War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

They can pay for their own items. And yes the payer holds all the cards as long as there are enough people willing to work. That is the way the world works

Would you say that this is a good way for the "world to work"? Or would you prefer it to work better in this instance?

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Would you say that this is a good way for the "world to work"? Or would you prefer it to work better in this instance?

I would prefer that all people accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and that we all live as the early Christians in Jerusalem where all wealth is joyously shared among all. I prefer all people to be treated as I would like to be treated and I try (although I fail every day) to follow that.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Its impossible for every thing to be 100% fair but that is the ideal which we should strive for correct? This does not seem to be a situation where it'd be all that hard to get much closer to that ideal 100% either.

As a personal matter, I agree.

However, as a society and as a government, this is not the situation Americans live in (nor anywhere else in the world).

Its hypocritical because it supports one groups beliefs (employers) over an others (employees). Also you have to consider that healthcare is a form of compensation.

Given that there are 2 inimicable points of view:

a) that Catholicism believes all contraception is immoral

b) that contraception is a fundamental right which employers must pay for

the fact that you keep calling this discrimination against the employees as opposed to discrimination against the employer's religious beliefs underscores your inherent bias in the matter.

I would also note that a) is protected by law, but b) is not.

Roe vs. Wade was not about a fundamental right get have abortion be paid for by employers, it was that a women had the right to abortion.

And before you start saying that non-payment is abrogation of rights, don't bother. Non-payment exists for all sorts of 'rights' and is thoroughly tested as not being a criteria for discrimination.

The employer could simply say, "Can't be discrimination if it goes against my beliefs, I dock the pay of any worker who gives money to their church accordingly. Deal with it.". They could still certainly be sued, but you can sue anyone for most anything, that doesn't mean you'll win.

You can keep trying to create bogus situations all you want.

Catholicism is a long standing religion accepted all over the world, whereas your hypothetical other religion would have to pass all sorts of tests first.

Yes that is called a chilling effect. By not allowing their health plans to pay for contraceptives they're discouraging its use.

You still don't seem to get it. Catholics are by their own religion and morals required to discourage contraception.

By your interpretation of chilling effects, anything which 'discourages' something you disagree with is therefore prohibited.

I could as easily say that forcing a Catholic institution to support contraception is a 'chilling effect' on the morality of Catholicism and is thus an attack on Catholicism.

This is much more explicitly against US law.

Nope, other way around. I didn't say you said that, I used "you can say" and not "you do say" to preface that statement for a reason. Note: that same exact statement has been used to justify the Church's stance on this issue several times in this very thread. Several politicians have also used it as well, its the most common meme used to support the Church's position. I was trying to anticipate what you might say next. If you don't support that meme for the reason I mentioned then kudos to you.

You can say vs. you do say is ridiculous lawyering. Your intent was to put words in my mouth.

What others have done, that is their responsibility just as what you've done in this case is yours.

And what you've done is a personal attack (via misrepresentation) and nothing to do with fact.

How can you say that societal norms don't matter and that this is an individual issue but then invoke the beliefs of millions of Catholics to support an argument? If this is an individual basis issue only then who cares what millions of Catholics believe? Food for thought though: this is a study done from 2006-2008. It found that not only did 99% of women use contraceptives 98% of Catholic women use them too.

You're still not reading what is written. What I said, to repeat, is that your argument that Catholic institutions should support contraception via health insurance coverage is because society considers contraception a norm.

However, since there are some 77 million Catholics in the US, at least 25% of the US population therefore does not support contraception. It cannot be said then that support for contraception is a norm in US society.

The study you quote has been thoroughly debunked as wrong.

Even were it correct, which it manifestly is not, the practices by which one or many Catholics fail to practice their faith does not dictate what a faithful Catholic practices.

So polls don't matter to you and reality is an accurate reflection of US society? Just exactly what color is the sky of the world you live on? Mine is blue FWIW.

I recognize that polls are easily manipulated, which you do not.

Your blue sky is a painted ceiling.

Given the polls on the subject plus the vast voter dissatisfaction with congress and the president I would say there is strong evidence to the contrary. But then you don't accept polls as evidence, so bravo I guess on laying a ground work to reject information that doesn't support your position.

All you have to do to convince me is to show that anything has actually changed.

