DVD Talk
Politicizing public health [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Politicizing public health


JasonF
11-01-05, 05:45 PM
Cervical Cancer Vaccine Gets Injected With a Social Issue
Some Fear a Shot For Teens Could Encourage Sex

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 31, 2005; Page A03

A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity.

Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.

Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.

In the hopes of heading off a confrontation, officials from the companies developing the shots -- Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline -- have been meeting with advocacy groups to try to assuage their concerns.

The jockeying reflects the growing influence that social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.

"What the Bush administration has done has taken this coterie of people and put them into very influential positions in Washington," said James A. Morone Jr., a professor of political science at Brown University. "And it's having an effect in debates like this."

The vaccine protects women against strains of a ubiquitous germ called the human papilloma virus. Although many strains of the virus are innocuous, some can cause cancerous lesions on the cervix (the outer end of the uterus), making them the primary cause of this cancer in the United States. Cervical cancer strikes more than 10,000 U.S. women each year, killing more than 3,700.

The vaccine appears to be virtually 100 percent effective against two of the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. Merck, whose vaccine is further along, plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the year for approval to sell the shots.

Exactly how the vaccine is used, however, will be largely determined by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of experts assembled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. The panel issues widely followed guidelines, including recommendations for childhood vaccines that become the basis for vaccination requirements set by public schools.

Officials of both companies noted that research indicates the best age to vaccinate would be just before puberty to make sure children are protected before they become sexually active. The vaccine would probably be targeted primarily at girls but could also be used on boys to limit the spread of the virus.

"If you really want to have cervical cancer rates fall as much as possible as quickly as possible, then you want as many people to get vaccinated as possible," said Mark Feinberg, Merck's vice president of medical affairs and policy, noting that "school mandates have been one of the most effective ways to increase immunization rates."

That is a view being pushed by cervical cancer experts and women's health advocates.

"I would like to see it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel.

At the ACIP meeting last week, panel members heard presentations about the pros and cons of vaccinating girls at various ages. A survey of 294 pediatricians presented at the meeting found that more than half were worried that parents of female patients might refuse the vaccine, and 11 percent of the doctors said they themselves thought vaccinating against a sexually transmitted disease "may encourage risky sexual behavior in my adolescent patients."

Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

"Some people have raised the issue of whether this vaccine may be sending an overall message to teenagers that, 'We expect you to be sexually active,' " said Reginald Finger, a doctor trained in public health who served as a medical analyst for Focus on the Family before being appointed to the ACIP in 2003, in a telephone interview.

"There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe," said Finger, emphasizing that he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment until the issue comes before the vaccine policy panel for a formal recommendation.

Conservative medical groups have been fielding calls from concerned parents and organizations, officials said.

"I've talked to some who have said, 'This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. But Rudd said most people change their minds once they learn more, adding that he would probably want his children immunized. Rudd, however, draws the line at making the vaccine mandatory.

"Parents should have the choice. There are those who would say, 'We can provide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,' " Rudd said.

In a statement, the conservative Family Research Council said it will "monitor the development of these vaccines, the FDA drug approval process, the development of recommendations for their use and the marketing of these vaccines."

"While we welcome medical advances such as an HPV vaccine, it remains clear that practicing abstinence until marriage and fidelity within marriage is the single best way of preventing the full range of sexually transmitted diseases," the group said.

The council is planning to meet on Wednesday to discuss the issue. On the same day, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin, which advises conservative groups on sexuality and health issues, is convening a one-day meeting to develop a position statement.

Both companies acknowledged the concerns and said they have been working to alleviate them by meeting with groups across the political spectrum.

"It is not our intention in any way, shape or form to promote our vaccine as a substitute for any other prevention approach, be it abstinence or screening," Merck's Feinberg said.

He added there is no evidence to suggest that vaccinating children will promote sexual activity.

"We hope when people understand more about what the disease is and how it can be prevented that their concerns will have been allayed," Feinberg said.

Alan M. Kaye, executive director of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition, likened the vaccine to wearing a seat belt.

"Just because you wear a seat belt doesn't mean you're seeking out an accident," Kaye said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000747.html?sub=AR

The social conservatives are ridiculously and dangerously wrong on this one.

Red Dog
11-01-05, 05:50 PM
So I guess the pro-choice position only goes so far for certain folks? ;)

I think it would be incredibly stupid to not choose to get the vaccination for oneself or for their child, but stupidity is a choice nonetheless.

kvrdave
11-01-05, 05:59 PM
I only read the bold. Were there actual quote from people against this, or does it just say that people are because it will promote promiscuity?

JasonF
11-01-05, 06:07 PM
I added more bold for the benefit of certain dog shooters who shall remain nameless.

kvrdave
11-01-05, 06:12 PM
Okay, looks like pretty weak "dissent." Looks like they tried to make a story.

For example...

"I've talked to some who have said..." followed up by "But Rudd said most people change their minds..."

"There are people who sense that it could...." followed up by "emphasizing that he does not endorse that position and is withholding judgment..."

It just seems like they are trying to make a story where there probably isn't one. :shrug:

grundle
11-01-05, 07:13 PM
many conservatives oppose making it mandatory
I am pro-choice on this issue, for the same reason that I am pro-choice on abortion.

Th0r S1mpson
11-01-05, 07:22 PM
I have a sore throat... Stupid George W. Bush! :mad:

grundle
11-01-05, 07:29 PM
"I would like to see it that if you don't have your HPV vaccine, you can't start high school," said Juan Carlos Felix of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who leads the National Cervical Cancer Coalition's medical advisory panel.
This is very scary.

Duran
11-01-05, 08:07 PM
So I guess the pro-choice position only goes so far for certain folks? ;)

I think it would be incredibly stupid to not choose to get the vaccination for oneself or for their child, but stupidity is a choice nonetheless.

Agreed. While I think opposition to the vaccine is incredibly stupid if it is safe and effective, I have issues with mandatory injections of anything. Even if you choose to be an idiot, it's your body.

I wouldn't be opposed to health insurance companies requiring it for coverage.

Josh H
11-01-05, 08:23 PM
I have no problem with it being mandatory along with other shots like measles.

It shouldn't matter that it's for eliminating a sexually transmitted disease, we should do everything we can to wipe out EVERY disease. If it's as safe and effective as the shots all kids are required to get for measles and whateve else, then add it to the roster and cross another disease off our list IMO.

CRM114
11-01-05, 08:30 PM
This is very scary.

There are a multitude of vaccines that are required for one to legally attend school.

Josh H
11-01-05, 09:04 PM
There are a multitude of vaccines that are required for one to legally attend school.

Yep.

It's not logical to support the and not this one simply because it's for a sexually transmitted disease.

