. As the Justice Department stipulated in  court, the government does not have the legal authority under the  Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to compel the  Little Sisters&#8217; TPA, Christian Brother Services, to provide these  services. Under ERISA, independent religiously-affiliated TPAs like CB  Services qualify as &#8220;church plans,&#8221; automatically exempted from the  federal provisos otherwise enforced for secular employers and TPAs.

*So, in addition to refusing to sign a piece of paper stating they are  religious, the Little Sisters and CB Services are preventing their  employees from getting medical services they were not going to get*."

Un-Scandal of the Century (of the Week)! Unpacking the Latest HHS Contraceptive Mandate News | Our Daily Thread


----------



## Intense (Jan 4, 2014)

Barb said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



Funny, from my perspective, that is exactly what the ACA does.


----------



## Intense (Jan 4, 2014)

freedombecki said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



Churches, Charities, are under attack here. It's not new.


----------



## Intense (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Christianity is rooted in Salvation. God first in all things. We each fall short, that is a given.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 4, 2014)

paperview said:


> The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> 
> Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ...



Assuming your characterization is correct, and I just got up and am thus too tired to go read Legalese on the links, I would assume the issue here is that by complaining about even a short form, the religious organizations are hoping to derail the entire thing. Knock one domino down, others may fall. Very unlikely the issue is really about a form.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

Sure. Just like abortion is about *health*.

you fascist pigs work hard to distort reality.


----------



## Intense (Jan 4, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> ...



The issue includes both content and intent.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Your assumption that everyone on the left is atheist is just hilarious.  And God happens to be concerned for the poor, mentioned more in the Bible than homosexuals, so why are those on the right, who are supposed to be Godly, not concerned for the poor, too?
> 
> Christianity is, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have mentioned it so many times.  He even told a rich man who wanted to know how to get into heaven, to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor....but he couldn't because he had so much.
> What is your opinion about what Christianity is centered upon?  Getting rich?  Not paying taxes?



*Are you indicating that the righteous man's path to salvation is through government's redistribution of wealth?*
.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Your assumption that everyone on the left is atheist is just hilarious.  And God happens to be concerned for the poor, mentioned more in the Bible than homosexuals, so why are those on the right, who are supposed to be Godly, not concerned for the poor, too?
> ...




that is exactly the view over Christianity the pauperes cultists hold.

But do not expect them to pay even a penny to help the poor - their private money is sacred. It's "the others" people money which has to be sacrificed.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



it was not "the pill" you dumbasses.

those are the hormones used in the pill to control the hormonal imbalances and they are covered by any insurance.

stop LYING as usual. I know it is hard. But the usual lie won't fly.

*The REASON the prescribed medication is covered by any insurance ( and ANY medication) - that is what matters.

You will have viagra covered by any insurance if that is prescribed for treating pulmonary hypertension, but it won't be covered by a lot of insurances if that is prescribed for erectile dysfunction.*

and this is the same medication, in case of hormonal imbalances it is NOT the same.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



*Christianity is NOT about helping the poor. Period.

helping the poor is a tertiary issue.

Stop LYING.*


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

freedombecki said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



you expect a flaming leftard to know the facts?

ignorance of the facts is the base for the leftist ideology.

because if one knows the facts, one CAN NOT abide by leftist ideology if one is not the heartless scum.
I do not consider our leftards on the board to be especially educated or smart ( and they provide the proof of that daily) but I do not consider them ALL to be essentially vile and vicious.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Barb said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



you idiot ignorant leftard lying mouthpiece, your daughter was put on hormonal treatment for her imbalances not on the contraceptive pill. 
the hormones may coincide but the exact combination of the prescription and the REASON it is prescribed has nothing to do with the contraception.

Sildenafil is primarily used to treat pulmonary hypertension, not erectile dysfunction.

There are numerous substances which can be used for different reasons - does not mean it is going to be covered by insurance for any reason given.

but the brainwashed ignorant leftard mouthpieces just repeat the idiocy their masters are brainwashing them. 

go get a book on the basic anatomy and physiology before you exhibit your total ignorance again.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



And, if the "christians" on this board are any indication, they do indeed have a hard time with "helping those in need".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 4, 2014)

paperview said:


> This is from the Director  of Catholics United:
> 
> "On the surface, the optics of this case could not be more sensational:  Obamacare forces Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraceptive  coverage for celibate women, which is against their beliefs.
> *
> ...



Catholics United for what? I find it astounding that, instead of actually defending your position yourself, you decided to link to an attack piece written by someone who claims to be the executive director of a group that doesn't include a link to that group. (That's a lie, but this is the new, less offensive, and more sarcastic, me.) That inspired me to do a little research, and I found a webpage for the group, and found out that they have a staff of one.

About Us | Catholics United

Color me amused.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 4, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> ...



It amuses me that you think an organization that supported Obamacare wants to derail the whole thing simply because you are too fucking stupid to assume that one side of the issue might be lying about what the other side is saying.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...


Or, just a thought, the leftists on this board are a bunch of fuckwads who would rather get in a high dudgeon about dogma than actually help people.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

Not only do they spend a lot of energy telling us how we should express our political views, they're also committed to telling us how to express our faith.

Cuz they have super secret inside information, and are just more knowledgeable about EVERYTHING.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Not only do they spend a lot of energy telling us how we should express our political views, they're also committed to telling us how to express our faith.
> 
> Cuz they have super secret inside information, and are just more knowledgeable about EVERYTHING.



but the most comical in all of that are the arguments they use to convince us 

those are so incredibly ignorant and stupid - birth control pill is used to treat the hormonal imbalances and won't be covered if birth control is not covered; Christianity is all about helping the poor - as the most glaring examples of the idiocy of the left.

Just connecting the two - why do our leftards equate "helping the poor" with providing "free" birth control?
Because all of them are eugenicists and hope to exterminate the poor?


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Intense said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



That's for sure, but one of Jesus' most important message was to take care of the poor, and providing food (especially for the children) is the least we can do.  And, anybody that doesn't want to take contraceptives doesn't have to, the exemption keeps them from even having to pay for it, so how is that considered an attack on their faith?


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex, do you want to exterminate the poor?

By providing "free" birth control?

Let me tell you something - it's impossible.

The poor will always be there.

*You will always have poor with you, but you will not always have Me.
John 12:8*

stop being the pauperes cultist and become a Christian


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



How is driving a car for a friend that robs a convenience store a crime? How can you honestly say that one is perfectly logical, but the other is absurd?


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Your assumption that everyone on the left is atheist is just hilarious.  And God happens to be concerned for the poor, mentioned more in the Bible than homosexuals, so why are those on the right, who are supposed to be Godly, not concerned for the poor, too?
> ...



If that is what you got out of my comment, then you have a comprehension problem.  Salvation is about believing that Jesus is God, and if you believe that Jesus is God, then certainly you would want to do what he commands.....and helping the poor was a very important thing for Him to pass on to us.

In fact....many of the things that Jesus taught are being rejected by the right.  Wanting to eliminate welfare, and affordable health care among them.

Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; *for I was hungry and you gave me food,* I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, *I was a stranger and you welcomed me,* I *was naked and you gave me clothing, *I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

Christians do take care of the poor.

To a much greater extent than the state..ANY state... ever has.

It's just more yammering and lying by the lying progressives who want to eliminate Christianity and kill off the children of minorities.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



*PERSONALLY. He talks about PERSONAL responsibility, PERSONAL involvement, not government* ripping off the people to satisfy it's own need and throwing the bone to the poor( you know that 40% of the funds the social network systems are spending are being spent on the SYSTEM, don't you?)


