Missouri lawmakers override Gov. Nixon's birth control bill veto

Sep 13, 2012 Full story: SanLuisObispo.com 100

Missouri lawmakers voted Wednesday to override Gov. Jay Nixon's veto and allow employers to refuse to provide health insurance coverage for birth control if doing so violates their religious convictions.

Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
guest

United States

#85 Sep 21, 2012
a voter wrote:
People have a right to get the coverage they pay into when they purchase insurance, even when it's employer provided as part of their compensation.
Of course they do. But that's not the issue. If the employer is providing the plan, the employee can either take what's offered or buy another plan somewhere else. They don't have the right to force the employer to offer a plan other than what the employer wants to offer.
If a woman needs contraception or hormone treatments she should be covered just as a male would be for his testosterone therapy.
Obviously either the woman or man would need such coverage. But that doesn't mean the employer is obligated to provide it. If the employer does not provide it, the woman or man is free to purchase another plan somewhere else.
Condoms are fairly cheap and easy to get. However, the hormones in oral contraceptives is a prescription medication and you can't just go buy it.
Indeed. So it would behoove a person needing such coverage to purchase a plan that includes it. If such a plan isn't offered by their employer, they'd be smart to purchase another plan somewhere else.
But let's be for real here, it's unhealthy attitudes that people have about sex, reproductive misinformation, and prejudice towards the people that need oral contraceptives at the root of this problem.
No, that is not the root of the problem. The issue is the religious freedom of the employer. If he has a religious objection to funding birth control (or abortion for that matter) forcing him to do so is a clear violation of his religious liberties. That's the issue.
The plans you seem to promote that pick and choose coverages, won't work out very well for citizens.
Sure they will. They will also lower medical costs because people won't be forced to buy certain coverages they neither want nor need.

If insurance companies were allowed to offer thousands of plans instead of just one or two, they would modify their plans to meet the needs of consumers. That's how the free market works, and that is what has made America the wealthiest nation the world has ever known.
Why is it that we are supposedly a leading nation yet our health care system ranks 37 in the world?
Government intrusion into the free market.
Right now, the arguing over oral contraceptives (which you don't HAVE to use if it bothers you) is preventing us to moving towards insuring our citizens who can't seem to find the jobs with benefits that will cover them or only give them the worst insurance options.
Again, the issue isn't the use of birth control, it's government violating the religious liberties of employers by trying to force them to pay for birth control used by others.

Besides, it's not a responsibility of the federal government to ensure that every citizen has medial insurance coverage. Read the 10th Amendment.
guest

United States

#86 Sep 21, 2012
a voter wrote:
Well perhaps, we really should come up with the rest of the world and nationalize our healthcare so businesses and employees don't have this unnecessary burden.
No, we should bind the powers of government with the chains of the Constitution just as founding fathers initiated. And we should old accountable our elected representatives to their oaths of office and demand they honor, uphold and defend the Constitution just like they swore to do.

The burden of a person's healthcare is that of the person. It's not the employer's burden nor is it that of the government.

What we need are people taking care of their own needs rather than expecting somebody else to pay their way. This country was built on independence and self reliance. Today we have far too many people refusing to be responsible for themselves, and too many socialists in goverment who are all to willing to steal money from future generations to give it to them.

We must get the leeches off of the government tit and start feeding themselves.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#87 Sep 21, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we should bind the powers of government with the chains of the Constitution just as founding fathers initiated. And we should old accountable our elected representatives to their oaths of office and demand they honor, uphold and defend the Constitution just like they swore to do.
The burden of a person's healthcare is that of the person. It's not the employer's burden nor is it that of the government.
What we need are people taking care of their own needs rather than expecting somebody else to pay their way. This country was built on independence and self reliance. Today we have far too many people refusing to be responsible for themselves, and too many socialists in goverment who are all to willing to steal money from future generations to give it to them.
We must get the leeches off of the government tit and start feeding themselves.
Well that's a great ideal. However, where is the solution there? What will bring down the costs so they are affordable to American taxpayers in that ideal?