I can respect the view of those that think all vaccines should not be mandatory, as it's at least logically and just no based on extreme conservative morals.

Though I vehemently disagree with that view as ending disease should be one of our main societal goals and this is the best way to do so for diseases that have a safe and effective vaccine.

kvrdave
11-01-05, 10:19 PM
Yep.

It's not logical to support the and not this one simply because it's for a sexually transmitted disease.

I can respect the view of those that think all vaccines should not be mandatory, as it's at least logically and just no based on extreme conservative morals.

Though I vehemently disagree with that view as ending disease should be one of our main societal goals and this is the best way to do so for diseases that have a safe and effective vaccine.

I guess I don't see it as illogical. My disagreement with this being mandatory would be the same disagreement with making penicillin mandatory every few weeks to get rid of the clap. The difference between polio vaccines, measels, etc. is that they are diseases that are airborne. This is a disease that is spread through a behavior. Saying that this should be a mandatory shot is no different that saying they should not be allowed to eat red meat in school because of heart disease. It is a disease brought on by behavior.

I would probably even want my daughter to get this if I had a daughter, but that doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. If we could even point to one vaccination that we give that protects against something that isn't an airborne disease I could at least see the logic a little better. But I don't see how putting this in a different class from a polio vaccine is illogical. Expand on that, if you would.

kvrdave
11-01-05, 10:20 PM
There are a multitude of vaccines that are required for one to legally attend school.

And aren't they all diseases that can be spread simply by being in casual contact with others who are infected? Might this be a little different to make it mandatory?

It sounds like people are trying to make this a moral fight from the left simply to bring out the religious people.

DVD Polizei
11-01-05, 10:45 PM
Let's see here.

1) Preventing malignant cancers

2) Preventing Bob Joe Heinkullaly from getting some

Oh yeah, I can totally see #2 being a priority in this nation.

At the same time, I guess we should stop treating Herpes, Crabs, and other STDs, because more people will feel safer about having sex as well if these things are curable and treatable.

kvrdave
11-02-05, 12:07 AM
Should we make it mandatory that girls take birth control? Why make it mandatory that I get the hippy innoculation when I engage in none of the behavior that would give me hippy disease?

hahn
11-02-05, 02:36 AM
Should we make it mandatory that girls take birth control? Why make it mandatory that I get the hippy innoculation when I engage in none of the behavior that would give me hippy disease?

No. And if they should get pregnant, should we make it mandatory that they give birth?

I understand your point, however your analogy breaks down because: cervical cancer is mostly caused by certain HPV strains. Thus, HPV is infectious; sperm is not.

I do think it should be voluntary though. At least until long term studies are done. And just so you know kvrdave, you don't need to worry about getting the shots. Unless you have a cervix we don't know about. :)

I have to read up on this vaccine. I'm still kind of dubious about it. I don't think it has been tested widely enough and for a long enough period of time to be able to make final conclusions about it yet, but like I said, I still need to read the details of their study.

Mammal
11-02-05, 07:03 AM
Should we make it mandatory that girls take birth control? Why make it mandatory that I get the hippy innoculation when I engage in none of the behavior that would give me hippy disease?

Well, some of them horny hippie chicks might corner you and rape you. It's a dangerous world.

Red Dog
11-02-05, 07:52 AM
And aren't they all diseases that can be spread simply by being in casual contact with others who are infected? Might this be a little different to make it mandatory?

It sounds like people are trying to make this a moral fight from the left simply to bring out the religious people.


This was exactly the response I was going to make, and I agree with your point about the lack of quotes from people actually opposed to this in the article. Very sloppy for the WP.

Josh H
11-02-05, 11:23 AM
But I don't see how putting this in a different class from a polio vaccine is illogical. Expand on that, if you would.

Everyone breathes. Everyone but losers fuck. ;)

I just think we should immunize every disease possible so we can wipe these diseases off the face of the earth.

It doesn't matter how they are spread IMO.

kvrdave
11-02-05, 11:49 AM
No. And if they should get pregnant, should we make it mandatory that they give birth?

I understand your point, however your analogy breaks down because: cervical cancer is mostly caused by certain HPV strains. Thus, HPV is infectious; sperm is not.

I do think it should be voluntary though.

So you took me through all that just to agree with me? :grunt:


-wink-

kvrdave
11-02-05, 11:50 AM
Everyone breathes. Everyone but losers fuck. ;)

I just think we should immunize every disease possible so we can wipe these diseases off the face of the earth.

It doesn't matter how they are spread IMO.

If there were a way to immunize against lung cancer specifically caused by smoking, I don't see a reason to vaccinate those who don't smoke.

Josh H
11-02-05, 12:20 PM
If there were a way to immunize against lung cancer specifically caused by smoking, I don't see a reason to vaccinate those who don't smoke.

Not everyone smokes. Everyone fucks at some point in their life. Losers and some priests/nuns aside. ;)

But if you want to get technical, you could require the lung cancer smoking vaccine since everyone is exposed to second hand smoke at some point.

kvrdave
11-02-05, 01:00 PM
You know, I hate to be on the side of "vaccinations are the devil" because I have my kids vaccinated for a lot of stuff, chicken pox excluded. When you get to a point where you might have more reactions to a vaccination than it is worth, I think you have to look at how reasonable it is to make something mandatory. All of those things that they are vaccinated for have a real risk of being transmitted without you even being in real close contact with infected people. And I don't think any of those should be mandatory. So it is real tough to make me think that something that is only spread as an STD should be mandatory on school children. As I said, had I a daughter, I'd probably do it, but that is a long way from saying it should be mandatory.

Josh H
11-02-05, 01:05 PM
Again, only if the vaccines are prove safe and effective over several years should we consider making them mandatory.

If they have no more side effects than the current mandatory school vaccinations, then I see no reason not to add it to the list. But we're a long ways from that point yet.

kvrdave
11-02-05, 01:17 PM
I guess the reason I still see not to make it mandatory is the fact that it is a vaccination against a disease based upon a behavior and not an airborne disease. :shrug:

Goldblum
11-02-05, 01:30 PM
Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

What's wrong with this?

grundle
11-02-05, 01:47 PM
There are a multitude of vaccines that are required for one to legally attend school.
But those other diseases are contagious through casual contact.

grundle
11-02-05, 02:01 PM
Orthodox Jews almost never get cervical cancer. Why should they be required to get the HPV vaccine?

kvrdave
11-02-05, 02:10 PM
Orthodox Jews almost never get cervical cancer. Why should they be required to get the HPV vaccine?

