That worked for Pataki here in NYS every time he ran for Governor. Republicans could care less what the plans are, just as long as one of their peeps is in the office.

This is especially ironic, since Republican supporters insist that President Obama should not be trusted because of what they assume he will do only after he's re-elected (and has not done since being elected the first time).

Yeah, but the women in the kitchen are still getting their contraception and abortion rights attacked. Not all women are being attacked on all fronts of this Republican assault, but they're all having their rights attacked - even the women who aren't overly concerned about the rights in question.

NO one is attacking contraception rights - that's a meme promoted by an idiot named Pelosi in congress as well as the MSM. You can buy contraceptives all you want. As far as abortion rights are concerned, that is a moral argument - I believe it is killing an unborn child - others disagree. If YOU want contraception, why should I or anybody else have to pay for it?

Although I am not the foremost expert on this I think I will chime in to perhaps add to the discussion...It is a prescribed medication, so insurance should pay for it. This is the administration's stance. You nor anyone else is having to pay for it. Although my neighbor wants viagara (a prescribed medication), I do not claim that I am paying for it. Are you saying that we all pay for it through higher premiums on all of our insurance? If so, this is very tricky area. This is the bottom line in my opinion...If a woman chooses to take contraception to control what her body is physiologically going through and needs to consult a doctor to maintain/monitor that control, then that is between her and her doctor who is prescribing that medication. Insurance should cover all medication without prejudice.

Wow Kenny. I'm not sure who you think WANTS you to buy their contraception for them because that is and always will be a private matter. It amazes how men feel they have a say so in what a woman decides but have nothing to say when the other person, i.e. the male, leaves the woman to fend for herself. YOU as a man will never know the pain of having a child by yourself. YOU as a man, unless you have a medical degree, will never know all of things that contraception is used for in women. I am celibate but I must take oral contraceptives for a medical condition. I ONLY have a child because of oral contraceptives. So, stop trolling the internet. Turn off RUSH and FOX NEWS and try to come back with REAL FACTS!

I was speaking to the meme that is out there - That saying that a company or institution does not want to cover contraceptives is somehow depriving women of contraceptive rights. Ashley - no one ever said that you should not have contraceptives. Most, if not all, insurance prescription plans cover them for medical conditions such as yours.
That's not what I'm objecting to. Contraceptives are, by and large, elective, i.e. not normally necessary for health purposes. Since they are normally elective, why should everyone's premiums rise because some people want them?

RuhRoh - My health insurance doesn't cover viagra - if I want it, I have to get a prescription and buy it myself. And you said it your self - If a woman CHOOSES to use contraception. Choice involves alternatives. My position is that unless it is medically necessary, you have a choice.

Ashley - You're right, I don't know what the pain of childbirth is like. However I was there for everyone of my 6 children's births and continue to be married to their mother.

As far as facts are concerned:

1. President Obama and Katherine Sibelius mandated that all companies will cover contraceptives, including religious institutions. (Including abortifacients).

2. When churches protested because of their doctrine, they "compromised" by saying that the insurance companies would have to provide them for free.

3. Many religious institutions are self-insured, which means that they would have to pay for something that is against their doctrinal stance.

4. This violates the 1st amendment to the Constitution, "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."

So this is not an issue about women's rights, no matter how many times people say it is. You have the right to contraception - just pay for it yourself or get an insurance plan that will.

insurance prescription plans cover them for medical conditions such as yours

This right here displays your ignorance. All contraception that it taken is used to treat medical conditions. In case you haven't read up on contraception every woman who takes contraception gains a medical benefit. The motivation for why a person takes contraception should not be an issue. This is like saying that if a man loses 15 pounds so that he'll fit into his tux before his wedding that he does not also gain the benefit of stopping heart disease and diabetes.

That saying that a company or institution does not want to cover contraceptives is somehow depriving women of contraceptive rights

It appears you do not understand the argument.

The argument has been that a business' rights do not supersede those of the individual's rights unless there is a significant reason. So, as an example, I do not have the right to start breaking things in a store even though doing so would be upholding my individual freedom. At that point I am causing harm to the business and the law falls on the business' side. In the case of contraception there is no harm being done to the business by mandating that if they provide health insurance that health insurance must cover contraception. Remember that businesses do NOT have to provide health insurance to their employees. They choose to provide health insurance and if that make that choice then they must also cover contraception. Businesses are free to decide what they will or will not provide as benefits to their employees.