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



That's another one of your dumbest posts.  Since when are those on the left exempt from paying taxes?  If you were to do a little research you would realize that it is the rich and wealthy and corporations that are given many tax loopholes and shelters.....and those are the ones that you coddle.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



Calm down, I see you're getting your panties all in a wad again.....yelling.  I can read the normal size type, don't need to increase it.

Yes, and personal responsibility is what you are shirking......you don't want to pay taxes but you still want to enjoy the great benefits of this country.  If left up to the people alone, we'd be a third world country by now, considering how much the right whines about paying taxes.

And, FYI, 60% is a lot more than 0%....which is what you are aspiring for.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...



and this one is just an example of your stupidity. if the "help to the poor" is the help derived from the taxes only ( and everybody on the right pays the taxes, to the much higher extent than on the left - see the 47% ) what in earth does it have to do with Christianity?
*
since when paying HIGHER taxes is the most important part of the Christianity?*


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


*
you obviously can't read at all and started to shriek yourself  when you started coloring your posts.

losing it again, fake Christian?*


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...




If it was not important Jesus wouldn't have talked about it more than He talked about anything else.  You're the one that is lying.....obviously you don't take Jesus at his word.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...




Geez, you're so full of hate and vitriol, I'm sure glad that you are not a Christian....you have trouble liking "lefties" I'm sure you would certainly not be able to "Love your Enemy" like Jesus commanded.....Pity you.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



No, it was NOT. it was the LEAST important issue and Jesus Himself pointed out at that - at the hypocrisy of the left of the times, which was, oh, surprise surprise - Judas Iscariot 


*
You will always have poor with you, but you will not always have Me.
John 12:8*



*Christianity is not about paying higher taxes.
period.*


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

*the hypocrisy of the left was exposed by Jesus Christ HIMSELF - because He knew them always:*


4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 &#8220;*Why wasn&#8217;t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year&#8217;s wages.**&#8221; 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7 &#8220;Leave her alone,&#8221; Jesus replied. &#8220;It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.&#8221;


I can picture the Iscariots of our time - all those rdeans, Mertexes, luddlies, and other flaming leftards which are here to teach us what Christianity is about - to ask Jesus Christ those words 

even the reason Iscariot wanted to "help the poor" was the EXACT same reason the contemporary left wants US to pay higher taxes - so THEY, the government warlords will have the say in redistribution of them *


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


Talk about spinning something Jesus said to fit your misrepresentation.  Jesus was talking to them about His not being present here always....He knew he was going to be crucified, and yes, there will always be poor people because the least we do is try to keep them alive, but if left to the "right-wing" - they would all die and then we wouldn't have them.



> *Christianity is not about paying higher taxes.
> period.*


Actually, Jesus admonished us to pay our taxes (render unto Caesar  what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.)  He didn't say, unless they are too high!


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



*Actually Jesus scolded the hypocrite leftard of his time and admonished him as He knew exactly what the re-distributors of all time wanted - to have access to the money which does not belong to them* 

4 *But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 &#8220;Why wasn&#8217;t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year&#8217;s wages.&#8221; 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7 &#8220;Leave her alone,&#8221; Jesus replied. &#8220;It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.&#8221;*


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

Christian charity provides for more people than any state funded assistance.

So quit lying, mertex. It doesn't fly.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> ...



*ANYONE *who says contraception has nothing to do with healthcare can be dismissed from the debate.

There is no need to include ignoramuses in the discussion.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

And Christ flogged the moneychangers at the temple....men who told believers that if they just spent money as the moneychangers advised, they would attain heaven.

Sound familiar?


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox said:


> *the hypocrisy of the left was exposed by Jesus Christ HIMSELF - because He knew them always:*
> 
> 
> 4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 *Why wasnt this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a years wages.** 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
> ...


*

Ha,ha, now you're implying that Judas was a liberal?  If he had been a liberal, he would have not worried about the "waste" - he, like most Republicans in Congress, was pretending to care about the poor but actually wanted the money to use on himself, as they have done, wasting money on repeals of the ACA knowing they are not going to go anywhere.

Nobody can teach a greedy person about Christianity....so, I wouldn't even attempt it...I'm just pointing out what you most certainly don't comprehend.*


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Which is why you aren't a part of the discussion, and when have you ever participated in *debate*, you lying scum?

You don't have the authority to dismiss anyone from the debate, to determine the validity of anyone's argument, or to even recognize valid argument.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Yep, the moneychangeers sound like present time conservatives.....always looking for ways to make a buck or save a buck (by looking for ways to not pay taxes)......


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

No, they sound like the loons who congregate at the religion forum, in order to tell Christians how they should spend their money and vote in order to be *good* Christians....
 "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."

I suggest you try applying some of that biblical hutzpah to yourself, mertex. And stop lying.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

" "Is it not written: `My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it `a den of robbers.'"

" His complaint is that by buying and selling in the temple they have  turned His Father's house into a house of merchandise, an emporium. And  this is true, even though they have could have protested that they were  doing it all for the good of the temple and the people attending the  temple. But Jesus' answer strongly suggests that in this case the end  does not justify the means."

The end doesn't justify the means, and Christ himself will visit judgement upon those who attempt to use our faith to raise money for themselves.. @Mertex. That means you.

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/bscleans.html


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > *the hypocrisy of the left was exposed by Jesus Christ HIMSELF - because He knew them always:*
> ...


*

no, the common day leftards are Judases 

they also want to put their hand into others people money as Iscariot wanted - and pretend that they care about  the poor.

Stop LYING.

all you "care" is others people money you want to get your hands on *


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> No, they sound like the loons who congregate at the religion forum, in order to tell Christians how they should spend their money and vote in order to be *good* Christians....


That would be you.....with your advice on what is a sin and what isn't.....


> "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."


This forum is not "your Father's house" - and neither is the government.


> I suggest you try applying some of that biblical hutzpah to yourself, mertex. And stop lying.


Maybe if you start reading what Jesus said you'd stop hating so much.....remember, God is Love and you're far from grasping that.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> " "Is it not written: `My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it `a den of robbers.'"
> 
> " His complaint is that by buying and selling in the temple they have  turned His Father's house into a house of merchandise, an emporium. And  this is true, even though they have could have protested that they were  doing it all for the good of the temple and the people attending the  temple. But Jesus' answer strongly suggests that in this case the end  does not justify the means."
> 
> ...



Not that any of your posts make any sense, but please be specific about when I have used my faith to raise money for myself....

You really need to "review" your posts before submitting them.....maybe then you would be able to see how inane they sound.....oh, never mind, you wouldn't.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


*

Wow, I thought only KG's posts were non-sensical....I have added yours to the list.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 4, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



And kg continues to demonstrate that she is of the same value as Truth Matters here.

kg is an ignorant fundamentalist who tries to substitute her faith beliefs for science and common sense.

Tis what tis.


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



white flag on Mertex's part.
check

next


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Yep, the moneychangeers sound like present time conservatives.....always looking for ways to make a buck or save a buck (by looking for ways to not pay taxes)......



Social Liberals who are interested in redistribution of wealth are by definition the money changers.
They barter with what is not theirs as well ... And are incapable of understanding responsibility.
The Bible didn't tell the rich man to give his wealth to government ... Didn't tell us to support our neighbor through taxation for the benefit of political gain.