Because since Conservative groups aren't opposed to this, there must be a way to make a fight out of it yet. -wink-

Josh H
11-02-05, 02:26 PM
I guess the reason I still see not to make it mandatory is the fact that it is a vaccination against a disease based upon a behavior and not an airborne disease. :shrug:

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Again, everyone breathes, everyone but losers and some nuns/priests fucks.

Even a girl that waits until marriage to have sex could still be infected if her husband wasn't a virgin (and he may lie about being a virgin).

kvrdave
11-02-05, 02:31 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Again, everyone breathes, everyone but losers and some nuns/priests fucks.

Even a girl that waits until marriage to have sex could still be infected if her husband wasn't a virgin (and he may lie about being a virgin).

We don't have the capacity to choose not to breathe. We do have the capacity to choose not to fuck. That is the difference.

Red Dog
11-02-05, 02:33 PM
We do have the capacity to choose not to fuck.


A choice the ladies make far too often if you ask me. ;)

Josh H
11-02-05, 02:40 PM
We don't have the capacity to choose not to breathe. We do have the capacity to choose not to fuck. That is the difference.

It's a difference, but not a meaningful one as no one but the priests and nuns that don't molest kids make a WILLING choice not to fuck. ;)

Dead
11-02-05, 02:41 PM
Should we make it mandatory that girls take birth control? ...


YES!!! It should be a vaccine that they get as a young girl and that doesn't wear off until they are at least 21! Throw in a shot for the boys too and we'll have a great start at reducing abortion/unwanted/uncared for children, and maybe even save a bunch of people from poverty.

kvrdave
11-02-05, 02:45 PM
It's a difference, but not a meaningful one as no one but the priests and nuns that don't molest kids make a WILLING choice not to fuck. ;)

:lol:

Even like "mandatory" immunizations now, this would probably allow people to opt out for religious reasons, so I don't think it would do much good.

Like I said before, I wouldn't have a problem giving it to a hypothetical daughter of mine, but I still don't see why it should ever be mandatory.

mosquitobite
11-02-05, 02:49 PM
YES!!! It should be a vaccine that they get as a young girl and that doesn't wear off until they are at least 21! Throw in a shot for the boys too and we'll have a great start at reducing abortion/unwanted/uncared for children, and maybe even save a bunch of people from poverty.


Look, I'm an evangelical Christian. I oppose making this vaccine MANDATORY for the reasons others have said here.

I am cracking up at Dead's response though, because although I wouldn't want to encourage certain behaviors, I am fully aware they will happen whether I want them to or not. I remember what I was like as a teenager. ;)

I have said before if the "shot" didn't have such potential long term effects (and one being no period), I would have a doctor give my teenage daughter a birth control shot without telling her that's what it was. (ie, she goes in for a cold - he gives her an anti-biotic 'shot' ;) )

I haven't told her she's on birth control, but I don't have to worry about being a grandma too soon. :lol:

Red Dog
11-02-05, 02:56 PM
I wouldn't have a problem giving it to a hypothetical daughter of mine


Hypothetical daughter, eh? Is she hot? :eyebrow:

Duran
11-02-05, 03:24 PM
Hypothetical daughter, eh? Is she hot?

Only hypothetically.

grundle
11-02-05, 04:57 PM
no one but the priests and nuns that don't molest kids make a WILLING choice not to fuck. ;)
Lisa Kudrow was a virgin when she got married at age 32.

grundle
11-02-05, 05:02 PM
Even a girl that waits until marriage to have sex could still be infected if her husband wasn't a virgin (and he may lie about being a virgin).
If she is an Orthodox Jew and a virgin, then her husband will be an Orthodox Jew and a virgin, too.

Why should Orthodox Jews be required to take this vaccine?

JasonF
11-02-05, 05:52 PM
Not everyone whose parents are Orthodox Jews are themselves practicing Orthodox Jews.

In other words, you may try your utmost to impart your values on your daughter, but she may still be fucking in the back seat of her boyfriend's car.

kvrdave
11-02-05, 07:14 PM
And therefore the government must protect her by making immunization of a disease she might get mandatory?

Again, it seems like those to the left are trying to make this a political fight that doesn't exist. Especially since I see almost no chance of something like this becoming mandatory. But they will say it should just so they can fight the "morality" of others for their own good. This should be a poll.

hahn
11-02-05, 08:14 PM
So you took me through all that just to agree with me? :grunt:


-wink-
Well, I'm a liberal and you're a conservative. You can't expect me to FULLY agree with you. What kind of message would that be sending to our fellow DVDTalkers? It would only confuse them. :)

But seriously, there seems to be two different issues here. #1 Whether the vaccines should be mandatory. #2 Whether the option should exist to administer the vaccine to teenagers or kids even.

On #1, I would say no, but I don't understand how this vaccine works yet. See, cervical cancer takes YEARS to develop. If this vaccine is still effective even AFTER one has been infected, then there's no reason one can't wait till one is old enough to decide for themselves (say 18 as an arbitrary number).

#2 is a very different matter though. And it seems that this is what the conservatives are really after from what I'm reading. Some of the quotes from that article indicate that some of them just want to flat out not even offer the OPTION of vaccination to teenagers because we don't want to put on the appearance of encouraging them to have sex. To me, this seems an AWFUL lot like the condom debate. Is there an age limit on buying condoms? I don't think so (though I may be wrong). The reasoning is that if the option is available for someone to protect themselves against something (infection, pregnancy, or whatever), then that option should be made available, regardless of age. I think the idea that a vaccination would promote sexual activity is ridiculous. How many of you were ever about to get some but then stopped because you were worried about getting infected with HPV? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

grundle
11-02-05, 10:48 PM
I want the government to stay out of the bedroom.

I don't want the government telling women what to do with their bodies.

kvrdave
11-02-05, 10:51 PM
I want the government to stay out of the bedroom.

I don't want the government telling women what to do with their bodies.

Hmmmm, puzzling twist this post has put on things. Obviously this can't be applied to this situation. -wink-

Ranger
11-03-05, 12:01 AM
I want the government to stay out of the bedroom.

I don't want the government telling women what to do with their bodies.
Yeah, it's disgusting enough that some kids are forced to go through mandatory drug testing.

We're in the age of the control freaks.

grundle
11-03-05, 11:09 AM
Hmmmm, puzzling twist this post has put on things. Obviously this can't be applied to this situation. -wink-
Unlike a lot of the liberals, I really do want the government to stay out of the bedroom.

California requires Catholic charities to provide their employees with birth control coverage on their health insurance. This contradicts liberals' claim that they want the government to stay out of the bedroom. And it also contradicts liberals' claim that they favor seperation of church and state.

Also, if the government has the power to require insurance coverage of birth control, then that same government power can also be used to outlaw insurance coverage of birth control.

