Pet zebra, macaw found in truck outside Dubuque bar
Obama visiting wind energy plant in Newton Thursday
Firefighters locate drowning victim on Cedar River
Police called 18 times regarding Isaiah Sweet’s behavior towards grandparents, records show
Local family fitness programs aim to combat rise in teen diabetes, prediabetes
Officials critical of inconsistent alcohol laws for boats and motor vehicles
The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Birth control provides many health benefits
It’s difficult for me to justify anti-woman groups’ opposition to birth control being covered under insurance without co-pay. If the birth control refusal clause had been expanded, millions of women would have lost access to affordable birth control simply because they worked at a religiously affiliated hospital or attended a similar university.
This is not about religion, it is about healthy women and healthy families.
Studies have shown that birth control reduces the risk of cervical cancer, maternal and infant mortality, symptoms of endometriosis and unintended pregnancies. Restricting affordable access to this service would have eliminated the many benefits that come with it and violated a woman’s health and religious liberty.
Paulette Ash
Cedar Rapids
Thank you, Paulette.
It’s sickening that so many want to deny basic healthcare.
Except of course that you are also violating peoples right to freely practice their religion.
Which has nothing to do with basic healthcare.
I guess you missed it, Calef: Women are 50+ percent of the population. When was the last time YOU had a period?
Read what Jim Galt said Kirby.
When was the last time you or “Galt” had a period, Calef?
So your trite observation somehow makes the first amendment null and void?
Did I say that, Galt?
When was the last time YOU had a period?
How in God’s name does that matter or otherwise pertinent to this discussion, Kirby?
Read the LTE, Calef.
Regarding what?
Read it or not, Calef. I don’t care.
Please remember, Julie, that Ray offers his own idiosyncratic reading of any text. Sometimes, it’s hard to believe that we are reading the same text.
Difference makes the world go ’round!
As long as people like Ray realize that their own idiosyncratic reading of a text isn’t the only correct reading Jeff, I’m cool with that.
If we all interpreted texts the same way, we might as well be robots.
That’s funny Jeff..I feel the exact way about your opinions here….
Isn’t that weird?
How do you feel about my right to practice my religious tenants through the use of entheogens? Do you really support religious freedom or do you support prohibition? (pick one – they’re mutually exclusive choices)
Your right to practice your particular mythology ends right at the line where it infringes on my right to not be impacted by your inability/unwillingness to think critically – my invisible sky fairy told me so.
My favorite god is Pan: gotta love a horny goat deity!
“millions of women would have lost access to affordable birth control simply because they worked at a religiously affiliated hospital”
Here’s an idea: don’t work at a religiously affiliated hospital if you want your employer to pay for your birth control.
Jim, you misconstrue the “ministerial exception” to the First Amendment which the Supreme Court has created. Briefly stated, a religious-affiliated institution cannot deny First Amendment rights to its employees, only to individuals who represent the institution’s creed.
I’m glad to see you are so compassionate that you can tell people to leave their jobs because their rights are being abridged. Jim, it is illegal for a Catholic hospital to refuse employment to a clerical employee for being Jewish. Similarly, my hope is the courts rule it is illegal for religious-affiliated institutions to refuse to insure their employees who desire contraception.
Now for the pointed comment: why are you soft on what should be illegal discrimination, and why do you see such discrimination as a necessary means of exercising freedom? I think you privilege power and property rights over human rights.
It’s called respecting the freedoms of others, Jeff. You might want to try it sometime.
And to expand on your example, if I worked at a hospital associated with a Jewish organization, I wouldn’t expect to be able to get a ham sandwich from the cafeteria. Like a mature adult, I would expect that if I wanted to work there and still have one, I would have to provide it for myself. Voila, nobody’s rights violated! See how that works?
Spare me your condescension, Jim. I betcha you could find a ham sandwich, since your hypothetical hospital would also serve gentiles. You have not made a case that offering contracepetion on a group health plan is an infringement of the religious group’s freedom.
Fail, miserably.
Too bad taxpayers a paying for VI-agra, Galt.
Goof point Julie! And the more power we give to government the more they will shakedown pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies for protection. Just like senators McCain, Cranston, Glenn and others shock down the savings and loan industry every election cycle and then when Congress took away their tax advantages the S&L industry just disappeared.
And have you noticed that since Microsoft now spends on the order of $100 million a year on lobbying their antitrust problems have vanished into thin air.
I meant good point Julie!
Two quick points.
1) I agree birth control should be covered.