But we have freedom of religion in America ... And you can worship government if you choose.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 4, 2014)

> Helping the Poor
> Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are.  Proverbs 21:13 is among the most powerful calls from God to help those who are hungry because &#8220;If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.&#8221;  First John 3:17 states that, &#8220;If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?&#8221;  Job wrote, &#8220;I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist them&#8221; (Job 29:12).
> God asked, &#8220;Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood&#8221; (Isaiah 58:7)? We also need to &#8220;Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy&#8221; (Prov 31:8-9).   In fact, &#8220;The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern&#8221; (Prov 29:7).
> 
> ...





> &#8220;Then he will say to those on his left, &#8216;Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.&#8217; They also will answer, &#8216;Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?&#8217; He will reply, &#8216;I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me&#8216;&#8220; (Matthew 25:41-45).
> 
> Read more: What Does the Bible Say About Helping the Poor?



The reality is that it is in a believer&#8217;s best interest to give to the poor because, &#8220;He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses&#8221; (Prov 28:27).  Helping the poor is actually an imperative command, as Paul told Timothy to &#8220;Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.  In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life&#8221; (1 Tim 6:18-19).  The Proverbs say that, &#8220;A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor&#8221; (Prov 22:9) and &#8220;A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished&#8221; (Prov 28:20).  The fact is that, &#8220;He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done&#8221; (Prov 19:17).  How interesting that the wisest man who ever lived (save for Christ Who was both God and Man) wrote more on helping the poor than anyone.  He writes much about the wisdom of helping the poor, even though he was the richest man who had ever lived.  Was his wealth and generosity a coincidence?  God does not believe in coincidences.  He blesses those who bless others. That is no coincidence&#8230;it is cause and effect. This is what Ecclesiastes 11:1 means, &#8220;Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.&#8221;

Read more: What Does the Bible Say About Helping the Poor?

Jesus said, &#8220;And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward&#8221; (Matt 10:42). Someday when you see Christ and receive your reward, you might be pleasantly surprised to hear that, &#8220;The King will reply, &#8216;I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me&#8217; (Matt 25:40).

Read more: What Does the Bible Say About Helping the Poor?


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, the moneychangeers sound like present time conservatives.....always looking for ways to make a buck or save a buck (by looking for ways to not pay taxes)......
> ...



Exactly!


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, the moneychangeers sound like present time conservatives.....always looking for ways to make a buck or save a buck (by looking for ways to not pay taxes)......
> ...



yes, the hypocritical left which demands YOUR money so they can get hold of it to redistribute as THEY feel like it is scorned by Jesus Christ HIMSELF - this is exactly here:


John 12
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 &#8220;Why wasn&#8217;t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year&#8217;s wages.*&#8221; 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7 &#8220;Leave her alone,&#8221; Jesus replied. &#8220;It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.&#8221;


I can picture the Iscariots of our time - all those rdeans, Mertexes, luddlies, and other flaming leftards which are here to teach us what Christianity is about - to ask Jesus Christ those words:
&#8220;Why wasn&#8217;t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year&#8217;s wages." *


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 4, 2014)

Neither Vox nor Koshergrl are the ones anyone wants teaching Christianity 101 or Scriptural Teachings 313.

My goodness, what a couple of mistaken individuals.

WWJD.  Take care of the poor.


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 4, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The DOJ responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> ...


*



I would assume the issue here is that by complaining about even a short form, the religious organizations are hoping to derail the entire thing.

Click to expand...

*No, Christians have been building hospitals, medical universities, health care centers, rehabilitation centers, hospices, nursing care homes, half-way houses, counseling centers, and senior care centers for centuries in America and other countries. The particular focus of Roman Catholicism is their way of doing things, namely *to do no further damage* for people of all kinds, whether or not they are Roman Catholic. They are the most scholastic biblical church, and their practice includes not killing babies in accordance with old and new testament scriptures which record Christ's daily teachings, since he was Jewish as well as his life.

They have absolutely nothing but humility in their requests, and the elephant sitting in the living room is that this nation disrespects the sanctity of life that the church preaches by allowing the malicious practice of ending the life of a human being before it is born out of sheer political cowardice.

The church has no such cowardice in serving God and humankind, but it also does what it can to keep people in touch with God, which is their first mission.

That mission is protected in this nation by the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1:



> Amendment I
> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> Bill of Rights Transcript Text


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, the moneychangeers sound like present time conservatives.....always looking for ways to make a buck or save a buck (by looking for ways to not pay taxes)......
> ...


Another one that thinks that Libs somehow don't pay taxes....I guess you took Romney's disaster speech  to heart.  As for responsibility, we take more responsibility than conservatives do, we care about those that are under privileged, and want to make sure that everyone can afford health care....while all you worry about is yourself....the epitome of greed, the desire for material gain and wealth, one of the deadly sins mentioned in the 10 Commandments.




> The Bible didn't tell the rich man to give his wealth to government ... Didn't tell us to support our neighbor through taxation for the benefit of political gain.


Maybe your Bible doesn't, but Jesus sure did....

Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar

13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You arent swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax* to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldnt we?

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. Why are you trying to trap me? he asked. Bring me a denarius and let me look at it. 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, Whose image is this? And whose inscription?

Caesars, they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, Give back to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods.**




			But we have freedom of religion in America ... And you can worship government if you choose.
		
Click to expand...

There is a difference between worshipping and submitting, obviously you don't know the difference, and here's another one for you.....

Romans 13:
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.*


----------



## Mertex (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...




Calling people names and insulting them isn't debating.  I choose to ignore the ignorant who that's all they know to do.  When you start making sense instead of just displaying your butt hurt, maybe I'll read your posts......


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



you are allowed not to read my posts.
I could not care less.

Does not mean I won;t comment on your fake preaching as a pauperes cultist and false declarations about Jesus Christ and Christianity.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 4, 2014)

Vox the heretic continues to prattle on


----------



## Vox (Jan 4, 2014)

the left and it's faithful Sancho Panza


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 4, 2014)

Hahahaha...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


*

I have a policy of negging people, especially Christians, who use the Bible to justify their politics. Just letting you know so you won't whinge about me not being fair.*


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



So true. You should stop.


----------



## oreo (Jan 5, 2014)

paperview said:


> The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> 
> Nuns' Objection To Health Care Law Is Unwarranted, Justice Dept. Says : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> ...




Many states in this country, 27 have for decades now given no exemptions to birth control pills because of religion or other challenges.  _Now I know this will drive the right wing social nut-cases crazy--but it's the TRUTH._
Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws

Birth control pills are a PRESCRIPTION only drug--like Viagra and all of the male enhancement drugs and they are typically paid for by the insurer--as mandated by the states.

*The entire POINT is-*- once you start giving exemptions to the Catholic Church for birth control contraceptives--it won't be long before another religious group refuses to pay for chemotherapy treatments based on their religious beliefs. 

_And I imagine why the Catholic church isn't filling out the form,  is because they are fully aware that the overwhelming majority of women in the Catholic church use birth control contraceptives._  I personally know a few women who grew up in the Catholic Church--that left the church because of their hard line stance on birth control.  The church made them feel guilty for using them, so they left the church.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 5, 2014)

That is a pretty impressive pile of garbled nonsense. I'm impressed.


----------



## dblack (Jan 5, 2014)

oreo said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> ...



I agree with you that granting exemptions like this is a mistake. I believe the practice actually works against the intent of the first amendment and sets up the state to play favorites among religions. But the idiocy causing all the problems is the fact that the state tries to mandate specific coverage in the first place. Why is the government mandating coverage? Whose rights are being violated if I want to buy insurance coverage that doesn't include contraceptives? I've yet to hear a good answer, or even a bad one for that matter, to this question.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


*

You neg because it makes you uncomfortable to realize that you are on the wrong side of scripture....*


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Obviously you don't know the difference between attacking the content and not the poster....no surprise, though.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

oreo said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The DOJ   responded tpoday to Sonia Sotomayor's Injunction issued on New Years Eve.
> ...