Liberal hypocrisy on these kinds of things never ceases to amaze me. According to liberals, the government should not pay to put the 10 commandments in government buidlings, but the government should pay an artitst to put a religious cross in a jar of urine. I am against government funding any of that stuff.

Liberals favor government intrusion when something is pro-sex or anti-Christian. Liberals oppose government intrusion when something is pro-Christian or anti-sex.

I am against government intrusion in all of that stuff.

hahn
11-03-05, 11:37 AM
Unlike a lot of the liberals, I really do want the government to stay out of the bedroom.

California requires Catholic charities to provide their employees with birth control coverage on their health insurance. This contradicts liberals' claim that they want the government to stay out of the bedroom. And it also contradicts liberals' claim that they favor seperation of church and state.

Also, if the government has the power to require insurance coverage of birth control, then that same government power can also be used to outlaw insurance coverage of birth control.

Liberal hypocrisy on these kinds of things never ceases to amaze me. According to liberals, the government should not pay to put the 10 commandments in government buidlings, but the government should pay an artitst to put a religious cross in a jar of urine. I am against government funding any of that stuff.

Liberals favor government intrusion when something is pro-sex or anti-Christian. Liberals oppose government intrusion when something is pro-Christian or anti-sex.

I am against government intrusion in all of that stuff.
Could you be any more insulting or ill informed? :rolleyes:
I'm a liberal, and I most certainly want the government to stay out of the bedroom. I've NEVER been for mandatory birth control. I AM always for the OPTION of birth control. I don't know a SINGLE liberal who states that government should be involved in promoting sex or anti-Christianity.

I'm assuming that your stated factoid is correct. That California requires Catholic charities to provide birth control coverage for their EMPLOYEES. Please note that this does not necessarily include the church followers (which is one reason for why it actually DOES demonstrate separation of church and state). Please note that this does NOT force any of those employees to actually GET birth control. Please note that this IS an example of separation of church and state, unless you're stating that California ONLY requires religious groups to offer birth control (well, do they?). If they created laws to suit religious beliefs, then THAT would be a lack of separation between church and state. Your complete lack of understanding of what liberals want never ceases to amaze me. Your ability to twist whatever example you want into whatever suits your needs is also quite amazing.

Red Dog
11-03-05, 11:44 AM
Seems to me that grundle was drawing a conclusion based what did happen in CA (mandatory birth control coverage, which certainly was not pushed by conservatives in CA) and what NEA has funded. Maybe the conclusion was too broad, but one cannot say he is ill-informed.

hahn
11-03-05, 11:47 AM
Seems to me that grundle was drawing a conclusion based what did happen in CA (mandatory birth control coverage, which certainly was not pushed by conservatives in CA) and what NEA has funded. Maybe the conclusion was too broad, but one cannot say he is ill-informed.

It's a gross misinterpretation then. Followed by a wide generalization of liberals which most certainly is wrong.

Liberals favor government intrusion when something is pro-sex or anti-Christian. I mean, COME ON! This is bordering on Savage/Coulter type rhetoric.

Red Dog
11-03-05, 11:51 AM
That California requires Catholic charities to provide birth control coverage for their EMPLOYEES. Please note that this does not necessarily include the church followers (which is one reason for why it actually DOES demonstrate separation of church and state). Please note that this does NOT force any of those employees to actually GET birth control. Please note that this IS an example of separation of church and state, unless you're stating that California ONLY requires religious groups to offer birth control (well, do they?). If they bent the laws to suit the religious beliefs, then THAT would be a lack of separation between church and state. Your complete lack of understanding of what liberals want never ceases to amaze me. Your ability to twist whatever example you want into whatever suits your needs is also quite amazing.


The Women's Contraception Equity Act mandates that any firm providing health insurance in California cover contraception expenses. This law was upheld by the California SCt after a Catholic charity group challenged the law.

This is a blatent violation of the free exercise clause IMO.

The hypocrisy is that many liberals scream separation of church and state yet they seem to forget about free exercise when it comes to religious matters.

hahn
11-03-05, 11:54 AM
This is incorrect. The Women's Contraception Equity Act mandates that any firm providing health insurance in California cover contraception expenses. This law was upheld by the California SCt after a Catholic charity group challenged the law.
That was my point. The law (as I suspected) covers ALL businesses providing health insurance, not just Catholic groups. Which is exactly why this law is a good example of separation of church and state.

Red Dog
11-03-05, 11:55 AM
Which is exactly why this law is a good example of separation of church and state.


The problem is that the issue is not separation of church/state.

classicman2
11-03-05, 11:57 AM
The hypocrisy is that many liberals scream separation of church and state yet they seem to forget about free exercise when it comes to religious matters.

Hear! Hear!

Red Dog
11-03-05, 11:57 AM
Hear! Hear!


Now whenever you feel like saying I am anti-Christian, please refer to this thread.

hahn
11-03-05, 11:59 AM
The hypocrisy is that many liberals scream separation of church and state yet they seem to forget about free exercise when it comes to religious matters. The Catholic church is free to practice whatever THEY want. No one's forcing them or even encouraging them to change their beliefs. However, their employees may or may not be Catholic, or may or may not want to follow the birth control part of the Catholic beliefs. The church then does not have the right to force those beliefs onto those who don't follow their practices. This is not the church aspect of their "business". This has to do with the finance and healthcare part. If they want to hire only devout Catholics, that's also their right (well, technically not, but let's face reality - they can). Then this law really wouldn't be an issue would it? In fact, if they feel that strongly about it, then don't provide health insurance at all.

hahn
11-03-05, 11:59 AM
The problem is that the issue is not separation of church/state.
I'm not saying it is. Grundle was. I was merely pointing out why his conclusion was flawed.

Red Dog
11-03-05, 12:01 PM
I'm not saying it is. Grundle was. I was merely pointing out why his conclusion was flawed.


He stated the actual constitutional problem incorrectly, but he still recognized the hypocrisy which is there.

Duran
11-03-05, 12:03 PM
The church then does not have the right to force those beliefs onto those who don't follow their practices.

Refusing to pay for something they believe is immoral is not forcing their beliefs onto those who don't follow their practices. Their employees were still free to use contraception.

classicman2
11-03-05, 12:03 PM
Now whenever you feel like saying I am anti-Christian, please refer to this thread.


I'll never forget an episode of Picket Fences when Ray Walton, who played the judged, said: 'The ink was not dry on the free practice clause before it came under attack.'

Red Dog
11-03-05, 12:07 PM
Refusing to pay for something they believe is immoral is not forcing their beliefs onto those who don't follow their practices. Their employees were still free to use contraception.