2) There are no “anti-woman groups” involved in this. That kind of characterization doesn’t help.
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/2-12.htm
Srsly, Will?
Santorum thinks rape victims should be forced to give birth to a rapist’s child. Thus making her suffer again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091170/Rick-Santorum-Rape-victims-gift-baby-pregnant.html
Santorum lives in a time-warp — somewhere in the late 19th century. I tend to agree with Will. True “anti-womens groups” are pretty few and far between and the statement stood out for me as well.
Normally I agree with you, Karl, but unless you’ve suffered from endometriosis and/or painful/irregular periods, you just don’t know how hormonal treatment can help.
Right concept, wrong historical era, Karl
Santorum is stuck in the 2nd millenium BCE.
Sorry, J.K., I don’t see the connection between my comment and your response. (My comment should in no way signify opposition to birth control or full equality for women — I’m strongly in favor of both.) – - – - –
The historical era of the “Dark Ages” should work as well.
Sorry: sarcasm is not conveyed well online. I share your disdain for Santorum, just wanted to place his ideology in the era of the Old Testament patriarchs.
Off-topic, sort of:
My last word on Santorum. Did he say “black” or “blah.” Yes, I like rubbing some folks’ noses in race, since they are in such deep denial:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-santorum-to-john-king-i-didnt-say-black-people-i-said-blah-people/
Yes, the bible, like all literature of the era is very sexist. What group today is “anti-woman”? Or are you saying Christians are anti-woman?
Uh, Will? Religion has historically been anti-woman.
It’s written all over the bible, just to name one religion.
Historically, yes. But what about today, in this country?
Depends of the sect, Will. Catholicism forbids the ordination of women priests and artificial contraception; many protestant evangelical sects condemn abortion and demand that women subordinate themselves to men; fundamentalist Mormon groups practice polygamy, with some allowing their leaders to decide who marries whom.
I don’t understand the “no women priests” rule. Makes no sense to me.
But the artificial contraception I can understand. Most contraceptives, like the “pill” don’t prevent fertilization so could be seen as the earliest form of abortion. I’d call that a pro-life, not anti-woman stance (though I understand some people believe them to be one and the same).
However, going one step farther, something like a condom and other “barrier” methods do prevent fertilization, so banning them makes no sense.
I meant to add that either way, leaving off the “anti-woman” bit would have made for a more convincing article. If you start right off by trying to change someone’s mind by insulting them, you won’t get very far.
Jeff beat me to it Will, but there are still many religious sects and individuals who take the bible literally, and in doing so are anti-woman, just as the bible and religious history has historically been.
Religion has always had a patriarchial hierarchy, and that alone impacts women negatively.
“Religion has always had a patriarchial hierarchy, and that alone impacts women negatively.”
Sadly, that’s too true. Not only in Christianity. And not only in religion.
Correct, Will, and another example of that oppression of women is found in Islam, but I confined my example to christianity for simplicity’s sake.
It’s interesting how people who are so against any type of birth control fail to recognize the many non-contraception beneficial effects of birth control pills, as outlined in the letter.
Yes indeed, Lori.
I have never understood the Catholic Church position that “natural” birth control is OK but “artificial” is not. ( Correct me if I’m wrong. ) Either way, the intent is the same, to prevent conception. Furthermore, it has no opposition to “death control”, using medicine (“artificial”) to prevent death. Why are artificial means to prevent, or delay, death OK but to prevent conception not?
(Not that the position of the Catholic Church means anything to me personally.)
Karl, as I outlined above, I can understand the argument against methods like the pill. Those methods don’t prevent fertilization or “conception”.
But not allowing “barrier methods” such as condoms makes no sense. Those methods do prevent fertilization. I think its partially from an antiquated idea that sex is only supposed to be for making babies. I remember a minister talking about the “old days” when people were warned that intercourse was only allowed between married couples and even when married it was for procreation and you weren’t supposed to enjoy it or you’d go to he…
Signs on condom vending machines years ago ( still or still in some states ? ) “Sold ONLY for the prevention of disease.”
The church has a history of suspicion of sexuality, especially female sexuality.