98% of Catholic women use birth control....I guess the Catholic church while complaining that they *are being forced* to pay for something against their religion, is at the same time *forcing women* to adhere to their anti-contraceptive beliefs.  They on't believe in "what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander"....


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Obviously you don't.


----------



## Vox (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



link, liar


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


*

No, I neg because mixing religion and politics is an assault on humanity. 

If you think you can outwit me at theology, feel free to call me out on it. Unlike you, I actually studied the subject, and know what I am talking about. I can also defend any theological position you want to stake out better than you can. I also understand Church history, and the result of letting people use religion to justify political positions. If you want to argue in favor of something, do it without your religion, or be prepared to watch your religion take away your freedom.*


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 5, 2014)

Catholic women are perfectly free to use birth control.

But the church cannot be compelled to provide it.


----------



## Vox (Jan 5, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Catholic women are perfectly free to use birth control.
> 
> But the church cannot be compelled to provide it.



plus there are many methods of birth control.

Not the pill only


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 5, 2014)

The butt hurt far reactionary right knows that (1) the law is not unconstitutional and (2) not onerous.

They whine just to whine.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 5, 2014)

Are you going to pretend to be a Catholic nun now, to gain some cred..the way you pretend to be a hetero Repub?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 5, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The butt hurt far reactionary right knows that (1) the law is not unconstitutional and (2) not onerous.
> 
> They whine just to whine.



The rest of us know that 20 of the 22 judges that have issued rulings on this have come down solidly saying that the law is (1) unconstitutional and a (2) burden.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...




I was talking about "people" who do that sort of thing.  If the shoe fits, wear it.  Apparently it did...but I didn't call you "slimy right tard, scum, troll" and all the things that you and Vox are famous for doing.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...




You are truly devoid of any facts, aren't you.  You have the nerve calling people liars when you are the one that lies, every time you open your mouth.

&#9632;
&#9632;
Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. *This figure is virtually the same, 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women.*
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 5, 2014)

Guttmacher! PP's beard!


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Yeah sure, from one whose party tries to deny that Thomas Jefferson was for "Separation of Church and State" and whose party tries to make laws based on religion.  You're in denial or just naive.



> If you think you can outwit me at theology, feel free to call me out on it. Unlike you, I actually studied the subject, and know what I am talking about.


You have no idea what I know about Scripture, how long I've studied and how long I've been a Christian, but as usual, you make your broad brush statements.  You may have studied scripture but you sure don't apply it when you demean people with your comments on a regular basis.



> I can also defend any theological position you want to stake out better than you can.


Sure you can, but only when you spin it  to say what you want it to say, like others here, who claim to be Christian, do.



> I also understand Church history, and the result of letting people use religion to justify political positions. If you want to argue in favor of something, do it without your religion, or be prepared to watch your religion take away your freedom.


I'm not free because of the government, nor am I free because of my religion, I'm free because Jesus made me free.  And, unlike you, I don't worry about the government or anyone taking away my freedom, because when you know the Truth, the Truth will set you free, and you are free indeed.....try it.


----------



## Vox (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



nothing form motherjones, only guttmacher?

I am disappointed. motherjones would say 104%


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Catholic women are perfectly free to use birth control.
> 
> But the church cannot be compelled to provide it.




As usual, you base your comments on your own personal experience, and you are usually wrong.

And, you are wrong on this one too.  Since you have a computer, it's amazing that you don't make use of it to keep you from appearing so uninformed.   Share this link with your uniformed cohort, she also seems to be lacking in common knowledge.


*In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Churchs constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. 

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. *


Birth Control | Catholic Answers


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...




I'm not surprised that you don't have rebuttal.  Whose the liar now?


----------



## dblack (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Catholic women are perfectly free to use birth control.
> ...



Unlike government, the Church has exactly no power to coerce anyone. Do you understand what free means in a political context?


----------



## paperview (Jan 5, 2014)

This is a very good article on the matter, written from the perspective of apparently right-leaning legal mind...

Recommend:

<snip>



> *Thoughts on the Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius stay*
> 
> _Submitted by Simon on Sun, 01/05/2014 - 4:06pm_         We consider the other stay being sought before Justice Sotomayor, the _Little Sisters of the Poor_ case.
> 
> ...





> When I try to harmonize the language of the two alternatives, here's  what I get: The sisters insist that they can't in good conscience  &#8220;contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage.&#8221; I  understand. I agree. They furthermore insist that they can't in good  conscience contract with an insurance provider that arranges or pays for  contraceptive coverage at no direct cost to the sisters. And that,  truth to tell, I just don't understand.
> 
> It's looking more and more like a case of "right case, wrong plaintiffs."


Thoughts on the Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius stay | Stubborn Facts

I'm beginning to wonder if Sotomayor is using this case to bring to light the weakness inherent in the absurdity of simply filing paperwork is too onerous and _sinful_ -- even as the plaintiffs agree they will not be forced to provide BC coverage. We shall see.

Plenty of people are sure talking about it now - and that's a good thing.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

dblack said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Except that the Catholic Church considers it a sin, and Catholic women who are religious are made to feel that they are sinning if they take contraceptives.  That 98% of the Catholic women take contraceptives does not negate the fact that the church is still against it.

So, what is your point?


----------



## dblack (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Just that kg's point holds. Catholic women are free to use birth control.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 5, 2014)

dblack said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Anything that has to be done in secret or makes a person feel like they are violating their faith is not "freedom."  If that was the case, the Catholic Church wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it, since they don't have to pay for it.
If you want to consider that as "freedom," you are as uninformed as kg.


It has always been difficult to be a woman and a member of the Catholic Church. Many of my friends have left the church. The lessons we learned in Catholic school don't always apply to the real world. *Too many women are tired of feeling like sinners* for the simple, societally accepted acts of birth control, sex before marriage, in vitro, and a myriad of other issues the Catholic Church condemns. 
*It is difficult to be a Catholic and a scientist or doctor.* Modern medical research and every day medical practice utilize many options the church considers immoral and unacceptable. *Many Catholic doctors will not prescribe birth control.* Business owners too at some pharmacies will not sell birth control. Some Catholics don't even consider careers in medicine or science due to the huge ethical conflicts the work would cause.

*It is also difficult to be a Catholic family.* Many families wish they could follow the mandate of the Catholic Church to forego birth control and thus have a large family. However, in today's world it is very expensive to raise children; the days of families with 7, 10, or more kids are long gone on the most part. Families must use birth control to ensure they will be able to financially afford to raise the children they already have.

The New Vatican Report Condemns Birth Control and Science-Assisted Reproduction - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com


----------



## Vox (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



you provided nothing deserving rebuttal.


any more lies to prove?

next.


----------



## Vox (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



stop lying.

you have no proof on 98%


----------



## dblack (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I'm sorry. If you don't understand the difference between coercion an religious prohibition, then we simply have fundamentally different conceptions of "freedom". In our country, religious taboos don't carry the weight of law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 5, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, you don't.  The claim that 98 percent of Catholic women use contraception: a media foul - The Washington Post

The %, if you read the reports on the survey and the documentation, places the figure between 89% and 98%.


----------



## Norman (Jan 5, 2014)

dblack said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Freedom means free contraception! 

(that by the way costs you way more in taxes than if it wasn't free).

