10
   

House Panel on whether women should have access to contraceptives

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 11:24 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Here's the case I was thinking about in addressing your polygamy concerns. It's actually about a bigamist who felt his First Amendment right to religious freedom was being infringed upon...SCOTUS thought otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States


Yeah, that could be a problem for the current case. From your link:

Quote:
Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.


Cycloptichorn
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 12:48 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

I believe the panel has to do with whether religious based health instituitions can be forced to give women access to contraceptives even if they are paid by health care. Part of Obama's latetest health care mandate is to force health care insurance to pay something like 90+% for all contraceptives costs and certain religious based hospitals are balking at having to hand them out when the patient requests for them.


Ah.....now I get it, thank you.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 01:05 pm
@dlowan,
There was a bill introduced this week to enable any organization to refuse to pay for contraceptives or any other service for any reason.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-15/nation/31059105_1_health-coverage-contraception-religious-groups

Brown supports limiting health coverage on moral grounds
February 15, 2012|By Tracy Jan

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown, entering a political thicket pitting women’s reproductive rights against beliefs of some religious institutions, is cosponsoring a bill that would allow employers and insurers to limit specific health care coverage, including contraception, based on religious or moral objections.

Brown last week became one of 37 senators, nearly all Republicans, who have signed on to support the bill introduced by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. The bill has gained momentum following the uproar surrounding President Obama’s January announcement that universities and hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church and other religious groups need to provide contraception as part of their employee health coverage.


http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20120217/NEWS01/202170316

Quote:
Blunt's legislation, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would amend the federal health reform law to allow any employer or insurance company to deny services that are "contrary to the provider's religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Critics say it would open a huge loophole in the health care overhaul, which requires insurers and employers to offer an "essential health benefits package," including free preventive services.

"It would let any plan or any employer refuse coverage for any service that they deem immoral," said Donna Crane, policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

She said, for example, it would open the door to insurers refusing to cover HIV counseling for a gay teenager, or declining to provide maternity and prenatal care to a pregnant, single woman. She said Blunt and other Republicans were not only trying to restrict women's access to contraception but to "dismantle" a key element of the health care law.

Blunt suggested his critics were trying to twist the debate, making it about birth control and women's health care when it should be about religious freedom. His bill, he said, it is aimed at rolling back any current and future health care mandates that impinge on Americans' First Amendment protections.

"The bill protects a 225-year-old right," he said.

He also flatly rejected the suggestion that his bill would open up new "loopholes," arguing anyone seeking a conscience exemption under his proposal would have to make a case based on current legal principles, such as those used in employment decisions.

"You have to be able to have the same standard of proof that you have in hiring law now," Blunt said. "You can't just say I have a religion that's opposed to treating diabetes, so I'm not going to (cover) diabetes. This is an established legal principal."

Still, he acknowledged that his bill was broadly framed.

"The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act doesn't mention any medical procedure," he said. "It treats Christian Scientists just like Catholics, and Muslims just like Methodists. The principal here is you cannot tell these institutions that they have to do things that violate their faith beliefs. And it's as simple as that."
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 01:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well, that case was only used as illustration to allay your fears of religion run amok and I'm not sure it's as relevant to the current issue as, say, last month's SCOTUS ruling on religious protections concerning a church's hiring and firing practices. Even that one isn't 100% pertinent since it involved the 'ministerial exception' clause, but there was interesting back and forth between the justices and the government attorney on the First Amendment issue (with the justices eventually rejecting the government's argument that the First Amendment doesn't protect churches from government ordering of who they can hire or fire).

Unfortunately, the Oversight Committee hearing didn't go into much of that, as it became bogged down on other matters. I want my 2 hours back!
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 01:29 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Are you going to force them to offer abortions as well?? How about the super expensive pregnancy efforts like in vitro? Where do you draw the line at this attempt to rope family planning efforts into health insurance, a program that was intended to keep people from ill health?