Something needs to be done about our healthcare system so people can afford healthcare. Fiscally, I tend to be very conservative, yet I just don't see how people will keep up on the rate of increase and since Congress regulates Commerce as well as having the power to Tax and Spend, it's their move. I see a good opportunity for Medicare and Medicaid to be absorbed into a national plan which would solve their solvency issues, especially with the pending baby boom influx of Medicare recipients. Then maybe we could work on Social Security...Anywho, guess we're settling for the 37th best healthcare system in the world b/c we can't seem to reach an agreement and let each other be.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#88 Sep 21, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
She's the one that freely admitted she doesn't have a dog in the fight, and it's obvious she isn't defending the 1st Amendment, or anything other part of the Constitution for that matter.
She's just whining and bitching because the unconstitutional government intrusion of the Obama administration has been negated by the Missouri Legislature.
<quoted text>
I have answer, over and over and over again. An employer has the absolute right to determine what pay and benefits package he offers to his employees. We live in America where we have individual freedom, a free market economy, and limited government. This is not North Korea.
<quoted text>
Again, there is no discrimination here. It's a bullshit claim that has no basis in fact.
<quoted text>
Explain how an employer choosing not to include birth control coverage in an insurance plan he offers to his employees is discrimination.
Explain why it is legal for Hooters to discriminate against male waiters in their restaurants.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
She's the one that freely admitted she doesn't have a dog in the fight, and it's obvious she isn't defending the 1st Amendment, or anything other part of the Constitution for that matter.
She's just whining and bitching because the unconstitutional government intrusion of the Obama administration has been negated by the Missouri Legislature.
.
Exactly where did she say she did not have "a dog in the fight"? She simply said she does not take BC. Do you take BC? If not why do you feel you have a right to an opinion over something that strictly concerns "women" why are you concerned at all?
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I have answer, over and over and over again. An employer has the absolute right to determine what pay and benefits package he offers to his employees. We live in America where we have individual freedom, a free market economy, and limited government. This is not North Korea.
You have not answered the question I asked on any level. My question was "how far"? You believe in discriminatory practices based on religion aimed directly at women no matter how strongly you object. I am asking how far can this be taken based on religion? If the male based religions decide women should not work and stay at home do you believe an employer can deny them employment based on that religious belief without any government interference?
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, there is no discrimination here. It's a bullshit claim that has no basis in fact.
It is pure discrimination to disallow medical prescription benefits that pertain strictly to women, quit playing dumb....or perhaps it is not an act?
guest

United States

#89 Sep 22, 2012
a voter wrote:
However, where is the solution there? What will bring down the costs so they are affordable to American taxpayers in that ideal?
No government mandates. More competition through free market enterprise. It works every time.
Something needs to be done about our healthcare system so people can afford healthcare.
Yep, and government is the problem, not the answer. The solution is less government, not more.
Congress regulates Commerce as well as having the power to Tax and Spend, it's their move.
But Congress does not have the lawful authority to destroy the our free market economy, even though they are doing just that.
I see a good opportunity for Medicare and Medicaid to be absorbed into a national plan
America is has a republican form of government, not a socialist one. If you want to live in a socialist society, why don't you move to China or North Korea and leave America to those of us who enjoy our freedom and take care of ourselves?

Why is it you automatically think government is the answer to the problems we face? Have you no faith in the ability of individuals and the private sector to solve them?
guest

United States

#90 Sep 22, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
Exactly where did she say she did not have "a dog in the fight"? She simply said she does not take BC.
You answered your own question. She doesn't take birth control and therefore doesn't have a dog in the fight.
Do you take BC? If not why do you feel you have a right to an opinion over something that strictly concerns "women" why are you concerned at all?
It doesn't concern only women. It conerns every employer in the country. It's my business because it is every citizen's duty to combat government's unconstitutional usurpation of power. In this case, the Obama administration is prohibiting the free exercise of religion of every business owner in the nation. That's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
You have not answered the question I asked on any level. My question was "how far"?
Your question is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The claim of discrimination is complete bullshit that has no basis in fact.