Yep.

kvrdave
11-03-05, 12:14 PM
The Catholic church is free to practice whatever THEY want. No one's forcing them or even encouraging them to change their beliefs.

:whofart: No one is forcing anyone to change their beliefs by requiring a scripture reading at public schools either. That doesn't mean it should be legal.

That is like saying, "We aren't saying you can't believe that sacrificing babies to the moon is wrong, but we still require that you do it." Obviously I took it to an extreme, but you are saying that they are free to practice whatever they want, and no one is trying to get them to change their beliefs, yet they are required to do something which is completely against their relgious beliefs. How is that congruent?

JasonF
11-03-05, 12:57 PM
The Women's Contraception Equity Act mandates that any firm providing health insurance in California cover contraception expenses. This law was upheld by the California SCt after a Catholic charity group challenged the law.

This is a blatent violation of the free exercise clause IMO.

The hypocrisy is that many liberals scream separation of church and state yet they seem to forget about free exercise when it comes to religious matters.

Except my First Amendment rights to Free Exercise don't allow me to opt out of generally applicable laws* -- whether I'm a Catholic organization who wants to opt out of the "employees must cover birth control" law or a Rastafarian who wants to opt out of the "people are not permitted to smoke pot" law or a Satanist who wants to opt out of the "human sacrifice is illegal" law.

* Assuming those laws have a rational basis. See Employment Division v. Smith.

Red Dog
11-03-05, 01:03 PM
Except my First Amendment rights to Free Exercise don't allow me to opt out of generally applicable laws* -- whether I'm a Catholic organization who wants to opt out of the "employees must cover birth control" law or a Rastafarian who wants to opt out of the "people are not permitted to smoke pot" law or a Satanist who wants to opt out of the "human sacrifice is illegal" law.

* Assuming those laws have a rational basis. See Employment Division v. Smith.


Thanks professor.

I was reciting my opinion on what the constitutional analysis should be (like Janice Rogers Brown did in her dissent in this case); not the bar exam answer. ;)

hahn
11-03-05, 01:09 PM
He stated the actual constitutional problem incorrectly, but he still recognized the hypocrisy which is there.
The word "hypocrisy" is used way too freely and easily around here. It implies that the state of California has some sort of agenda and that because the Catholic church doesn't fit it, it forces it to do something against its beliefs. Then there's the point of view that it is simply applying one rule to everyone equally. If they didn't, there would be complaints that the Catholic church is getting an unfair financial benefit simply because of a belief; something that has no basis other than tradition. Then ALL businesses would start coming out with claims that don't believe in such things like vaccinations, screening tests, etc, etc, etc. Basically, if they don't want to pay for it, they can simply say they don't believe in it, so they don't want to pay for it. In which case, I go back to my previous argument - don't. Simply drop your health care insurance coverage. As a business, you have the weigh your 'beliefs' against employees desires. If you feel that strongly about your beliefs, you can always do something about it, but you have to be prepared to pay the price of some of your employees walking away. If I wanted to, I could also call this a form of hypocrisy.

This isn't about hypocrisy. This is about a conflict of interest. There's no way to make everyone happy. But the way I see it, the Church wants to run a business. If they do so, they are subject to the same laws that apply to everyone else. Let me be clear about something: I don't necessarily agree 100% with this law. Though I'm not against it either. However, the FACT of the matter is that it WAS passed. And thus, the Catholic church needs to follow it if they want to provide health insurance in Cali. That HARDLY makes liberals into hypocrites.

Red Dog
11-03-05, 01:13 PM
It is totally about hypocrisy - on a larger scale. Liberals bitch and moan about government intrusion in the bedroom and privacy but when it comes to anything else, they want government intruding anywhere and everywhere. Conservatives are guilty of the opposite of course.

Businesses should be able to dictate what kind of health coverage they provide. They shouldn't be told by government what they have to provide. If a prospective employee doesn't like the coverage, they can look elsewhere - part of a free market for labor.

Red Dog
11-03-05, 01:17 PM
Basically, if they don't want to pay for it, they can simply say they don't believe in it, so they don't want to pay for it. In which case, I go back to my previous argument - don't. Simply drop your health care insurance coverage. As a business, you have the weigh your 'beliefs' against employees desires. If you feel that strongly about your beliefs, you can always do something about it, but you have to be prepared to pay the price of some of your employees walking away. If I wanted to, I could also call this a form of hypocrisy.


And as kvrdave said, the employee can do this. If she doesn't like not having birth control covered, go find another employer. If she wants birth control, she can easily do something about it - buy the birth control herself, get supplemental insurance or find another employer who provides it. Why should the employer have to compromise his religious beliefs? Because the state says so? That's a crock of shit.

Josh H
11-03-05, 01:19 PM
Businesses should be able to dictate what kind of health coverage they provide. They shouldn't be told by government what they have to provide. If a prospective employee doesn't like the coverage, they can look elsewhere - part of a free market for labor.

Whole heartedly agreed. I'm very pro contraceptive and think health insurance SHOULD provide covereage for birth control. But it's not the governments place to force them.

If they don't offer it and a person wants, then turn down the job when offered and tell them why you're turning it down. If enough people do so, maybe more companies will offer it.

If not, BC is only like $30 a month or so, so it's not the end of the world. If you have a job that offers insurance with presription drug coverage, you probably make enough to afford $30 a month for BC.

JasonF
11-03-05, 01:30 PM
Thanks professor.

I was reciting my opinion on what the constitutional analysis should be (like Janice Rogers Brown did in her dissent in this case); not the bar exam answer. ;)

So would you go back to the compelling interest test? Or do you propose another test entirely?

Red Dog
11-03-05, 01:40 PM
So would you go back to the compelling interest test? Or do you propose another test entirely?


Sure - the compelling interest test should work well enough. Better yet, I'll use the current term in vogue....super compelling interest. :D

Bandoman
11-03-05, 01:53 PM
And as kvrdave said, the employee can do this. If she doesn't like not having birth control covered, go find another employer. If she wants birth control, she can easily do something about it - buy the birth control herself, get supplemental insurance or find another employer who provides it. Why should the employer have to compromise his religious beliefs? Because the state says so? That's a crock of shit.

How far do we go with this? The Catholic church doesn't believe in premarital sex or birth out of wedlock. Does that mean the church can refuse to provide health coverage to an unmarried pregnant woman for pregnancy-related expenses? Can they circumvent the FMLA and not allow her to take time off of work for reasons to which they are philosophically opposed?

The point I think hahn is making is this: does the state have the right to require employers generally to provide health coverage and to specify certain items that need to be included? If so, then no employer should be able to opt out due to philosophical reasons.

