"I'm concerned about the public policy of this president imposing his values on people, people of faith who morally object to the government telling them they have to do something, which they believe is a grave moral wrong."
Meanwhile, Santorum wants to impose his values on people.
okay guys, don't get mad, but i'm about to activate slippery slope argument
**insert slippery slope argument about should taxpayers/employers be legally obligated to pay for other people's X**
X = special gloves so you can touch live electrical wire for fun X = special vaccines so you can lick your cat's butthole without fear X = something else equally ridiculous
It isn't. His claim is that churches shouldn't have to pay for something they find morally objectionable, even though birth control pills are a totally legitimate treatment for other things and stuff like viagra is already covered.
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
Basically it's an entire argument about whether religious institutions should be exempt from the mandate that health insurance providers must provide birth control, or whether everyone has a right to have birth control no matter where they get their insurance.
But they are all completely ignoring the REAL issue that the government is telling you what your insurance should cover. Why can't you, the CUSTOMER, decide what your insurance covers? This birth control argument is literally pointless and it's only happening because the government has 100% control over health insurance. How about we just fix the root of the problem by giving control of insurance back to the customers, and then all these dumb minute issues will be taken care of?
It isn't. His claim is that churches shouldn't have to pay for something they find morally objectionable, even though birth control pills are a totally legitimate treatment for other things and stuff like viagra is already covered.
Do you move your lips when you read? While covering Viagra may be stupid, nobody I know of has a moral objection to the pill itself. Catholics have a moral opposition to contraception and refuse to pay for it for other people.
Furthermore, the legitimate uses of BC are drastically outweighed by their use as ordinary contraceptives.
--
SubDeity wants to vote for Calvin Coolidge. [Evil Republican] Play Der Langrisser.
SubDeity posted... It isn't. His claim is that churches shouldn't have to pay for something they find morally objectionable, even though birth control pills are a totally legitimate treatment for other things and stuff like viagra is already covered.
Do you move your lips when you read? While covering Viagra may be stupid, nobody I know of has a moral objection to the pill itself. Catholics have a moral opposition to contraception and refuse to pay for it for other people.
Furthermore, the legitimate uses of BC are drastically outweighed by their use as ordinary contraceptives.
So a "f*** you" to everyone who needs a cure if that cure does something else that the church finds objectionable? Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycystic_ovary_syndrome ; 5-10% of women who would potentially use the pill in the first place isn't negligible.
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
Healthcare is always a commodity, no matter who pays for it. Capitalism isn't optional, it's the law of nature, thus why black markets exist everywhere regular markets don't.
Also, the whole contraceptive issue seems really minor; the only possible argument that could be made against it is incrementalism, and I'm not even sure that's valid. There are times where religion has to abide by government. Muslim chicks are supposed to wear veils, but it was ruled they have to take them off for photo IDs.