Cuccinelli Suggests Jail as Contracep...

Cuccinelli Suggests Jail as Contraception Protest

There are 156 comments on the NBC29 Charlottesville story from Jan 9, 2013, titled Cuccinelli Suggests Jail as Contraception Protest. In it, NBC29 Charlottesville reports that:

Virginia's conservative Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says going to jail may be an effective way to protest a federal mandate for employers to cover contraception in insurance plans.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29 Charlottesville.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Dan

Omaha, NE

#144 Jan 25, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>No, but the law does. It is a business and have to subscribe to the law of the land. They want don't want to provide it to non-Catholics because of their religious beliefs. That is forcing one's beliefs on another, and is a violation of the first amendment. Nobody is forcing Catholics to use B.C.; they are forcing a business to provide equal compensation under a law.
The law of the land cannot violate the protections afforded by the Constitution.

All benefit packages are not being made "equal" by this mandate-the mandate simply requires that whatever health plan IS offered provides coverage for BC. There is no "equal compensation under the law" in play here.

They don't want to pay for it for ANYONE, not just non-Catholics, because their religion teaches that it's a moral evil.

Please find and cite a religion and their teaching that requires the adherent to receive birth control in their employer sponsored health plan, so you may support your argument that NOT providing it violates someone's First Amendment rights. Recall that BC isn't being made unavailable-just not being provided by the religious employer. I'll wait.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#145 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, seeking treatment for a medical dysfunction is at option of the person suffering from it.
You can have a perfectly healthy sex life without BC. It isn't a factor in sexual health. Its primary function isn't to treat sexual dysfunction nor diseases of the reproductive system.
You can't make things what you want them to be by simple declaration, Dude.
According to whom? Just because the Catholic Church deems that sex is only for procreation, doesn't mean that other's don't do it for pleasure and connectivity. If they want to do it without getting pregnant, it is a health concern.
.
And hormonally speaking, the pill is often used for other treatments, such as excessive pain during menses.
.
I'm not declaring anything, Dan. The bottom line is that sex is an elective function, which is not required to function in society nor does it risk one's health.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#146 Jan 25, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Just because you don't want it to be, doesn't make it so. Not being able to see well is not analgous to ED. You have to see well to drive, you don't need a hard on to drive... a car. What makes it analgous to B.C. is that it is a function of sexual health.
BC is a contraceptive.

A contraceptive has no bearing on my ability to have sex. I can have sex with it or without it and it has no bearing whatsoever on my physcial ability to partake in the act.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#147 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The law of the land cannot violate the protections afforded by the Constitution.
All benefit packages are not being made "equal" by this mandate-the mandate simply requires that whatever health plan IS offered provides coverage for BC. There is no "equal compensation under the law" in play here.
They don't want to pay for it for ANYONE, not just non-Catholics, because their religion teaches that it's a moral evil.
Please find and cite a religion and their teaching that requires the adherent to receive birth control in their employer sponsored health plan, so you may support your argument that NOT providing it violates someone's First Amendment rights. Recall that BC isn't being made unavailable-just not being provided by the religious employer. I'll wait.
Which is a business forcing their beliefs that it is a moral evil on ANYONE, not just non-Catholics, which is a violation. And it is not forcing anyone to use it, that would be a violation of the government.
.
Look Dan, you keep posting the same thing over and over again, and I've tried to use multiple examples and multiple analogies to show you what it is, and now have found myself repeating the same thing over and over in different ways. Ultimately, to you and I, it's meaningless, and it'll be up to the supreme court. You and I may never agree on this, but legally, we don't have a say, and can agree to disagree.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#148 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
BC is a contraceptive.
A contraceptive has no bearing on my ability to have sex. I can have sex with it or without it and it has no bearing whatsoever on my physcial ability to partake in the act.
Which is meaningless, B.C. is in the relm of sexual health, just as ED is.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#149 Jan 25, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>According to whom? Just because the Catholic Church deems that sex is only for procreation, doesn't mean that other's don't do it for pleasure and connectivity. If they want to do it without getting pregnant, it is a health concern.
.
And hormonally speaking, the pill is often used for other treatments, such as excessive pain during menses.
.
I'm not declaring anything, Dan. The bottom line is that sex is an elective function, which is not required to function in society nor does it risk one's health.
Worrying about the rubber breaking or the BC failing is now a health concern? That's news.

Are you now arguing that sex being an elective function renders it outside of anyone's concern for health care coverage? You equate BC with Viagra-neither should be covered by your logic here. Purely elective procedures/treatments are frequently not covered by health insurance.

