What is the Democrat Party?

[AAFitz]

Obama has directly attacked freedom of religion by forcing all employers to provide free birth control.

Actually, freedom of religion only really refers to choosing what you believe, and practicing your religion within the confines of the law.

There are many former religious practices, not to mention practices in the bible that would summarily be illegal and rightfully so. One could use the bible to argue that nearly EVERY employment law is an attack on religious freedom, and perhaps it even is...however, it is the right of the individual employed that supercedes this right on a level far more important than the religious one.

Your statement is more an attack on intelligence, than the law is an attack on freedom of religion.

No one is forced into using birth control. No one is prevented from preaching its supposed evils. No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

[patrickaa317]

No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

[Woodruff]

No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the argument that the law is an attack on freedom of religion (which it clearly is not).

[patrickaa317]

No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the argument that the law is an attack on freedom of religion (which it clearly is not).

Wouldn't disagree as it's an attack on choice and business freedom, would you agree with that?

[thegreekdog]

Obama has directly attacked freedom of religion by forcing all employers to provide free birth control.

Actually, freedom of religion only really refers to choosing what you believe, and practicing your religion within the confines of the law.

There are many former religious practices, not to mention practices in the bible that would summarily be illegal and rightfully so. One could use the bible to argue that nearly EVERY employment law is an attack on religious freedom, and perhaps it even is...however, it is the right of the individual employed that supercedes this right on a level far more important than the religious one.

Your statement is more an attack on intelligence, than the law is an attack on freedom of religion.

No one is forced into using birth control. No one is prevented from preaching its supposed evils. No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

What rights of individual employees conflict with rights of freedom of religion? Please point me to a specific Constitutional provision with respect to, specifically, the right to receive health insurance paid for by an employer or, alternatively, the right to receive birth control paid for by an employer.

Now, you may go on a tangent about the Constitution and how all rights aren't in the Constitution, and funny rhetoric-laced things like that. So let's head that off at the pass now so we don't get into that silly argument that no court in the United States will ever consider.

There is no right for an employee to be employed, just as you correctly pointed out employers don't have to employ people. There is no right for people to receive health insurance or health care or birth control or abortions. There is, however, a right for religious to practice their religions, whether we like it or not, and that includes religiously-affiliated institutions. So, apart from removing the first amendment (not in its entirety because then we lose the freedom of speech portion of that amendment) or changing it or adding a new amendment about rights of employees to receive health insurance, health care, or birth control that somehow supersedes the first amendment, your post is stupid (sorry).

[Woodruff]

No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the argument that the law is an attack on freedom of religion (which it clearly is not).

Wouldn't disagree as it's an attack on choice and business freedom, would you agree with that?

All regulations/laws are an attack on choice and all business-related regulations/laws are an attack on business freedom. Would you agree with that?

[patrickaa317]

No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the argument that the law is an attack on freedom of religion (which it clearly is not).

Wouldn't disagree as it's an attack on choice and business freedom, would you agree with that?

All regulations/laws are an attack on choice and all business-related regulations/laws are an attack on business freedom. Would you agree with that?

Glad we can agree that requiring companies to provide birth control is an attack on business choice/freedom by the government. Do you think all regulations/laws that attack business choice/freedom benefit society as a whole?

[Frigidus]

No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the argument that the law is an attack on freedom of religion (which it clearly is not).

Wouldn't disagree as it's an attack on choice and business freedom, would you agree with that?

All regulations/laws are an attack on choice and all business-related regulations/laws are an attack on business freedom. Would you agree with that?

Glad we can agree that requiring companies to provide birth control is an attack on business choice/freedom by the government. Do you think all regulations/laws that attack business choice/freedom benefit society as a whole?

Good point. We should do away with all laws. Well, I guess we can all go home guys, there's nothing silly about that.

[patrickaa317]

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the argument that the law is an attack on freedom of religion (which it clearly is not).

Wouldn't disagree as it's an attack on choice and business freedom, would you agree with that?

All regulations/laws are an attack on choice and all business-related regulations/laws are an attack on business freedom. Would you agree with that?

Glad we can agree that requiring companies to provide birth control is an attack on business choice/freedom by the government. Do you think all regulations/laws that attack business choice/freedom benefit society as a whole?

Good point. We should do away with all laws. Well, I guess we can all go home guys, there's nothing silly about that.

That was probably the biggest reach for twisting words as I have ever seen.