That being said, employers can and often do openly discriminate. I pointed that out in the case of Hooters who discriminates against male waiters. They only hire females. Is that okay with you?
You believe in discriminatory practices based on religion aimed directly at women no matter how strongly you object.
Exaclty how is refusing to fund an activity that violates one's religious beliefs discrimination?
If the male based religions decide women should not work and stay at home do you believe an employer can deny them employment based on that religious belief without any government interference?
Does government force Hooters to hire male waiters?
It is pure discrimination to disallow medical prescription benefits that pertain strictly to women, quit playing dumb....or perhaps it is not an act?
Employers choosing not to pay for such coverage are not disallowing anyone from purchasing that coverage somewhere else. They just aren't going to pay for it. That is not discrimination. Now YOU quit playing dumb.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#91 Sep 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
She's the one that freely admitted she doesn't have a dog in the fight, and it's obvious she isn't defending the 1st Amendment, or anything other part of the Constitution for that matter.
She's just whining and bitching because the unconstitutional government intrusion of the Obama administration has been negated by the Missouri Legislature.
<quoted text>
I have answer, over and over and over again. An employer has the absolute right to determine what pay and benefits package he offers to his employees. We live in America where we have individual freedom, a free market economy, and limited government. This is not North Korea.
<quoted text>
Again, there is no discrimination here. It's a bullshit claim that has no basis in fact.
<quoted text>
Explain how an employer choosing not to include birth control coverage in an insurance plan he offers to his employees is discrimination.
Explain why it is legal for Hooters to discriminate against male waiters in their restaurants.
You are incorrect, about quite a few things.

The gov't has every right to regulate how a business treats their employees. This has already been proven. You wanting to ignore that is irrelevant.

I DO support the First Amendment. YOU do not, otherwise you'd be against an employer imposing their religion on their employees by way of company policy. Whine all you like about the employer, but they are not being forced to use BC pills. They are always free to practice their religion, just not impose it.

I DO have a dog in this fight. I'm a woman, I have female family and friends, I'm a supporter of the First Amendment, I'm a business owner, I'm a citizen of this country.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#92 Sep 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You answered your own question. She doesn't take birth control and therefore doesn't have a dog in the fight.
<quoted text>
It doesn't concern only women. It conerns every employer in the country. It's my business because it is every citizen's duty to combat government's unconstitutional usurpation of power. In this case, the Obama administration is prohibiting the free exercise of religion of every business owner in the nation. That's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
<quoted text>
Your question is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The claim of discrimination is complete bullshit that has no basis in fact.
That being said, employers can and often do openly discriminate. I pointed that out in the case of Hooters who discriminates against male waiters. They only hire females. Is that okay with you?
<quoted text>
Exaclty how is refusing to fund an activity that violates one's religious beliefs discrimination?
<quoted text>
Does government force Hooters to hire male waiters?
<quoted text>
Employers choosing not to pay for such coverage are not disallowing anyone from purchasing that coverage somewhere else. They just aren't going to pay for it. That is not discrimination. Now YOU quit playing dumb.
Thank you, for proving you have no integrity. YOU have a dog in this fight because you're a citizen, but I don't just because I don't use BC pills?

