Comments on: A Sex Ed 101 curriculum for conservatives http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: murphy831 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42182 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 07:16:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42182 >”But to require a private employer to act against their moral conscience and provide a benefit they otherwise would not include or support is UNCONSTITUTIONAL”<

No it isn’t. You have no understanding of the constitution and the first amendment. Your “morality or religious” beliefs don’t play into it at all. We don’t govern this country by bending to the individual morality of 300 million people. Obviously if we did, society couldn’t function. Everybody could claim a moral objection to anything they don’t like.

The First Amendment reads; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercize thereof”. And it seems that your objection to everything is based upon the second (Free Ex)clause. The problem with your argument is that the sentence “congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof” makes absolutely no sense. The “Thereof” refers back to the first clause to get its meaning. Therefore, logically and grammatically, whatever counts as religion for the purpose of free exercize, must also count as religion for the purpose of establishment. The establishment clause says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of “religion,” while the free exercise clause says that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise “thereof.” Again, logically, the word “thereof” must have the same content as the object to which it refers. Accordingly, what counts as “religion” for one clause must count as “religion” for the other.

Birth Control Pills are not a religion. But if you are going to use them for the purpose of free exercize, then you must logically use them for the purpose of establishment as well. The state, for example, abridges free exercise when it tells students they cannot pray during school, even if it allows them complete freedom to practice all other aspects of their faith. Similarly, the state cannot tell a church it must provide contraception coverage even if the church is otherwise left free to use its property as it wishes. The Obama Compromise deals with this. Private prayer and contraception are protected by the free exercise clause despite the fact that neither of these practices constitutes religions in and of themselves.

If prayer and contraception count as “religion” for the purposes of the free exercise clause, they must also count as “religion” for the purposes of the establishment clause. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a student she cannot pray, so too does it establish religion when it requires prayer to be said in the schools. Just as the state abridges religion when it tells a church it must provide contraception coverage, so too does it establish religion when it makes a law that would deny contraception coverage to people based on a religious exemption to those outside the realm of the church at public expense. The state does not cross the line to establishment only when it goes to the trouble and expense of setting up a state church; it crosses that line when it sets up any religious practice that constitutes “religion” for the purposes of free exercise. To the extent that Republicans want to read the “thereof” in the free exercise clause broadly, they must also accept a broad reading of “religion” in the establishment clause. That’s basic logic. Logic isn’t a Republican or Democrat thing. It has no bias to it. You can’t ignore this fact, without illustrating yourself as an irrational putz.

The Blunt Amendment is an absurd and totally transparent attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. It opens a loophole that you could drive a battleship through. It gives a religious or moral exemption to anything an employer may object to. If an employer decides that prayer cures all, then he could deny any kind of health care to his employees based on a religious or moral objection. It introduces government mandated discrimination based on religious or moral objections outside the title VII exemption of the Civil Rights Act for the church. If held as valid, then logically that same argument could be used for denying a veteran a job because the employer doesn’t believe in War, and it could also introduce discrimination based on a host of other moral or religious objections.

We cannot function with 300 million people making decisions over what laws they will follow based on moral or religious objections.

]]>
By: murphy831 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42181 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 06:50:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42181 >”Contraception is a discretionary expense of discretionary sexual activity – no sex, no contraception expense”<

I’m afraid that isn’t the “irrefutable truth”. It is not used simply for discretionary sex. Since their introduction in the 1950s, birth control pills have undergone many improvements and some changes. As a result, birth control pills are now prescribed for many other reasons. These include treatment of PMS and PMDD, regulation of periods (flow, duration and frequency) treatment of endometriosis and—the very latest—treatment of acne. In fact, in her testemony before members of congress, Ms Fluke described a friend who happened to be gay, and used the Pill to control her ovarian cancer. The Pill has multiple uses, so this statement: “So Rush Limbaugh was correct to say that Ms. Fluke wants taxpayers to pay for her sexual activity” is incorrect. His ignorance of the pill and how it’s used is astonishing. His suggestion that she uses the pill because of the amount of sex she is having is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the frequency of sexual activity. You don’t take a pill everytime you have sex.

Furthermore, Limbaugh fell over the cliff of anything resembling decency in using the power of his broadcast to attack a normal citizen who expressed her views before congress. He’s a common bully. A Thug.

The fact of the matter is that all students at Georgetown as well as other universities are required to obtain health insurence. Since Georgetown is a Catholic school, her coverage doesn’t provide for birth control. She and all others are forced to get it outside of the school. That means private insurence which as we all know is expensive. The Affordable Care Act helps people just like her afford the coverage that she needs.

Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population. I see no reason to deny that segment of our population healthcare that serves their biological needs,even though they don’t apply to me. If that’s the case, then why include maternity coverage? There are many things my tax dollars go toward that I may not agree with, so when you decide to reimburse me for my tax dollars that went to fighting a war in Iraq, then I’ll pick up the tab for you on birth control pills. Fair enough?

]]>
By: CedarCat http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42171 Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:20:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42171 Someone said there were FREE condoms? Where? They used to give them away at gay men’s bars, but I have not seen those in years. Now it’s free lube packets.

And I do think that Viagra and Cialis should not be covered and that vasectomies ought to also be either mandatory, or outlawed altogether.

The issue is control over one’s own body. Men already have control, women want theirs as well.

]]>
By: Nfojunky321 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42168 Sun, 11 Mar 2012 02:19:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42168 I can’t believe this made the Reuters feed.
EX-CELL-ENT!!!

]]>
By: tgs10 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42167 Sun, 11 Mar 2012 01:23:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42167 Oh GOD!!! What a beautiful article. I love you Amanda!

