War against Women

[MyReality]

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html

Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/

House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/

The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html

SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/

On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.

ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

[nursebenjamin]

The issue is whether an organization that is run by a church and is subject to oversight by that church relative to religious matters should be compelled to provide services that the church considers immoral. IMO this is a debatable point and hinges on what exactly is meant by 'providing services'.

If an employer provides health care to their employees, should the health care plan be required to provide “essential health benefits�? Essential health benefits such as:

• Ambulatory patient services
  Emergency services
  Hospitalization
  Maternity and newborn care
  Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
  Prescription drugs
  Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
  Laboratory services
  Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, and
  Pediatric services, including oral and vision care[3]

This is indeed debatable, and citizens in the U.S. have been debating this issue for over 100 years.

I come down in the side of yes, ensuring equal access to “essential health care� is the moral thing to do. The U.S. is in a position where most people under the age of 65 have employer-based health insurance plans. The government has a clear mandate to regulate health care plans, even those offered by employers to their employees.

[nursebenjamin]

Bill Ayers is way off topic. Please take your discussion to another thread.

[East of Eden]

The issue is whether an organization that is run by a church and is subject to oversight by that church relative to religious matters should be compelled to provide services that the church considers immoral. IMO this is a debatable point and hinges on what exactly is meant by 'providing services'.

If an employer provides health care to their employees, should the health care plan be required to provide “essential health benefits�? Essential health benefits such as:

• Ambulatory patient services
  Emergency services
  Hospitalization
  Maternity and newborn care
  Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
  Prescription drugs
  Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
  Laboratory services
  Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, and
  Pediatric services, including oral and vision care[3]

This is indeed debatable, and citizens in the U.S. have been debating this issue for over 100 years.

I come down in the side of yes, ensuring equal access to “essential health care� is the moral thing to do. The U.S. is in a position where most people under the age of 65 have employer-based health insurance plans. The government has a clear mandate to regulate health care plans, even those offered by employers to their employees.

I doubt the Supreme Court would agree with Obama, given his track record on religious liberty issues. It is outrageous, and IMHO unconstitutional, to force a religious body to participate in an activity they regard as a mortal sin. What's he going to do next, make Jews and Muslims eat pork? Can't you make the same argument, that it wouldn't be fair to employees at Jewish and Muslim facility dining halls?

[nursebenjamin]

The government has a clear mandate to regulate health care plans, even those offered by employers to their employees.

I doubt the Supreme Court would agree with Obama, given his track record on religious liberty issues. It is outrageous, and IMHO unconstitutional, to force a religious body to participate in an activity they regard as a mortal sin. What's he going to do next, make Jews and Muslims eat pork? Can't you make the same argument, that it wouldn't be fair to employees at Jewish and Muslim facility dining halls?

Wouldn't it be outrageous and unconstitutional for religious creed to creep into government regulations?


<<"given [Obama's] track record on religious liberty issues.">>
What's that supposed to mean? Oh never mind; I'm not in the mood for an illogical conspiracy theory-laced rant.


<<"I doubt the Supreme Court would agree with Obama.">>
For me, who gets to choose the next Supreme Court Justices will be one of the most important issues of the upcoming presidential election.


<<"What's he going to do next, make Jews and Muslims eat pork? Can't you make the same argument, that it wouldn't be fair to employees at Jewish and Muslim facility dining halls?">>
Isn't there a clear difference between the regulation of health care plans and regulation concerning what a café serves for lunch? Your argument is simply an illogical slippery-slope fallacy. Sometimes a single action does lead to later legal actions, but what makes you think that the Department of Health and Human Services even wants to regulate cafeteria food?

And who is forcing anyone to use birth control? This regulation is all about equal access to beneficial preventative health services.

[McCulloch]

What's he going to do next, make Jews and Muslims eat pork?

No, but employers who happen to be either Jewish or Muslim who as a part of a benefit package provide meals to their employees, should make such benefits available to employees who are not Kosher or Halal.

[East of Eden]

The government has a clear mandate to regulate health care plans, even those offered by employers to their employees.

I doubt the Supreme Court would agree with Obama, given his track record on religious liberty issues. It is outrageous, and IMHO unconstitutional, to force a religious body to participate in an activity they regard as a mortal sin. What's he going to do next, make Jews and Muslims eat pork? Can't you make the same argument, that it wouldn't be fair to employees at Jewish and Muslim facility dining halls?

Wouldn't it be outrageous and unconstitutional for religious creed to creep into government regulations?

Nobody is proposing that, although Obama is proposing government regulations creep into religious creed. That doesn't sound like a wall of separation to me.