Does the United States have national or socialized health care? No

Does the United States government actually offer health care services to anyone who is not a former member of the military or government? No

Does the United States prioritize the health care of its citizens as a public good? No

The answer to all of the above for every single other 1st and most 2nd world nation is: Yes

It should be noted that Obama won his election in 2008 on the premise that he would bring large and sweeping change for the better on many subjects, including healthcare. That he turned around and screwed over the voters the instant he got office shouldn't have been too big a surprise for anyone paying attention at the time but you can't seriously argue that what we got out of the deal (ie. Obamacare) was genuinely what the people wanted. Unless of course you're going to next argue that people really want is to be screwed over and lied to by their government...

If a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress is unable to execute on any of the above, with 3rd parties non existent, and with the presumption that the Republican party would never condone "Socialism", I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to say that "it ain't gonna happen anytime soon".

As for Obama, if indeed "the people" were as adamant as you say, I very much doubt that Obama would have pushed through what he did.

I saw no demonstrations over "no single payer".

There was no "Occupy Hospitals" or "Occupy ER" movement.

I did see the odd Tea Party demonstration against socialism.

It would be more accurate to say that most people would love nationalized or socialized health care if they don't have to pay more, which is an entirely different proposition.

Healthcare is one of those issues where I don't like to see anyone doing anything to screw over anyone else anywhere. So you might be right that this is a poor way to express my opinions to say the least, but this --literally-- is people's health and lives we're talking about. Usually when that is said its used in a hyperbolic fashion, there is no exaggeration here at all. Especially in the case of contraceptives; being able to control when and with who you decide to have a child isn't a minor issue.

The problem with your attack on Catholic institutions expression of morality is that from the Catholic's view, they are saving lives as well. And more importantly, saving souls.

To be clear: I am not Catholic nor do I believe that contraception is a sin.

However, one basic principle upon which the United States is founded is freedom of religion.

While many of our other basic principles are slowly being ground away - due process in particular - I am adamantly against the erosion of yet another via the hammer of political correctness.

[cjppjc]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I would like to be treated and I try (although I fail every day) to follow that.

+1

I need a way to remember what I wish.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

the fact that you keep calling this discrimination against the employees as opposed to discrimination against the employer's religious beliefs underscores your inherent bias in the matter

Come on now, everyone has bias. What I keep trying to point out is that the law is inconsistent here to say the least to support only the employer's beliefs. Laws can be changed and have been before plenty of times in the past, they are not set in stone.

And before you start saying that non-payment is abrogation of rights, don't bother.

I haven't even tried to argue this at all. What I've said is that the decision to uphold the employer's beliefs over the employee's projects the employer's beliefs on to others and that denying contraceptives is inherently discriminatory towards women.

Catholicism is a long standing religion accepted all over the world, whereas your hypothetical other religion would have to pass all sorts of tests first.

AFAIK according to the law it just has to be recognized as a religion in the US, the size of the religion or length of existence doesn't matter at all. At least a few countries don't recognize Scientology as a religion but here in the US they are legally considered such for instance.

You still don't seem to get it. Catholics are by their own religion and morals required to discourage contraception.

Sure I get it, what I don't understand is why this is legally and/or morally acceptable, especially if you consider free speech and freedom of religion to be near sacrosanct. Those freedoms are supposed to extend to employees too. Yes I know they're getting paid by the Catholics but so what? Why should that be an exception to the rule?

By your interpretation of chilling effects, anything which 'discourages' something you disagree with is therefore prohibited.

Nope. Anything that is used to discourage another person's freedoms or livelihood would be more accurate. I have no problem with Catholics not using contraception for themselves due to religious reasons, its when they use their religion as an excuse to deny others contraceptives, that I have an issue with.

I could as easily say that forcing a Catholic institution to support contraception is a 'chilling effect' on the morality of Catholicism and is thus an attack on Catholicism.

Their religion or beliefs don't have to change though so they wouldn't be supporting it if the mandate is up held, they'd just be complying with the law. You can indeed comply with the law but disagree with it strongly, this is hardly contorted logic here.

You can say vs. you do say is ridiculous lawyering. Your intent was to put words in my mouth.

No it wasn't and I already explained why, if you want to read intent into my posts then fine go ahead, but I'd point out that isn't a very good way to go about convincing someone of anything.

The study you quote has been thoroughly debunked as wrong.

