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

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.


In your imaginary world, perhaps.

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

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" :lol:

educate yourself before you pose as a knowledgeable, doof.

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.

Koshergrl is as ignorant as you on these matters, come to think of it.
 
Why are you talking to yourself, liar?

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

educate yourself before you pose as a knowledgeable, doof.

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.

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.

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

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?

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.
 
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”)."

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.

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.

.
 
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”)."

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.

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.

.
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?
 
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?
 
[
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?

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?
 
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.
 
[
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?

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

Is this a serious burden?
 

Forum List

Back
Top