Anyway I agree that the church should not have any special rights here, rather everyone should be freed of this madness where insurance is used to provide for everyday stuff that everyone can afford (if they can't, they can't afford the insurance either - maybe get a job instead of  get sc***ed everyday?).


----------



## Vox (Jan 5, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



did you actually read the article? 

it makes laugh at guttmacher and for good reason:

In other words, a woman may have sex only once, or she may have had a partner who only used a condom once, and then she would be placed in the 98 percent category. Jones said the correct way to describe the results of the research is this:

 &#8220;Data shows that 98 percent of sexually experienced women of child-bearing age and who identify themselves as Catholic have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives.&#8221;

 As she pointed out, &#8220;In social science circles, sexually active means you had sex recently. Sexually experienced means you&#8217;ve had sex at least once.&#8221; The full NSFG survey (table 5) shows that 86.8 percent of women ages 15-44 have had vaginal intercourse. 

if a statistic sounds too good to be true, be wary. A spokesman for Pelosi said she was saying that 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives &#8212; because that is how the media characterized it.

 But, judging from the examples above, the media has gotten it wrong. The journalistic shorthand has been that &#8220;98 percent of American Catholic women have used contraception in their lifetimes.&#8221;  But that is incorrect, according to the research.

 &#8220;The shorthand is not what our statistic shows since we only looked at women aged 15-44 who have ever had sex,&#8221; Jones said. 

*The Pinocchio Test -Two Pinocchios

Jake - it would be highly advisable to read your own link - it proves what I was saying all along  - 98% is a made up figure and the whole guttmacher "study" is a LIE*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Yeah sure, from one whose party tries to deny that Thomas Jefferson was for "Separation of Church and State" and whose party tries to make laws based on religion.  You're in denial or just naive.



Another idiot that never reads.

I am not a member of either party. Not the Democratic Party, which believes that the Bible mandates social justice, or the Republican Party, which believes that the America is a Christian nation by direct decree of God. I don't join political parties because using religion to justify politics is disgusting, even if you use it for things I happen to think are good. Perhaps you should actually deal with the facts on the ground, which is that  politicizing religion makes people miserable. Would you like examples from history?



Mertex said:


> You have no idea what I know about Scripture, how long I've studied and how long I've been a Christian, but as usual, you make your broad brush statements.  You may have studied scripture but you sure don't apply it when you demean people with your comments on a regular basis.



I know that anyone that is stupid enough to argue that the teachings of Jesus mandate a political position don't know enough about theology to even start a discussion about it. 

What, exactly, is demeaning about speaking harshly? If demeaning people is so bad can you explain why Jesus did it? 

Feel free to get offended because I destroyed your position on Scripture without actually using it.



Mertex said:


> Sure you can, but only when you spin it  to say what you want it to say, like others here, who claim to be Christian, do.



No, I can do it because that is how you learn to think. You study everything, examine the evidence in support, and against it, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. I have no need to twist Scripture to use it to argue anything, I just have to lay it out. 



Mertex said:


> I'm not free because of the government, nor am I free because of my religion, I'm free because Jesus made me free.  And, unlike you, I don't worry about the government or anyone taking away my freedom, because when you know the Truth, the Truth will set you free, and you are free indeed.....try it.



Damn right you aren't free because of the government, and I will not let you, or anyone else, use the government to make other people do what you think is right. That is an abomination before God, and a sin.


----------



## paperview (Jan 5, 2014)

Vox said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


Hey noodlehead, you should take your own advice.  The two Pinocchio's are to the media.

You went for the shorthand scribble and missed the longhand.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 5, 2014)

Mertex said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



So the fuck what? Do you think that using the government to impose your beliefs on others makes you better than the Church? It doesn't, it actually makes you worse.


----------



## Vox (Jan 5, 2014)

paperview said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


*
exactly. because the media reported the idiocy of 98% of Catholic women use the contraceptive method - which is a LIE*


----------



## paperview (Jan 5, 2014)

Vox said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


But Jake's comment as he posted it was not:



> Quote: Originally Posted by *JakeStarkey*
> 
> 
> _
> ...


Also, too:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...house-official-says-98-catholic-women-have-u/


----------



## oreo (Jan 6, 2014)

Ironically--the *"Little Sisters of the Poor" are located in Denver, CO* and for years now--if they insured their employees--they would have been mandated by the State of Colorado to pay for birth control contraceptives.

*Colorado gives no religious exemptions on birth control contraceptives.* 



> Colorado Rev. Statute 10-16-104 2010) requires specified health insurance plans to provide coverage for contraception in the same manner as any other sickness, injury, disease, or condition is otherwise covered under the policy or contract. (2010 HB 1021)


Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws

_Of course on the above link you can also see what your state mandate is regarding religious exemption._


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 6, 2014)

Well they are asking this about birth control and religious liberty

Then we need to start pushing abortions have too much liberty and should be BANNED altogether

see how they like that one


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Tell me about it. I love it when these loons screech "You didn't rebutt my statement!" they don't seem to understand that they have to actually have made a point before a rebuttal is possible.


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

oreo said:


> Ironically--the *"Little Sisters of the Poor" are located in Denver, CO* and for years now--if they insured their employees--they would have been mandated by the State of Colorado to pay for birth control contraceptives.
> 
> *Colorado gives no religious exemptions on birth control contraceptives.*
> 
> ...


First, it's not just the Little Sisters in Colorado, it's all the Little Sisters orgs in 40 states, plus the Christian Bros Trust that also joined the suit.

This was covered earlier.

In states that have contraception coverage laws, if the non-profit companies are self-insured (in this case they are) and have ERISA plans, they are exempt from those State laws.

From the link I provided earlier:

"The government has an additional argument, one that it says applies  specifically to the Little Sisters situation:  another federal law, the  Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, bars any government  regulation of an employee benefit plan run by a church.   That provision  is incorporated into the ACA, and the plan administrator for the Little  Sisters organization has no legal duty to provide the services at all,  and, indeed, the Christian Brothers entity has indicated it will not do  so.  There is no way to compel it to do otherwise, the government says"
Analysis: The Little Sisters case and EBSA Form 700 : SCOTUSblog


----------



## orogenicman (Jan 6, 2014)

Vox said:


> No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> Contraception has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. It is a lifestyle option, not a healthcare option.
> 
> And it is an extremely discriminatory mandate - not only on religious grounds, but it is a perfect example of gender discrimination. If it should be covered for women, why shouldn't it be covered for men?


 
Oh really?  STD prevention has nothing to do with healthcare?  In what alternate reality?


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

We're concerned about the sisters and their STD issue?

Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 6, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is taking government intervention into individual life too far.
> ...



Birth control has little, if anything to do with STD prevention.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

If birth control did prevent stds, we wouldn't have the rampant, treatment resistant, and wildly out of control std rate we do now.

Apparently abortion and contraception CAUSE stds and unwanted pregnancy. I mean, that's what the stats show....it makes me laugh everytime a backward leftwad claims abortion, sex ed and free contraceptives improve the health of our sexually active population. Obviously, that's not true:

"The HIV infection
	
 rate for heterosexual African American women in the District&#8217;s poorest neighborhoods nearly doubled in two years, from 6.3 percent to 12.1 percent, according to a study released Wednesday by the D.C. Department of Health."

Apparently free abortions and contraceptives increase the likelihood of contracting an STD. Just sayin...them facts are pesky critters.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 6, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Oh, so you didn't understand it?  I get it.....