You're a fraud.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#93 Sep 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You answered your own question. She doesn't take birth control and therefore doesn't have a dog in the fight.
It doesn't concern only women. It conerns every employer in the country. It's my business because it is every citizen's duty to combat government's unconstitutional usurpation of power. In this case, the Obama administration is prohibiting the free exercise of religion of every business owner in the nation. That's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Your question is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The claim of discrimination is complete bullshit that has no basis in fact.
That being said, employers can and often do openly discriminate. I pointed that out in the case of Hooters who discriminates against male waiters. They only hire females. Is that okay with you?
Exaclty how is refusing to fund an activity that violates one's religious beliefs discrimination?
Does government force Hooters to hire male waiters?
Employers choosing not to pay for such coverage are not disallowing anyone from purchasing that coverage somewhere else. They just aren't going to pay for it. That is not discrimination. Now YOU quit playing dumb.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You answered your own question. She doesn't take birth control and therefore doesn't have a dog in the fight.
I did not answer my own question I pointed out your deluded and absurd idiocy.
According to "you" she doesn't have a dog in the fight being a woman but somehow you as a religious MAN does? Careful your misogynistic slip is showing!
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't concern only women. It conerns every employer in the country. It's my business because it is every citizen's duty to combat government's unconstitutional usurpation of power. That's a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
It DOES concern ONLY women, it is their medical situation and concerns that are being addressed. An employer is an outsider who is not a determining factor to the situation and in no way has a say over what is determined by a woman and her doctor. You are contending that the employer does have a say and therefore has a right to deny her specific medical needs according to coverage. the governments role IS individual rights not gang mentality rights. It is the governments role to maintain law in a civil society and to disallow discrimination. Again how far do you wish to take the free exercise of religion, you have concluded that discrimination is rightfully a fair practice under the guise of religion.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. If the government tells "commerce" that they have to abide by a law religion is not accommodated, if it is it clearly crosses the "preferential" line.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Your question is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The claim of discrimination is complete bullshit that has no basis in fact.
That being said, employers can and often do openly discriminate. I pointed that out in the case of Hooters who discriminates against male waiters. They only hire females. Is that okay with you?
Hooters is not OK with me, it is entirely sexist and more than likely entirely male run at the upper levels. Nor am I OK with paying taxes to support stadiums that are entirely a male playground.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Exaclty how is refusing to fund an activity that violates one's religious beliefs discrimination?
How is refusing a perfectly legal and needed female medication based on religion NOT discrimination? Disallowing equality is discrimination.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#94 Sep 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it you automatically think government is the answer to the problems we face? Have you no faith in the ability of individuals and the private sector to solve them?
Government is US, we are the government. Why would one think that "employers" are to replace government? You are again promoting a Plutocracy combined with a Theocracy.

Again, how far are you willing to take religious freedom? If I own a pharmacy (an employer) that distributes BC, the morning after pill etc. am I free to fire a catholic who refuses to distribute the drugs and perform what I hired them to do?
Ocean56

AOL

#95 Sep 22, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
Again, how far are you willing to take religious freedom? If I own a pharmacy (an employer) that distributes BC, the morning after pill etc. am I free to fire a catholic who refuses to distribute the drugs and perform what I hired them to do?
To answer your hypothetical question, I would say YES, you are. But of course, I have no doubt that the catholic fanatics here would claim you were "depriving your employees of their religious freedom" or something equally stupid if you fired an employee for REFUSING to do his or her job.
guest

United States

#97 Sep 23, 2012
Bitner wrote:
The gov't has every right to regulate how a business treats their employees.
That depends on how you define "treats". Govenrment intervention is also ulitmately limited by the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.

In this case, the pay and benefits package a private business owner chooses to offer his employees doesn't have a thing to do with how he "treats" them. Pay and benefits are not within the lawful powers of government to mandate. Those are contractual matters mutually agreed upon between the employer and employee.

As I've told you many times, America enjoys a free market economy. We don't have a government mandated economy such as China or North Korea.
I DO support the First Amendment.
Bullshit. If you did, you wouldn't support government forcing an employer to fund medications and procedures against which he has a religious conviction. Nothing could be a more clear violation of the 1st Amendment right to the freedom of religion.
YOU do not, otherwise you'd be against an employer imposing their religion on their employees by way of company policy.
I am against an employer doing that. However, that isn't the case here. It's merely an employer choosing not to pay for medications and procedures against which he has a religious conviction. HE'S NOT TELLING ANYONE THEY CAN'T USE BIRTH CONTROL, which would of course be imposing his religious views on his employees.

