• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Affordable Care Act and the Religious Exemption

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    "The only moral abortion is my abortion". Birth control is still birth control. Do you think your sister would appreciate it if you supported government making it harder for her to obtain her medication?

    Just pointing out that when I said 'birth control is used as medication as well', it's under the assumption that the person in question isn't having sex. It can be used especially to help with intense cramping menstrual cycles. If you're using birth control but not having sex, then there's no chance of an abortion or contraception.
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • Just pointing out that when I said 'birth control is used as medication as well', it's under the assumption that the person in question isn't having sex. It can be used especially to help with intense cramping menstrual cycles. If you're using birth control but not having sex, then there's no chance of an abortion or contraception.
    Not to get too far off topic, but what is one to think if, in the middle of taking one's not-for-use-as-contraception birth control, one decides she's just too tempted by the flesh and ends up putting that contraception to another use?
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
    8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years
  • And to complete your analogy, what if a mother didn't intentionally order the package and it was an accident? What if someone forced it on her? What if, somewhere along the line, her situation changed or she realized she would no longer be able to afford this package? Should she not be able to return or cancel her order? People always say "regifting" as if it's a guarantee that the package will receive an owner, but the process of delivery is already incredibly painful to go through and there's no guarantee that the package will find an owner since there's already a terribly large backlog of regifted orders.
    That's not entirely related to the line in question of Mr. X's post that I was commenting on. But whatever.

    I am pro-choice, but with restrictions. I am not anti-abortion. And I am certainly not against contraception. However, for the reasons I already discussed in my previous post I'm not fond of abortion after the first trimester, with the exception being for situations like emergencies, complications, health reasons, etc. And very much against partial-birth abortions. That you're killing a baby in one room, but in the room next door trying to save a baby of the same age who was born prematurely is just mind-baffling.

    I see abortion as serving a medical purpose. But, if you want it to use it just as contraception, I think an abortion should be the last resort; but that's their choice if they choose to do it. Personally, I think adoption is the better alternative as your last resort, but I don't want to deny them that option either.

    But, to continue this analogy game... Yes, they should be able to cancel or return her order. But, within the parameters. Most retailers have a return and cancellation policy. Return within the first 30 days, for example. Or cancel your order before it ships. So... continuing with this analogy, if you're going to abort - do it during the first trimester, not after. That's your window of opportunity.

    But, we're drifting from the topic of the thread now. Which, to reiterate... my stance was that they shouldn't be exempt, no.
     
    Last edited:

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
    13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Not to get too far off topic, but what is one to think if, in the middle of taking one's not-for-use-as-contraception birth control, one decides she's just too tempted by the flesh and ends up putting that contraception to another use?

    According to Catholics, that would be a sin and one would have to confess it, sincerely regret it and resolve not to do it again, and then will be forgiven by a priest and it's as if the sin was never committed since it's washed from the record by God.

    Of course, it's the 'regret and resolve' part that usually gives Catholics trouble.
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
    8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years


  • According to Catholics, that would be a sin and one would have to confess it, sincerely regret it and resolve not to do it again, and then will be forgiven by a priest and it's as if the sin was never committed since it's washed from the record by God.

    Of course, it's the 'regret and resolve' part that usually gives Catholics trouble.
    Personally, I've got issues seeking forgiveness from a priest. But that's another matter XD
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
    2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • Given the number of priests that were on the news in the last few years for molestation, it seems like they don't even follow the words that they preach. Arguably though, this stuff is what happens when you tell a person to repress any and all sexual urges that they have. Sooner or later, some of them will stop repressing them and seek whatever release they can get.

    The ones in the news though are just the ones we know of. Odd's are, the corruption reaches much further then is currently known.
     
    Last edited:

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
    13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Hi you guys there's more news on this!

    Obama announces birth control compromise

    Thoughts? I find it pretty agreeable and agree with the idea that if people still aren't happy with it they seem to be "advocating for a system where religious groups could actually bar all their employees from taking birth control, regardless of who pays for it". But I'd like to see if any people who aren't quite as liberal as me agree with that. The article mentions that a few Catholic universities have come out supporting it already as well.
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • Great compromise. Personally, I don't think there needed to be one and that whiners should have shut up about their "religious freedoms" that they didn't seem to care about when 28 states already had laws like this on the books, but that's just me. I mean, when you get all these tax breaks from the government because you're a religious institution you're still playing in the secular world and have to play by some of its rules. Can't have it both ways.