----------



## Mertex (Jan 6, 2014)

Vox said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Quit posting your redundant dribble....we know you don't comprehend, you shouldn't even try and get into these conversations.....they are way over your head.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 6, 2014)

dblack said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes we do, you believe in an imaginary and deceptive freedom where you have to keep what you do under cover and go against the very faith that you believe is true in other things.....

I believe in "real" freedom, where I can do what I choose (under the law) without having to lie to myself and others about things that my church claims to be sinful.


----------



## dblack (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Call it what you like, but any conception of freedom that doesn't recognize the difference between voluntary association and coercion is delusional. What you want is control over others - the power to force your preferences on those who don't agree with you. That's the opposite of what I call freedom.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> If birth control did prevent stds, we wouldn't have the rampant, treatment resistant, and wildly out of control std  rate we do now.
> 
> Apparently abortion and contraception CAUSE stds and unwanted pregnancy. I mean, that's what the stats show....it makes me laugh everytime a backward leftwad claims abortion, sex ed and free contraceptives improve the health of our sexually active population. Obviously, that's not true:
> 
> ...




Ha,ha, you're so uninformed....here you are, arguing that Obamacare is violating the Catholics stance on contraceptives and at the same time arguing that Catholic women are free to take them.......then why worry about it.....it has already been established that the Catholic Church won't have to pay for them.......confused much?


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

The Catholic church does not force them to eschew contraception.

The government is attempting to force the church to provide them.

I love it when an illiterate know-nothing tells me I'm misinformed.


----------



## Vox (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > If birth control did prevent stds, we wouldn't have the rampant, treatment resistant, and wildly out of control std  rate we do now.
> ...



It is YOU who is uninformed.

If you do not understand that a figure of "98% women taking birth control" of ANY, even feminist category of women is not possible by deafault, you are not only grossly uninformed but lack basic understanding how statistics work altogether

typical low information voter


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> The Catholic church does not force them to eschew contraception.
> 
> The government is attempting to force the church to provide them.
> 
> I love it when an illiterate know-nothing tells me I'm misinformed.


That second sentence there *shows *you are misinformed.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> That second sentence there *shows *you are misinformed.



In what way?

I've seen no one object to birth control? I've openly stated that I am a supporter of it.

The issue here is one of liberty - you say that the state has the right to dictate to a religious institution that they violate their own doctrine and provide contraception. This is in direct violation of the 1st amendment - so those of us in favor of civil liberty object. The democrats are engaged in a war to end civil liberty, so naturally, you do not object.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> The Catholic church does not force them to eschew contraception.



Not physically, but mentally they are.....



> The government is attempting to force the church to provide them.


No, you are so behind, it's hilarious.

The so-called "contraception mandate," which *went into effect on Aug. 1, 2012, *requires most employers to cover birth control for their female employees at no additional cost. *Houses of worship are exempt from the rule, and religiously affiliated organizations that are not churches, such as schools and hospitals, are allowed to opt out of directly paying for contraception coverage.* The cost of coverage, in those cases, would be shifted to the insurer.



> I love it when an illiterate know-nothing tells me I'm misinformed.



You're the know-nothing, ergo, illiterate or just plain happy to be ignorant.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The Catholic church does not force them to eschew contraception.
> ...


 
What do you think "mandate" means?

"To the nuns, their view is they're just not allowed to sign what are essentially permission slips for these kinds of products. They just need to be out of the system. But _*the government won't let them out and threatens massive fines against them if they don't sign*_ the forms."

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/03/259279509/doj-expected-to-defend-health-laws-contraceptive-mandate

"That coverage includes services such as mammograms, prenatal care and cervical cancer screenings, but it also _*mandates*_ free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs &#8212; which are contrary to Catholic teaching.

"The mandate does not include a conscience clause for employers who object to such coverage on moral grounds.
Under final rules issued in June to implement the mandate, there is an exemption for some religious employers that fit its criteria. For those employers who do not fit the criteria but still object to providing the coverage, the rules cover an accommodation &#8212; using a third party to provide the contraceptive coverage they find objectionable to employees.
But Catholic entities, including those in the New York Archdiocese and Rockville Centre Diocese, say the exemption is too narrowly drawn and the accommodation still does not solve their problem over being involved in providing coverage they reject for moral reasons."

".... the third-party accommodation compels the Catholic plaintiffs &#8220;to perform acts that are contrary to their religion. And there can be no doubt that the coercive pressure here is substantial. _*If plaintiffs do not comply with the mandate, they are subject to fines of $100 per day per affected beneficiary*_.&#8221;"
http://catholicphilly.com/2013/12/n...ons-to-hhs-mandate-based-on-religious-rights/


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Not physically, but mentally they are.....



Force? 

You're not expecting anyone to take you seriously, I hope.....


----------



## dblack (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The Catholic church does not force them to eschew contraception.
> ...



What? The Church employs 'The Force'???

No, 'mentally', they are not forced to do anything. Mentally, they can decide to use birth control whenever they feel like it, and the only the thing the Church can do in response is refuse to associate with them. They have no legal power to coerce them in any way - and if they'd tried, I'd be right there with you raising hell. 

I guess it all comes back to this growing trend whereby people can't distinguish between harming someone, and simply choosing not to help them. It's a rationalization behind so many authoritarian policies and it's killing freedom in this country.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

dblack said:


> What? The Church employs 'The Force'???
> 
> No, 'mentally', they are not forced to do anything. Mentally, they can decide to use birth control whenever they feel like it, and the only the thing the Church can do in response is refuse to associate with them. They have no legal power to coerce them in any way - and if they'd tried, I'd be right there with you raising hell.
> 
> I guess it all comes back to this growing trend whereby people can't distinguish between harming someone, and simply choosing not to help them. It's a rationalization behind so many authoritarian policies and it's killing freedom in this country.



What is hilarious, is another leftist was just citing a stat that 98% of Catholics use contraception.

Uh, that's some pretty ineffective "force..."


----------



## Shaarona (Jan 6, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.



I agree.

Most Catholics today use birth control.. and they should have the right to BC like everyone else.

Not to use BC is a personal choice... and certainly their right.


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > That second sentence there *shows *you are misinformed.
> ...


No, I don't say that.

You're making things up again.


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


<shaking my head>

I'm so tired of repeating myself.  It's obvious you are incorrigible.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Not physically, but mentally they are.....
> ...



I don't expect you to take me seriously, no, you've already proven that you are unable to grasp common knowledge.


----------



## dblack (Jan 6, 2014)

Shaarona said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
> ...



Do you understand that their right to use birth control has nothing to due with the Catholic Church? The church has no power to take away their rights.


----------



## Shaarona (Jan 6, 2014)

dblack said:


> Shaarona said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Yes.. I agree..  So why shouldn't it be available to all citizens regardless of creed?


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

It is available. Nobody has said it shouldn't be available.

The complaint is that they're being forced to PROVIDE it. Or hook up their employees with someone who will.


----------



## Vox (Jan 6, 2014)

Shaarona said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Shaarona said:
> ...




It is available - go and BUY it.

Why should people pay for YOUR life choices?


----------



## Vox (Jan 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > What? The Church employs 'The Force'???
> ...



except that stat is a lie.

even 98% of feminists do not use contraception.

anybody who understands the basics of the statistics knows that it is absolutely ignorant to state such a thing


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> No, I don't say that.
> 
> You're making things up again.



That is what this entire thread is about. 

The church is exempt IF they sign a waiver making them non-exempt in a catch-22 clusterfuck.

"Father, if you sign this waiver, we won't take money from your left pocket to give nuns abortions."


(We'll take it from your right pocket instead....)