You have yet to prove or even attempt to explain how the actions of the employer are discriminatory. In fact, it isn't discriminatory at all. You obviously need to educate yourself on what constitutes discrimination and what is illegal. As with most other essential points in this argument, you are woefully ignorant.
Whine all you like about the employer, but they are not being forced to use BC pills.
And in Missouri they aren't forced to pay for the ones used by others either. LOL! I know that pisses you off, but that's the law in Missouri. If you don't like it, too damn bad.
I DO have a dog in this fight. I'm a woman, I have female family and friends, I'm a supporter of the First Amendment, I'm a business owner, I'm a citizen of this country.
Gender has nothing to do with this issue. You're lying when you claim to support the 1st Amendment. Owning a home business that employs no one gives you zero experience and knowledge of the govenrment regulations regarding the employment of others, and wacko libtards like you should be forced to live under the totalitarian type of government you advocate.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#98 Sep 23, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
"That depends on how you define "treats". Govenrment intervention is also ulitmately limited by the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights."

The gov't may, indeed, regulate how an employer treats their employees, and imposing religion on them is not acceptable.

"In this case, the pay and benefits package a private business owner chooses to offer his employees doesn't have a thing to do with how he "treats" them."

Yes, it is. The benefit IS the prescription plan, which is already being offered.

"Pay and benefits are not within the lawful powers of government to mandate. Those are contractual matters mutually agreed upon between the employer and employee."

You've already been proven wrong about the pay. And the benefits is already being offered.

"As I've told you many times, America enjoys a free market economy. We don't have a government mandated economy such as China or North Korea."

And we've already proven you wrong about the right of the gov't to regulate a business.

"Bullshit. If you did, you wouldn't support government forcing an employer to fund medications and procedures against which he has a religious conviction. Nothing could be a more clear violation of the 1st Amendment right to the freedom of religion."

They are not "funding" it in the way you want to imply. And yes, support of freedom of religion, includes the right of the employee to NOT have their employer's religious beliefs forced upon them.

"I am against an employer doing that. However, that isn't the case here. It's merely an employer choosing not to pay for medications and procedures against which he has a religious conviction. HE'S NOT TELLING ANYONE THEY CAN'T USE BIRTH CONTROL, which would of course be imposing his religious views on his employees."

The employer is doing just what I said. The motivation is a religious objection, as you just confirmed, and the employer has not right to impose such an objection on their employee by way of their wage packet. Period.

"You have yet to prove or even attempt to explain how the actions of the employer are discriminatory. In fact, it isn't discriminatory at all. You obviously need to educate yourself on what constitutes discrimination and what is illegal. As with most other essential points in this argument, you are woefully ignorant."

I have already explained, numerous times. Your denials are meaningless.

"And in Missouri they aren't forced to pay for the ones used by others either. LOL! I know that pisses you off, but that's the law in Missouri. If you don't like it, too damn bad."

The law is unconstitutional.

"Gender has nothing to do with this issue. You're lying when you claim to support the 1st Amendment. Owning a home business that employs no one gives you zero experience and knowledge of the govenrment regulations regarding the employment of others, and wacko libtards like you should be forced to live under the totalitarian type of government you advocate."

Being a woman DOES have to do with knowing what medication is being used to treat a medical condition suffered by women. It also DO mean having a dog in the fight, whether or not I use BC pills.

What business do I own? Do you know? Or are you assuming?

I know what I'm talking about. It's YOU who is trying to twist this into something it's not, out of desperation.
guest

United States

#99 Sep 24, 2012
Morgana 9 wrote:
You are again promoting a Plutocracy combined with a Theocracy.[QUOTE]

Nope, that's a false charge. I'm merely defending the individual religious liberties of employers that are secured by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution against the unlawful encroachment of government which has usurped authority it does not lawfully have.