]]>
By: jerseyboy http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42159 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:41:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42159 I walk ten miles a week to improve my health and prolong my life. A new pair of walking shoes costs $130.00 (using Sandra Fluke’s math, this becomes $1,203.00, but for the sake of making a logical case to a liberal, which history has shown to be a fool’s errand, lets stick with the $130.00 figure.) A pair os shoes is good for about 300 miles, or about 30 weeks. This makes my annual cost for walking shoes $255.00, far more than the annual cost of contraception pills ($108.00 from Wal-Mart). I am on a fixed income, am a VietNam vet and I don’t have a job.

Where is the outrage over my situation? Where is Planned Ambulation? Where is Anita Dunn? Where is my call from President-in-Error Obama? This is obviously Gender Discrimination. Where are the Congressional hearings demanding to know why the insurance companies aren’t paying for my shoes? It is common knowledge that walking reduces health care costs; why isn’t Katherine Sebelius demanding that ObamaCare be immediately amended to pay for walking shoes? Where are my free shoes?

]]>
By: limapie http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42137 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:18:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42137 Does Obama REALLY care about his two girls?
The facts are out there and HE’S ignoring those
facts.

By Tim Drake on March 7, 2012

Reality:

—-Contraception and Abortion are not “Health care”—
Contraception is neither “health” nor “care.” It treats a woman’s natural, God-given fertility as a disease that needs to be controlled or stopped. For something to be healthy it shouldn’t lead to permanent damage or death. Yet, the introduction of contraceptive chemicals into the female body to prevent her natural fertility cycle is far from healthy. The birth control pill has contributed to blood clots, heart attacks, strokes,
and death in women. When the Pill was first being tested in Puerto Rico at least three women died during the clinical trials. The Pill (can) kill (those who take it, either directly or indirectly.)

Those who teach modern, scientific Natural Family Planning will also attest to the numerous couples whom they see who learn NFP after having been on the Pill. Talk to those couples and you will learn that use of the Pill, sometimes over decades, has permanently affected the ability of many couples to conceive. Use of oral contraceptives can render a couple infertile. In other cases, it can be months or years before normal fertility returns.

Radical feminists purport that contraception will increase women’s enjoyment of the marital act because they will be free to have intercourse without fear of pregnancy.
In reality, the Pill decreases women’s libido and desire
for intimacy.

Another potential danger for women… studies have demonstrated a possible link between hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer.

When contraceptives are used to avoid pregnancy, and one results, many then turn to contraceptive’s evil twin of abortion.
One of the ways in which many oral contraceptives work
is to prevent the implantation of a human embryo, hence
inducing abortion. To furthermore understand the description of abortion as contraceptive’s evil twin, consider the statistics.

A 2011 Guttmacher Institute fact sheet states that nearly half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended.
Four in 10 of all pregnancies end in abortion; and 54% of women who have had abortions had been using contraception at the time they became pregnant.

Killing a pre-born child is hardly a “healthy” outcome for the child or the mother.

—-Public Funding of Contraception and Abortion are Not Necessary—
We have also been sold the lie that public funding of contraception and abortion are absolutely necessary, and that those of us who are opposed to their use have an obligation to pay for them.

In the current debate over contraceptive coverage, we’re being told that every insurance plan must provide coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing medications, and that all employers must provide insurance coverage to make these available, as if contraception and abortion haven’t been freely available for the past 40 years.

Planned Parenthood already offers free and low-cost contraceptives on a sliding-fee scale. Contraception and abortion are readily available. While we’ve been told that there are medical conditions where oral contraceptives are necessary, that’s not the case.
Bio-identical hormones outside of contraception are available, without harming women or their fertility. It’s hard to imagine any condition where the death of a child is the “treatment.”

]]>
By: RynoM http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42113 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 04:03:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42113 I keep seeing the oft repeated misunderstanding (or outright lie) that somehow the taxpayers fund people’s health insurance benefits. Including birth control,, a pharmaceutical commodity. Our health insurance premiums fund those benefits. Only people who buy health insurance get the benefits. Got it? It appears that endlessly repeating this fact is necessary when it should not be. But as long as the lie is repeated….

I wonder, if providing birth control is somehow paying people to have sex, what is providing ED drugs? If people on Blue Cross have babies, am I paying them to reproduce? If someone on Blue Cross is taking blood pressure medicine, am I paying them to make bad dietary and lifestyle choices.

It would be far more productive if we discussed issues rather than conflating them with other issues, or distorted them beyond recognition.

]]>
By: momofthree http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42111 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:00:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42111 jjc9999- I cannot stand Rush or his rantings, but the likes of Ms. Marcotte are using his ridiculousness to gather favor for the HHS mandate. Faithful, reasonable people oppose it.

Do you think it is OK to post misleading facts to support your point? I have watched her writing for a while. She is a fox, and deeply hateful of anything religious.

]]>
By: Yowser http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/03/02/a-sex-ed-101-curriculum-for-conservatives/#comment-42104 Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:34:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=12007#comment-42104 I’ve lived long enough to know that periodically our country adds a new freedom to our wonderful list of freedoms begun on July 4, 1776. For example, back on that date, freedom from slavery had yet to be included on that list. I had thought that women’s right to freedom from unwanted pregnancies while simultaneously enjoying happy sex lives was well established. Was I wrong? I can’t find it in me to pity the wealthy insurance companies, the employing corporations or the religious zealots who would deny women this coverage, especially since it appears to be cost-effective in terms of women’s overall health care expenses. As to the moral issues of contraception itself, do people not understand that no one will force the covered employee to take birth control measures if she herself does not wish to? Women deserve the same emancipation from unwanted pregnancies that men automatically enjoy. It’s time to give this preposterous subject a well-deserved rest.

]]>