Ms. Parker brings the claws out

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The opposition to contraception was so strident that it overlapped into interference with non-contraceptive medical treatment.

Why is the request for an exemption from an otherwise universal requirement for health care plans, when the exemption is based on the religious nature of the institution, not a First Amendment violation in itself?

Regards,

D-Ray

Right. Its a Catholic institution. Catholics have particular - and strident - beliefs about birth control, waiting until marriage to have sex, etc. Compelling a religious institution to act in a manner that violates core beliefs is wrong...

...unless you only want to apply separation of church and state when it meets your particular political needs / agenda.

And, of course, the link to the prepared statement does not represent the totality of her comments. For example"

“I’m an American woman who uses contraception,” she (Fluke) said. “That makes me qualified to talk to my representatives about health care needs.”

“It’s not about church and state,” Fluke said at the end of today’s hearing. “It’s about women’s health.”

Yet, her beef is with Georgetown University's policy, no?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by merrylander

And this is the man who was going to teach us all civility in discourse over the Brietbart flap. ROTFLMAO

BAM!

I was going to bring up a certain moralizing character on the right as an example to refute bigballbill's assertions but it would appear to be unnecessary at this point.

[whell]

By the way, I take Prilosec. I guess that makes me uniquely qualified to talk to my representatives about eating. Cool for me!

[merrylander]

The part I find interesting is that (according to Wiki) Georgetown specifically invites students of ALL faiths to come and study there. Is that merely in hopes of converting them?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Right. Its a Catholic institution. Catholics have particular - and strident - beliefs about birth control, waiting until marriage to have sex, etc. Compelling a religious institution to act in a manner that violates core beliefs is wrong...

...unless you only want to apply separation of church and state when it meets your particular political needs / agenda.

And, of course, the link to the prepared statement does not represent the totality of her comments. For example"

“I’m an American woman who uses contraception,” she (Fluke) said. “That makes me qualified to talk to my representatives about health care needs.”

“It’s not about church and state,” Fluke said at the end of today’s hearing. “It’s about women’s health.”

Yet, her beef is with Georgetown University's policy, no?

I see you skipped the part where she said that she paid for the medical insurance, without subsidy from the school.

If the school does not want to come up against requirements the violate its core beliefs, it should get out of the business world and practice its core beliefs as a church, not as an institution that receives an enormous amount or our tax dollars to subsidize its various activities.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Right. Its a Catholic institution. Catholics have particular - and strident - beliefs about birth control, waiting until marriage to have sex, etc. Compelling a religious institution to act in a manner that violates core beliefs is wrong...

...unless you only want to apply separation of church and state when it meets your particular political needs / agenda.

Catholics have no such belief in that 98% of Catholic women use contraception. It's the Catholic clergy who proclaim these beliefs (while at the same time fondling young men and orchestrating an institutional cover-up).

Secular hospitals and universities are not the church. My daughter goes to a Jesuit university (Marquette U.) and the only difference between her curriculum there and anywhere else is the requirement to take your choice of any two religion courses as electives (they need not be Christian or Catholic theology, BTW).

Why is it that a majority of states (28/50, I believe) already do this (including Romney's Massachusetts during his tenure as Governor)? This whole brouhaha is just a manifestation of the anachronism that is employer-provided healthcare.

And if you dare to disagree with me, you are both a pimp and a pornographer.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I see you skipped the part where she said that she paid for the medical insurance, without subsidy from the school.

If the school does not want to come up against requirements the violate its core beliefs, it should get out of the business world and practice its core beliefs as a church, not as an institution that receives an enormous amount or our tax dollars to subsidize its various activities.

Regards,

D-Ray

I didn't skip it nor did she. She believes that's what's wrong.

So, you want to close don't religious schools? Terrific. What a wonderful tolerant lot today's liberal are.

And, of course, the tax dollars it receives are in exchange for services performed. They aren't gifts from Uncle Sam.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by whell

And, of course, the tax dollars it receives are in exchange for services performed. They aren't gifts from Uncle Sam.

Right.... And, because they are being paid with gov dollars to provide a service, they are held to the same standards that any other organization (religious or not) is held to. In many cases, that includes a comprehensive health care plan for their employees, many who are not even catholic.

[finnbow]

Whell - I have to assume that you're upset that the Catholic Church's secular institutions don't seem to require a signed affidavit from any male seeking erection pills that he is impotent, married (and not married a second time without an annulment) and only having sex with his wife (who isn't taking contraception, of course) and is having sex solely to procreate.

[finnbow]

Newsflash - Rush apologizes for his comments.

For those defending Rush, what did he apologize for?