IOW, I'm defending the very principles upon which our country was founded. Why do you have a problem with that?

[QUOTE]Again, how far are you willing to take religious freedom?
As far as the U.S. Constitution allows.
If I own a pharmacy (an employer) that distributes BC, the morning after pill etc. am I free to fire a catholic who refuses to distribute the drugs and perform what I hired them to do?
Of course, so long as distributing those drugs is part of the job requirements that you hired him to do.

If you happen to be catholic and oppose birth control and the morning after abortion pill, you have the right not to distribute them from your pharmacy. You also have the right not to include them in any insurance package you may wish to offer your employees as part of their pay and benefits package.

This is America. We have religious freedom here.
guest

United States

#100 Sep 24, 2012
Bitner wrote:
The gov't may, indeed, regulate how an employer treats their employees, and imposing religion on them is not acceptable.
No one is imposing religion on anyone else. That's a false claim you continue to make, yet you have never offered anything to show that is the case.
Yes, it is. The benefit IS the prescription plan, which is already being offered.
Employers continually modify their pay and benefits packages. Usually it is done annually. If an employer chooses to offer a different insurance plan, or no plan at all, he is perfectly within his rights to do so.

An employee does not have to accept the plan offered by his employer. He can purchase another plan from other sources. Of course the employee always has the option to take employment from another employer that offers a pay and benefits package that is more acceptable to him, which may include an insurance plan that offers the coverages he desires.
And we've already proven you wrong about the right of the gov't to regulate a business.
Actually, according to the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the right to regulate commerce, but nowhere is it given the lawful authority to regulate individual businesses. Your claim that they do is another example of your ignorance.
They are not "funding" it in the way you want to imply.
Sure they are! Like I've told you before, the premiums for a medical insurance plan for a family of 4 costs around $15,000 per year. Employers who offer insurance pay the lion's share of that cost while the employees pay a pittance.

So yeah, employers do fund it. Again, your ignorance of the topic is notable.
And yes, support of freedom of religion, includes the right of the employee to NOT have their employer's religious beliefs forced upon them.
But choosing not to cover the cost for another person's medical needs is not forcing religion on them.

Again, your claim is false and based on pure ignorance.
The motivation is a religious objection, as you just confirmed, and the employer has not right to impose such an objection on their employee by way of their wage packet. Period.
Yes they do. In Missouri the law provides employers with the right to do specifically that. Again, more ignorance from you.
I have already explained, numerous times. Your denials are meaningless.
Bullshit. You keep making the same ridiculous claim over and over again, without ever offering any proof of its validity.
The law is unconstitutional.
Really? Cite the Supreme Court case that has struck it down.
I know what I'm talking about.
Obviously not. You're doing nothing but bitching and whining, and are wholly ignorant of constitutional law, employment law, what constitutes discrimination, the cost of insurance and who pays for it, all of which are central to an intelligent discussion on this topic.

The time has come for me to bow out of this conversation. You are too ignorant of the facts to make any continued conversation profitable. As they say, ya just can't fix stupid.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#101 Sep 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is imposing religion on anyone else. That's a false claim you continue to make, yet you have never offered anything to show that is the case.
<quoted text>
Employers continually modify their pay and benefits packages. Usually it is done annually. If an employer chooses to offer a different insurance plan, or no plan at all, he is perfectly within his rights to do so.
An employee does not have to accept the plan offered by his employer. He can purchase another plan from other sources. Of course the employee always has the option to take employment from another employer that offers a pay and benefits package that is more acceptable to him, which may include an insurance plan that offers the coverages he desires.
<quoted text>
Actually, according to the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the right to regulate commerce, but nowhere is it given the lawful authority to regulate individual businesses. Your claim that they do is another example of your ignorance.
<quoted text>
Sure they are! Like I've told you before, the premiums for a medical insurance plan for a family of 4 costs around $15,000 per year. Employers who offer insurance pay the lion's share of that cost while the employees pay a pittance.
So yeah, employers do fund it. Again, your ignorance of the topic is notable.
<quoted text>
But choosing not to cover the cost for another person's medical needs is not forcing religion on them.
Again, your claim is false and based on pure ignorance.
<quoted text>
Yes they do. In Missouri the law provides employers with the right to do specifically that. Again, more ignorance from you.
<quoted text>
Bullshit. You keep making the same ridiculous claim over and over again, without ever offering any proof of its validity.
<quoted text>
Really? Cite the Supreme Court case that has struck it down.
<quoted text>
Obviously not. You're doing nothing but bitching and whining, and are wholly ignorant of constitutional law, employment law, what constitutes discrimination, the cost of insurance and who pays for it, all of which are central to an intelligent discussion on this topic.
The time has come for me to bow out of this conversation. You are too ignorant of the facts to make any continued conversation profitable. As they say, ya just can't fix stupid.
Bow out all you like. The fact is that employers don't have the right to impose religion on their employees. Discriminating against a legal medication used to treat a valid medical condition, IS that imposition.