[Woodruff]

No one is forced to provide it for free....unless, they choose to employ people. If they want to get all volunteers who earn no compensation there are no such requirements.
When they chose to employ people, they chose to be subject to employment laws, and if they disagree with a safe work environment, or anti-discrimination laws, or even providing basic health care in accordance to the law, they cant simply decide they don't like those laws because they created a system of laws of their own, that counter some of them or all of them.

As an employer, I may disagree with many laws on what could easily be considered a religious level, however, it would be ridiculous of me to think that entitles me to not follow them. I either choose to follow the rules, or I dont employ people. Its that simple.

If they believe that strongly that providing employees with birth control is evil, than by all means dont employ people. Certainly no one is forcing them to employ people. Im sure the positions can be filled with volunteers if the cause is that worthy.

It is not the law directly attacking freedom of religion, it is a law preventing religion from directly attacking the freedoms of their employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the argument that the law is an attack on freedom of religion (which it clearly is not).

Wouldn't disagree as it's an attack on choice and business freedom, would you agree with that?

All regulations/laws are an attack on choice and all business-related regulations/laws are an attack on business freedom. Would you agree with that?

Glad we can agree that requiring companies to provide birth control is an attack on business choice/freedom by the government.

I know you're trying very hard to spin this as a bad thing, but just because all business-related regulations limit business (which should be obvious), they are unfortunately proven necessary time and time again.

Do you think all regulations/laws that attack business choice/freedom benefit society as a whole?

No, I do not. I'm quite certain that there are some regulations/laws that are unnecessary. Unfortunately, many regulations/laws came into place simply because of a need to put that limit on business for a particular reason (sometimes safety, sometimes oversight, sometimes to benefit society (minimum wage comes to mind, whether you agree with it or not), probably other reasons that don't come to mind right offhand).

[Frigidus]

That was probably the biggest reach for twisting words as I have ever seen.

Well, I saw you were ignoring what the previous person said and attacking straw men, so I figured I'd jump on board.

[Woodruff]

That was probably the biggest reach for twisting words as I have ever seen.

Well, I saw you were ignoring what the previous person said and attacking straw men, so I figured I'd jump on board.

At least Patrick recognizes that there's no traction to be gained from the claim of it being an attack against freedom of religion. I presumed that's why he's changing the subject, and I'm ok with that, as long as that's his position.

[Woodruff]

There is, however, a right for religious to practice their religions, whether we like it or not, and that includes religiously-affiliated institutions.

Um...not quite on-board with that last part. The right to run a business is not a part of religious freedom, nor should it be.

[thegreekdog]

There is, however, a right for religious to practice their religions, whether we like it or not, and that includes religiously-affiliated institutions.

Um...not quite on-board with that last part. The right to run a business is not a part of religious freedom, nor should it be.

Okay, so what do you do with a Catholic hospital? It's nominally a business in that it has employees and collects some revenues, but it is also a charitable organization. Should it (a) provide health insurance to its employees that pays for birth control or (b) provide for birth control generally, including abortions?

I would note that when the Affordable Care Act was passed and included provisions to require all employers to provide health insurance that covered birth control, the Catholic Church threatened to close its hopsitals (taking the AAFitz approach) and call for volunteers rather than employees at other places.

EDIT - If it makes it any clearer, I'm not talking about general businesses, I'm talking about businesses run by religious institutions. That being said, I think there is also a freedom of religion issue in requiring the pro-life guy that runs the ice cream parlor to provide health insurance for his employees that covers birth control. So we can talk about that after we talk about Catholic hospitals and churches and the like.

[patrickaa317]

Wouldn't it make more sense for people not to choose to work there if they don't get their birth control paid for? I'm sure if it's such a necessary thing, some employer will offer it to attract the workforce talent that demands it. Certainly noone is forcing them to work there. It's not discriminating against employees, it's giving the company a choice. I'm sure you are "pro-choice" when it comes to certain decisions, right?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the argument that the law is an attack on freedom of religion (which it clearly is not).

Wouldn't disagree as it's an attack on choice and business freedom, would you agree with that?

All regulations/laws are an attack on choice and all business-related regulations/laws are an attack on business freedom. Would you agree with that?

Glad we can agree that requiring companies to provide birth control is an attack on business choice/freedom by the government.

I know you're trying very hard to spin this as a bad thing, but just because all business-related regulations limit business (which should be obvious), they are unfortunately proven necessary time and time again.

Do you think all regulations/laws that attack business choice/freedom benefit society as a whole?

No, I do not. I'm quite certain that there are some regulations/laws that are unnecessary. Unfortunately, many regulations/laws came into place simply because of a need to put that limit on business for a particular reason (sometimes safety, sometimes oversight, sometimes to benefit society (minimum wage comes to mind, whether you agree with it or not), probably other reasons that don't come to mind right offhand).