JasonF
11-03-05, 01:55 PM
Sure - the compelling interest test should work well enough. Better yet, I'll use the current term in vogue....super compelling interest. :D

But would you require a super-duper compelling interest? :p

hahn
11-03-05, 01:57 PM
And as kvrdave said, the employee can do this. If she doesn't like not having birth control covered, go find another employer. If she wants birth control, she can easily do something about it - buy the birth control herself, get supplemental insurance or find another employer who provides it. Why should the employer have to compromise his religious beliefs? Because the state says so? That's a crock of shit.
I am completely against the Iraq war. I don't want my tax dollars going to the war effort. By your argument, I should be able to pay fewer taxes because I don't believe in it or its purpose. Why do I need to compromise my ethical moral beliefs? Because the government says so?

But note that I *do* pay my taxes. Because for better or for worse, I am an American citizen and I accept my responsibilities as one by paying for taxes whether or not I agree with how the funds are being used. I STILL pay for the war, but I retain my right to practice my moral and ethical beliefs by protesting the war however I see fit.

Red Dog
11-03-05, 02:02 PM
How far do we go with this? The Catholic church doesn't believe in premarital sex or birth out of wedlock. Does that mean the church can refuse to provide health coverage to an unmarried pregnant woman for pregnancy-related expenses? Can they curcumvent the FMLA and not allow her to take time off of work for reasons to which they are philosophically opposed?

The point I think hahn is making is this: does the state have the right to require employers generally to provide health coverage and to specify certain items that need to be included? If so, then no employer should be able to opt out due to philosophical reasons.


Hell if they want to terminate her employment, I think they should have that right. If they want to set up a scheme where unmarried woman are not entitled to pregnancy-related expenses, while married women are, I wouldn't have a constitutional problem with that (not even equal protection since I do not believe that EP should extend to private employers).

I fully understand the point hahn is making. I don't agree with it.

Josh H
11-03-05, 02:03 PM
How far do we go with this? The Catholic church doesn't believe in premarital sex or birth out of wedlock. Does that mean the church can refuse to provide health coverage to an unmarried pregnant woman for pregnancy-related expenses? Can they circumvent the FMLA and not allow her to take time off of work for reasons to which they are philosophically opposed?


I think all companies should be required to cover all medically necessary proceudres. And probably are by law if they offer insurance.

Pregnancy care is certainly medically necessary. Birth control is not.

grundle
11-03-05, 02:17 PM
The ACLU favors government sticking its nose in religion and the bedroom:

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/clubdread/38.html

Catholic Group Must Provide Birth Control

Tue Mar 2, 2004

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A state Supreme Court ruling that a Roman Catholic charity must provide employees with birth-control coverage despite its opposition to contraception "shows no respect" to California's religious organizations, a spokeswoman for the church's policy arm said.

The 6-1 decision Monday, the first such ruling by a state's highest court, could open the door to mandated insurance coverage of abortion, said Carol Hogan, spokeswoman for the California Catholic Conference, which represents the church's policy position in the state.

While "religious employers" such as churches are exempt from the requirement in California, the high court said Catholic Charities is no different from other businesses.

Catholic Charities had argued that it, too, should be exempt.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the charity is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values.

In fact, Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote that a "significant majority" of the people served by the charity are not Catholic. The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions.

The California Catholic Conference said it was disappointed with the ruling. "It shows no respect to our religious organizations," Hogan said.

Experts said the ruling could affect thousands of workers at church-backed hospitals and institutions in California and prompt other states to fashion similar laws.

California is one of 20 states to require that all company- provided health plans must include contraception coverage if the plans have prescription drug benefits.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) applauded the ruling and called it "a great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."

Justice Janice Rogers Brown was the lone dissenting judge. Brown wrote that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if it excludes faith- based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities.

"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."

Versions of the law considered in Monday's ruling have been adopted in the 20 states after lawmakers concluded private employee prescription plans without contraceptive benefits discriminated against women.

Civil-rights groups, health-care companies and Catholic organizations filed extensive position papers with the court. Most wrangled over the rights of a religion to practice what it preaches and the newly acquired rights of thousands of women employed by church-affiliated groups to be insured for contraceptives.

Catholic Charities has 183 full-time employees and had a $76 million budget in California in 2002. It does not demand that its workers be Catholic or share the church's philosophy.

The 20 states that require private-sector insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

grundle
11-03-05, 02:21 PM
The ACLU favors using tax dollars to put a religious cross in a jar of urine:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:plyPo5FN7tQJ:www.aclu.org/news/w112697d.html+site:www.aclu.org+%22piss+christ%22&hl=en

November 26, 1997: Supreme Court to Hear Decency Case

WASHINGTON -- Entering the debate over federal support for the arts, the Supreme Court today agreed to decide whether the government can set decency standards for cash grants to artists, the Associated Press reports.

The court said it will hear the Clinton administration's argument that the government can tie grant awards to decency standards without violating artists' free-speech rights.

Commenting on the wire service report, ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro said he was not surprised that the justices decided to hear the case. "Anytime a federal statue is declared unconstitutional, there's a strong probability that the Supreme Court will review the case," Shapiro said. "We continue to believe that the Ninth Circuit was correct in ruling that the congressionally imposed restraints are unconstitutional."

A lower court threw out a 1990 law that required the National Endowment for the Arts to consider decency, as well as artistic merit, in handing out public money.

AP said Congress enacted the law following public controversy over the NEA's role in funding such works as the homoerotic images of Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine.

Under the law, the NEA was to judge grant applications on artistic merit, "taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public."

The law was challenged in court by the National Association of Artists' Organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of performance artists Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly Hughes and Tim Miller.

A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled the law unconstitutional, saying it was too vague and violated artists' free-speech rights.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in November 1996, saying the law allowed the government to discriminate based on the content of an artist's work.

Under the law, "funding may be refused because of the artist's political or social message or because the art or the artist is too controversial," the appeals court said. "Government funding does not invariably justify government control of the content of speech."

The case is National Endowment for the Arts vs. Finley, 97-371.

Source: Associated Press, November 26, 1997

grundle
11-03-05, 02:27 PM
Could you be any more insulting or ill informed?
That would be pretty hard, but I'll try!

hahn
11-03-05, 08:45 PM
The ACLU favors using tax dollars to put a religious cross in a jar of urine:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:plyPo5FN7tQJ:www.aclu.org/news/w112697d.html+site:www.aclu.org+%22piss+christ%22&hl=en

November 26, 1997: Supreme Court to Hear Decency Case

WASHINGTON -- Entering the debate over federal support for the arts, the Supreme Court today agreed to decide whether the government can set decency standards for cash grants to artists, the Associated Press reports.