What's that supposed to mean? Oh never mind; I'm not in the mood for an illogical conspiracy theory-laced rant.

Stop projecting. Even Obama's own appointees voted against his position.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/re ... t-obama-0/

For me, who gets to choose the next Supreme Court Justices will be one of the most important issues of the upcoming presidential election.

Agreed.

Isn't there a clear difference between the regulation of health care plans and regulation concerning what a café serves for lunch?

The government has no business being involved in either.

And who is forcing anyone to use birth control?

The Catholic Church is being forced to involve itself in something they consider a mortal sin. Are they preventing anyone from using birth control? I'm sure they would be glad to teach women about natural family planning.

[nursebenjamin]

The government has a clear mandate to regulate health care plans, even those offered by employers to their employees.

I doubt the Supreme Court would agree with Obama, given his track record on religious liberty issues. It is outrageous, and IMHO unconstitutional, to force a religious body to participate in an activity they regard as a mortal sin. What's he going to do next, make Jews and Muslims eat pork? Can't you make the same argument, that it wouldn't be fair to employees at Jewish and Muslim facility dining halls?

Wouldn't it be outrageous and unconstitutional for religious creed to creep into government regulations?

Nobody is proposing that, although Obama is proposing government regulations creep into religious creed. That doesn't sound like a wall of separation to me.

The government has a clear and compelling interest in safeguarding equal access to basic health care services.[5]

How about this, if Catholics feel so burdened by regulations requiring health care plans to cover basic and beneficial preventative services, then why not have Catholic Hospitals refuse government funding (Medicare, Medicaid, CHP, VA funding, etc…) and provide their services using just charitable donations? Some (not all) Catholic hospitals want Free Exercise to dictate morality, and they want to do so with government money. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

This whole issue boils down to this: the Catholic Church has lost control over it's flock. Something like 99% of sexually active Catholic women use some form of birth control. The Church was attempting to rope the U.S. government into enforcing Catholic morality.

Here’s are some questions for you: Suppose a divorced nurse working at a Catholic hospital remarries. Should the hospital, citing objections to divorce, be allowed to refuse health insurance to the nurse’s spouse?

Should a Christian Scientist employer be allowed to exclude psychiatric care from his employees’ employer-based health insurance plan?

Should a Christian fundie, citing his preference for faith heeling, be allowed to exclude diabetic management from his employees’ employer-based health insurance plan?

Why or why not?

If the people of the U.S. wish to ensure that everyone has access to a basic level of health care, how should the government go about this?

… Even Obama's own appointees voted against his position.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/re ... t-obama-0/

You are comparing apples and oranges. That case has to do with religious organizations’ hiring practices of ministers. A teacher/minister was asked by a religious school to resign. The minister sued for discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that religious institutions could discriminate against ministers. However, if the teacher had been a “lay� staff member, the Court may very well have ruled in her favor against the church.

Isn't there a clear difference between the regulation of health care plans and regulation concerning what a café serves for lunch?

The government has no business being involved in either.

Well, that is subject to debate, isn’t? Fifty million people uninsured in this country; 50,000 people dying yearly due to the lack of access to health care; millions going bankrupt yearly due to unpaid medical bills; health care costs rising so rapidly that within a few years, our government will need to spend all collected revenue just on Medicare… The status quo wasn't doing so hot. The government has a clear and compelling interest in safeguarding equal access to basic health care.

And actually, I quite sure that local, state, and federal governments all have certain regulations that cafeterias must follow, even cafeterias within Catholic Hospitals.

And who is forcing anyone to use birth control?

The Catholic Church is being forced to involve itself in something they consider a mortal sin. Are they preventing anyone from using birth control? I'm sure they would be glad to teach women about natural family planning.

There is no such thing as sin. And why not just allow women to have equal access to birth control of her choice?

[WinePusher]

Again, this new rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires (forces) most health insurance plans to cover certain beneficial preventive services. It does not require (force) employers to provide Health Care for their Employee.

Well your position isn't tenable because contraceptives can be used for purposes other than being a 'beneficial preventive' health drug. What are contraceptives usually used for nursebenjamin? They are usually used to prevent pregnancies, which is something the Catholic Church is morally opposed to. The Catholic Church does not oppose contraceptives being used for medical purposes, they oppose contraceptives being used for non-medical purposes like pregnancy prevention. And many private Catholic Employers provide health insurance plans for their employees, so the mandate does violate their liberty.

We shouldn’t even be discussing what is required of employers; we should instead be discussing what is required of health insurance companies.