Since they are normally elective, why should everyone's premiums rise because some people want them

Your premiums aren't going to rise because someone is getting contraception. Adding things that insurance has to cover =/= increase in premiums. However it should be noted that since contraception prevents things like ovarian cysts, ovarian cancer, colonrectal cancer, and uterine cancer you may end up paying higher premiums as a result of not providing the initial (cheaper) treatment of the drug. That's your choice, I suppose. Seems rather fiscally insane to me.

if a woman CHOOSES to use contraception. Choice involves alternatives. My position is that unless it is medically necessary, you have a choice.

So you recognize individual choice, but you do not recognize business choice? And, following your same logic from above, why should I be forced to pay more to treat a woman who gets ovarian cancer because she didn't take the pill because you forced her insurance company to not cover it? Why should my premiums- following your above argument- go up for your choice?

The liberty argument doesn't work here, as you can plainly see. This becomes an issue about fiscal responsibility and it's financially cheaper if we spend the money upfront for contraception as opposed to treating the illnesses that contraception would otherwise have prevented later on.

President Obama and Katherine Sibelius mandated that all companies will cover contraceptives, including religious institutions. (Including abortifacients).

No. They mandated that all insurance companies cover contraception as part of preventative care. Businesses are not nor have they ever been mandated to provide health insurance to their employees (at least at the federal level). That is a choice the employer makes.

When churches protested because of their doctrine, they "compromised" by saying that the insurance companies would have to provide them for free.

No. The ACA mandated that 80 cents for every 1$ you spend in premiums to an insurance company must now go to cover your medical care. Out of that 80 cents some of that must be used for preventative treatment. The HHS classified contraception as being included under preventative care since contraception helps to stop many illnesses from forming and helps to treat many others. This then meant that insurance companies would have to extend some of that 80 cents to cover contraception as part of the preventative care network. Religious institutions complained that they would then have to pay insurance companies to cover contraception. PBO then set out a compromise that stated the insurance company would reach directly out to the employee so that the employer would not have to be a part of it. The coverage of contraception was never changed.

Many religious institutions are self-insured, which means that they would have to pay for something that is against their doctrinal stance.

Or they could choose not to provide insurance

This violates the 1st amendment to the Constitution, "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."

The individual also has 1st Amendment rights. The church does not get to impede on another individual's religious freedom by forcing that individual to conform to the church's belief system. That is also unconstitutional.

Or they could choose not to provide insurance

I should amend my above statement to say that they could also choose to only higher people of their religious faith who are representatives of the faith. That is also another option they have. If a Catholic hospital, as an example, doesn't want to provide contraception to it's employees then the hospital is at liberty to only higher nuns and priests.

All contraception that it taken is used to treat medical conditions. In case you haven't read up on contraception every woman who takes contraception gains a medical benefit.

This is simply not true. Women who have a history of breast cancer in their families are advised NOT to take contraceptives

Remember that businesses do NOT have to provide health insurance to their employees.

Under Obamacare, this will not be the case, unless you have gotten an exception.

Your premiums aren't going to rise because someone is getting contraception. Adding things that insurance has to cover =/= increase in premiums.

This is not a logical conclusion - Do you expect the insurance companies to cover this out of their own pocket? If so, you are sadly out of touch. ALL costs are passed on to the consumer.

This becomes an issue about fiscal responsibility and it's financially cheaper if we spend the money upfront for contraception as opposed to treating the illnesses that contraception would otherwise have prevented later on.

If this were so, don't you think that the Insurance companies would provide it? Most insurance companies don't do things that will hurt their bottom line. It seems to me that if the statistics supported your point, they would promote it as they do other healthy living programs.

The church does not get to impede on another individual's religious freedom by forcing that individual to conform to the church's belief system. That is also unconstitutional.

The individual also knows that they are working in a Church owned institution. As such, they cannot expect the church's belief system to conform to that individual. In other words, they can always go to work somewhere else if that is important to them. No one is forcing them to work at that religious institution. No one is forcing their belief system on anybody else. They are confirming their own belief system in their practice.

This is simply not true. Women who have a history of breast cancer in their families are advised NOT to take contraceptives

Reread what I stated. All women who take contraception gain preventative healthcare benefits. A woman w/ breast cancer history would not be advised to take hormonal contraception so therefore this would not apply to her.

