(cont'd) It's your job/work-related benefits... that you earn through your labor. They aren't 'giving' you squat.
It's about like saying that because they 'give' you a salary that they can stipulate that you cannot spend it on birth control. No, they cannot tell you what to do with the fruits of your labor. They don't get to tell me whether I take a flu shot this year. They don't get to tell me whether I go to a dermatologist. And quite frankly, the whole birth control thing is crazy because there are many things besides birth control that it can be used for. When I was placed on birth control as a teen it was to regulate my periods, not because I needed it as birth control at that time. The poor woman that Rush was calling a "prostitute" and a "slut" for testifying to congress, was testifying about a woman who had had to give up her birth control -- prescribed to her to help prevent her ovarian cysts -- because it wasn't covered by health insurance. The cyst then grew so large that she had to have her entire ovary removed. Preventative healthcare was denied to her because someone decided that their abstract "moral stance" was more important. And for this, she was called a "prostitute".
Either we protect the rights of people to refuse to cover particular services that violate their belief systems, or the government will coerce people into performing acts that violate their conscience
That's just it, though,. They aren't protecting people. They're protecting an institution or a corporation as opposed to people. Why are the people screaming about not allowing people control your personal choices all about allowing corporations and institutions... to control your choices? Why in the name of screaming "The government can't make decisions" they defend an increasingly unregulated and monopoly sized insurance companies making the decisions for you? With little to no defense of your rights (preventing them from kicking you out if you're ill or caping your benefits). Again -- the hypocrisy burns.
You work. You earn your salary and your benefits. Why does an institution or a corporation get to stipulate how you then use what you earned? Why does a religious affiliated university or hospital get to tell what secular employees can do with what they've earned? And with the compromise, the employer isn't even required to have anything to do with it. It shouldn't involve the employer. My employer doesn't know whether I took alergy shots last week, why do they get a say as to whether I'm prescribed orthotricycline? I earned my health premium with my labor. So why does a corporation or an institution trump real, actual people?
Then, again, the whole "moral objection" part of the Blunt amendment is pure craziness. What if your 'boss' was Christian Scientest and he insisted that because of his religion you have to go to 'healing centers' rather than a doctor? Why does the 'boss' get to decide what you can do? Because of the power structure? Again, there's no reason they should have any more say over what you do with your health insurance than what you do with your salary... because they are the same thing. They are what you've earned through your labor. And you can decide what you want to do with it just as you can decide whether to spend your salary. It's yours.
There were exemptions for churches. This was about insitututions -- universities and hospitals -- that have secular employees. What's more, this wasn't 'controversial' until it became a political football. 28 States already passed this law. Mitt Romney signed such a law in Massachusetts when he was governor. Huckabee signed such a law when he was governor of Arkansas. Many Republican governors signed identical requirements... so like the ACA, they were 'for it' before they were 'against it'. It's only became anathema to them when they could make political hay because whatever Obama is for, they're against.
no subject
It's about like saying that because they 'give' you a salary that they can stipulate that you cannot spend it on birth control. No, they cannot tell you what to do with the fruits of your labor. They don't get to tell me whether I take a flu shot this year. They don't get to tell me whether I go to a dermatologist. And quite frankly, the whole birth control thing is crazy because there are many things besides birth control that it can be used for. When I was placed on birth control as a teen it was to regulate my periods, not because I needed it as birth control at that time. The poor woman that Rush was calling a "prostitute" and a "slut" for testifying to congress, was testifying about a woman who had had to give up her birth control -- prescribed to her to help prevent her ovarian cysts -- because it wasn't covered by health insurance. The cyst then grew so large that she had to have her entire ovary removed. Preventative healthcare was denied to her because someone decided that their abstract "moral stance" was more important. And for this, she was called a "prostitute".
Either we protect the rights of people to refuse to cover particular services that violate their belief systems, or the government will coerce people into performing acts that violate their conscience
That's just it, though,. They aren't protecting people. They're protecting an institution or a corporation as opposed to people. Why are the people screaming about not allowing people control your personal choices all about allowing corporations and institutions... to control your choices? Why in the name of screaming "The government can't make decisions" they defend an increasingly unregulated and monopoly sized insurance companies making the decisions for you? With little to no defense of your rights (preventing them from kicking you out if you're ill or caping your benefits). Again -- the hypocrisy burns.
You work. You earn your salary and your benefits. Why does an institution or a corporation get to stipulate how you then use what you earned? Why does a religious affiliated university or hospital get to tell what secular employees can do with what they've earned? And with the compromise, the employer isn't even required to have anything to do with it. It shouldn't involve the employer. My employer doesn't know whether I took alergy shots last week, why do they get a say as to whether I'm prescribed orthotricycline? I earned my health premium with my labor. So why does a corporation or an institution trump real, actual people?
Then, again, the whole "moral objection" part of the Blunt amendment is pure craziness. What if your 'boss' was Christian Scientest and he insisted that because of his religion you have to go to 'healing centers' rather than a doctor? Why does the 'boss' get to decide what you can do? Because of the power structure? Again, there's no reason they should have any more say over what you do with your health insurance than what you do with your salary... because they are the same thing. They are what you've earned through your labor. And you can decide what you want to do with it just as you can decide whether to spend your salary. It's yours.
There were exemptions for churches. This was about insitututions -- universities and hospitals -- that have secular employees. What's more, this wasn't 'controversial' until it became a political football. 28 States already passed this law. Mitt Romney signed such a law in Massachusetts when he was governor. Huckabee signed such a law when he was governor of Arkansas. Many Republican governors signed identical requirements... so like the ACA, they were 'for it' before they were 'against it'. It's only became anathema to them when they could make political hay because whatever Obama is for, they're against.