"That makes more sense to me than a woman saying "I like to bang guys who are not fit to be my baby's daddy, so YOU gotta buy my birth control!""

Well there was a lawsuit in France where a man had to pay for damages of not having sex with his wife. I mention this, because this creates precendence surrounding that sex is not only necessary in a relationship, but also that it is more than just creating a baby. Everyone has sex, or at least they would if they could find someone to have it with, so birth control is actually for everyone (except those unlucky not to find a girl or guy).

Furthermore, if you are going to go down the path of "well I shouldn't have to pay for others", then it should be noted that alcohol and smoking are the leading causes of hospitalisation (remember reading that somewhere ages ago). So if you are going to go down the path of "well people should cover their own costs" then why bother having insurance? Or maybe it should change so that they only cover costs equal to the amount you have already paid? Insurance is essentially a collective group, of whom all agree to pay certain medical services of other members as they arise. Now I understand why people complain about the changes, but using the argument of "well I shouldn't have to pay for their abortions" is wrong for a few reasons:

1) The individual still gets the choice of whether they want to take out abortion cover, it is just the provider that is forced to supply it.
2) There is often some form of benefit from the fund that others will not utilise (for example, medical care for prostate cancer). Same argument exists for taxes, and some people get upset for paying for some services that they dont use individually, and that can be said for everyone (I don't play in parks, so perhaps councils should not provide funds for parks, for example). Combined with number one, you also don't provide direct funds for these services.

The Yell, even if you were being forced to BUY full coverage, you still can't make that argument since you are part of a community. There will always be one person who will not need what you need, so if you were to deny coverage based on services that some do not need, then you would have to remove every service.

Not advocating forcing providers to cover abortions, I am just rejecting your argument.

(Thanks to Zarf for explaining the go with insurance in the US)

Wornstrum

The religious community can expect at least one to get an abortion... ergo they can expect mandatory spending to result in them paying for at least a portion of an abortion.

"The Yell, even if you were being forced to BUY full coverage, you still can't make that argument since you are part of a community. There will always be one person who will not need what you need, so if you were to deny coverage based on services that some do not need, then you would have to remove every service. "

Nope our govt is based solely on the Constitution.  The reality is without the Constitution we have no government, and beyond the Constitution, the govt has no authority.  I HOLD NOTHING IN COMMON OR IN TRUST FOR ANY "COMMUNITY".  My individual property and general liberty are guaranteed and those guarantees are superior to any laws made on behalf of the community; where they conflict, those laws are VOID.

> The Yell wrote:

> "The Yell, even if you were being forced to BUY full coverage, you still can't make that argument since you are part of a community. There will always be one person who will not need what you need, so if you were to deny coverage based on services that some do not need, then you would have to remove every service. "

Nope our govt is based solely on the Constitution.  The reality is without the Constitution we have no government, and beyond the Constitution, the govt has no authority.  I HOLD NOTHING IN COMMON OR IN TRUST FOR ANY "COMMUNITY".  My individual property and general liberty are guaranteed and those guarantees are superior to any laws made on behalf of the community; where they conflict, those laws are VOID.

Not the point I was making...my point was, you cannot make the argument that you are being forced to PAY for someone else's abortion...I get the reasons why the laws are bad, Zarf explained it to me, but your argument was irrevelant...

> The Yell wrote:

> If I pay Organization X then I support everything Organization X writes a check for.  I'm where Orgaization X gets the money to pay out.

A very simple answer, but what you are neglecting to realise that Abortion is seperate to the normal health packages. Anyone with abortion cover will pay for higher charges, which is where they get the money for abortions (it would be part of their business practice...if the costs go up, then they will raise the charges for that service alone). They will work out the costs involved for X medical service, and for those who have that cover, will pay for that service. If everyone has the same cover, then you can make your argument, but even then it would be a weak argument...but for now, you are not paying the extra cover charges for abortion...

The Yell wrote

>Nope our govt is based solely on the Constitution.  The reality is without the Constitution we have no government, and beyond the Constitution, the govt has no authority.  I HOLD NOTHING IN COMMON OR IN TRUST FOR ANY "COMMUNITY".  My individual property and general liberty are guaranteed and those guarantees are superior to any laws made on behalf of the community; where they conflict, those laws are VOID.

You're a big fan of the constitution, but you aren't familiar with the general welfare and supremacy clauses?

Dpenguins write:

>insurance coverage was considered illegal until relatively recently in us history

"In July of 1798, Congress passed

I will let the lawyer and the law history major reply unto you.

*buys popcorn, beef jerky, and a 24 pack of Bargs Vanilla Cream*

> Einstein wrote:

> I will let the lawyer and the law history major reply unto you.

*buys popcorn, beef jerky, and a 24 pack of Bargs Vanilla Cream*

You were wrong. About the constitution. After declaring someone else had not studied the constitution. That same person corrected you. Because you were wrong. About the constitution. That was me. There's nothing for you to reply to. You were wrong. The lawyer and law history major is not going to tell you otherwise, because it is objective reality that you cannot change.

Keep struggling with that cognitive dissonance.

> Einstein wrote:

> Oh no you didn't!

>Game on!

>Expect me... I will post tomorrow. I would now except I have driven 11 hours in this semi, am arriving at my destination in 10 minutes, and will unload then sleep the sleep of the dead.

>Perhaps I will get you before, or after my thousand dollar dentist appointment.

...and you're going to prove that the general welfare clause is not in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution? No amount of exhaustive pedantry or childish quips are going to make that happen. Why can't you be an adult and admit you were wrong? Your behavior is shameful, even for the internet.

2- still interested to know how the contract law got invalidated

I wouldn't even know where to begin on this point, sorry...I am not very familiar with contract laws.

That gave me a good laugh since he is in China. Not familiar indeed!

the separation of church and state is the basis for our modern western democracies. a state cannot rely on religious groups in matters that affect the interests of its citizens. states have to offer services for its citizens in cases e. g. of dangers for privacy (like abortions).