    Aaaaaannnnnnddddd........There's a bit more to add to this news. Mitch Mcconnell, leading Republican in the US Senate, is supporting a proposed law that would allow any employer to exclude covering any birth control they wanted to based on "moral grounds." Yeah. First it was all up in arms about religion being trampled over (which I think was just a political stance anyway) and when Obama finds a clever way around that to make everyone happy (except insurance agencies, probably) they can't let him have his victory and need to spin it into something that still vilifies him as an anti-religious crusader who forces you to do something against your morals.
     

    Blue Nocturne

    Not THAT one.
    636
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Age 28
    • Seen Mar 6, 2013
    I'm sure this has already been brought up, but I'm fundamentally opposed to the way money in the military is spent. I don't like that my tax money is being spent on wars we have no real place in. Where can I sign up to bump down my payments? (I'm neither American, nor a tax payer, but this is more for the sake of argument)
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
    8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years
  • Great compromise. Personally, I don't think there needed to be one and that whiners should have shut up about their "religious freedoms" that they didn't seem to care about when 28 states already had laws like this on the books, but that's just me. I mean, when you get all these tax breaks from the government because you're a religious institution you're still playing in the secular world and have to play by some of its rules. Can't have it both ways.
    Well, who cares about what those other states do. It's only a problem because Obama proposed it.

    I don't know, the compromised wasn't needed, but whatever works I guess. As long as more people have access to health care.

    Aaaaaannnnnnddddd........There's a bit more to add to this news. Mitch Mcconnell, leading Republican in the US Senate, is supporting a proposed law that would allow any employer to exclude covering any birth control they wanted to based on "moral grounds." Yeah. First it was all up in arms about religion being trampled over (which I think was just a political stance anyway) and when Obama finds a clever way around that to make everyone happy (except insurance agencies, probably) they can't let him have his victory and need to spin it into something that still vilifies him as an anti-religious crusader who forces you to do something against your morals.
    Oh boy. I don't like this. Let's deny access to healthcare based on your employers point of view. The religious freedom argument... had some legs to it even though I didn't agree with it. But, this is just stupid. This is a slippery slope. What if you have an employer who only supports holistic methods? We're putting a lot of faith in assuming that corporations are moral.
     
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • Last I saw on this issue, some kind of compromise was reached, IIRC. I'll have go look an the details, but I vaguely remember a court backing up the President on this.
     
    9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
  • The Constitutionality of the American Affordable Healthcare Law

    American Heathcare Law heads to Supreme Court

    Affordable Care Act and the Religious Exemption

    A Republican-led challenge to the Democrats' most ambitious social legislation in a generation goes before the Supreme Court on Monday, with President Obama's healthcare law hanging in the balance.

    The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, may decide whether the Constitution puts any limit on Congress' power to regulate not just healthcare, but the entire economy.

    - The arguments begin with a technical discussion of whether the proposed penalty for not buying health insurance amounts to a tax. If the justices find that it is, under an old law they may have to postpone ruling on most of the issues until after the penalty goes into effect in 2014.

    - On Tuesday, the justices will get to the heart of the matter, debating whether Congress has the authority to make people purchase a product: health insurance.

    - On Wednesday, they will talk about whether the rest of the law can stand on its own even if the insurance mandate is struck down, and the separate issue of whether the federal government's plan to fund a massive expansion of state Medicaid programs violates states' rights under the Constitution.

    Since 1936, the justices have not struck down a major federal regulatory law on the grounds that Congress went too far. The court's forbearance on matters touching Congress' authority to regulate commerce has allowed Washington's power to grow, to protect civil rights and the environment, to ensure safer automobiles and drugs, and to help boost the wages and benefits of workers.

    All the while, however, conservatives and business groups have insisted there must be a limit. Otherwise, they say, an all-powerful federal government would be free to write its own rules.

    Such a limit -- if the Constitution indeed sets one -- is at the heart of the healthcare case.

    I am quite amazed at how fast the US Supreme Court has moved on taking this very landmark case up. And the fact that it's in the middle of a full-scale Presidential Campaign Post-Citizens United. Usually it takes a case 4 years or so to get into the court's plate.