I completely agree that some regulation is necessary. Especially when it comes to workers safety and all that jazz. However, to compare workers safety to being forced to provide birth control, is where the true spin comes from. Unfortunately AAFitz gets credit for that spin.

Also unfortunately, many regulations/laws came into place simply because of politics and government workers having nothing better to do than to find a way to meddle.

I do believe that a minimum wage is a necessary thing.

[patrickaa317]

That was probably the biggest reach for twisting words as I have ever seen.

Well, I saw you were ignoring what the previous person said and attacking straw men, so I figured I'd jump on board.

Fair enough but your actions can be summed up through this:

[patrickaa317]

That was probably the biggest reach for twisting words as I have ever seen.

Well, I saw you were ignoring what the previous person said and attacking straw men, so I figured I'd jump on board.

At least Patrick recognizes that there's no traction to be gained from the claim of it being an attack against freedom of religion. I presumed that's why he's changing the subject, and I'm ok with that, as long as that's his position.

Actually you are the one that broadened the subject, thanks for trying to share the credit though.

All regulations/laws are an attack on choice and all business-related regulations/laws are an attack on business freedom. Would you agree with that?

[Woodruff]

There is, however, a right for religious to practice their religions, whether we like it or not, and that includes religiously-affiliated institutions.

Um...not quite on-board with that last part. The right to run a business is not a part of religious freedom, nor should it be.

Okay, so what do you do with a Catholic hospital? It's nominally a business in that it has employees and collects some revenues, but it is also a charitable organization. Should it (a) provide health insurance to its employees that pays for birth control or (b) provide for birth control generally, including abortions?

If it is a business, then it must follow the rules assigned to businesses. Do you expect that hospital not to follow medical practices, simply because it's religion-oriented? Rules are in place that are required to be followed.

Again, running a business is not a part of religious freedom, nor should it be.

I would note that when the Affordable Care Act was passed and included provisions to require all employers to provide health insurance that covered birth control, the Catholic Church threatened to close its hopsitals (taking the AAFitz approach) and call for volunteers rather than employees at other places.

If they feel it is more important to stand by the idea that birth control is a bad thing, then that is frankly what they should do (it seems to me that they should view birth control and abortion separately).

EDIT - If it makes it any clearer, I'm not talking about general businesses, I'm talking about businesses run by religious institutions.

Understood.

That being said, I think there is also a freedom of religion issue in requiring the pro-life guy that runs the ice cream parlor to provide health insurance for his employees that covers birth control. So we can talk about that after we talk about Catholic hospitals and churches and the like.

I think it's precisely the same situation. Freedom of religion has nothing at all to do with running a business, so it cannot be impacted by business requirements.

[Woodruff]

Also unfortunately, many regulations/laws came into place simply because of politics and government workers having nothing better to do than to find a way to meddle.

Perhaps a few due to government workers having nothing better to do. I honestly cannot imagine this happens that often. Politics is probably more likely, though.

[Night Strike]

Laws and regulations are supposed to be in place to keep one person from harming another and punishing those who do cause harm. No one is being harmed by a company not providing free birth control, whether they're a religious-affiliated company or not. People have the choice to go out and buy their own birth control, but now there is no choice on what types of compensation an employer can provide. Employers should be able to decide what type of coverage they want to pay for, not have it mandated by the government (and, by the way, those employers that have very generous health care policies should not be forced to pay luxury taxes on them....all that will do is make health care worse). There is no politician (that I'm aware of) who is actually looking to pass laws that ban contraceptives; all they're trying to do is ban mandates and governmental payments.

[Woodruff]

There is no politician (that I'm aware of) who is actually looking to pass laws that ban contraceptives; all they're trying to do is ban mandates and governmental payments.

It's been happening since at least 1965, actually. Further, according to the pending Mississippi “personhood” law, Proposition 26, a human has just been created and any harm to that “human” would be deemed murder. Taken to the extreme, a woman who took contraceptives – and, presumably, the doctor who prescribed them, along with the pharmacy who filled them, could be prosecuted for murder. If Mississippi’s “personhood” law passes, an ectopic pregnancy – which causes monstrous pain and can, in fact, kill women – would have to be allowed to go to term. It almost seems as if some people view fetuses as people, but don't view women as people.

Government regulation of birth control is about the civil liberties of the individual and the power of the state to regulate quality of medical services. If the “religious freedom” argument carries the day, millions of American men and women may wake up to find out their health care plans no longer pay for birth-control pills, IUDs, sterilization operations and other methods – and that, essentially, their ability to use birth control hinges on their employers’ religious beliefs.