(priest: No sex during lent, you two ! )
For many regressives, they see the 1st amendment protection of religious freedom as license to force their beliefs onto all others and to discriminate as their particular faith permits or even demands. It’s a difficult concept for them to accept; protection for all citizens, even those they disagree with. Many of the same have similar problems with free speech, freedom of the press and the right to assemble peaceably (i.e. it’s ok for Tea Partiers to disrupt and even take over a town meeting, but not so much for Occupiers to protest). They seem to think that only “real” Americans (those who share their ideology) are entitled to these liberties; that those with differing beliefs are not. They even question our patriotism. It’s consistent behavior though; we see it in most of their actions and rhetoric. One of my favorites is how they tout free-market capitalism, but seem to have no problems lobbying our legislators for tariffs, subsidies, tax breaks and legislation that protects their interest when free-market pressures negatively impact them; all on the public’s dime.
“For many regressives,…”
Like I said before, not a good way to start if you want to change anyone’s mind or want to be taken seriously.
But in this case, you’re arguing “regressives” are forcing their beliefs on others when what’s really happening is the opposite (being forced to provide something against one’s beliefs).
Shouldn’t anyone be able to say, “I don’t want to participate?” Or should they, as you seem to believe, be forced into a business arrangement against their wishes and beliefs?
Will, here lies the dilemma, I perceive that these religious organizations, because they don’t believe birth control is moral (though legal), desire to project their beliefs onto those who are employed by them (and for that matter, all the rest of society). I assume that you perceive this to be a matter where the religious organization is being forced to participate in something that is against their wishes and/or beliefs. Honestly, I suggest we are both right, but whose rights are being infringed upon; the person’s or the organization’s? And whose rights is the Constitution suppose to protect?
I argue that to allow an organization to infringe on an employee’s first amendment protection is condoning a form of discrimination, while requiring an organization to make available birth control is hardly an infringement as it does not require anyone in the organization to use the service; it only makes it available for those who choose to use it. Which, frankly, is none of the organizations business.
Now the organization could try to make the case that the expense of providing the services in cost prohibitive; thus not an issue of either theirs or the employee’s faith. Though, in this particular case, I’d question the religious organizations integrity if they did.
And yes, I certainly believe that organizations should be forced into arrangements that may be against their wishes and/or beliefs, specifically when it comes to fighting discrimination and protecting its stake holders (employees, customers and shareholders). A Star Bellied Sneetch has no right to deny services to a Plain Bellied Sneetch simply for being a Plain Bellied Sneetch.
Terry, your logic could also be applied to something like Roe v Wade. The decision to legalize abortion nationally doesn’t infringe on the rights of those who are against it, but by making it legal allows those women who decide to terminate a pregnancy to exercise their own freedom to choose to do so. Those who are against the procedure can choose not to avail themselves of it should an unplanned pregnancy occur, but they don’t have the right to expect others to do as they do.
Yes it could. Liberty is Liberty; Freedom is Freedom. My or other’s bias will never change these simple facts.
Terry and Lori, you two are right on here. Can you imagine what things would be like if we legislated the beliefs of every different religion into our society? No abortions, no birth control, no pork or beef, no women drivers, no work on the various sabbath days, etc.? I am strongly opposed to anyone who would impose their religious beliefs on others.
Will, I see your point , but I draw the line between individual and business. The individual should have the right to opt out or not be forced into something going against their personal religious beliefs. The business should abide by the law regardless of the religious convictions of the organization. I’m sure there could be a few exceptions when it comes to perhaps the actual church, but not something like a hospital that is affiliated with a church unless they refuse service and employment to anyone outside their faith. Difficult but interesting subject, huh?
Terry, that’s quite a stretch to argue an employer has to provide specific coverage in health insurance to an infringement of first amendment rights. Where does that stop? Is not covering other medications you or someone else thinks should be covered now considered an infringement of first amendment rights? That’s preposterous. A company not making birth control part of the health insurance for _any_ reason (religious, financial, or otherwise) does not prevent anyone from getting birth control on their own, just like for anything else that’s not covered.
So to Kurt, what you guys are arguing is exactly what you say shouldn’t be done. You guys (and even I) believe use of birth control is a good thing (our belief). You now want to force your belief on others. That’s wrong, whether its a religious belief or not. The religious organizations are saying they don’t want you forcing your beliefs on them. And I agree. You shouldn’t.
“You now want to force your belief on others.”
Uh no Will. If a person who is a a part of a group employer’s insurance plan doesn’t believe in artificial birth control (ie many Cahtlics), they don’t have to use the service. BUT, if an employer such as a Catholic hospital is going to employ those other than just devout Catholics, it cannot discriminate against any non-Catholic employees it has by refusing to offer benefits such as birth control coverage just because the Catholic church is against it.
Good points, Lori. After all, no one is forcing people to use contraception. If Catholics don’t wish to use contraception that’s their choice and it certainly doesn’t matter to me.