    Anyways if the Individual Mandate does get struck down, it takes away any viable "Market-oriented" reform for the Healthcare field. In my opinion it was a seriously short-sighted attempt to score some political points to target the individual mandate considering the fact that the current system is stuck between Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, not having all of the younger generation in the insurance pool, a patchwork of payment systems that includes thousands of insurance companies, the Veterans Affairs Hospital System, The Native American Reservation health system, Medicaid and Medicare.

    Anyways, you guys know my position. I support the law etc.

    But in the end if it does get struck down and the opposition celebrates it only gives alternatives that are very unpalatable to the opposition as it's going to be a more Social Security/Medicare route as our health system becomes thoroughly unsustainable in the near future.
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
    8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years
  • I don't think it'll get shot down. I think enough judges will pull for it.

    Forgive my non-American understanding... but if it doesn't mesh well with that sacred piece of paper why not just ammend it like has been done many times over?
     
    900
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Seen Jul 22, 2016
    I've been watching this conversation from the sidelines with some interest for a while now. Although I haven't contributed to the conversation, I feel it necessary to point out this one interesting fact:

    Religious run organizations, such as hospitals and schools, object to the taxes they pay to the government going towards allowing women to kill unborn babies. And yet, they do not raise the same objection to their taxes paying for a soldier to go kill a Muslim.

    I find that very interesting.
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
    2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • But (Forgive me, I'm misquoting this... I know.) killing a heratic is not murder. Or something. (It was in a movie about the crusades.)

    But still, this is how things usually are for them. They want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.

    I think that this case could easily decide our next president though. If this law is struck down, odd's are that Obama is getting replaced. If it isn't, odds are that Obama will be staying for another 4 years.
     
    9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
  • I don't think it'll get shot down. I think enough judges will pull for it.

    Forgive my non-American understanding... but if it doesn't mesh well with that sacred piece of paper why not just ammend it like has been done many times over?

    Well amending the sacred piece of paper (And yes, we Americans like to venerate it as closely as a holy document u_u) requires a 3/4 vote in the affirmative of the amendment in the House of Representatives and US Senate or the States in convention. Which in turn either a 3/4 supermajority of State Legislatures vote in approving it or a 3/4 supermajority of the states in a convention approve of it.

    And considering that the political landscape as it is barely gets a majority of the US Congress to pass funding bills and other essential legislation such as the Debt Ceiling, I doubt an amendment would actually pass on such a hyper-partisan piece of legislation.
     
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I don't think it'll get shot down. I think enough judges will pull for it.

    Forgive my non-American understanding... but if it doesn't mesh well with that sacred piece of paper why not just ammend it like has been done many times over?

    Given how polarized American Politics has become, a Constitutional Amendment would be damn near impossible as of right now. The feasible way would be once President Obama is re-elected, and if the Democrats re-take the House of Representatives with a large majority. Same with the Senate.
     
    9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years


  • Given how polarized American Politics has become, a Constitutional Amendment would be damn near impossible as of right now. The feasible way would be once President Obama is re-elected, and if the Democrats re-take the House of Representatives with a large majority. Same with the Senate.

    I highly doubt that even with the 2009-2010 Democrat Supermajority any constitutional amendment would pass. I still remember how close the votes on PPACA were back then, 219-212 in the House IIRC, and the 60-39 in the Senate. That's not enough for an amendment. :/
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
    8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years


  • I highly doubt that even with the 2009-2010 Democrat Supermajority any constitutional amendment would pass. I still remember how close the votes on PPACA were back then, 219-212 in the House IIRC, and the 60-39 in the Senate. That's not enough for an amendment. :/
    Agreed. Even with a supermajority back then, the democrats conceded a lot.

    Obamacare is a step in the right direction. But what you need is a universal health care or national insurance system. But, even with a supermajority there was no chance of that happening. Constitutional amendment or not.
     
    9,468
    Posts
    15
    Years

  • Agreed. Even with a supermajority back then, the democrats conceded a lot.

    Obamacare is a step in the right direction. But what you need is a universal health care or national insurance system. But, even with a supermajority there was no chance of that happening. Constitutional amendment or not.

    I still remember thoroughly criticizing the various proposals being floated back then. (Except for HR 676 of course) Remember this?

    https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=189588

    and

    https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=197741

    But after experiencing actually having insurance myself and seeing how other college students are benefiting from various provisions in the Law, I've realized that this is way better than what we had before. The US as it is can only accept these modest forms of reform due to entrenched interests, but that is life.

    Yet sadly the issue is being used as a political football with some very unfounded fears being peddled around.
     
    Back
    Top