I didn't say the SCOTUS has struck down the law. Yet.

Your failure to admit your mistake in saying I don't have a dog in this fight, is duly noted.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#102 Sep 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The time has come for me to bow out of this conversation. You are too ignorant of the facts to make any continued conversation profitable. As they say, ya just can't fix stupid.
Coward.

Like they say you just can't fix age old religious misogyny.

You never addressed my last post addressing the first amendment, because you couldn't, same with the question "how far"? The reason you did not is because you could not. You want special treatment to discriminate under the cause of your male worshipping male control religion.
Ocean56

AOL

#104 Sep 24, 2012
guest wrote:
The time has come for me to bow out of this conversation. You are too ignorant of the facts to make any continued conversation profitable. As they say, ya just can't fix stupid.
In other words, you are "bowing out" because no one is buying your ridiculous claim that religious employers "aren't discriminating" when we know they are doing just that.

Discrimination is discrimination, whether it comes from a religious employer or not.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#105 Sep 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No government mandates. More competition through free market enterprise. It works every time.
<quoted text>
Yep, and government is the problem, not the answer. The solution is less government, not more.
<quoted text>
But Congress does not have the lawful authority to destroy the our free market economy, even though they are doing just that.
<quoted text>
America is has a republican form of government, not a socialist one. If you want to live in a socialist society, why don't you move to China or North Korea and leave America to those of us who enjoy our freedom and take care of ourselves?
Why is it you automatically think government is the answer to the problems we face? Have you no faith in the ability of individuals and the private sector to solve them?
Don't you get it? Soon it will be unaffordable to many of the taxpayers who's taxes go to subsidize those industries like pharmaceuticals already. Government has been intervening for a long time on their behalf and the citizens have been paying the price the companies set after all of those incentives and subsidies. Now, most can't afford to get health care unless it's an employment benefit, which not all companies offer. Congress should be figuring this out with their power to Regulate Commerce and Tax/Spend. If they can write budgets to give subsidies, why are they not regulating this commerce so that taxpayers (who provide the taxes for those subsidies) can afford the insurance? We need the government reps to get in the game and protect what's left of the American's access to healthcare.
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#106 Sep 24, 2012
BTW, I meant U.S. citizen's access to healthcare. Not all of the Americas are as defunct in access to healthcare as the U.S. is; Canada does fine in ranking above our system and so do many countries in South America.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 15 min End is Not Yet 307,887
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 5 hr The_Box 219,471
GOP border bill faces internal criticism 16 hr spud 2
Planned Parenthood Has Abortion Quotas, Says Fo... (Jul '14) Sun kaylayossi 6
Woman Conceived in Rape Condemns Obamacare's Ra... Sun kaylayossi 32
Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) Sun zef 5,541
Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard (Jun '11) Jan 24 nailintail 348
9 reasons abortion MUST remain legal. (Sep '07) Jan 23 Brian_G 1,363
More from around the web