The court said it will hear the Clinton administration's argument that the government can tie grant awards to decency standards without violating artists' free-speech rights.

Commenting on the wire service report, ACLU Legal Director Steve Shapiro said he was not surprised that the justices decided to hear the case. "Anytime a federal statue is declared unconstitutional, there's a strong probability that the Supreme Court will review the case," Shapiro said. "We continue to believe that the Ninth Circuit was correct in ruling that the congressionally imposed restraints are unconstitutional."

A lower court threw out a 1990 law that required the National Endowment for the Arts to consider decency, as well as artistic merit, in handing out public money.

AP said Congress enacted the law following public controversy over the NEA's role in funding such works as the homoerotic images of Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine.

Under the law, the NEA was to judge grant applications on artistic merit, "taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public."

The law was challenged in court by the National Association of Artists' Organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of performance artists Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly Hughes and Tim Miller.

A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled the law unconstitutional, saying it was too vague and violated artists' free-speech rights.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in November 1996, saying the law allowed the government to discriminate based on the content of an artist's work.

Under the law, "funding may be refused because of the artist's political or social message or because the art or the artist is too controversial," the appeals court said. "Government funding does not invariably justify government control of the content of speech."

The case is National Endowment for the Arts vs. Finley, 97-371.

Source: Associated Press, November 26, 1997

You have absolutely NO right to declare CNN has naked bias when you post, "The ACLU favors using tax dollars to put a religious cross in a jar of urine:". The article discusses the right of an artist to create such a display. The ACLU wants to defend his right to do so. That is COMPLETELY different than saying that the ACLU wants to use taxpayer money to put a cross in a jar of urine.

hahn
11-03-05, 08:47 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to address my not wanting to pay tax dollars for a war that I'm fundamentally against (and yet I still pay it).

Ranger
11-03-05, 08:49 PM
I think it was natesfortune - not grundle - who used the 'naked CNN bias' phrase.

Josh H
11-03-05, 08:52 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to address my not wanting to pay tax dollars for a war that I'm fundamentally against (and yet I still pay it).

There's not much to address. People pay for what the government decides to do, and if they don't agree they bitch about.

If the companies don't want to pay for birth control, and the government forces them to, they'll pay for it and bitch about it. Along with those that share their view.

Just like you and I pay are taxes, and still bitch about the war.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Everyone is going to bitch and try to stop government involvement in things they don't believe in, and most everyone will give in and keep bitching when they have no choice.

hahn
11-04-05, 12:38 AM
There's not much to address. People pay for what the government decides to do, and if they don't agree they bitch about.

If the companies don't want to pay for birth control, and the government forces them to, they'll pay for it and bitch about it. Along with those that share their view.

Just like you and I pay are taxes, and still bitch about the war.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Everyone is going to bitch and try to stop government involvement in things they don't believe in, and most everyone will give in and keep bitching when they have no choice.

The point is that I can bitch about the war, but I don't bitch about paying taxes even though I know how a portion of it is being used. It's my duty as an American citizen.

The Catholic church is free to bitch about birth control or campaign against it, but they still have to follow the business laws, because it's THEIR duty if they want to run a business.

hahn
11-04-05, 12:39 AM
I think it was natesfortune - not grundle - who used the 'naked CNN bias' phrase.
You're right. My bad.

grundle
11-04-05, 02:10 AM
You have absolutely NO right to declare CNN has naked bias when you post, "The ACLU favors using tax dollars to put a religious cross in a jar of urine:". The article discusses the right of an artist to create such a display. The ACLU wants to defend his right to do so. That is COMPLETELY different than saying that the ACLU wants to use taxpayer money to put a cross in a jar of urine.
You are mistaken.

No one is questioning his right to put a cross in a jar of urine.

Instead, people are questioning the use of tax dollars to pay for it.

grundle
11-04-05, 02:11 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to address my not wanting to pay tax dollars for a war that I'm fundamentally against (and yet I still pay it).
I agree with you.

grundle
11-04-05, 02:11 AM
I think it was natesfortune - not grundle - who used the 'naked CNN bias' phrase.
It wasn't me.

Red Dog
11-04-05, 08:58 AM
The point is that I can bitch about the war, but I don't bitch about paying taxes even though I know how a portion of it is being used. It's my duty as an American citizen.

The Catholic church is free to bitch about birth control or campaign against it, but they still have to follow the business laws, because it's THEIR duty if they want to run a business.


2 things - neither of which I doubt you'll like.

First, there is really only one kind of belief that is truly constitutionally protected and that is religious belief. Yeah, you have free speech rights but that only takes you so far.

Also, in your example, you have a constitutional-enumerated government power going up against 'freedom of 'belief.' In the CA case, you have a state law going up an enumerated constitutional protection. That's a major difference IMO.

Also, I have a problem with calling a Catholic charity group a 'business.'

Heck, I'm with you though - I wish I didn't have to contribute to a war I don't like, and unlike you I do bitch about it. :lol:

Josh H
11-04-05, 09:14 AM
The Catholic church is free to bitch about birth control or campaign against it, but they still have to follow the business laws, because it's THEIR duty if they want to run a business.

They're bitching to stop the law from getting passed so it applies to there charities.

If it gets passed, I'm sure they'll follow the business law, while still bitching about birth control and campaigning against it.

Just like you bitch about the war and still pay your taxes.

I still don't see your point.

Red Dog
11-04-05, 09:18 AM
They're bitching to stop the law from getting passed so it applies to there charities.

If it gets passed, I'm sure they'll follow the business law, while still bitching about birth control and campaigning against it.

Just like you bitch about the war and still pay your taxes.

I still don't see your point.


I think the point is that he wants to put what he terms 'free belief' on the same plane as 'free exercise.'

hahn
11-04-05, 12:39 PM
I think the point is that he wants to put what he terms 'free belief' on the same plane as 'free exercise.'
No, that my moral belief against the war is no less valid than the Catholic moral belief against birth control. If they can have an exception to not pay for health insurance that covers birth control (and btw, what does birth control mean exactly? condoms, pills, anything else...?), then I want an exception to not pay for the portion of my tax that goes to the war.

See what a slippery slope we go down if we start making exceptions for financial obligations based on beliefs? What's next? Religious groups that want an exemption from paying their credit card bills because Visa is accepted at Planned Parenthood? Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I'm making a point.

Red Dog
11-04-05, 12:46 PM
Religious groups that want an exemption from paying their credit card bills because Visa is accepted at Planned Parenthood? Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I'm making a point.


Yeah - I'd say since Visa is not a government entity.