Nope. Some have argued that the age group it sampled (15-44 IIRC) is too narrow and used some odd criteria, but the actual data itself is widely seen as sound and as near as I can tell is one of the better studies on the subject available.

However, since there are some 77 million Catholics in the US, at least 25% of the US population therefore does not support contraception. It cannot be said then that support for contraception is a norm in US society.

Just because they're Catholics doesn't mean they support everything the church says. Given polls on the matter, which you probably won't accept so I won't bother posting them but they're easy to find on google, there is reason to believe most Catholics don't agree with the church on this matter. Hell technically I'm a Catholic (wasn't baptized IIRC) and I give no fucks what the church says I should or shouldn't do.

I recognize that polls are easily manipulated, which you do not.

I already mentioned earlier in the thread something a long this line and even posted the link to a good article on push polls. I also however pointed out that when you see the same results in the polls over time to a given set of similar questions, from different people, that it is very unlikely you've got a manipulated result. Polls aren't perfect but they're aren't trash data either.

Your blue sky is a painted ceiling.

Maybe but I make sure to double check out the window from time to time too.

All you have to do to convince me is to show that anything has actually changed.

A very vague knowledge of history is all it takes to invalidate this theory of yours. After all Civil Rights and Women's Sufferage had popular support for years before laws were wrote to reflect that change in society. The laws do not always and instantly reflect a society's change in views since the law is most always slower to change than society, particularly in the US.

If a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress is unable to execute on any of the above, with 3rd parties non existent, and with the presumption that the Republican party would never condone "Socialism", I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to say that "it ain't gonna happen anytime soon".

What makes you think the Democrats or Obama honestly wanted to pass a UHS bill or even Medicare for All? He threw that option away as soon as he became president, he didn't even try to use it as a bargaining point. Even idiots know that when bargaining you start off with a high bid and the other guy will go with a low bid. Obama is no idiot though.

I saw no demonstrations over "no single payer". There was no "Occupy Hospitals" or "Occupy ER" movement.

There were protests.

For whatever reason stuff like this didn't make the news but it did happen.

The problem with your attack on Catholic institutions expression of morality is that from the Catholic's view, they are saving lives as well. And more importantly, saving souls.

I know that, other people have different moral and religious views though too. They should get respected too.

I am adamantly against the erosion of yet another via the hammer of political correctness.

I don't see this as an issue of political correctness, if that was all that this was about I wouldn't care for it either.

[lektrode]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I don't understand, the article already mentioned that according to the study it was $30.4 billion in 2007. That number includes "defensive medicine" (CYA costs) costs too. If you want more recent numbers than that I'm not aware of any, but note that the person answering the questions mentions that malpractice cases have essentially remained steady since the 80's while the healthcare industry has grown considerably.

Now you've already refused to consider the CBO study as valid for what I guess could be called personal reasons, are you also refusing to consider a 2nd study done by a non-government private actuarial organization done 7 years later? Which apparently has arrived at pretty much the same conclusions as the first study?

since i'm not looking for an argument, only asking questions...
i guess i'll have to accept that, not that i believe it to be true (seeing as most stats can be read to support both ends of an argument), but until someone else offers some opposing evidence, i guess thats all we've got

but 30billion / 300million = 100bux per capita for annual litigation/CYA practices?
that just seems a bit understated, dont you think?

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Come on now, everyone has bias. What I keep trying to point out is that the law is inconsistent here to say the least to support only the employer's beliefs. Laws can be changed and have been before plenty of times in the past, they are not set in stone.

I don't agree with your view.

I would further point out that if you in fact want to change this law - it would be far more productive instead to change American health care policy.

Specifically: make public health a public good as opposed to a for profit industry - which is what it is today.

As it is what you seem to be advocating is to force employers not only to take on more cost, but to abrogate their morality as well. There are certainly instances where this in necessary, but I do not feel contraception and Catholic companies is one of them.

I haven't even tried to argue this at all. What I've said is that the decision to uphold the employer's beliefs over the employee's projects the employer's beliefs on to others and that denying contraceptives is inherently discriminatory towards women.

Actually, you are making several assumptions here:

1) That employers must legally adhere to all of their employees' beliefs. This is actually inherently impossible in many cases, and is unenforceable at best.

2) That all women agree with you that contraception paid for by employers is a right. You are making the assumption that all 'right thinking' women share your view, which I do not believe is the case.

