oh the bitterly oppressed minority, denied other people's money against their will

/weeps

"There is a path to judicial review"

There is also a path to "We will review our previous policy and issue a clarification later, for now the requirement is not active as of that deadline"   and we are on THAT path. Viva Cristo Rey!

"How does anyone manage to overlook the fact that the church and it's leaders are not required to provide birth control or "abortion" to anyone, they are only required to provide health insurance which covers it. Huge difference."

Nope.  They go from not paying to give people abortion, to paying to give people abortion. Huge difference.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luezn3YccN1qk52auo1_500.jpg

> The Yell wrote:

> if you showed that powerful message to schoolkids, its basic untruth would be immediately explained to you

also for homework, you are to listen to Kanye West "Golddigger" until you can repeat it from memory

Lol

Because then all insurance companies would choose not to include abortion, as the insurance would be cheaper to provide, and the result is that noone has coverage.

Secondly the insurance is there for the employee, not the employer. Should the unlikely event occur that a woman needs an abortion, it would infact be the insurance company and not them employer that had to cover the expenses. The Employer only indirectly pays for it through the insurance police

Ok i phrased it wrong,

Employers will choose policies that does not cover abortions, as they will be cheaper. Result is the same.

Regardless i dislike this whlole debate between religious fundamentalists on the one side and educated people on the other. It all reminds me of the creation vs evolution debate, or science vs religion etc. At the end of the day there is one side believing in evidence and another side ignoring them.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

This is an interesting talk that I watched last year.  There are some interesting questions that aren't fully addressed and some that are addressed tangentially, but the basic, fundamental, statistical result is this: the more economically unequal a society is the more problems that society experiences.  If you look back in time, you also will see this as a repeating pattern.  The French have had revolutions because of, essentially, economic inequality.  The Roman and other empires have fallen with unequal wealth distribution as a contributory factor.

I don't expect the more Republican amongst you to believe it.  To a Republican, the notion that you get out of life what you put into it might be true on a local scale, but you as an individual on a broader scale also benefit by helping the poorest amongst you.  But this is empirical evidence and quite convincing when you actually think about it instead of tossing it aside because it conflicts with your narrow political ideology.

EDIT: I also realise this is somewhat tangential to the topic at hand, but the topic of healthcare has of course cropped up.  And the point of this talk if you understand it is that redistributing wealth - even through social welfare programs - can help a society overall.  To some this is counterintuitive - that is essentially the underlying point of a Republican as I understand it - but I am reminded of a quote: "Not all that counts can be counted; not all that can be counted, counts."  Providing such things as social healthcare may in a z = x-y mathematical way seem bad, but the *effects* of doing so cannot always be put into a simple mathematical formula as the human condition isn't something which can be adequately simulated or computed. 

Note: I've had wine.  I'm kinda tipsy.  Don't take everything literally - just put aside political ideology and seriously think about the concept.

I'm kinda confuzzled too. 

Although, the post was almost (actually, totally) entirely motivated by The Yell's point #2.

"Someone explain for me exactly why we need to force Catholic Charities to provide a service which they do not want to provide when alternative insurance companies exist which would provide funding for abortions.  Unless you can answer that question, this is not an abortion rights debate."

Should read:

""Someone explain for me exactly why we need to force Catholic employers to provide a service which they do not want to provide when alternative insurance companies exist which would provide funding for abortions.  Unless you can answer that question, this is not an abortion rights debate."

It is easily answered - preventative medicine reduces costs of medical care, and birth control is preventative medicine. Catholic employers are not entitled to any special rights beyond any other employer. If an employer decides it is against their religion  to pay overtime wages as guaranteed under the FLSA, that does not let them off the hook.

"It is easily answered - preventative medicine reduces costs of medical care, and birth control is preventative medicine. Catholic employers are not entitled to any special rights beyond any other employer. If an employer decides it is against their religion  to pay overtime wages as guaranteed under the FLSA, that does not let them off the hook."

So why are we paying for prenatal care as preventative care?  My penis extension surgery will prevent psychological counseling), better pay for that too before it is too late.

It is the churches that are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, and employment laws are optional where allowed by the Bill of Rights.  This generation wants to rear its head and proclaim the State comes first.  It doesn't in America.

Sure is weak analogy in here.

> HotDogBun wrote:

> Sure is weak analogy in here.