Why? Employers often provide health insurance and benefits for their employees. They should be able to determine what is and isn't included in the plans they offer. And if their employees aren't satisfied with the health insurance their employer offers they can go get insurance from another source. Remeber Sandra Fluke? The lady who was complaining about how Georgetown Law didn't cover birth control in their student health plans? She could have easily gone to another insurance provider that did cover birth control instead of trying to get the government to force Georgetown Law to do something they consider morally abhorrent.

Should only rich women have access to their contraception of choice? Should poor women be barefoot and pregnant? If the goal of the nation is to provide a basic level of health care to everyone, shouldn’t contraception be considered as part of a basic level of health care?

When did having sex become part of the 'basic level of healthcare?' If a poor woman wants to have recreational sex and can't afford contraceptives (which is highly unlikely since contraceptives are cheap) why can't she just go on without sex?

What I would prefer is for insurance companies to compete nationally which would solve this so called 'problem.

Yes, we’re discussed this before, http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 284#398284, but I don’t believe that you have supported your case.

I believe I've supported my case twice, as of now. But I went over the thread and want to respond to some things you said about the deficit towards the bottom of my post.

So basically what you are saying is that federal laws and regulations should reflect what the Catholic Church deems morally acceptable?

No. Not at all. I'm saying that the liberty and freedom of the Catholic Church should be upheld. If we were to get rid of the contraception mandate tomorrow there would be absolutely no detrimental effect on women's health. Doing away with the contraception mandate would not limit the accessibility of birth control in any way, shape or form.

I believe that everyone should have equal access to basic affordable health care. Countries that ensure equal access to affordable health care are more moral than those that do not. The U.S. government has failed her citizens on this front. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is by no means perfect, but is a step in the right direction.

Birth control of one’s choice (as well as prenatal/postnatal) is basic health care that everyone should have equal access to. If you don’t want to use birth control, than don’t use it; but the rest of us should have equal access to affordable birth control of one’s choice.

There you go, you consider birth control to be basic healthcare and I don't. You, along with Wyvern, have completely exaggerated the medical benefits of birth control in this thread. Aspirin is far more beneficial than birth control, yet people buy it over the counter at their leisure. The same is true for most other drugs, like nyquil and advil and the same should be true for birth control. Why shouldn't drugs like nyquil and advil be covered under insurance?

Second, deficits are necessary to serve as a counter to low economic demand during economic recessions. Without such counter-cyclical spending, our economy will continue to spiral downwards. For example, in 1937, Roosevelt, ever concerned about deficits, sharply cut government spending, and thereby triggering a second dip in the Great Depression. Unemployment ballooned from 14% to 19%. It wasn’t until spending for World War II armaments stimulated the economy again.

A recession is a market correction of malinvestments. A recession is the way the market tries to fix itself from previous mistakes and malinvestment. A fever is the bodies way of trying to kill a virus, and when you intervene to supress a fever you aren't actually curing yourself, you are making your condition worse. Recessions are not different. They are painful to go through, but necessary in order to return back to economic prosperity and in trying to supress a recession through deficit spending you are actually worsening the state of the economy.

[East of Eden]

The government has a clear mandate to regulate health care plans, even those offered by employers to their employees.

I doubt the Supreme Court would agree with Obama, given his track record on religious liberty issues. It is outrageous, and IMHO unconstitutional, to force a religious body to participate in an activity they regard as a mortal sin. What's he going to do next, make Jews and Muslims eat pork? Can't you make the same argument, that it wouldn't be fair to employees at Jewish and Muslim facility dining halls?

Wouldn't it be outrageous and unconstitutional for religious creed to creep into government regulations?

Nobody is proposing that, although Obama is proposing government regulations creep into religious creed. That doesn't sound like a wall of separation to me.

The government has a clear and compelling interest in safeguarding equal access to basic health care services.[5]

Nonsense, try taking that to the Supreme Court.

How about this, if Catholics feel so burdened by regulations requiring health care plans to cover basic and beneficial preventative services, then why not have Catholic Hospitals refuse government funding (Medicare, Medicaid, CHP, VA funding, etc…) and provide their services using just charitable donations? Some (not all) Catholic hospitals want Free Exercise to dictate morality, and they want to do so with government money. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

Neither should the government. Catholic medical facilities are something like one-sixth of the US total, and save the taxpayers a lot by the work they do.

This whole issue boils down to this: the Catholic Church has lost control over it's flock. Something like 99% of sexually active Catholic women use some form of birth control.

Irrelevant.

