Little Sisters of the Poor appeal to SCOTUS
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Little Sisters of the Poor appeal to SCOTUS

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Linden, VA
    Posts
    5,904

    Default Little Sisters of the Poor appeal to SCOTUS


  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    So, if I read this correctly, the LSOTP not only don't want to be responsible for paying for their employees contraception, they want to prevent the employees from getting contraception from any source, unless, perhaps, the employees pay for it out of their own pockets (and I am sure that they will have a problem with that too, since they are paying the salary so they would actually be paying for the contraception). Next, Baptists will be telling their employees that they can't use their own money to pay for beer, tobacco, and loose women.
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

  4. #3
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default

    HPL, I often can agree with you ... but in this case, I don't.

    Except for a rather small number of cases, the cost of contraception is very low. For those who are very low income, they can get it free from many sources.

    We also know that no insurance company is going to actually give it away free. They will recoup the cost of providing it "free" through the cost of everyone's premium.

    Years ago, on this forum, we spent tons of screen time talking about Sandra Fluke. The whole idea of insurance covering minor health expenditures is contrary to the concept of what insurance is for. You your home owner insurance is not in place to cover the cost for cleaning out your gutters, a preventative measure of reasonable cost to protect the lifespan of your home's roof. The insurance is for when a an unanticipated disaster causes expensive damage to the roof.

    There are some cases where women have physical issues which require extremely expensive contraception, but that is the exception rather than the rule. I could understand if those limited number of cases would be covered in some way for the rather isolated groups who might have the religious exemption. Those in other groups (with no religious objections to contraception) would be covered for unusual physical conditions anyhow. There's a good chance that the Sisters don't even have anyone like that in their group.

    If the govt weren't so hell bent on forcing this issue on religious objectors, the money saved on this whole court process could have covered a special fund for covering these infrequent cases needing the expensive contraceptives.

    Not to mention that sometimes contraceptive pills are used to treat some gynecological problems ... like dissolving ovarian cysts.
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Senior Member twall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,401

    Default

    Why should an employer be required to pay for something they are morally opposed to? It should not be a surprise to anyone that a catholic employer is not going to pay for birth control.

    Tom
    Tom Wall

  7. #5
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    A group of Colorado nuns said Thursday they will go to the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal a ruling that allows their employees to receive birth control from a third party ... "The Sisters consider it immoral to help the government distribute these drugs,"

    It is the bolded part that I apparently don't understand. How is this them helping the government distribute these drugs. To me this just seems like another attempt to further the Catholic church's ridiculously immoral and indefensible position on sensible birth control.

    Yes I am aware that birth control can frequently be obtained cheaply or even free (for instance from the often vilified Planned Parenthood), but the LSOP CLEARLY would rather that their employees DID NOT have access anywhere.
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

  8. #6
    Senior Member Richard Reese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hubert NC
    Posts
    3,173

    Default

    Since their employees are working for a Catholic organization it should not be a surprise to them that their employers are against birth control since they, the employer, feels it is wrong. However, I do not think it is the employees that are pushing this but the federal government. That would be the difference. If this was brought forward by the employees then I could understand the argument. I do not agree with it but I could understand it. But the fact the federal government is dictating what a company must do is tyranny.
    Fishing, hunting, golfing, traveling and relaxing is life's reward after meeting your goals and retiring.

  9. #7
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default

    There are many ways that govt interferes with religion ...

    I think it was in NYS or NYC where they wanted to (or did?) ban a moyle doing circumcision for Jewish babies. The procedure would still be allowed by a physician in a hospital/office setting. The concern is that a moyle does not use any anesthetic. In view of what happens in late term abortions, I wonder how those in favor of late-term abortion feel about circumcision by a moyle? Perhaps the many Jews who are liberal and pro-choice are not observant ones?

    Then there is the question of Muslim's genital mutilation of young girls. Sometimes it is now done by doctors. I believe that law does not allow for it ... even by doctors in hospital settings. Not too long ago, I read about how some doctors would do the procedure, but would find another medical procedure to conceal what the real objective was or possibly it was being done as an in-office procedure? I'm not recalling the details on it.

    Among all these practices, medical experts have long believed that circumcision was medically beneficial. Now, I've read that is now being questioned. Birth control is also generally considered beneficial; certainly safer than an abortion.

    In France, there was an issue of Muslim women concealing their faces in public. If some criminal activity was involved, how would someone be able to identify the suspect? Certainly, that's an issue for things like driver's licenses and other forms of photo ID.
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  10. #8
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default

    HPL, I don't agree with the RC prohibition against reasonable birth control either. However, I can also see how a person with such a religious conviction could feel "complicit" if they were paying for the drugs via their health care coverage.

    Down East, PP is not the only source of free birth control for low income people.

    OTOH, some of the same people who would compel the Sisters to include this coverage for bc, also object to bc becoming an OTC. BC pills are not without risk, but they've been in use for probably 70 years and are safer now than the early versions.
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  11. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Halls, Tn.
    Posts
    3,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post
    A group of Colorado nuns said Thursday they will go to the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal a ruling that allows their employees to receive birth control from a third party ... "The Sisters consider it immoral to help the government distribute these drugs,"

    It is the bolded part that I apparently don't understand. How is this them helping the government distribute these drugs. To me this just seems like another attempt to further the Catholic church's ridiculously immoral and indefensible position on sensible birth control.

    Yes I am aware that birth control can frequently be obtained cheaply or even free (for instance from the often vilified Planned Parenthood), but the LSOP CLEARLY would rather that their employees DID NOT have access anywhere.
    HPL, I think it is referring to 3rd parties that they have to pay for. It CERTIANLY does not refer to ALL 3rd parties. Fact, the Government has been furnishing FREE contraception to all women BEFORE Obama's mother even reached puberty. All women above the age of puberty only had to go to the local health department. Under your interpretation, the Sisters would have filed suit many years ago. The liberal socialists, used the EXCUSE that all insurance policies should provide free contraceptives in order to make them more AVAILABLE, was just a lie. Even some on here spouted that silly propaganda.

    Take a look at those countries that have single employer healthcare and you will see that there is no medical charity in that country. One person here even questioned why the poor should be subject "to the whims and vagaries of charity" What those that say that healthcare is "a right", is that if EVERYONE CAN'T HAVE IT, THEN NO ONE CAN HAVE IT". Charity cannot be permitted in such a system.

  12. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post
    Next, Baptists will be telling their employees that they can't use their own money to pay for beer, tobacco, and loose women.
    Then there would be no need for any money!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •