Not necessarily. I think the proper response would be "who cares?" Kind of like how marriage is prostitution, but really, who cares?

Kemp,

I posted it because it was argued that the "separation of church and state" is not explicitly or implicitly stated in the constitution. Of course, Avang's argument was irrelevant for abortion, but it's very relevant for other related questions such as:
1. Whether an exemption to a government mandate can be granted on the grounds of an employer's conscientious objection (this does not mean the contraceptive mandate is not stupid).
2. Whether a religiously-affiliated organization has the same rights as a religious organization. Personally, I can accept that they do, but only if they forfeit the right to receive government funding (such as faith-based initiatives).

Yell,

Back then, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.

Zarf/Kemp,

Well, I think it's clear and obvious. But if you are skeptical, consider the comments of Thomas Jefferson. He commented that the establishment clause was a "wall of separation between church and state." Given that Jefferson was the principal author of the constitution, there is no better authority or test to resolve a dispute over what the establishment clause means.

Edit: For those who respectfully insist that James Madison was the principal author of the constitution, my point still stands. Madison's writings say the same thing about the establishment clause.

I recall Obama telling Israel to restrain itself until after the elections, back in February at some time. Now Israel is releasing its fireworks.

Personally, I have no sympathy for those who fail to understand that the nuclear balance of power must be maintained, no matter the cost. Iran can not have nuclear weapons, even if heavy civilian casualties must result. And it's pretty stupid to think that diplomacy will convince Iran to stop its nuclear project.

Now is the time for all Western nations to unify under one banner, and burn Tehran to the ground as they did to Persepolis under Alexander.

Yell,

At this rate, I doubt it. But maybe.

Kemp,

It's funny from an apathetic perspective that sees partisan politics for what it is.

^ Well that's why U.S. politics sucks. The alternative was overturning Roe v Wade. At least we'll all be having sex during the Great Recession.

It's a terrible idea. Now they want to add more "equal pay for equal work" laws, and then my guess is they want to raise the minimum wage.

Yell,

Ever read St. Augustine? If you do, you will realize he implies an important point about politics. The basis of the state is not religion, or democracy as it is today. It is iron and blood. Religion and democracy merely obscure that fact.

WA is awesome.

When I lived there, the police generally ignored pot smokers anyway. In fact, there was an annual event hosted by a rich dude where pot smokers openly congregated and smoked pot, and the police knew about it and didn't care.

> Mister Spock wrote:

> I didn't take you out of context, Justinian I. You're arguing that a woman's birth control, which can cost as little as $9/month, is owed to her by her fellow countrymen, even if they object to killing human life any time after conception. You're arguing that the $9-$50 monthly burden is too much for invalids, so their countrymen owe it to them, regardless of whether or not they object to it morally.>

Blah blah blah blah. Keep putting words in my mouth. I do not care about the moral conscience of the an employer when the woman needs it for reasons other than contraception and can not otherwise afford it. I don't care about how affordable $50.00 a month is for you. You aren't living pay check to pay check.

<Anyone with a job can handle a $9-$50 monthly cost. If "other medicines" are so costly, they're the problem. Not the cheap birth control available in this country. And, again, anyone without a job is already on welfare and the state is handling their medical bills with money from people who object to killing human life after conception. The state already does violate their first amendment right in providing contraception: They're not given a tax deduction so that they do not contribute to that end. The state already does what you're demanding.>

Then its not an issue.

<I'm pretty sure you did. You're arguing that the government is right to require people, even against their will, to provide contraception for women. You're making no argument about women purchasing it themselves. You're very clearly claiming that someone else should pay for it. Now you're playing rhetorical games, as if "free" and "someone else has to provide it for them" aren't the same thing.>

You don't agree with the principle that those who can not afford life-saving medicine and can't afford it should not have their medicine subsidized by the state? So let them die?

<How? Please explain this accusation. I provide my own condoms. If I was pretending I could't, I wouldn't demand anybody buy them for me. I would, effectively "just shut my legs" (and my mouth). And I'd be mocked by everyone, including you, if I seriously demanded free condoms. Your attitude is sexist, because you're treating women as if they're inherently inept.>

Then congrats on being a gentleman.

Poor women are ignorant because of government abstinence only education /= women are inherently inept.

Birth control pills for medical reasons other than contraception /= paying for condoms.

<Yes, birth control can be used for other purposes than contraception. But it's dirt cheap. Your argument that it's dirt cheap price is SO onerous that the first amendment should be infringed upon is ridiculous. While you agree that the healthcare/insurance industry is messed up by government and it shouldn't be an issue, that's not what you're arguing here. You're arguing that the first amendment isn't worth $9-$50 bucks a month. That's pretty cheap.>

What's cheap is saying that a grown woman's life isn't worth $50.00 a month because she can't afford it.

Kemp,

I think you're confused by having taken my statements out of context.

Of course there are state interests in squashing rights and getting more involved
in people's lives. That's why we have those rights and why defending them is paramount
to freedom.

You miss the point. Sometimes the state has a compelling interest, which is to say that it is reasonable to concede certain freedoms in order for the state to perform its essential functions. For example, if the state is under attack by invading armies, it might be reasonable to concede that the government is entitled to draft citizens in to military service. This may not be true anymore, considering that contemporary warfare favors volunteer armies, but circumstances were different in earlier time periods.

If you think a $50 dollar cost as a result of a medical condition
(isn't the average cost significantly less?) is a huge burden that women need 
government to help them with, that's about the most sexist thing I've ever heard. Not 
only does that have to be the cheapest medical condition in the history or horrible 
conditions requiring government assistance, but anyone who can't afford it is obviously 
on welfare already. And the government DOES pay to terminate human life. So you're 
kinda getting your way already: Employers who don't want to be a part of killing 
human life are paying for it after all, through their taxes.

It's a huge burden if you are living paycheck to paycheck and require other medicines. Also, you took me out of context. I was not advocating a policy, only exploring whether or not it was right to privilege the conscientious objection of an employer over the life or health of a woman. That doesn't mean there aren't way to satisfy both the conscience of the employer and the woman's life by approaching health insurance differently. I only meant that if we grant the birth control mandate, then allowing an exemption for conscientious objection is despicable in some contexts.

You really are a big-government, anti-freedom guy after all! You do 
know that this, empirically, results in lower standards of living, right? And that 
freer people are happier than slaves (empirically), right?

Way to abandon your claimed preference of measure. Those poor working women! 
They're too DUMB to respect themselves or take care of themselves! Government needs 
to save them with $9/month for birth control!

Now you conflate my talk about the birth control mandate with an objection I had with BeoWolfe. I did not say the government ought to save women from themselves by providing them with free contraception. I simply protested BeoWolfe's attitude that women should "just shut their legs." That's a sexist attitude. I merely corrected him that many poor women experience sex under economically coercive circumstances, and should therefore not be so harshly criticized for perceived sexual irresponsibility.

Somewhere between B and C.