That's all available on the NHS. I don't see what the problem is.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 01:36 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Well, that case was only used as illustration to allay your fears of religion run amok and I'm not sure it's as relevant to the current issue as, say, last month's SCOTUS ruling on religious protections concerning a church's hiring and firing practices. Even that one isn't 100% pertinent since it involved the 'ministerial exception' clause, but there was interesting back and forth between the justices and the government attorney on the First Amendment issue (with the justices eventually rejecting the government's argument that the First Amendment doesn't protect churches from government ordering of who they can hire or fire).


Sure, but the question here is - what is a Church? The current law exempts churches from the mandate to purchase contraception. It just doesn't exempt church-affiliated businesses, many of whom have thousands of employees who may or may not be members of the same faith as the church the business is affiliated with.

Quote:
Unfortunately, the Oversight Committee hearing didn't go into much of that, as it became bogged down on other matters. I want my 2 hours back!


I got them back pre-emptively Laughing

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Feb, 2012 03:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
That question was actually brought up once or twice (I know it was on the second panel), but there were so many interruptions it was never explored in detail (I think the Establishment Clause was mentioned).

There are several settled cases (SCOTUS) that would appear (to a non-lawyer like me) to support the religious institutions' position, and there are just as many that would appear to support the administration's position. That's what makes it so interesting.

But, all of this legal talk may yet be premature since no final rule has been issued in writing (has it?) and it's still possible that the whole thing could go away if the president decides to accomodate his accomodation even further.

If that's the case, Dolan has indicated he definitely wants it in writing this time lol.

0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2012 12:50 pm
@Butrflynet,
I pray that bill don't get anywhere.
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2012 07:32 pm
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/417676_350933268272508_137375766294927_1142252_2125708064_n.jpg
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 07:46 am
@Butrflynet,
The irony probably goes right over their heads.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  4  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 08:31 am
Santorum doesn't end there, now he says that the health care mandate should not cover prenatal testing because it promotes abortion. Poppycock Where in the world is this going to end with these people?

Santorum: Prenatal testing is to ‘encourage abortions’

My granddaughter umbilical cord was not in the right position and she wasn't getting enough nutrition. She was still a low weight baby, but some steps were taken to minimize the risk before birth and today she is still little at two years old but she is alive and relatively healthy. Why do republicans want to take us back to the dark ages?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 08:40 am
@revelette,
We live in frightening times. Over here Cameron is holding a series of meetings with interested parties about his proposed healthcare reforms, reforms that are opposed by five sixths of the population. The only people invited are those who support the changes, all of the professional organisations that represent healthcare workers, doctors, surgeons, nurses, physiotherapists and the like have all been deliberately excluded.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2012 08:54 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

I pray that bill don't get anywhere.


It may have the same fate as previous House bills about "religious liberty." It may pass the House, but will die in the Senate.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 10:11 am
@izzythepush,
More signs of frightening times: Now girl scouts are promoting sex and abortion. At least according to one Indiana Lawmaker.

Indiana lawmaker accuses Girl Scouts of promoting sex, says group is a ‘tactical arm’ of Planned Parenthood
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 10:43 am
@revelette,
Is that so they can sell more cookies?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 10:48 am
@izzythepush,
speaking as grandmother to a girl scout, they don't have a problem with selling cookies, they go fast; most are young. I think the lawmaker went looking for a problem and made one up for his own obscure reasons.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 10:58 am
@revelette,
It's amazing how distorted the truth can become when you go looking for a problem. Horror stories are easy to come by.

Girl Scout's Cookies are an American phenemenon, I was just trying to show my awareness of American culture. Over here most, but not all, girls join the Guides. I have never had anyone, man, woman or child, knock on my door trying to sell me cookies, it's not something that happens over here.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 12:40 pm
@izzythepush,
Ok, guess we got off the subject a little..
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2012 12:47 pm
@revelette,
Well we're not the only ones guilty of that.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 09:29 am
Not I think religious should be telling others what to do, but it seems now there are religious groups in support of the health care law in general. (guess that means all of it?)

On Friday, however, a broad coalition of religious organizations filed an amicus brief supporting the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion

I wonder if they will be called in for the hearing? Doubtful.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 04:30:02