3) That not paying for something is denial of rights. I'm sorry, but as I noted before there are plenty of companies that don't provide health insurance at all to their employees. The only successful cases I've seen where lack of a benefit was deemed discrimination was when a company failed to adhere to specific laws concerning equal access to handicapped individuals.

There is no law anywhere saying employees must have contraception paid for by the employer.

AFAIK according to the law it just has to be recognized as a religion in the US, the size of the religion or length of existence doesn't matter at all. At least a few countries don't recognize Scientology as a religion but here in the US they are legally considered such for instance.

I suggest you look up the IRS rules concerning exemptions related to religion. There very much are requirements.

Sure I get it, what I don't understand is why this is legally and/or morally acceptable, especially if you consider free speech and freedom of religion to be near sacrosanct. Those freedoms are supposed to extend to employees too. Yes I know they're getting paid by the Catholics but so what? Why should that be an exception to the rule?

I have no idea why you think getting contraception paid for by your employer is either a religious issue or freedom of speech.

I repeat: the women in question are perfectly entitled to obtain and use contraception. They simply don't have it paid for by their employer, much as they might not get dental coverage, eyeglasses, life insurance, or whatever.

I don't see why contraceptive coverage is any more or less a health issue as oral health, the ability to see clearly and diagnose/treat eye issues, the ability to have your family be compensated should you unexpectedly die, etc etc.

Nope. Anything that is used to discourage another person's freedoms or livelihood would be more accurate. I have no problem with Catholics not using contraception for themselves due to religious reasons, its when they use their religion as an excuse to deny others contraceptives, that I have an issue with.

You're still conflating lack of insurance coverage for contraception with denial of contraception. This simply is not true.

If the employers forced their employees not to use contraception, that would be one thing. Payment of benefits is not a right.

Their religion or beliefs don't have to change though so they wouldn't be supporting it if the mandate is up held, they'd just be complying with the law. You can indeed comply with the law but disagree with it strongly, this is hardly contorted logic here.

You are again belittling the Catholic faith.

You are trying to say here that so long as Catholics believe, that any action they undertake even if 100% unacceptable under the Catholic moral code is fine.

I'm sorry, but you are transparently dismissive of something you don't agree with. It is exactly this type of attitude which is why freedom of religion is enshrined in law.

No it wasn't and I already explained why, if you want to read intent into my posts then fine go ahead, but I'd point out that isn't a very good way to go about convincing someone of anything.

If you refuse to admit your tactic, that's your problem.

I could as easily say that you act like an atheistic supporter of communism because you seek to force companies to socialize baby murder.

I can then lawyer up and say that I wasn't calling you this, but the fact is that you would consider this an attack and rightfully so.

Nope. Some have argued that the age group it sampled (15-44 IIRC) is too narrow and used some odd criteria, but the actual data itself is widely seen as sound and as near as I can tell is one of the better studies on the subject available.

You can believe what you want, but sheer logic dictates that the numbers noted in that study are improbable.

A more factual set of debunking information:

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.ne...ics_exa_1.html

More strikingly, as Neil pointed out to me after looking up the study, it excluded any women who were a) not sexually active, where that is defined as having had sexual intercourse in the past three months (there go all the nuns), b) postpartum, c) pregnant, or d) trying to get pregnant! In other words, the study was specifically designed (as the prose discussion on p. 8 makes explicit, in bold print) to include only women for whom a pregnancy would be unintended and who are "at risk" of becoming pregnant. Whether or not it included women who considered themselves neither trying nor not trying to get pregnant (there are some such women in the world) is unclear. It's also unclear whether it included women who have had their reproductive organs removed because of some medical problem. Presumably the study was intended to exclude women in both of these categories, as neither would count as a woman "at risk of an unintended pregnancy."

The study thus clearly focuses on a specific sub-segment of Catholic women and any conclusions from it as to the behavior of all Catholic women is highly suspect.

For that matter, Catholics are not supposed to have sex before marriage. To do so means they are not devout at least in this respect - and if so why not "not be" devout in another? At least some of the women in the study are not married, just as certainly some are.

I have no doubt that at least some Catholics do employ contraception, but to say that 98% of them, female or otherwise, do is transparently a falsehood.