The Church was attempting to rope the U.S. government into enforcing Catholic morality.

No, they're trying to get the government's hands out of their doctrine.

Here’s are some questions for you: Suppose a divorced nurse working at a Catholic hospital remarries. Should the hospital, citing objections to divorce, be allowed to refuse health insurance to the nurse’s spouse?

Should a Christian Scientist employer be allowed to exclude psychiatric care from his employees’ employer-based health insurance plan?

Should a Christian fundie, citing his preference for faith heeling, be allowed to exclude diabetic management from his employees’ employer-based health insurance plan?

Why or why not?

If they above employees don't like it, they can work elsewhere. I assume they knew the rules when they began employment, right?

If the people of the U.S. wish to ensure that everyone has access to a basic level of health care, how should the government go about this?

Do they? How about tort reform and insurance competition across state lines?

You are comparing apples and oranges. That case has to do with religious organizations’ hiring practices of ministers. A teacher/minister was asked by a religious school to resign. The minister sued for discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that religious institutions could discriminate against ministers. However, if the teacher had been a “lay� staff member, the Court may very well have ruled in her favor against the church.

My point stands, the former constitutional scholar has a poor track record on religious liberty issues.

Well, that is subject to debate, isn’t? Fifty million people uninsured in this country; 50,000 people dying yearly due to the lack of access to health care; millions going bankrupt yearly due to unpaid medical bills; health care costs rising so rapidly that within a few years, our government will need to spend all collected revenue just on Medicare… The status quo wasn't doing so hot.

Yes, prices tend to rise when the government is involved and there is no competition, such as healthcare and schools. Your idea of fairness is another man's con.

The government has a clear and compelling interest in safeguarding equal access to basic health care.

Look, the needs are infinite but the resources are finite. We're broke, borrowing 40% of what we spend and with a $15 trillion debt. If that isn't fixed it will make things a whole lot worse for everybody.

There is no such thing as sin.

Your opinion is irrelevant to the discussion. Because you believe a religion to be wrong it means they lose their constitutional rights to practice their religion?

[Goat]

At the very least, Obama was incredibly stupid or he lied about this for political purposes. What do you pick?

I vote for neither, the whole birther issue which this is a part of is frankly just plain stupid. His records have been shown to the public, before he could even run for the presidency he had to go through a vetting process to prove he qualified to run for the office. Regardless of where he was born he was born by an american citizen which means he is also an american citizen. Why is it the issue of McCains birthplace never came up during the last race? He was born in Panama which if you follow the logic of your birther buddies would make him ineligible to hold the office of the president.

So why was this 'born in Kenya' thing used up to 2007, I assume with Obama's knowledge?

Yes, you, like Breitbart, are assuming and speculating with no evidence and that is why you both have come to such a silly conclusion.

One assistant makes a mistake and it gets posted on a website and you make it into some kind of calculated political ploy, without providing one shred of evidence that that might be the case.

Erroneous stuff gets posted on the interent all the time and often stays there for long periods of time. This was a bit of info intended for a very small audience, and so it should not be suprising it was not noticed.

That sounds like something the in the tank for Obama MSM would say. Thank God for real journalists like the late Breitbart. I realize to some it is some kind of offense to ask questions about Obama. Funny the MSM has time to dig up stories about the 16 year old Romney giving a haircut to a kid whose hair length violated school standards.

I realize you like to beat the Ayers dead horse without any regard for reality.

Ayers was never "friends" with Obama. Obama never "palled around" with him. Their associations were all minimial and resulted from the actions of others, not Obama and not Ayers. This is nothing more than Breitbart like smear tactics engaged in for political purposes.

That is completely false. Obama had quite a history with this domestic version of Bin Laden.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/4126/t ... onnection/

I'll ask you, if Romney's political career was launched in the home of an abortion clinic bomber, would you be OK with that?

YOu are bringing up a BLOG?? Really?? You consider that 'GOOD INFORMATION'??

What makes 'larry johnson' qualified to make these remarks, other than being vocal about wishing death onto Obama?

I don't know, what makes you qualified? Rather than your usual ad hominem, what facts posted do you disagree with?

Well, for one.. the connection between Ayers and Obama. It insinuates it's a lot closer than it was. They served on the same committee that dealt with education for children in Chicago, and Obama went ot a fund raiser at Ayers house. So what? It insinuates , with the 'guilt by association', that Obama approved at any actions Ayers did 20 years or more earlier. It basically is one big piece of misinformation after the other.

Look up the facts, and not from someone who is so unrealistically anti-Obama they lie about him.