|
|
Post by AliciaFox#1fan4life on Feb 29, 2012 20:26:51 GMT -5
If you were in the government, would you find this unconstitutional or constitutional? They vote vtomorrow.
|
|
gawd6sic6™
Main Eventer
" I cross the lines you love to hate "
Joined on: Jan 13, 2009 13:50:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,868
|
Post by gawd6sic6™ on Feb 29, 2012 23:23:42 GMT -5
what are your thoughts about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 29, 2012 23:29:18 GMT -5
I admit that I'm not an expert on it, but how would it be Unconstitutional?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 6:40:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2012 23:39:02 GMT -5
I want to hear triplehfan85's thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by DgenerationX092 on Mar 1, 2012 6:44:57 GMT -5
Maybe im not as well-informed on politics as everyone else, but was it wrong for me to expect insight about the specifics of this Act after entering the thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mole on Mar 1, 2012 6:56:37 GMT -5
Maybe im not as well-informed on politics as everyone else, but was it wrong for me to expect insight about the specifics of this Act after entering the thread? I'd say no. I mean, hell, all triplehfan does is regurgitate news, the least he could have done was throw in a link to whatever he read before he asked for WF's opinion on it. This is the law that pro-lifers wish to pass so that organizations that are opposed to abortion/contraception don't have to provide health care plans that pay for contraception. This is that discussion about old guys deciding the best way to care for women's reproduction. |
|
|
|
Post by Cammi Oh on Mar 1, 2012 9:52:29 GMT -5
I am against it, personally. I don't enjoy people's beliefs being forced on EVERYONE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 1, 2012 15:22:03 GMT -5
I was against it. You can debate it as unconstitutional, but that is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. I think it is more of a moral/ethical issue. I think the better argument would be that abortion/contraceptions are personal choices, so an employer should not have to pay for something that is not a necessity.
I just read that it was blocked in Senate by 1 vote, so I guess the issue is over for now.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Mar 1, 2012 15:57:57 GMT -5
I think people are a bit confused here.
The Right to Conscience Act was against making employers and health insurance companies provide contraception and other services, and that was what was shot down today. So, basically Obama's birth control policy was upheld by the killing of this bill. I haven't really learned enough about the issue to form a strong opinion either way, personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Mar 1, 2012 16:36:01 GMT -5
The thing that's unconstitutional is the health care mandate to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by AliciaFox#1fan4life on Mar 1, 2012 16:38:19 GMT -5
screw Washington. We are allowed to have a Freedom of Conscience. Stupid fn nutjobs
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 1, 2012 17:01:55 GMT -5
I have no idea why people are debating the morality of birth control. That strikes me as totally bizarre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Mar 1, 2012 17:06:32 GMT -5
I have no idea why people are debating the morality of birth control. That strikes me as totally bizarre. Well I mean, isn't it against some religious values? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 1, 2012 17:18:22 GMT -5
I have no idea why people are debating the morality of birth control. That strikes me as totally bizarre. Well I mean, isn't it against some religious values? That's what I don't understand. Why? It's against some religions to have a blood transfusion. No one debates the morality of blood transfusions. Some religions teach against doctors altogether. No one debates the morality of doctors. Why birth control? And honestly, the idea that all sex should be procreative is so ridiculously archaic that it's laughable. That's coming from a religious guy. |
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Mar 1, 2012 17:18:31 GMT -5
I have no idea why people are debating the morality of birth control. That strikes me as totally bizarre. Well I mean, isn't it against some religious values? That doesn't automatically make it "not totally bizarre". |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 1, 2012 18:10:11 GMT -5
Well I mean, isn't it against some religious values? That's what I don't understand. Why? It's against some religions to have a blood transfusion. No one debates the morality of blood transfusions. Some religions teach against doctors altogether. No one debates the morality of doctors. Why birth control? And honestly, the idea that all sex should be procreative is so ridiculously archaic that it's laughable. That's coming from a religious guy. But the issue is the government forcing them to do something that goes against their values. That's why there is a debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Mar 1, 2012 18:52:52 GMT -5
Hey, it's your weird creepo religions, not mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Mar 1, 2012 18:53:42 GMT -5
That's what I don't understand. Why? It's against some religions to have a blood transfusion. No one debates the morality of blood transfusions. Some religions teach against doctors altogether. No one debates the morality of doctors. Why birth control? And honestly, the idea that all sex should be procreative is so ridiculously archaic that it's laughable. That's coming from a religious guy. But the issue is the government forcing them to do something that goes against their values. That's why there is a debate. If my values say that a woman is property and I can beat her if I want to, can the feds say that I can't? 'Cuz some religions teach that kind of nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Tye Hyll on Mar 1, 2012 19:02:16 GMT -5
Separation of church and state please.
I'm not religious, I dont mind religion I just feel it should never ever have a say in politics especially in a country that claims it has no religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Mar 1, 2012 21:58:10 GMT -5
But the issue is the government forcing them to do something that goes against their values. That's why there is a debate. If my values say that a woman is property and I can beat her if I want to, can the feds say that I can't? 'Cuz some religions teach that kind of nonsense. This is why we can't have good discussions. You pull out these hypothetical bullcraparguments instead of arguing on what is presented. |
|