Thanks Julie. It also goes back to Roe v Wade. If a person is against abortion, don’t have one, but don’t presume to think that just because some people are against it that the option should be made illegal to all.
What I DO object to, Lori, are those who don’t recognize the legitimate, beneficial use of “the (gasp) pill.”
That’s exactly the point I was trying to make in another of my comments, Julie.
It’s akin to those who still think sex should be solely for the purposes of procreation. Most of us (or so I thought) have moved past that point in history.
No Lori. You’re wrong. Do you even realize what you’re saying? Keep your moral standards of what should and shouldn’t be part of an insurance plan out of my life. I don’t need you or anyone else telling me, my employer or anyone else’s employer what should and shouldn’t be in the plan. You think if you’re for or against something its Ok to force your ideals on everyone else? That’s no better than a religious fanatic saying they should be able to force their view on you. How can you reject their wrongheaded ideas and then turn around and advocate the same based on your belief system?
If people decide its a “moral obligation” for companies to offer insurance for cosmetic surgery, are you going to try to force everyone else to bend to that ideal as well?
If you don’t want others telling you what should and shouldn’t be in an insurance plan or any other legal agreement, you might want to start by not trying to do that to others. By doing so, you leave the door open to another group to deny your rights based on your own reasoning.
Seems some are getting off track here. It’s not really about imposing morals or beliefs on others. It’s primarily about preventative medicine. Preventing pregnancy is a far better and less expensive approach than the alternative. Same with communicable diseases, etc. the government’s primary concern is (or should be) reducing the cost of health care. Prevention is far more economical than the alternative.
Kurt, I agree regarding the benefits of birth control. Where it crosses the line though is when people start saying others should be “required” to do certain things, regardless of how beneficial we may think it is.
Will, you DO realize that women have periods every month for approximately 30+ years of her life, right?
No one requires her to fertilize her egg with a sperm.
Will, I’m not “forcing” individuals to use products or services against their wishes. However, what you fail to understand is that an employer who employs a diverse population with diverse beliefs has an obligation to cater to all of its employees, not just those who share its beliefs and ideals. If it can’t bring itself to do that, then perhaps it should refrain from hiring those employees who don’t share its beliefs, if it can somehow do so legally.
As for “conscience” based arguments, I find those to be ridiculous. If someone who for instance doesn’t believe in artificial birth control or the abortion pill, and therefore couldn’t bring themselves to dispense what is a legal drug to women who ask for it, then tperhaps they should rethink a career in pharmacy. Same for someone considering a career in medicine: pick a specialty that isn’t likely to put that doctor in a situation they feel strongly against.
It’s really too bad men like you can’t experience first hand how birth control pills help many women in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with contraception. Only then would you truly be able to understand their importance.
Lori, you are trying to force places like Mercy Hospital to offer a product -insurance that covers birth control. I’ll make this simple. If Lori Morris can dictate the terms of the life insurance policy others use, then so too can Bob Vander Plaats. In my book, neither one of you has or should have that kind of authority.
The rest of your argument is specious. First, if a woman needs to take birth control pills for something other than birth control, insurance will cover it. The doctor just needs to make the diagnosis and pass it on to the insurance company. That’s how many women, including some I do know quite well, got it covered in the days before any insurance covered them.
Second, I don’t need to experience it to see what affect its had on the women I know. I know how vital it was for them. But like I said, their doctors made a diagnosis it was needed for other reasons, and their insurance covered it.
Will, who will determine if a woman is taking the pill for the “right” or the “wrong” reasons? The church? Bob VanderPlaats? You? My insurance company?
That sure sounds like Big Goverment to me!
I’m not backing down Will
If a place like Mercy Hospital employs people who don’t share its Catholic beliefs, then it cannot expect those employees to submit to those beliefs.
And please tell me how on earth it matters if insurance will cover birth control for a woman who needs it for reasons other than contraception if she works at an employer like Mercy, a place whose Catholic faith prohibits artificial birth control!? Buying one’s own insurance isn’t an option yet for all since companies can still deny people for pre-exisiting conditions.
I don’t care how many people you antecdotally say you know who have used birth control pills Will, until you’ve truly experienced first hand the relief many of them provide to . many women, you have no clue how vital it is to womens’ health, or why it should be included in insurance plans such as Mercy’s.
No retreat, Will.
I find it curious that *some* male commenters here are so quick to dismiss the pill for anything other than birth control.