Just because they're Catholics doesn't mean they support everything the church says. Given polls on the matter, which you probably won't accept so I won't bother posting them but they're easy to find on google, there is reason to believe most Catholics don't agree with the church on this matter. Hell technically I'm a Catholic (wasn't baptized IIRC) and I give no fucks what the church says I should or shouldn't do.

Just because some Catholics lapse doesn't mean that you can force all of them to.

Just because you are a lapsed Catholic does not give you the right to force your practices (or lack thereof) on anyone else.

I already mentioned earlier in the thread something a long this line and even posted the link to a good article on push polls. I also however pointed out that when you see the same results in the polls over time to a given set of similar questions, from different people, that it is very unlikely you've got a manipulated result. Polls aren't perfect but they're aren't trash data either.

Certainly some polls theoretically should have some value. The problem is that polls are used for political purposes. The science of manipulating poll results is highly advanced, thus at this point I do not believe anything any poll says anywhere because I know full well that the poll creator had a specific objective in mind, even if subconscious.

If there was some totally apolitical, amoral, dispassionate and non agenda driven independent organization which conducted polls, then possibly I would be more accepting.

A very vague knowledge of history is all it takes to invalidate this theory of yours. After all Civil Rights and Women's Sufferage had popular support for years before laws were wrote to reflect that change in society. The laws do not always and instantly reflect a society's change in views since the law is most always slower to change than society, particularly in the US.

Your vague knowledge of history doesn't seem to include that the United States is a heavily religious nation.

Neither Civil Rights nor Women's Suffrage conflicts with this.

And unlike slavery and the right to vote for women (and ex-slaves), religion is explicitly protected in the Constitution.

What makes you think the Democrats or Obama honestly wanted to pass a UHS bill or even Medicare for All? He threw that option away as soon as he became president, he didn't even try to use it as a bargaining point. Even idiots know that when bargaining you start off with a high bid and the other guy will go with a low bid. Obama is no idiot though.

So once again, exactly how will things change?

There were protests.

For whatever reason stuff like this didn't make the news but it did happen.

So people marched. I think that's good, but still a far cry from what the Occupy people are doing.

I know that, other people have different moral and religious views though too. They should get respected too.

The right to get something paid for has nothing to do with morality or religion.

[Kadriana]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

2) That all women agree with you that contraception paid for by employers is a right. You are making the assumption that all 'right thinking' women share your view, which I do not believe is the case.

A lot of my female friends and I have been talking about this topic. The hard part is birth control pills are used to treat so many conditions and not just for preventing pregnancy. There really aren't a lot of alternatives to treat many conditions women suffer from. I mentioned earlier that if you have an issue with your overies or your uterus, you're usually prescribed bc pills. I don't really support forcing an institution to prescribe something but as a woman, it's hard not to take to feel like you're unworthy of treatment. A lot of women have to try multiple medications before they find one that works with their system and it's not as simple as going to Wal-mart for the $9.99 pill that many seem to believe.

So a lot of women I know, across the political sprectrum, are starting to feel a bit like there is a war on women. There is fear that this won't stop with the Catholic Church and wonder if this will affect other forms of hormonal treatment. Imagine being a female who has been bleeding for 3 months straight and being told that your insurance company won't pay for your medication because it's morally wrong.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

... Imagine being a female who has been bleeding for 3 months straight and being told that your insurance company won't pay for your medication because it's morally wrong.

Imagine being told that you must pay for the commission of a mortal sin when you firmly believe that you will lose your soul should you do so.

And besides, if you work for any institution that is owned or operated by the Roman Catholic church it will be no surprise hitting you "out of the blue" to find that your health insurance will not pay for contraceptives. You will know that before you even accept such employment.

I'm growing weary of hearing the crapola about a "war on women" and a "war on blacks" and a "war on gays" and a "war on undocumented immigrants" and on and on and on and on and on and ....

[Kadriana]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Imagine being told that you must pay for the commission of a mortal sin when you firmly believe that you will lose your soul should you do so.

And besides, if you work for any institution that is owned or operated by the Roman Catholic church it will be no surprise hitting you "out of the blue" to find that your health insurance will not pay for contraceptives. You will know that before you even accept such employment.

I'm growing weary of hearing the crapola about a "war on women" and a "war on blacks" and a "war on gays" and a "war on undocumented immigrants" and on and on and on and on and on and ....