If you want that exemption, then I say you need to amend the Constitution. I'll even help. :)

Question: do you believe that Jewish federal employees are legally entitled to leave on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana (assuming they use their own vacation time)? What about employees in the private sector?

hahn
11-04-05, 12:46 PM
They're bitching to stop the law from getting passed so it applies to there charities.

If it gets passed, I'm sure they'll follow the business law, while still bitching about birth control and campaigning against it.

Just like you bitch about the war and still pay your taxes.

I still don't see your point.
I'm not familiar with this law, but from what grundle was saying, it already exists.

The POINT of this is that it does not make a liberal a hypocrite when he/she is in support of this law being applied equally to everyone. I only got derailed in this discussion because of grundle's incessant finger pointing at liberals, and of how THIS somehow constitutes liberal hypocrisy. Again, I don't FULLY support this law. Hell, there are a lot of things that healthcare insurance pays for that I think should NOT be paid for. Things that are far more expensive than contraception. But if this lawexists, I do NOT think the Catholic church should be allowed to not pay it. That does not make me a hypocrite.

As a side note, if the Catholic church is not willing to contribute to the cost of birth control, will they contribute to the cost of raising a child since they are also against abortion? It seems to me that they want all their beliefs supported without any responsibility of what happens to people as a result of their beliefs.

Venusian
11-04-05, 12:48 PM
As a side note, if the Catholic church is not willing to contribute to the cost of birth control, will they contribute to the cost of raising a child since they are also against abortion? It seems to me that they want all their beliefs supported without any responsibility of what happens to people as a result of their beliefs.
they want freedom without responsibility? i thought that was the pro-life arguement

Josh H
11-04-05, 01:08 PM
I'm not familiar with this law, but from what grundle was saying, it already exists.


As I see it, it currently doesn't apply to charities. As with many business laws, charities are often exempt.




As a side note, if the Catholic church is not willing to contribute to the cost of birth control, will they contribute to the cost of raising a child since they are also against abortion? It seems to me that they want all their beliefs supported without any responsibility of what happens to people as a result of their beliefs.

I'm sure the insurance covers child birth and any related health expenses as well as covering the child as the employee's dependent.

What more can they do? Insurance doesn't pay for raising a child. The parents and/or the government do.

I think the Catholics are being stupid here, but they have the freedom to uphold their beliefs IMO, as absurd as they seem to me.

hahn
11-04-05, 01:49 PM
Yeah - I'd say since Visa is not a government entity.

If you want that exemption, then I say you need to amend the Constitution. I'll even help. :)

Question: do you believe that Jewish federal employees are legally entitled to leave on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana (assuming they use their own vacation time)? What about employees in the private sector?

I think it's up to the institution that they work for, whether it's government or private. AFAIK, no business or organization is under any legal obligation to give ANY holidays off, whether it's Yom Kippu, Christmas, MLK, or Labor day. But then again I work in the healthcare sector which has people working 24/7 every single day of the year. So to answer your question - I don't know if there's a legal entitlement. If there is, good for the Jews. But then are they also entitled to the holidays that AREN'T part of their religion?

I don't know what the laws currently are, but my opinion is that whatever law is passed should be applied to everyone equally.

Jadzia
11-04-05, 01:50 PM
I would probably even want my daughter to get this if I had a daughter, but that doesn't mean that it should be mandatory. If we could even point to one vaccination that we give that protects against something that isn't an airborne disease I could at least see the logic a little better. But I don't see how putting this in a different class from a polio vaccine is illogical. Expand on that, if you would.

HepB is a vaccine given at birth (unless the parent declines) and that is a sexually transmitted disease. Most people consent to the vaccine; I had to sign something that I declined the shot for my baby (as I had heard about too many babies dying from it and I just didin't think the risks were worth it.) I did not have Hep B and I thought it was dumb to inject a day-old baby with a potential harmful substance in order to vaccinate him against something he would not be at risk to get.

Red Dog
11-04-05, 01:55 PM
I don't know what the laws currently are, but my opinion is that whatever law is passed should be applied to everyone equally.


So a law banning headscarfs on men and women (like the French have) would be constitutional then? Muslim women are just SOL in that case?

hahn
11-04-05, 03:07 PM
So a law banning headscarfs on men and women (like the French have) would be constitutional then? Muslim women are just SOL in that case? What would be the purpose of banning headscarves? What consequence to other people does wearing a headscarf have?

You're drawing analogies that aren't directly comparable. Birth control has a direct affect not only on the woman, but of the man who might impregnate her. Also the birth control payment law was not put in place to target religious groups. It was put in place for the benefit of women. A law banning headscarfs directly aims for a specific religious group. Specialized holidays have an effect on coworkers who work through those holidays just because they don't belong to whatever religion does celebrate or observe them. Just ask my co-classmates (and myself) how annoyed we were than one Jewish person declared that he was such a devout follower of Judaism that he could NOT go in to the hospital to work on Saturdays. Guess who got stuck covering his workload @ 6am on Saturdays? The rest of the med students unlucky enough to be on rotations with him.

I'm fine with whatever people want to believe in their religion along with any of their practices. However, when it inconveniences (to mildy understate it) other people, it bugs me.

Red Dog
11-04-05, 03:12 PM
What would be the purpose of banning headscarves? What consequence to other people does wearing a headscarf have?

You're drawing analogies that aren't directly comparable. Birth control has a direct affect not only on the woman, but of the man who might impregnate her. Also the birth control payment law was not put in place to target religious groups. It was put in place for the benefit of women. A law banning headscarfs directly aims for a specific religious group. Specialized holidays have an effect on coworkers who work through those holidays just because they don't belong to whatever religion does celebrate or observe them. Just ask my co-classmates (and myself) how annoyed we were than one Jewish person declared that he was such a devout follower of Judaism that he could NOT go in to the hospital to work on Saturdays. Guess who got stuck covering his workload @ 6am on Saturdays? The rest of the med students unlucky enough to be on rotations with him.

I'm fine with whatever people want to believe in their religion along with any of their practices. However, when it inconveniences (to mildy understate it) other people, it bugs me.



Say a uniformity in school attire (a ban on any head attire - which would effect Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, rappers, and anyone who like wearing a baseball cap) - like how the French did it. That does not specifically aim for a religious group.

I am addressing your general comment that neutral laws that treat everyone the same are constitutional. That is why I asked this question. I take it by your answer that there are indeed exceptions then.

Believe me, others' practice of religion can be annoying to me too - however, just because something annoys me doesn't mean I won't ignore their right to practice.

Red Dog
11-04-05, 03:17 PM
BTW, I do believe in the neutrality principle on potential establishment clause issues. These are generally in the school setting - like a religious group using a public school classroom for a meeting; just like any other group can use it.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0