Senate Dems stop "conscience exemption"

  • Thread starter Thread starter garn9173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
Government shouldn’t be dictating insurance coverage at all.
Click to expand...
Maybe not in Utopia where everyone would have and could afford all the care they needed. Where other individuals and faith based groups made certain of that. But in the meantime someone has to pick up the slack. It’s a perfect example where govt can play a role along with individuals and faith based groups. These words of Jesus come to my mind: “I was sick and you took care of me.” (Matt 25:36 GNT)
 
Marie5890 said:
How do you think Our Blessed Lord would handle these realities?

Image all those who vote democrat were surrounding Him, ready to listen to Him.
What and how would He teach them? What would He say?

Something to ponder during this Lenten season. 🙂
Click to expand...
That is the problem Marie 5890: the Democrat catholics in the senate (and their Democrat catholic enablers who voted for them - some who are on this forum) don’t listen to their own catholic Church which comes to us from Jesus.
CMatt25 said:
Maybe not in Utopia where everyone would have and could afford all the care they needed. Where other individuals and faith based groups made certain of that. But in the meantime someone has to pick up the slack. It’s a perfect example where govt can play a role along with individuals and faith based groups. These words of Jesus come to my mind: “I was sick and you took care of me.” (Matt 25:36 GNT)
Click to expand...
So the choice is either a non-existent utopia or the government forcing organizations which help the poor - like Catholic charities - to provide coverage they don’t believe in **or else? ** Obama wants you to believe that’s the only choice, Cmatt, but it isn’t. “I was sick and you took care of me.” Indeed. If you believe that, then why do you support mandates which call for stiff penalties against non-compliant organizations which will threaten their existence or at best limit their ability to do what they do best, which is help the poor? The question I have for you is this, Cmatt: Is your allegiance to the secular, socialist ideology so strong and ingrained in you that you are okay with seeing private charities’ ability to help the poor threatened by government? Which do you prefer? Helping the poor or furthering a partisan ideology?

Ishii
 
TMC said:
There are some, such as Jehova’s Witnesses and some sects of Judaism. But my point is that the Blunt Amendment did not require a religious objection - any employer could claim a “moral” objection to any procedure. If the bill were to have been limited to religious objections that would have been a good start to narrowing its scope, but it was not.
Click to expand...
That are opposed to what specifically? What major problems have there been in 220 years with people being denied the coverage that they want because of the employer’s religious or moral objections?
 
When I started working, I made choices in my insurance coverage. Now, it seems to be a one-size-fits-all that is being mandated by the government. That makes it subject to the political influences that come into play.

I am not at all sure it is the government’s business what coverage my employer and I agree on. Freedom ebbs each time government reaches farther into our personal lives. If I choose to work at a Catholic institution, I should expect certain things to go with it.
 
CMatt25 said:
Maybe not in Utopia where everyone would have and could afford all the care they needed. Where other individuals and faith based groups made certain of that. But in the meantime someone has to pick up the slack. It’s a perfect example where govt can play a role along with individuals and faith based groups. These words of Jesus come to my mind: “I was sick and you took care of me.” (Matt 25:36 GNT)
Click to expand...
And rather than attempt to do something for the needy in good spirit, the government seized power in a blatant attempt top crush religious identity and freedom, and lied about the cost, scope, and ability of the Healthcare law to succeed. If the government cared, as you pretend they do, they could have protected the sick and religion (despite federal health mandates being unconstitutional, but another argument.)

So now the religious are the ones who are sick and under attack. Are you going to be there for us CMatt, as Jesus instructed above?

So which lifesaving treatment is it you need to survive through the week - IUD or Depo-provera? Souls may be lost to @#!*% , but at least they won’t go there pregnant, right?
 
“The vote is unlikely to end the fight over the contraception rule, though, as Blunt said the issue won’t go away until the administration backs down and gives a broader religious exemption to the coverage mandate.” - Politico
 
CMatt25 said:
Maybe not in Utopia where everyone would have and could afford all the care they needed. Where other individuals and faith based groups made certain of that. But in the meantime someone has to pick up the slack. It’s a perfect example where govt can play a role along with individuals and faith based groups. These words of Jesus come to my mind: “I was sick and you took care of me.” (Matt 25:36 GNT)
Click to expand...
Nice quote but what you actually advocate would read more like this…

“I was sick and you voted to tax others to take care of me and then considered it your own personal charity.”:o
 
CMatt25 said:
But in the meantime someone has to pick up the slack. It’s a perfect example where govt can play a role along with individuals and faith based groups. These words of Jesus come to my mind: “I was sick and you took care of me.” (Matt 25:36 GNT)
Click to expand...
Last I heard, the mandate to admit the sick into hospitals regardless of ability to pay was still in effect. What society hasn’t figured out is how to pay for all of it and not introduce unneeded complications.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Finally a voice of reason by some one who read the bill.

My belief is this bill was written to fail, for political reasons, knowing most people don’t look into the details of proposed legislation, as evidenced in this thread.

The headline appeals to the emotions, but they knew it wouldn’t pass in the senate.

Jim
Click to expand...
If this thread is any indication, then the tactic of writing to fail worked. People are very fired up and emotions are raging and reactions very strong.
 
mgreen77 said:
You honestly believe that pro-choice people actually want abortions and want people to die?
Click to expand...
Yes, because if they DIDN’T want abortions and DIDN’T want the slaughter of innocents, they would be fighting against it, not crusading for the stare decisis status of Roe v. Wade, funding planned parenthood, or advocating against parental consent laws.
 
_Abyssinia said:
That are opposed to what specifically? What major problems have there been in 220 years with people being denied the coverage that they want because of the employer’s religious or moral objections?
Click to expand...
There have not been problems for 220 years because this is the first time in 220 years that the government has proposed to give employers an unbounded ability to dictate health decisions to their employees.
 
ProVobis said:
Ron Paul: Birth-control fight ‘silly’

thehill.com/video/campaign/213771-ron-paul-calls-contraception-debate-a-rather-silly-argument
Click to expand...
Churches and houses of worship are exempt from the mandate, and the Obama administration offered an accomodation that allows religiously-affiliated institutions to not offer the birth control, though their employees would still be able to get it from the employer’s insurer.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. Churches and other religious employers who have moral objections to birth control, sterilization and abortificants will still be forced to pay for it! If they were not, 7 lawsuits would not be going ahead.
 
TMC said:
There have not been problems for 220 years because this is the first time in 220 years that the government has proposed to give employers an unbounded ability to dictate health decisions to their employees.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. For 220 years the federal government had nothing to say at all about insurance coverage. The states have had mandates (and like JimG, I think they are stupid). But not Uncle Sam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top