[patrickaa317]

Also unfortunately, many regulations/laws came into place simply because of politics and government workers having nothing better to do than to find a way to meddle.

Perhaps a few due to government workers having nothing better to do. I honestly cannot imagine this happens that often. Politics is probably more likely, though.

Yeah but sometimes the government thinks they know what is better for someone or something when they don't consult people in the actual profession or industry.

[Night Strike]

There is no politician (that I'm aware of) who is actually looking to pass laws that ban contraceptives; all they're trying to do is ban mandates and governmental payments.

It's been happening since at least 1965, actually. Further, according to the pending Mississippi “personhood” law, Proposition 26, a human has just been created and any harm to that “human” would be deemed murder. Taken to the extreme, a woman who took contraceptives – and, presumably, the doctor who prescribed them, along with the pharmacy who filled them, could be prosecuted for murder. If Mississippi’s “personhood” law passes, an ectopic pregnancy – which causes monstrous pain and can, in fact, kill women – would have to be allowed to go to term. It almost seems as if some people view fetuses as people, but don't view women as people.

So there's absolutely no exception for instances of harm to the mother?

Government regulation of birth control is about the civil liberties of the individual and the power of the state to regulate quality of medical services. If the “religious freedom” argument carries the day, millions of American men and women may wake up to find out their health care plans no longer pay for birth-control pills, IUDs, sterilization operations and other methods – and that, essentially, their ability to use birth control hinges on their employers’ religious beliefs.

So it's ok for people to wake up one day to find out the government is forcing their employer to provide all those things (which is what happened) but it's not ok for those same people to wake up and find out that the government is not mandating that those be provided? Sounds more like politics than sound policy. And what civil liberties are being violated by an employer not providing those things? Are they actively keeping their employees from buying them with their own money? How is something a civil liberty if someone else has to provide it? I thought civil liberties were inherent within each person, not something handed to you (or paid for on your behalf) by someone else.

[Woodruff]

Also unfortunately, many regulations/laws came into place simply because of politics and government workers having nothing better to do than to find a way to meddle.

Perhaps a few due to government workers having nothing better to do. I honestly cannot imagine this happens that often. Politics is probably more likely, though.

Yeah but sometimes the government thinks they know what is better for someone or something when they don't consult people in the actual profession or industry.

True enough, unfortunately.

[Woodruff]

There is no politician (that I'm aware of) who is actually looking to pass laws that ban contraceptives; all they're trying to do is ban mandates and governmental payments.

It's been happening since at least 1965, actually. Further, according to the pending Mississippi “personhood” law, Proposition 26, a human has just been created and any harm to that “human” would be deemed murder. Taken to the extreme, a woman who took contraceptives – and, presumably, the doctor who prescribed them, along with the pharmacy who filled them, could be prosecuted for murder. If Mississippi’s “personhood” law passes, an ectopic pregnancy – which causes monstrous pain and can, in fact, kill women – would have to be allowed to go to term. It almost seems as if some people view fetuses as people, but don't view women as people.

So there's absolutely no exception for instances of harm to the mother?

While there is an exception for conditions where the mother's life is in imminent danger (note the wording), Proposition 26 in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and “morning-after pills,” which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories. Without question, this proposition could make doctors afraid to save women with life-threatening pregnancies and radically change the landscape of what is and is not murder. As far as I'm concerned this is a tremendous drive into the area of privacy and should be fought tooth and nail by any true Constitutionalist like yourself.

Government regulation of birth control is about the civil liberties of the individual and the power of the state to regulate quality of medical services. If the “religious freedom” argument carries the day, millions of American men and women may wake up to find out their health care plans no longer pay for birth-control pills, IUDs, sterilization operations and other methods – and that, essentially, their ability to use birth control hinges on their employers’ religious beliefs.

So it's ok for people to wake up one day to find out the government is forcing their employer to provide all those things (which is what happened) but it's not ok for those same people to wake up and find out that the government is not mandating that those be provided? Sounds more like politics than sound policy.[/quote]

It sounds that way to you because you want it to sound that way. I know you're ok with religion controlling everything, but not all of us are so sanguine about the idea.

And what civil liberties are being violated by an employer not providing those things? Are they actively keeping their employees from buying them with their own money? How is something a civil liberty if someone else has to provide it? I thought civil liberties were inherent within each person, not something handed to you (or paid for on your behalf) by someone else.

So you don't believe that the government should have the power to regulate medical care? Because that seems to be what you're arguing against here.