Under Obamacare, this will not be the case, unless you have gotten an exception.

Wrong. You do not have to provide health insurance to your employees. Maybe you should actually read up on the bill:

Do I have to provide health insurance to my employees?

The Affordable Care Act does not require employers to provide health insurance for their employees.

The Employer Responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act applies businesses with more than 50 full-time workers. To learn more read the Employer Bulletin on Automatic Enrollment, Employer Responsibility, and Waiting Periods.

http://www.healthcare.gov/using-insurance/employers/small-business/index.html#provide

The only requirements businesses have is IF they choose to provide health insurance then then the business must either a. pay the employee enough so that he/she can pay for the company health insurance or b. the employer must apply for a federal subsidy grant so that the federal government can pay employees who make too little to pay for insurance on their own w/ a higher tax rebate. This is done when the employer files his/her taxes.

This is not a logical conclusion - Do you expect the insurance companies to cover this out of their own pocket? If so, you are sadly out of touch. ALL costs are passed on to the consumer.

Dude I worked for a major insurance company for 5 years. I am telling you now that covering more people and including more preventative care does not increase the amount of your premiums. The things that increase the amount of your premiums have to do w/ a. stock prices b. the general rate of inflation c. the general rate of health care inflation (b and c are NOT the same) and d. the average rate of death of those currently covered by your insurance company. Additionally a person getting contraception covered by their insurance company still has to pay their insurance provider. No insurance = no coverage. If any costs were to be accrued they would be passed onto that individual consumer as a higher price premium.

If this were so, don't you think that the Insurance companies would provide it? Most insurance companies don't do things that will hurt their bottom line

A. this is post hoc reasoning and is a logical fallacy B. many insurance companies already do cover contraception C. this is completely ignoring the gender premium disparity and the pre-existing condition disparity that had existed until ACA went into effect. Women had to pay extra in order to be covered w/ maternity care and OBGYN care under the old plan. A woman w/ a history of cysts or w/ a family history of ovarian cancer would not be covered by the insurance company. Prior to the ACA being passed women would be prescribed birth control (which was covered) and then would get their b/c filled out at a pharmacist's and have to pay a co-pay. All the ACA did was remove the maternity and OBGYN cap, the pre-existing condition cap, and require that contraception be provided under the preventative care plan w/ no copay.

The individual also knows that they are working in a Church owned institution. As such, they cannot expect the church's belief system to conform to that individual.In other words, they can always go to work somewhere else if that is important to them. No one is forcing them to work at that religious institution. No one is forcing their belief system on anybody else. They are confirming their own belief system in their practice.

The church knows when they hire people that they are hiring people who do not believe as they do and who are not legally required to conform to their belief system unless they are taking a position that officially represents the church. SCOTUS has already held that it is against the constitution for a church to force a non-representative of the faith to conform to their ideology. The church is at liberty to not hire employees who do not represent their faith. The church is also at liberty to not provide health insurance. No one is forcing the church to hire outside of their faith. The church is asking for special rights so that it can force non-believers to conform to it's belief system. This is patently unconstitutional. If the church does not want to do this then the church can simply stop hiring people outside of the faith and/or stop providing health insurance.

Any claim you can make about business liberty I can make about individual liberty. Again there is no valid liberty argument. The church holds just as much responsibility. What you are asking here is that the law preference the church over the individual. We have not done this historically as a country and to do so would be a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The question is: why do you feel that the law should favor the church and not the individual?

The question is: why do you feel that the law should favor the church and not the individual?

Because it is not an article of faith to take birth control. No one says that they must take birth control in order to exercise their religion. There are no religions that say using birth control is an article of their faith.

On the other hand, The Roman Catholic Church has stated that artificial contraceptives are contrary to their doctrines. Most protestant denominations state that abortifacients are a form of abortion and therefore are contrary to their stated doctrine.

Whether you agree with their positions or not, and whether the members adhere to them or not, These are long-held articles of faith for the respective faith groups. To force these institutions to provide what - to them - is wrong would be abridging their 1st amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.

This could easily have been solved by making an exception for religious institutions in the ruling. That the Obama administration did not do so and in fact morphed it into a trumped- up "war on women" just shows their arrogance.