Again, the Catholic church in the past has been fine with you using birth control pills for medical reasons. It is not considered a mortal sin since you are not taking it in order to prevent pregnancy.

Also, I never said the Catholic Church should be forced to pay for contraceptives. I just said I didn't think it would stop with the Catholic Church. I also have concerns that other hormone medication might get thrown in.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

A lot of my female friends and I have been talking about this topic. The hard part is birth control pills are used to treat so many conditions and not just for preventing pregnancy. There really aren't a lot of alternatives to treat many conditions women suffer from. I mentioned earlier that if you have an issue with your overies or your uterus, you're usually prescribed bc pills. I don't really support forcing an institution to prescribe something but as a woman, it's hard not to take to feel like you're unworthy of treatment. A lot of women have to try multiple medications before they find one that works with their system and it's not as simple as going to Wal-mart for the $9.99 pill that many seem to believe.

Thank you for the perspective.

A far more constructive mode of engagement would be to find a common ground such that the Catholic institutions can in good conscience both meet Catholic morality and provide employees this benefit if indeed necessary for health reasons.

One way might be a rider which adds contraceptive support to the existing insurance plan. This rider could be paid for by the employer for individuals if the appropriate dispensation is given.

I am less clear on whether the Catholic faith would find it acceptable to offer this option to be paid for by individuals who do not have dispensation. While the employer could not be said to be colluding with a sin here, on the other hand the existence of the rider might still qualify. Perhaps the Catholics can comment.

Unfortunately I doubt that insurance companies are so accommodating.

[vinoveri]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Again, the Catholic church in the past has been fine with you using birth control pills for medical reasons. It is not considered a mortal sin since you are not taking it in order to prevent pregnancy.

Also, I never said the Catholic Church should be forced to pay for contraceptives. I just said I didn't think it would stop with the Catholic Church. I also have concerns that other hormone medication might get thrown in.

I'm not a canon lawyer or Catholic theologian, however I would like to offer a couple of observations I believe accurate and consistent with catholic teaching:

The Catholic church has no objections to hormonal therapies directed to the health care of women (and men) - the problem arise when those "pills" are used for the purposes of contraception and/or may or do cause or risk causing abortion (e.g., by preventing implantation). So we need to distinguish from "a particular medication" and the "use of that medication for a prescribed purpose".


The Catholic Church is the repository of Truth including moral Truth (how to live and what one ought and ought not do), but it is the responsibility of the individual to form their conscience well in light of church teaching and live their lives accordingly (i.e., according to their well-informed conscience).


So a women who needs hormones for a health issue as you describe may certainly lawfully receive them and use them under church law for that specific health issue, but may not use them contraceptively or when they may promote an abortion. Personal conscience is paramount in this situation, because contraception or abortion b/c of the hormones cannot occur without sexual activity. Thus is is up to the woman to abstain from sex under these conditions (i.e. during fertility).

The Church will never sanction contraception by artificial means (if it did it would lose right to claim to be the repository of Truth and the Faith). Contraception necessarily involves the conjugal union of man and women otherwise their is nothing to contraceive. The Church promotes the health of all and would sanction the use of hormone therapy to treat a disease or other ailment resulting in improved health of the individual.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

but 30billion / 300million = 100bux per capita for annual litigation/CYA practices?
that just seems a bit understated, dont you think?

If the amount of litigation and other legal issues truly haven't grown since the 80's, then it'd make sense for it not to. Outside of legal expenses what do you believe is driving healthcare costs?

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I don't agree with your view.

Yea and I don't think you ever will either. Either I'm not explaining things properly or we've got a fundamental disagreement about what free speech and such are supposed to be, or a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

I'd say its likely the latter, but them I'm biased.

I will say its a damn shame that while we agree on other issues we can't agree on this and that you think I've been arguing dishonestly to some extent here too.

A few quibbles though:

I suggest you look up the IRS rules concerning exemptions related to religion. There very much are requirements.

There are but size and duration of existence aren't one of them. There are, believe it or not Atheist Churches which have apparently attained 501c3 status, so they're recognized legally as a religion and not taxed either.

I could as easily say that you act like an atheistic supporter of communism because you seek to force companies to socialize baby murder.

I can then lawyer up and say that I wasn't calling you this, but the fact is that you would consider this an attack and rightfully so.

