liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
BIG difference and the whole point of the discussion. Liberty does not equal paying for it!
You dont have to have sex. I am bald, should my company HAVE to pay for Rogain. No, its not essential to my health.


I support insurance co covering it for all, but I also respect religious organizations beliefs and their right to exercise them. Where are all the libs that were foaming at the mouth over the Islamic center in NYC? Wasnt religious freedom the whole argument for it?
Liberal tolerance......

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com


You can believe and speak about whatever you want as long as liberals dont disagree with it,.......tolerance my arse

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com

I'd love to see Spence try to respond to this in a rational way.

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.

The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.


The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....predictable you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the statist bunch that curently inhabits Washington...your arguments indicate that you don't think the government is limited by the Constitution as long as it in regard to things that you approve of

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....very weak...and predictable you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the bunch that curently inhabits Washington

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com

I think the crux of the argument is ensuring people get a base level of care in their insurance.

Coffee and Mormons? Really?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Coffee and Mormons? Really?

-spence

points out the absurdity of your argument if this is the road that you want to go down setting a precedent to have future Congresses ramming legislation through in the manner that Obamacare was achieved, among other things, granting broad power to political appointees to create questionable mandates at will ....

The Times of London 1846

The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrances despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complaisance, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain.

At present, common minds no more see a crushing tyranny in a trivial unfairness or a ludicrous indignity, than the eye uninformed by reason can discern the oak in the acorn, or the utter desolation of winter in the first autumnal fall. Hence the necessity of denouncing with unwearied and even troublesome perseverance a single act of oppression. Let it alone, and it stands on record. The country has allowed it, and when it is at last provoked to a late indignation it finds itself gagged with the record of its own ill compliance.


our founding documents

affirm individual rights(which pre-exist government "US Law")
acknowledge state's rights
limit the federal government's ability to infinge on those rights

like I said, not complicated...all of the numbers and talking points and spinning mean nothing...the answer/solution lies herein

hey Detbuch, did you know I was born in Ann Arbor, we were practically neighbors

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

points out the absurdity of your argument if this is the road that you want to go down setting a precedent to have future Congresses ramming legislation through in the manner that Obamacare was achieved, among other things, granting broad power to political appointees to create questionable mandates at will ....

The Times of London 1846

The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrances despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complaisance, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain.

At present, common minds no more see a crushing tyranny in a trivial unfairness or a ludicrous indignity, than the eye uninformed by reason can discern the oak in the acorn, or the utter desolation of winter in the first autumnal fall. Hence the necessity of denouncing with unwearied and even troublesome perseverance a single act of oppression. Let it alone, and it stands on record. The country has allowed it, and when it is at last provoked to a late indignation it finds itself gagged with the record of its own ill compliance.


our founding documents

affirm individual rights(which pre-exist government "US Law")
acknowledge state's rights
limit the federal government's ability to infinge on those rights

like I said, not complicated...all of the numbers and talking points and spinning mean nothing...the answer/solution lies herein

hey Detbuch, did you know I was born in Ann Arbor, we were practically neighbors

Hi, almost neighbor. How did the liberal bastions Ann Arbor and Detroit produce such as we? Being in the belly of the beast teaches the causes of it's dyspepsia.

Your 1846 Times of London piece shows the timelessness of human nature. You can find these gems written as far back as the ancient civilizations. We have a fundamental kinship with our ancient predecessors that belies the notion that we are a product of history rather than history being a product of us. The belief that history, governments, and constitutions are living entities that change or become outdated, obsolete, because of historical progress ignores our nature, and sees it also as evolving through historical progress. It is as though the American Revolution and the form of government that was founded was the high point in some historical movement to experiment with some peculiar notion of "individual liberty," and was fine as a point in history when monarchs and tyrants still ruled and when human nature had not historically evolved beyond it's good and bad elements. The Constitution was fine for a time when individuals had to protect themselves against the inclination in their nature to violate other's rights in order to profit. But now, we have been transported by history to a point in time where we can educate the elimination of the bad in our nature. So we no longer need to fear our rulers, for they will, by dint of historical progress, be benevolent, keeping as their trust the improvement of humanity by a more efficient governmental administrative system. So we don't need the cumbersome constitutional system which has lost its meaning in the modern world. That it has been a stealth revolution rather than a bloody one is evidence that history has solved the barbaric practice of men to bring about change only with violence. That, unbeknownst to the citizens, their form of government, one founded on a Constitution which was almost religiously revered, had been through political slight of hand, changed to fit the era in which they live. There is still a pretense of adhering to that document, but the language used has different meaning than the original document. Words like commerce, regulate, general welfare, among the States, and so on, mean something different to today's legislators and judges than what they meant to the framers. So the Constitution has been brought to life, to fit in with the other living abstractions of the modern age, such as government and history. Ideas have been given a living, breathing, quality by the progressive age. And as such, they have a new type of nature--not one that is fundamental and unchanging, but one that constantly evolves. No telling what evolution the living, breathing "history" will go through. No doubt that historical progress will make it an even better, more improved version.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.


The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

"There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche."

Spence, you keep spinning in circles here, so let's make it simply clear.

Is there, or is there not, a law which compels employers to offer free contraception to employees?

"The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything"

They weren't? Spence, here you go making it up as you go along. That's what started all of this, Obama wanted the church to pay for contraception.

"the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy."

That math may be simple, but it's also tragically flawed. First, if you assume that every single woman denied contraception has an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe it's cheaper to give her contraception. And maybe not, because are you sure an abortion costs more than a "few hundred dollars"?

Second, that analysis assumes that contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies. If that were true (and that's demonstrably false), why have there been so many more kids born out of wedlock AFTER contraception was made widely available?

Third, Catholics aren't concerned about dollars, we are concerned with that pesky First Amendment. you know, the one that liberals hold up to support the right of pornographers? Freedom of religion happens to be in there too.