Because it is not an article of faith to take birth control. No one says that they must take birth control in order to exercise their religion. There are no religions that say using birth control is an article of their faith.

The 1st Amendment states that you cannot be forced to adhere to any religious doctrine that is not your religious doctrine. The Catholic church stating that it will openly discriminate against female employees by denying them contraception coverage violates that employee's individual right to not be forced to adhere to the Catholic religion's teachings. There is- as I already stated- one existent loophole here. All the Catholic church has to do is stop hiring people who are not representatives of their faith. They are at liberty to only hire nuns for female workers. Just as the Catholic church is at liberty to have as a tenant of it's faith that women not take contraception, so too are individuals at liberty to not be forced to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic church. This is what you're not comprehending. The 1st Amendment does not just apply to religious institutions or tenants of faith

On the other hand, The Roman Catholic Church has stated that artificial contraceptives are contrary to their doctrines. Most protestant denominations state that abortifacients are a form of abortion and therefore are contrary to their stated doctrine.

Whether you agree with their positions or not, and whether the members adhere to them or not, These are long-held articles of faith for the respective faith groups. To force these institutions to provide what - to them - is wrong would be abridging their 1st amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.

The church is choosing whether or not it hires a person and whether or not it provides insurance. If the church makes the decision to provide health insurance then the church has chosen to violate it's own religious doctrine. The church does not and should not be allowed to obfuscate it's own responsibility. Again why do you insist that the church not be held culpable for it's own decisions?

This could easily have been solved by making an exception for religious institutions in the ruling. That the Obama administration did not do so and in fact morphed it into a trumped- up "war on women" just shows their arrogance.

Religious institutions are not: a. forced to provide health insurance b. forced to hire female employees c. forced to hire employees w/ wives or daughters d. forced to hire employees who are not of their faith and representatives of their faith.

It seems to me that the only 'arrogance' here is the church's belief that it can force everyone else to conform to it's teachings. The law did not suddenly take choice away from the church- all the law did was make the church responsible for it's decisions.

It's interesting that you turn this around every time. I say potato, you say otatop. We obviously disagree on what the free exercise clause truly means. If we were talking about Ministers, you would have a valid argument. I am talking about hospitals, schools, retirement communities, and other institutions that serve their communities.

The real question is, where is individual responsibility? Doesn't the person hired by one of these institutions have the right not to work for them if they find the conditions of employment not to their liking? They know what they are getting into when they apply for the job.

No institution is forcing an employee to adhere to their faith, unless that person is a minister of their faith. They are merely saying that if they provide health insurance, they will only cover what they decide. And they stand by their choice. They don't require "everyone else" to conform to it's teachings. They state ahead of time what their teachings are - in this case, they will not provide contraception- and if you want to work there then you accept that condition. They don't require you to adhere to these teachings - you are not fired if you go out and buy it yourself - just that they will not provide it. And they will almost always pay for the doctor's visit required to get the prescription.

My statement still stands - to require religious institutions to provide something that violates their public articles of faith is a violation of their 1st amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.

One last thing - Religions are not buildings or even corporations, but people who have come together freely to express their faith. They also have the right not to have their free exercise of religion violated.

Thank you Mouzer! You stated my point ten times better than I could have.

This is also a core argument about healthcare - has the constitution guaranteed the "right" to unlimited healthcare? I don't believe so, but I recognize that there are those who disagree. This country does provide emergency healthcare to everyone.

Uh-oh. I guess I've opened up a whole new can of worms here....

I am talking about hospitals, schools, retirement communities, and other institutions that serve their communities.

Correct. These institutions intentionally hire people who are not part of the faith and they do not attempt to represent the faith other than in name of the hospital/school/etc. Their practices as a hospital do not reflect the faith and that is the point. If they are attempting to claim religious discrimination then the business is being hypocritical. What they are really claiming is that they should not have to take responsibility for their actions, but the individual should. And what I am trying to explain is that the logic follows to both parties. You cannot make the liberty argument here: either the logic is consistent or your logic is flawed. If you claim personal responsibility of the individual then I can claim personal responsibility of the business. This is why you cannot claim either and that was my point from the beginning and I have said this now 4 times.

The real question is, where is individual responsibility? Doesn't the person hired by one of these institutions have the right not to work for them if they find the conditions of employment not to their liking? They know what they are getting into when they apply for the job.