I guess they didn’t get the message.
For the record:
u_terus
u_terus
u_terus
Big government for your wives and daughters
Big government for your wives and daughters
Big government for your wives and daughters
“The Handmaid’s Tale” used to be viewed as a cautionary tale–now it’s a playbook for right-wingers.
No kidding!
They apparently still can’t fathom the fact that birth control pills have legitimate uses other than as contraception.
It is truly mind-boggling.
Julie, I haven’t seen any comments where male commenters are dismissing the pill for other uses. Did I miss something?
That was aimed at Calef, Will, for his callous dismissal that women’s basic healthcare violates others freedom to practice religion.
People just can’t get beyond the birth control aspect of hormonal therapy. When I was in my early 30s my doctor prescribed the pill for my erratic periods. I was married and my husband had already had a vascectomy, so it certainly wasn’t about birth control. Nobody has the right to interfere with a legitimate treatment.
The letter writter gives the impression that birth control reduces the risk of cervical cancer. Regular exams that are required for birth control reduce that risk.
In the attached link, it states that, breast and cervical cancers are increased by the use of oral contraceptives.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives
Contraceptives can be a covered expense if you are willing to pay the premium when your employer is not.
Sue, I have an acquaintance who is clerical staff at Mercy Hospital in Iowa City, which is a Catholic institution. She is not Catholic. Whay is it okay for Mercy to impose the norms of the Church on non-Catholics whom it employs, and who are NOT subject to the ministerial exception.
You seem to play fast and loose with other people’s money…
Jeff, why do you think its OK for you to impose your norms on others? Mercy Hospital and your acquaintance entered into a business arrangement. What gives you the right to have your beliefs forced into the arrangement?
Why on Earth are you making such a ridiculous argument, Will? The relationship is an employment one, and the ministerial exception does NOT mean the organization is free to impsoe its will on all of its employees.
What is the harm of a Catholic hospital offering contraception coverage for its non-Catholic employees? None that I see, and I don’t see how the hospital has a “free speech” right to impose its norms on its non-Catholic employees.
Once again, you defer to power, and subordinate human rights to it, while making a sophist argument about the rights of power.
Are you blind to what you’re advocating?
You are trying to force a private group to offer a plan YOU approve of that fits your ideals, regardless of their own best interest or ideals. In doing so, you’re no better than those who want a law stating marriage can only be between a man and a woman because that fits their ideals.
Yes, its a _voluntary_ employment arrangement. What gives you the right to stick your nose and your morals into it? You may think there’s no harm in it, others may disagree. That’s their right to determine, not yours. At least its not yours in a free society.
Are YOU blind to what you’re defending, Will?
Health insurance is an employment benefit. By denying coverage to the pill (which Julie has pointed out above is more than a contraceptive), that private group is denying its employees an important employment benefit.
You are muddling the isue, Will. Churches would still be free to preach their doctrines. They should not be allowed to hold non-member employees to those dioctrines.
Those churches, like it or not, are deriving a benefit from offering a service to the general public, and they are not allowed to discriminate in offering that service. By offering a service to the public from which they derive a profit, they are bound by civil rights law: that is the standard for public accommodations law.
Now I will use YOUR tactics. Bob Jones University, a private institution, used to have a policy forbidding its students from interracial dating: that policy was dropped in order for the university to receive federal financial aid funds, so I guess that’s an example of “my standards” being forced on a private entity.
Continuing YOUR tactics, the Catholic Church is hardly in a position to claim the moral high ground, given how it protected pedophile priests by shifting them from parish to parish for decades….
Bravo, Jeff. Will?
I’m not whining, just posting an observation:
I have much respect for Will, Julie, since he has a “conservative” perspective which he presents thoughtfully and well. Just seems like lately I’ve been having testy exchanges with him, and I’m trying to fathom why.
I’d echo that, Jeff.
Jeff, you’re still free to preach your doctrine as well. But like I said above, if you have the right to determine what goes into a health insurance policy for someone else, then so too does Bob Vander Plaats or anyone else. Its a double-edged sword I’d prefer stayed in its sheath.
If you can dictate that birth control or abortion _must_ be covered, then Vander Plaats can dictate they must not be covered. Both of you argue you’re just doing it for “the good of the people”. I seem to be the only one saying “the people” should be able to determine for themselves what’s good for them.
And if I seem a bit “testy” on this subject, its because from my viewpoint you guys doing the same thing Vander Plaats did, just arguing it from the other side. I don’t give up my freedoms so easily, and the first step in giving up my freedoms is to let someone else lose theirs.
As I said before, I think they should cover birth control. We should try to convince them they should. But if you get to the point of trying to require it by force of law, I draw the line. I don’t care how “righteous” it may seem, the cost is too high.
Oh Geesh, Will. You just had to mention Bob Vander Plaats. Now I want to curl up in the fetal position and rock myself to sleep. That guy makes me sick.
Just read this while mystudents are working in groups, Will.
If I’m wrong, then I don’t mind being wrong along with the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/opinion/birth-control-and-reproductive-rights.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211
That’s EXACTLY how it should be, Jeff.
The difference between a church and a hospital is significant. What you do in your house of worship, who you allow to be members, what invisible friend you listen to, what color costumes and fragrance of incense and flavor of punch you drink is entirely up to you. Who you hire to read your story books, who you hire to lead your chants and sing-alongs is up to you.
When you start a business for the public, however, you are entering the public square. You can’t bring your prejudices and hooey with you. You you can’t decide you want to pay them less than minimum wage, you can’t choose to ignore OSHA and HIPPA laws, etc.
Otherwise, I could simply declare my car a church and run down your kids when they’re crossing the street as my church has the right of way….my invisible friend tells me so (and I am an ordained minister).
Joe, thank-you for the excellent explanation of what public accommodations law requires.
You can wear any color cassack while you vicariously drink blood and eat flesh as part of your rite. Open up a sandwich shop next door, however, and offer to take my money for a service you provide, and you have to play by the same rules the rest of us do.
Your post, along with Jeff’s link, are the two most sensible pieces in this entire thread thus far, Joe.
Thank you.
Jeff, if the issue was so important to your friend and as if the word “catholic” wasn’t a dead give away, she should have inquired before taking the job. Why does she feel entitle to be an exception to there policies? Your comment about me being fast and loose with other peoples money is really nonsensical, if you’ve read any of my posts. Quite the contrary, if it’s something you want I have no problem with you buying it yourself. It’s a big problem when you feel entitle to something and expect others to pay for it.
You just don’t get it, Sue. Read up on public accommodations law, and get back to me.
You have yet to demonstrate any harm in a religious institution offering contraceptive coverage to employees who are not members of the faith.
Once again, you defer to money and power…
It’s sad that so many find basic women’s healthcare to be such a problem.
I’m saddened that so many folks think “freedom” means restricting the legal and moral activities of others, Julie.
Good grief, a Catholic hospital does not have to offer abortions. It needn’t dispense contraceptives from its pharmacy. Perhaps my mind IS closed: I don’t see how offering the pill, whether as a contraceptive or as hormone therapy, to non-Catholic employees as part of a health plan which is an employment benefit, infringes the Church’s freedom.
Which one of the pharmacists will determine if I have the “right” or “wrong” type of pill?
They can’t.
Don’t know, Julie, but see how “compromise” works here?
“You do what I say so you don’t infringe on my freedom, and we’re good.”
Sickening…
Quit poking ‘em, Jeff, or they’ll sic their invisible sky fairy on you….the same one who says incest and polygamy are ok but menstruating women and shrimp are bad.
And then I’ll be kicking and screaming.
I won’t give up.
I’m a little ticked at admin, Joe, since he deleted the comment, “my sky fairy can beat up your sky fairy.”
I saw it appear…then disappear. I’m guessing some god-botherer flagged it as inappropriate. Apparently it’s OK to believe in an invisible sky fairy that condones incest and polygamy and the killing of sassy kids and banning shrimp but it’s not OK to talk about said invisible sky fairy.
I have no intention of backing off, Jeff.
It’s okay if you’re a Republican.
Jeff, you’re the one trying to restrict the legal and moral activities of employers like Mercy Hospital, aren’t you? I have yet to hear a cogent argument for how not providing a service equates with taking someone’s freedom away. If the Gazette bans me from posting, are they restricting my freedom? If Mercy Hospital doesn’t cover birth control, are they restricting someone’s freedom?
Now if the law requires the Gazette allow everyone to post whatever they want, does that restrict the Gazette’s freedom?
Time to shift the problematic, Will. You are making an argument to decouple health insurance from employment, and institute a single-payer plan.
I wonder how soon this form of contraceptive will be taken into consideration?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/30/ultrasound-zaps-could-be-male-contraceptive/
Vasectomy should be covered under any health plan, Julie, as well as the pill, for whatever reason.
I know, I’m preaching to the choir…