Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FearfulJesuit]

I'm of the opinion that religious organizations shouldn't have to cover birth control or abortion if they don't feel comfortable with it.

However, I am also convinced that in such a situation, the government needs to cover it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Religious organizations only have their exception when they stay confined to religion. It's the same as with tax-exemptions. If a religious organization gets into politics, they are no longer purely religious and thus lose their tax-exception. Similarly, when a religious organization or a member thereof starts to intrude into the economic sphere, they lose the right to not follow economic laws like a birth control mandate.

[GlyphGryph]

Religious organizations don't have to cover birth control anyway - they just aren't allowed to force insurance companies to stop doing so.

[scriver]

GreatOrder and GoombaGeek, you two can talk over PM.

Wait when was the Fapmaster ever an issue here?

I accidentally buggered up the thread with a mass release of fap-radiation.

sorry, I'll remember to stay in my lead box, next time :<
in all honesty, I think it was a minor screw up on his behalf. either that, or someone changed their name to mine to fuck with him and me

Oh god, you don't know what "buggered" means either do you XD

[penguinofhonor]

GreatOrder and GoombaGeek, you two can talk over PM.

Wait when was the Fapmaster ever an issue here?

Oops, I meant GreatJustice. GreatOrder and GoombaGeek can still talk over PM if they want, though.

[Sheb]

Do we need another avatar for the fapmaster?

[RedKing]

Der Buggermeister?

[Sheb]

Do you, or do you not, know what to bugger someone mean?

[Jervill]

Eesh. Well, if it's fodder for different discussion, there's two sorta-interesting amendments coming up on the florida voting ballot, amendments six and eight.

Spoiler: Here's the text on six (click to show/hide)

This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest. This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution. With respect to abortion, this proposed amendment overrules court decisions which conclude that the right of privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution is broader in scope than that of the United States Constitution.[3]

Spoiler: And here's the text on eight (click to show/hide)

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding, or other support, except as required by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

The latter particularly seems kinda' nasty to me, though par for course for this kinda' shit. Big issue with it is the fact that it's an and statement, and while the first part is possibly unobjectible (depending on what they mean by entity; if it were just individual I'd probably withdraw potential objections), the latter is one hell of a rider, and a damned nasty one on that. It's somewhat damned telling that the amendment itself is titled "Religious freedom" when the latter aspect has basically jackall to do with that.

As for the former... I'm reminded of the hullabaloo a bit back with the non-church religious organizations making a fuss about not being able to buy health-insurance that covers abortion and then deny their employees that portion of the benefits. Seems a way to target insurance policies that provides such, somewhat indirectly harming (by disallowing them from offering the coverage in question to public employers) institutions that do so.

A more thorough going opinion on either would be interesting. Also suddenly curious how many other states have similar things on the ballot this cycle...

For the ballot measures, ballotpedia has a quite exhaustive list of all the different state's measures sorted by category on their site.

Looking over it, the only one with "Abortion" is a proposed measure in Montana that would require an adult's consent for a minor's abortion, not quite as stringent as Florida's proposed Number Six.

As for Number 8, it seems to be the only one that ridiculous, thankfully.

[RedKing]

Speaking of abortion, it's good to know that vocal abortion opponents are upstanding, moral pillars and would never have an affair and then coerce their mistress into having an abortion.

Oh, wait.

[Darvi]

The hypocrisy, it burrrnnssssss!

[Sirus]

Speaking of abortion, it's good to know that vocal abortion opponents are upstanding, moral pillars and would never have an affair and then coerce their mistress into having an abortion.

Oh, wait.

Relevant.

[ChairmanPoo]

Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. Just when we thought that the NPP couldn't be any more discredited.

[scriver]

Agreed. We never should have let the Norwegians have it

[Sheb]

Should this be in the WTF thread?