This actually isn't ridiculous at all to me and I wouldn't consider it a character attack per se. I would say its a gross misrepresentation of myself but many people have very strong beliefs about these issues so if you contradict those beliefs you come across as a communist baby killer to them. You can't discuss any thing with someone who hold their beliefs so high as that, so I just shrug and move on. Well, most of the time anyways.

You can believe what you want, but sheer logic dictates that the numbers noted in that study are improbable.

Your "debunking" is pretty much what I already said. If you think that debunks it then really isn't anything to talk about there. Though I'd note other studies done earlier had found the number to be closer to 80-70% depending on the study you looked at. To say contraceptive usage isn't ubiquitous is just silly with numbers like that.

Just because some Catholics lapse doesn't mean that you can force all of them to.

Just because you are a lapsed Catholic does not give you the right to force your practices (or lack thereof) on anyone else.

Its not about forcing Catholics to do anything per se, its about making sure everyone's rights and beliefs are respected and that everyone gets adequate healthcare.

that the United States is a heavily religious nation. Neither Civil Rights nor Women's Suffrage conflicts with this.

When the religion seeks to restrict or deny them important healthcare or control over their own bodies it sure does.

So once again, exactly how will things change?

I doubt they will, IMO we're probably screwed. The electoral system is essentially broken at this point, the only people who manage to become candidates for president are shit lords like Bush or Obama or Clinton or Romney. Simultaneously the political debate in the country has been very thoroughly poisoned by the very media that is supposed to be informing people. And lastly people in general have a "politics as sports" approach to voting and personal debate, they will always vote D or R to keep the "other guy out of office" when they should be voting on policy matters instead. Rational voters, even those who seriously try at least to be rational, basically don't exist.

So people marched. I think that's good, but still a far cry from what the Occupy people are doing.

The stuff the OWS guys are protesting will naturally attract more people since those issues are more clear cut at the moment.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I'm growing weary of hearing the crapola about a "war on women"

There has been some genuinely crappy laws that have been attempted to be passed by politicians of late, as long as that remains true you're going to continue hearing about it.

For instance:
Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception For Non-Medical Reasons

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions.
,,,,,,,,,,
Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

They want to require a woman to submit her health records to her boss if she wants to have her employer pay for contraceptives. So much for privacy right?

Texas has pretty much shit canned their entire woman's health program too over the issue.

The federal government pays for nearly 90 percent of Texas' $40 billion Women's Health Program, and nearly half of the program's providers in Texas are Planned Parenthood clinics. But the new law that went into effect earlier this month disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the program because some of its clinics provide abortions, even though no state or federal money can be used to pay for those abortions.

According to Medicaid law, Mann said, a state cannot restrict women's ability to choose a provider simply because that provider offers separate services -- in this case, abortion -- that aren’t even paid for by the Medicaid program.

Perry wrote a letter to President Obama earlier this month accusing his administration of "mandating which health providers the state of Texas must use" in order to "continue to support abortion providers like Planned Parenthood." He vowed to continue the Women's Health Program in Texas without Planned Parenthood and without federal money, although he has yet to outline how his state will come up with money.

Apparently women are to be blamed for accidentally being single parents as well. Oh, and by being single parents they're inherently abusing their children too on purpose, because they're evil or something I guess.

Senator Grothman claims there's an epidemic of single parenthood, and he's pointing a finger at women for it.

"There's been a huge change over the last 30 years, and a lot of that change has been the choice of women," said Senator Grothman.

The backlash has put his bill under a microscope. Specifically, it cites non-marital parenthood as a contributing factor in child abuse. The bill's co-sponsor, Representative Don Pridemore, told TODAY'S TMJ4 he thinks even in abusive relationships, there are other options than divorce.

"If they can refind those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help," said Representative Don Pridemore.

Health officials are firing back, saying while two parents might be ideal, it's not always a healthy reality.

Dr. Geoffrey Swain of the Milwaukee Health Department is also a professor at the UW-Madison. He says surrounding a child with an unhealthy marriage can lead to not only abuse, but depression and anxiety.

"To the contrary one of the risk factors for child abuse and neglect is poor quality of marriage," said Dr. Geoffrey Swain. "Marriage actually has nothing to do with it, it's the quality of the relationship that matters in terms of the child's health."

Note the part in bold ladies. The good senator firmly believes that even if he beats you should still stick with the marriage, just because he used to love you at some point in the past. How is that for some misogyny?