Again here is what you're uncomprehending. If you state that the individual can work somewhere else then I can, using YOUR logic, state that the business can simply not provide health insurance OR the business can only hire representatives of the faith. You cannot make the claim that the individual has to hold responsibility unless you also acknowledge that the business has to hold responsibility. Otherwise you are being intellectually inconsistent.

No institution is forcing an employee to adhere to their faith, unless that person is a minister of their faith. They are merely saying that if they provide health insurance, they will only cover what they decide

Nope. If an institution states that an employee can only have coverage for what the institution finds morally OK then the institution is, by asserting that moral conviction, forcing the employee to conform to their religious belief. By this same argument if the business wants to provide health insurance then the business will have to conform to the law. The business has the choice not to provide health insurance thereby upholding it's religious values. It does not, however, have the right to impede on the individual liberty of the employee.

They don't require "everyone else" to conform to it's teachings. They state ahead of time what their teachings are - in this case, they will not provide contraception- and if you want to work there then you accept that condition

This is a contradiction. You are acknowledging that the teachings of the church are given upfront- which is that they don't provide contraception because they believe contraception is immoral. You then state that if the employee doesn't like that morality then the employee is free to work elsewhere. So you are acknowledging that to work for the employer is to conform to the employer's morality.

They don't require you to adhere to these teachings

If it is a condition of employment, then yes they are requiring you to adhere to their teachings

to require religious institutions to provide something that violates their public articles of faith is a violation of their 1st amendment rights to the free exercise of religion

And, by this very same logic, the church imposing it's beliefs on it's own employees is violating the 1st Amendment of the employee

They also have the right not to have their free exercise of religion violated.

So does the individual employee

The point that I am getting at here is that you cannot make the liberty argument. The liberty argument is completely illogical because it assumes that the individual does not have the right to the 1st Amendment in a way that is equal to the business. You are, essentially, ignoring the individual's liberty in order to maintain the business' liberty. All I am doing is showing that the logic behind this argument can easily be reversed which is why, as I have now stated 5 times, this is not a good argument. You cannot make the liberty argument (6 times).

So what argument can you make? Well we go back to the one that I made earlier: that it is financially less expensive to have health insurance companies cover the cost of contraception because of the preventative benefits contraception provides to the individual taking it. It is also financially cheaper for both the health insurance company and the society to allow for family planning. Covering contraception as part of insurance is just one way to ensure that this happens. Remember that there is absolutely no guarantee that a woman will actually use her insurance to cover contraception. All this is talking about is covering it so that if she chooses she can. If she chooses then we can justify this because the upfront cost will be cheaper than the long-term cost of having denied her access to contraception. It is the fiscally superior choice.

This argument is an example of one that is removed from the liberty argument and gives a solid and debatable grounds on which we can discuss contraception. However you have to actually be willing to let go of the liberty argument in order to have this conversation and in order to do that you will first have to acknowledge that the liberty argument makes no sense.

@The Mouzer Bravo. A tour de force, Mouzer. It seems unfortunate that KennyB221 seems to prefer the liberty of authority over the liberty of the individual. (A pedantic moment: It seems you may have a head cold, you keep on saying tenant when you clearly mean tenet.)

@KennyB221 , the constitution begins, "We The People" (emphasis in original). Foremost, it emphasizes the liberty of the individual over the liberty of corporate entities. Your boss does not rule over every aspect of your life. This is fortunate for the Catholic Church in particular, for should they wish to employ only those that adhere to the faith in their hospitals and such, they would have to pay a premium for that reduced pool. Should they decide to reduce their insurance coverage they would have to pay a premium price for individuals of skill outside their faith, for those individuals would have to insure on the private market with its overheads of 30-40% and as such their up front compensation would have to match, assuming those individuals operate in such a manner as to negotiate for their best interest. It's a quiet bargain to let the insurer reduce risk by covering progesterone, etc.

Oh lord I always find out I'm misspelling things!

Is it tenet? I'll correct for that in the future.

I used to spell moot mute...so I guess I'm improving >.<

The fact that I'm almost done w/ my college degree shouldn't make me wonder about the quality of my education if I can't spell basic words at all....Siiigh

Thanks for the correction =)

Funny, I also looked as well to the quote and noticed spokesperson said "THE" as well. I have to agree with SteveF on this one...