The left is convinced that everyone is too stupid to catch on to the games you play, then are incensed when we do.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

They're exempt if they agree to find someone else to provide their employees with contraception, including abortificaents. So they're still being forced to provide a service that flies in the face of their faith.


----------



## oreo (Jan 6, 2014)

Vox said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




No it's you that's full of it.  It is true that over 90% of women Catholic church members do in fact use birth control contraceptives.  Otherwise we would have a population that looks like China.  You look at any Catholic family today, the majority of which only have one to two kids compared to 100 years ago--where they averaged 9 to 10 kids per Catholic family.   It's not that they have given up on sex--lol

_Even in Mexico--a predominately Catholic country--they're advertising birth control on television--and have been doing so for many years._

*The entire point is that there are 22 states in this country that have mandated for decades that there is no religious exemption for birth control contraceptives.  Including the state of Colorado--where the Little Sisters of the Poor is based.*



> Colo. Rev. Stat> 10-16-104 (2010) requires specified health insurance plans to provide coverage for contraception in the same manner as any other sickness, injury, disease, or condition is otherwise covered under the policy or contract. (2010 HB 1021)


Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

China has mandated abortion. We'll look like China when we start dragging women out into the street and forcibly aborting them...like the Obamaloons want to.

We'll look like China when the state persecutes the Catholic church...

Oh, snap!


"On Nov. 15th Pastor Zhang Shaojie and nearly two dozen of his church members were arrested by police in Henan Province.....the arrest of house church Christians in China is fairly common." 

http://www.persecution.org/2013/12/02/persecuted-church-in-central-china-appeals-for-help/

Sounds like the Christians in China are arrested for failing to meet governmental mandates leveled against them, hmm?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> I don't expect you to take me seriously, no, you've already proven that you are unable to grasp common knowledge.



That which you recite from the leftist hate sites is neither common, nor knowledge.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

Nor true.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

oreo said:


> No it's you that's full of it.  It is true that over 90% of women Catholic church members do in fact use birth control contraceptives.



I'm sure that the fact that only about 50% of Catholic women are in child bearing years doesn't alter that....

I assume this astounding "fact" came from "Planned Parenthood's Gutmacher," right?


----------



## oreo (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> China has mandated abortion. We'll look like China when we start dragging women out into the street and forcibly aborting them...like the Obamaloons want to.
> 
> We'll look like China when the state persecutes the Catholic church...
> 
> ...




So then I take it your preference is to abort babies versus taking a pill?   hmmm. Kind of strange don't you think?

The point is we control our population by using birth control devices.  Otherwise we would revel the population of China and then be forced to mandate abortions.  Is that what you want?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

oreo said:


> So then I take it your preference is to abort babies versus taking a pill?   hmmm. Kind of strange don't you think?
> 
> The point is we control our population by using birth control devices.  Otherwise we would revel the population of China and then be forced to mandate abortions.  Is that what you want?



False dichotomy.

Surrendering civil rights will not stop abortion. 

The 1st Amendment does not cause abortion.


----------



## dblack (Jan 6, 2014)

Shaarona said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Shaarona said:
> ...



It is available to all. The question is whether religious organizations should be forced to buy it (or rather, buy insurance that funds it) for their employees. The church can't block availability.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Do you have any idea how easy it would be for me to use the Bible to prove you wrong right now? Given that I honestly believe that is wrong, and do try not to post hypocritically, I will just point out my signature and declare that anyone that relies on the law, be it religious or secular, to tell them what they can, and cannot, do, is never free.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 6, 2014)

dblack said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You should pay attention to this [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] because he has argued, more than once, that getting special exemptions to the law based on religious belief is wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > If birth control did prevent stds, we wouldn't have the rampant, treatment resistant, and wildly out of control std  rate we do now.
> ...



Personally, I think forcing people to pay for things they object to is reprehensible. On top of that, I think the government interfering in personal choice to such an extent that they force women to get permission from a doctor use birth control is absurd. I further believe that both of those combine into an unsupportable and abominable burden on freedom.

You, however, love having the government around to make it harder for everyone to be free just so you can pretend that you are noble.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 6, 2014)

Shaarona said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > A waste of money on litigation the Catholics could be using to help the poor.
> ...



You think everyone has a right to birth control, yet you don't object to the government restricting it. Interesting.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You did say that in the OP, maybe you forgot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 6, 2014)

Shaarona said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Shaarona said:
> ...



My creed is that anyone should be able to buy birth control without asking a doctor for permission. What, exactly, is your creed?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You think everyone has a right to birth control, yet you don't object to the government restricting it. Interesting.



The government doesn't restrict birth control.

A dozen methods are availible over the counter at any Walgreen's or local liquor store. The Pill is regulated because the hormones in it are potentially fatal. Whether there should be regulation of prescription drugs is a very different conversation than this one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > You think everyone has a right to birth control, yet you don't object to the government restricting it. Interesting.
> ...



What the fuck do you call requiring women who want to get the pill to go to the doctor every year, a benefit?

The Pill is perfectly safe. In the 50 years it has been on the market it has never been abused, has not proven to be addictive, and is actually available OTC in most countries. The only reason the government still requires a prescription is that social conservatives and progressives have formed an alliance to deny women access to the pill.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> What the fuck do you call requiring women who want to get the pill to go to the doctor every year, a benefit?



Again, the pill is but one of a thousand types of birth control.

Whether drugs that the government considers dangerous should be regulated and only prescribed by a doctor is a very different conversation than the one we are having about the desire of Obama and the democrats to revoke the 1st Amendment.



> The Pill is perfectly safe. In the 50 years it has been on the market it has never been abused, has not proven to be addictive, and is actually available OTC in most countries. The only reason the government still requires a prescription is that social conservatives and progressives have formed an alliance to deny women access to the pill.



Argue it to the FDA.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

Any woman can walk into a county clinic and make an appointment and walk out with enough pills for a year.

A nurse practioner sees them, does a screening, a pelvic, and off they go. Free of charge/take medicaid/sliding scale.

No matter who you are.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Any woman can walk into a county clinic and make an appointment and walk out with enough pills for a year.
> 
> A nurse practioner sees them, does a screening, a pelvic, and off they go. Free of charge/take medicaid/sliding scale.
> 
> No matter who you are.



If not for all the deaths of smokers and women over 35, it probably would be over the counter.

I can't cite this and am too lazy to look it up, but I read a few years back that death was more likely from the pill, than from cocaine.


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


You obviously can;t read:

From OP:
*
"Now, you may agree that religious organizations should not be forced to   contribute to a health plan that makes them pay for Birth Control - and  I  do too, *

but do you think the mere act of filing out a form is taking the Religious Liberty exception  just a bit too far?

Does religious liberty extend to the right to not have to fill out paperwork?"


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

If you agree to find someone else to perform the duty that is against your religion when you fill out that form, yes, it is unconstitutional.


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> *If you agree to find someone else to perform the duty that is against your religion *when you fill out that form, yes, it is unconstitutional.


Argh!

How many times do you have to be told the nuns DO NOT have to do that.

All they have to do is AFFIRM their objection -- and DONE. Chrissakes, what does it take for you people to understand this?


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

I will add it is *not* unconstitutional...Two words: Conscientious Objectors


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

"The Obama administration tried to compromise, saying charities can sign a statement that they object to birth control, and leave it to third-party insurers to pick up the cost."

They have to agree to allow third-party insurers come in and provide that coverage for them. The *form* is a permission slip allowing that..and THAT is the objection. If they refuse to do it because it is against their religion, then of course they aren't going to give permission for someone else to do it in their place. That's crazy.

