PhillyKev 0 #1 March 1, 2004 Even I think this is stupid... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040301/ts_nm/rights_contraceptives_dc QuoteThe California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a Catholic charity must offer prescription contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan even if church teaching opposes birth control measures. They're not required to offer any prescription benefits, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to offer them with a stipulation. The other alternative the court gave them was to stop giving any prescription drug benefits to their employees to avoid any conflict. That's just stupid.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #2 March 1, 2004 QuoteSee...I'm not a flaming liberal... Oh the possibilities . . . I'm feeling nice today, Thanks for the input Kev.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #3 March 1, 2004 Frankly, the church's insurance plan failed to recognize that birth control is not always prescribed for contraceptive purposes. The church also failed to recognize that some women have to take the pill to prevent a pregnancy that could endanger their lives. Funny... most priests say that B/C in this situation is ok, yet they refuse to pay for it. For example, my mom's on it for menopause symptoms. She taught at a Catholic school til last year, and I'm sorry, its rediculous to have a 55 year old woman shelling out $60 a month for birth control because of the church's idiotic closemindedness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 March 1, 2004 QuoteFor example, my mom's on it for menopause symptoms. She taught at a Catholic school til last year, and I'm sorry, its rediculous to have a 55 year old woman shelling out $60 a month for birth control because of the church's idiotic closemindedness. Ok...so even better...now they get to shell out money for ALL their prescriptions when they stop giving them any drug benefits. This is stupid....they are giving them a voluntary benefit, they're not discriminating against anyone....it should be up to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #5 March 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteFor example, my mom's on it for menopause symptoms. She taught at a Catholic school til last year, and I'm sorry, its rediculous to have a 55 year old woman shelling out $60 a month for birth control because of the church's idiotic closemindedness. Ok...so even better...now they get to shell out money for ALL their prescriptions when they stop giving them any drug benefits. This is stupid....they are giving them a voluntary benefit, they're not discriminating against anyone....it should be up to them. So my question is, does the benefit cover viagra? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #6 March 1, 2004 Well, this year, the diocese of Orange finally got some sense and realized that the majority of their paid female employees are women over the age of 40 and just started covering the pill, because it cost them a LOT more to cover hormone replacement therapy, which is more dangerous to women than the pill is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #7 March 1, 2004 Quote So my question is, does the benefit cover viagra? Only if the consession of alterboys gets above 5.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #8 March 1, 2004 YES. They do cover viagra. One of our coaches when I was teaching at the school was taking it (and yes, he told us at a faculty meeting, kinda as a PSA. LOL. of course, the all-female faculty teased him mercilessly after that, and it was all in good-natured fun) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 March 1, 2004 That was very nice of them to do that voluntarily. They can also voluntarily stop giving ANY coverage. They are giving employees a benefit VOLUNTARILY. This is like me offering to help you carry your groceries home for you, and than you getting pissed off that I sat the bags on the counter and didn't put everything away for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #10 March 1, 2004 California has a law that makes it mandatory for employers to offer health insurance. So, yes, they do have to do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #11 March 1, 2004 QuoteThe California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a Catholic charity must offer prescription contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan even if church teaching opposes birth control measures. You offered this You said that: QuoteEven I think this is stupid... and then you post that: QuoteThey are giving employees a benefit VOLUNTARILY. This is like me offering to help you carry your groceries home for you, and than you getting pissed off that I sat the bags on the counter and didn't put everything away for you. I must be confused I thought you weren't a flaming liberal?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,110 #12 March 1, 2004 >>They are giving employees a benefit VOLUNTARILY. >I must be confused I thought you weren't a flaming liberal? You think we should pass laws to force companies to do more for their employees? Seems like a most left-wing attitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 March 1, 2004 Yeah...I think you are confused. I'm saying it's nice of them to give them any benefits. The courts shouldn't force them to give more benefits that violate their religious beliefs. What's liberal about that stance? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 March 1, 2004 QuoteCalifornia has a law that makes it mandatory for employers to offer health insurance. So, yes, they do have to do it. Really???? QuoteThe charity could avoid any conflict with religious values by not offering its employees prescription drug coverage, the justices held. Employers in California are not required to offer such coverage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #15 March 1, 2004 QuoteYeah...I think you are confused. I'm saying it's nice of them to give them any benefits. The courts shouldn't force them to give more benefits that violate their religious beliefs. What's liberal about that stance? It's liberal because YOU said it. Bwahahahaha. Actually, I saw your thought process Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #16 March 1, 2004 QuoteSo my question is, does the benefit cover viagra? Probably...I don't think there's anything in their religion prohibiting it. This seems like a clear violation of Freedom of Religion. They are being denied the ability to adhere to fundamental rules of their religion. They weren't giving benefits to some and not others, so it's not discrimination. They're not required by law to provide any prescription benefits. But they are now required to provide benefits for something that is against their religion or stop providing all prescription benefits. If I were them I would choose the latter rather than compromise my religious morals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #17 March 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteCalifornia has a law that makes it mandatory for employers to offer health insurance. So, yes, they do have to do it. Really???? QuoteThe charity could avoid any conflict with religious values by not offering its employees prescription drug coverage, the justices held. Employers in California are not required to offer such coverage. I think you are being a liberal and don't know it - just because it's a court filing down on a right that is not neccessarily your opinion - a conservative answer to that is if it makes good buisness sense or not. They are forcing the church to cover the contrceptives because they can, not because it is good for anything.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #18 March 1, 2004 QuoteSee...I'm not a flaming liberal... Yes you are. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 March 1, 2004 QuoteI think you are being a liberal and don't know it - just because it's a court filing down on a right that is not neccessarily your opinion - a conservative answer to that is if it makes good buisness sense or not. They are forcing the church to cover the contrceptives because they can, not because it is good for anything. Now I'm confused. I have no idea what that means?? Are you saying that you think it's good that the court is forcing them to provide prescription coverage for contraceptives because it makes good business sense and that is the proper conservative thought process? I guess that would explain why I'm not a conservative....it doesn't make any sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #20 March 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo my question is, does the benefit cover viagra? Probably...I don't think there's anything in their religion prohibiting it. This seems like a clear violation of Freedom of Religion. They are being denied the ability to adhere to fundamental rules of their religion. They weren't giving benefits to some and not others, so it's not discrimination. They're not required by law to provide any prescription benefits. But they are now required to provide benefits for something that is against their religion or stop providing all prescription benefits. If I were them I would choose the latter rather than compromise my religious morals. I agree with you along your line of thought, however if the church receives state funds for anything then the state absolutely has the right to make this determination. This is why alot of religious officials even decry Bush's faith based initiatives. But I also simply find it ironic that the church would refuse medication to women of non-child bearing age on the grounds that the medication's primary use is birth control while at the same time paying for old men who should not be producing children either to get boners. It's just laughable, particularly in the light of the recent scandals. I wonder if any of the accused priests were prescribed viagra. I doubt it but wouldn't it simply be shocking? Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #21 March 1, 2004 QuoteI agree with you along your line of thought, however if the church receives state funds for anything then the state absolutely has the right to make this determination. Why is that? And besides, that had nothing to do with the ruling. The court is claiming that they were discriminating based on religious beliefs, but it's a religious organization. The court is basically precluding them from practicing their religious beliefs. And even if they employ non-catholics, they weren't preventing them from using birth control, they just don't want to fund it. It's like forcing a jewish charity to give their employees a Christmas ham because they give out kugel for passover. They don't have to give out kugel, but they choose to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #22 March 1, 2004 This falls under prescription drug coverage, which is optional under California law.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #23 March 1, 2004 I can see how you can get a pass on the liberal part, but not the flaming part. Chris #1 _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #24 March 1, 2004 QuoteI can see how you can get a pass on the liberal part, but not the flaming part. Chris #1 Don't make me slap you upside the head and make you stop seeing double Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #25 March 1, 2004 QuoteI can see how you can get a pass on the liberal part, but not the flaming part. Chris #1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't make me slap you upside the head and make you stop seeing double See now you just screwed up your claim of not being a liberal. You must embrace your diversity. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