The RCC would agree with you on that. Is this now your position?
sez you

Charlottesville, VA

#150 Jan 25, 2013
State mandated contraception, are there no limits to a politicians hypocrisy. Why does the right do everything it can to destroy itself? Jay Leno joked about that last night, they don't need any help. Fine with me. About time this country grew out of the dark ages. Hell hath no fury as a women scorned.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#151 Jan 25, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Which is a business forcing their beliefs that it is a moral evil on ANYONE, not just non-Catholics, which is a violation. And it is not forcing anyone to use it, that would be a violation of the government.
.
Look Dan, you keep posting the same thing over and over again, and I've tried to use multiple examples and multiple analogies to show you what it is, and now have found myself repeating the same thing over and over in different ways. Ultimately, to you and I, it's meaningless, and it'll be up to the supreme court. You and I may never agree on this, but legally, we don't have a say, and can agree to disagree.
You keep saying "forcing beliefs on people" without telling me who's beliefs actually INSIST on BC, or who's being not promoted, hired or fired based upon their religion. No one's being prevented from obtaining BC. Not one person. Anywhere.
You haven't provided a single analogy. You just want to tell me about a prescription medicine that treats a diagnosed medical dysfunction-that's not analogous to BC. No medicine prescribed to treat any illness or dysfunction is analogous to BC. BC is birth control-not medicine to treat a diagnosed malady.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#152 Jan 25, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Which is meaningless, B.C. is in the relm of sexual health, just as ED is.
What symptom respective to the inability to have sex does contraception treat?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#153 Jan 25, 2013
sez you wrote:
State mandated contraception, are there no limits to a politicians hypocrisy. Why does the right do everything it can to destroy itself? Jay Leno joked about that last night, they don't need any help. Fine with me. About time this country grew out of the dark ages. Hell hath no fury as a women scorned.
Well, it IS the state mandating provision of contraceptives.

Do you disagree with someone labelling it such?
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#154 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying "forcing beliefs on people" without telling me who's beliefs actually INSIST on BC, or who's being not promoted, hired or fired based upon their religion. No one's being prevented from obtaining BC. Not one person. Anywhere.
You haven't provided a single analogy. You just want to tell me about a prescription medicine that treats a diagnosed medical dysfunction-that's not analogous to BC. No medicine prescribed to treat any illness or dysfunction is analogous to BC. BC is birth control-not medicine to treat a diagnosed malady.
Dan, you and I aren't going to agree on this. You probably think I'm equally as ignorant as I think you are. I keep reading your arguments, and think, "man, this guy just doesn't get it, and is being obtusely ignorant." That is probably exactly how you feel about me, so it's pointless. I could copy and paste my arguments, but it would be pointless. I will never convince you, and you will never convince me.
.
Look, I'm against PPACA, and I'm against EMTALA. I don't think employers should have to provide insurance at all. I don't think hospitals should have to treat dying people that don't have insurance, effectively making me their insurance plan. But because we have the laws that we do, so they do. Your argument doesn't pass the lemon, coercion, or endorsement test IMO, but MO doesn't matter. We'll see what the USSC says.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#155 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
What symptom respective to the inability to have sex does contraception treat?
It doesn't matter, it's still a function of reproductive health, and both are elective.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#156 Jan 25, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Dan, you and I aren't going to agree on this. You probably think I'm equally as ignorant as I think you are. I keep reading your arguments, and think, "man, this guy just doesn't get it, and is being obtusely ignorant." That is probably exactly how you feel about me, so it's pointless. I could copy and paste my arguments, but it would be pointless. I will never convince you, and you will never convince me.
.
Look, I'm against PPACA, and I'm against EMTALA. I don't think employers should have to provide insurance at all. I don't think hospitals should have to treat dying people that don't have insurance, effectively making me their insurance plan. But because we have the laws that we do, so they do. Your argument doesn't pass the lemon, coercion, or endorsement test IMO, but MO doesn't matter. We'll see what the USSC says.
Yeah-we're treading water now-and no, I don't think you ignorant.

Should be an interesting case when it does hit.

Thanks for all your time and courtesy.
Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#158 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah-we're treading water now-and no, I don't think you ignorant.
Should be an interesting case when it does hit.
Thanks for all your time and courtesy.
Yeah, no worries. I agree, and look forward to reading the argument. I think we both presented and polished our arguments to the most common denominator, well. I apologize if I come across as contentious, it was a good debate; thanks.
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#159 Feb 1, 2013
Dude

Winchester, VA

#160 Feb 1, 2013
huck wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl d/2013/feb/01/obama-compromise -birth-control-us-healthcare
Typical Obama Administration... folds quicker than a stadium chair.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
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.

Roman Catholic Church Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Just Think 690,472
News Ex-Catholic bishop of Phoenix accused of sex ab... 8 hr Christie Taylor 143
News Protestant, Catholic Church Leaders Unite for S... Nov 17 South Knox Hombre 2
News Four more men accuse priest of sexual abuse (Jan '08) Nov 16 PWR 1,750
the 32nd sunday in ordinary time nov. 12th Nov 12 nicole 1
Celibacy of the clergies Nov 12 South Knox Hombre 3
Rman Catholic daily missal, 1962 Nov 12 South Knox Hombre 2
More from around the web