DOJ Expected To Defend Health Law's Contraceptive Mandate : NPR


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > *If you agree to find someone else to perform the duty that is against your religion *when you fill out that form, yes, it is unconstitutional.
> ...



Stop being conservatives. 

And as is typical of most conservatives, theyve contrived this issue into a partisan controversy, a political weapon they perceive useful in combating their opponents.  

Consequently, theyre going to ignore the facts and truth and continue to propagate the lies they created. 

But you knew all this already.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

This is about recanting, folks.


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> "The Obama administration tried to compromise, saying charities can sign a statement that they object to birth control, and leave it to third-party insurers to pick up the cost."
> 
> They have to agree to allow third-party insurers come in and provide that coverage for them. The *form* is a permission slip allowing that..and THAT is the objection. If they refuse to do it because it is against their religion, then of course they aren't going to give permission for someone else to do it in their place. That's crazy.
> 
> DOJ Expected To Defend Health Law's Contraceptive Mandate : NPR


For only the 111th time, in the case we are discussing -- the nuns insurers - *do not have to provide coverage.  They too are exempt.*

Argggggggggghhhhhh.


----------



## paperview (Jan 6, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


This obviously is what years of listening to Fox and AM radio has done to their brain.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "The Obama administration tried to compromise, saying charities can sign a statement that they object to birth control, and leave it to third-party insurers to pick up the cost."
> ...


 
So what's the reprieve for?


----------



## Mertex (Jan 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't say that.
> ...



That is too funny....nuns needing abortions?  Is it you or the church that is all mucked up?
Nuns are supposed to be celibate....they wouldn't even need contraceptives.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 6, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



See, you don't even understand the issue.....maybe you should quit before you make yourself look even worse.


----------



## dblack (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "The Obama administration tried to compromise, saying charities can sign a statement that they object to birth control, and leave it to third-party insurers to pick up the cost."
> ...



Which is, in itself, bullshit. If the mandate unconstitutionally violates religious freedom, it should be struck from the law - for everyone. It's a gross violation of equal protection to simply "buy off" opposition with piecemeal exemptions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



True, resulting in an intellectual atrophy, the loss of reasoning and critical thinking skills.


----------



## Intense (Jan 6, 2014)

Some of us have a problem with Government playing God. It's that simple. Playing at having the high ground here, may work, at least until reality bites you in the Ass. Should we impose a Fair Car Tax so we could all drive Porches? How well do you think that would work out before bankrolling indulgence, theft, and fraud, bankrupts the system? ACA is unsustainable. People being compelled, forced to buy services they can never use is a criminal act. How is justice served here?


----------



## Intense (Jan 6, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



So anyone that thinks differently than you, or questions your reason or motive, is somehow less than relevant than you? Interesting. Up shit's creek without a paddle, wondering how you got there? How's group think faring with you? Never mind.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 6, 2014)

So what's the reprieve for, if they aren't required to do anything?


----------



## oreo (Jan 6, 2014)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "The Obama administration tried to compromise, saying charities can sign a statement that they object to birth control, and leave it to third-party insurers to pick up the cost."
> ...



Well for the 112th time if the "The little sisters of the poor" which are located in Colorado, if they had been providing insurance to employees they would have been mandated by the State of Colorado to pay for birth control contraceptives.

There is no religious exemption in Colorado.



> (2010) requires specified health insurance plans to provide coverage for contraception in the same manner as any other sickness, injury, disease, or condition is otherwise covered under the policy or contract. (2010 HB 1021)


Insurance Coverage for Contraception State Laws


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 7, 2014)

oreo said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Just to prove how stupid you were, they were providing insurance for their employees through an ERISA plan that is defined as a church, and thus exempt from the law that you are babbling about.

But, please, keep posting your stupid argument another 111 times.


----------



## Mertex (Jan 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Just to prove how stupid you were, they were providing insurance for their employees through an ERISA plan that is defined as a church, and thus exempt from the law that you are babbling about.
> 
> But, please, keep posting your stupid argument another 111 times.



Link, please....because according to this:

ERISA governs approximately 2.5 million health benefit plans sponsored by private employers nationwide. *It does not apply to government and church employee plans.*
http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Frequently+Asked+Questions+on+ERISA%3A+Employer-Sponsored+Self-funded+Health+Benefit+Plans.pdf%22&blobheadervalue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251818800959&ssbinary=true


----------



## Barb (Jan 7, 2014)

It seems we've been here before.


----------



## paperview (Jan 7, 2014)

oreo said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


I already addressed that a few posts after you made that point for the first time:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8410154-post305.html


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

I ask again...what have they received a reprieve from, if this is a non-issue?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 7, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Just to prove how stupid you were, they were providing insurance for their employees through an ERISA plan that is defined as a church, and thus exempt from the law that you are babbling about.
> ...



Let me keep this simple for you, the government filed a brief saying that the health plan that Little Sisters of the Poor uses is defined as a church under ERISA. I posted a link the the brief earlier when some idiot, aka paperview, insisted that the government didn't say it, and even told them where to look to see that is exactly what they said. The little Sisters of the Poor brief actually says the same thing, so this is a fact that is not in dispute.

If you have a problem with that, feel free to right to Obama and tell him his lawyers don't know what the law isl, and ask him to file an amended brief. Until that point, I will simply take the facts as they exist, not as you want them to be.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jan 7, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> I ask again...what have they received a reprieve from, if this is a non-issue?



It is not a non issue despite the government's claim.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 7, 2014)

If it was, there would be no need for a reprieve, obviously.

Lefty wackos are mind numbingly stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 8, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> If you agree to find someone else to perform the duty that is against your religion when you fill out that form, yes, it is unconstitutional.



The left is at war with the Constitution.

The whole point of this is the crush the 1st Amendment.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 8, 2014)

The bigger goal is to crush human rights.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Stop being conservatives.



Stop being a Communist.

Stop your war on civil rights.



> And as is typical of most conservatives, they&#8217;ve contrived this issue into a partisan controversy, a political weapon they perceive useful in combating their opponents.



The issue is whether you of the left can compromise the 1st Amendment. 



> Consequently, they&#8217;re going to ignore the facts and truth and continue to propagate the lies they created.
> 
> But you knew all this already.



You seek the rule of men, as a substitute for the rule of law. Leftists seek authoritarianism, and the Constitution is an impediment to that goal. Thus you fight this war of yours to crush the Constitution.

I've said it before, we ARE in a civil war, and this is one of the major battles. That this is not (yet) a shooting war is irrelevant, IF you and the other scum of the left prevail in the destruction of the Bill of Rights, then the Republic is done. 

We all know it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 8, 2014)

Mertex said:


> That is too funny....nuns needing abortions?  Is it you or the church that is all mucked up?
> Nuns are supposed to be celibate....they wouldn't even need contraceptives.



Then why do you and your fellow leftists demand that the Church be forced to provide them?

The reality of course is this is a fight over the 1st Amendment. Obama and the leftists see this as an opportunity to crush the Bill of Rights. IF religious liberty can be stripped from the Catholics, it's just a matter of time until the entire Constitution can be subverted.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 9, 2014)

oreo said:


> The point is we control our population by using birth control devices.  Otherwise we would revel the population of China and then be forced to mandate abortions.  Is that what you want?





That was a remarkably stupid thing to say.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 9, 2014)

"be forced to mandate abortions". There it is right there. The Goal.

Like I said, progressives are about the violation of human rights. They always have been. They always believe there's some group of whom there are *too many* and which need to be eliminated for the good of all.


----------

