Trump rolls back Obamacare birth control mandate

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Congress shall make no laws limiting the establishment or free exercise of religion (something like that, I didn't look up the exact words).

 

What does someone who doesn't belong to your religion getting birth control do to your ability to practice your religion?

 

The practice of religion doesn't include making people who aren't members of your church abide by your rules.

 

If a company is Jehovah's witnesses should they be allowed to keep their employees from getting blood transfusions covered by insurance?

 

Why would anyone not want to belong to my religion? My religion is so much better than the others, and it's the only true religion there is. 

 

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The forcing of, or making a law that requires someone else to pay for it if it is against their religious beliefs?

It is against their religious beliefs for them to use it themselves.

 

I'm sorry by religious beliefs have no business telling people who don't belong to that religion what they can do.

 

A company is responsible, when they are above a certain size, to provide their employees with health insurance. 

 

The government can decide what that minimum health insurance is. Companied should not have a say. If the government doesn't want to include birth control that is allowed, but it is NOT because of any first amendment violation. 

 

They are using that to cover their bums. They are restricting it because they are imposing their personal views on the public.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The forcing of, or making a law that requires someone else to pay for it if it is against their religious beliefs?

So just to be clear:

 

You are fine with a company run by Jehova's Witnesses to keep their employees from getting blood transfusions covered by insurance, because blood transfusions are against their religious beliefs.

 

Am I correct?

 

So a person who lives with Sickle Cell disease would have to start paying out of pocket for their blood transfusions because their boss happens to belong to a religion that refuses them?

[CaliCat 3,957]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

So just to be clear:

 

You are fine with a company run by Jehova's Witnesses to keep their employees from getting blood transfusions covered by insurance, because blood transfusions are against their religious beliefs.

 

Am I correct?

 

So a person who lives with Sickle Cell disease would have to start paying out of pocket for their blood transfusions because their boss happens to belong to a religion that refuses them?

 

And patients with anemia resulting from dialysis would not be covered either, because oftentimes, blood infusion is added to the treatment, to combat anemia.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

And patients with anemia resulting from dialysis would not be covered either, because oftentimes, blood infusion is added to the treatment, to combat anemia.

And good luck if you are your child gets cancer. You're going to need a transfusion at least once at some point for most types of chemotherapy.

 

Oh wait. That'll never happen because this isn't actually about the 1st Amendment. It is specifically about people being uncomfortable with what other people do in the bedroom.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

And good luck if you are your child gets cancer. You're going to need a transfusion at least once at some point for most types of chemotherapy.

 

Oh wait. That'll never happen because this isn't actually about the 1st Amendment. It is specifically about people being uncomfortable with what other people do in the bedroom.

 

If that is their reason, they should spend a weekend with me. They'd have enough fodder to last them a lifetime of rules and regulations! Forget contraception! Let's focus on the heavy duty stuff!!! LOL. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by CaliCat

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

33 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Does the roll back also includes Viagra, Cialis, and the likes? I am sure the moral and religious objections to these must be equally strong. 

You are kidding, right?   

[CaliCat 3,957]

4 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

You are kidding, right?   

 

Yep. I know this ruling is pure hypocrisy from the so-called president. It give him and his sicarios a sense of accomplishment. 

[bcking 3,157]

37 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Does the roll back also includes Viagra, Cialis, and the likes? I am sure the moral and religious objections to these must be equally strong. 

All men, regardless of their religious beliefs, have the right to erections whenever desired, regardless of age.

 

It's in the amendments somewhere...If not, it should definitely be added. I bet we would have the votes pretty quickly.

[CaliCat 3,957]

Just now, bcking said:

All men, regardless of their religious beliefs, have the right to erections whenever desired, regardless of age.

 

It's in the amendments somewhere...If not, it should definitely be added. I bet we would have the votes pretty quickly.

 

That'd be Amendment 2.5. LOL.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

40 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Does the roll back also includes Viagra, Cialis, and the likes? I am sure the moral and religious objections to these must be equally strong. 

Its up to the employer. So now the law is the same for Viagra and birth control. 

[Merrytooth 5,748]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

All men, regardless of their religious beliefs, have the right to erections whenever desired, regardless of age.

 

It's in the amendments somewhere...If not, it should definitely be added. I bet we would have the votes pretty quickly.

Including pedophile?

[bcking 3,157]

Refusing to cover Viagra at least makes some economical sense. There is no reduction in future cost by covering Viagra. The men who want Viagra won't end up costing their insurance company thousands of dollars down the road because they don't get their Viagra.

 

Access to birth control can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancies are costly to insurers. As stated before, you'd think they would realize that investing in birth control would likely save them money by reducing the number of pregnancies they have to cover.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638200/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5515367/

4 minutes ago, Merrytooth said:

Including pedophile?

Don't trample on their rights as men.

[CaliCat 3,957]

3 minutes ago, Merrytooth said:

Including pedophile?

 

There are no pedophiles involved in religion. The last time I even hinted at that, I was reprimanded by a moderator, in no uncertain and stern ways. PVT me if you want details. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Refusing to cover Viagra at least makes some economical sense. There is no reduction in future cost by covering Viagra. The men who want Viagra won't end up costing their insurance company thousands of dollars down the road because they don't get their Viagra.

 

Access to birth control can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancies are costly to insurers. As stated before, you'd think they would realize that investing in birth control would likely save them money by reducing the number of pregnancies they have to cover.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638200/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5515367/

Don't trample on their rights as men.

In a perfect world Bith control would be in the water, and you would need a licence and proof of income to sire a child