VP pick named.

[jaaron]

Government shouldn't be involved in what happens between a doctor and patient at all, ever. Some states do decide what limits should be placed on abortions and the nation as a whole has decided that there must be limits on when and who pays.

Ok, that's fair. But should an employer's personal religious beliefs come between a doctor and patient? I really don't see why one is not ok and the other is.

 

[Tekate]

I don't care for the vote by mail idea. I think you should have to show an I.D. to vote. Otherwise it's useless

Do you pay your taxes on line? the amount of votes should equal or be less than the registered voters. I have been voting by mail for years in Maine.

 

[1ofakind]

Ok, that's fair. But should an employer's personal religious beliefs come between a doctor and patient? I really don't see why one is not ok and the other is.

Let's turn it around a bit. Should an employer be forced to participate in what they believe is a murder?

BTW, there are non-Christians who are pro-life and not all Christians believe that even birth control or Plan B is the same as abortion/murder. Within even Christian pro-life circles there are debates whether life begins at conception or some time later. This is usually framed as Christians vs everyone else and that is not the case.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Let's turn it around a bit. Should an employer be forced to participate in what they believe is a murder?

BTW, there are non-Christians who are pro-life and not all Christians believe that even birth control or Plan B is the same as abortion/murder. Within even Christian pro-life circles there are debates whether life begins at conception or some time later. This is usually framed as Christians vs everyone else and that is not the case.

How is it forced? It is a right provided to all citizens regardless of affiliation. They are not personally participating in anything. Your beliefs are yours and beholden or preclude no one else.
If they personally do not want an abortion, they are free to choose not to have one.

 

[redwood66]

From the article I posted with regard to legislation as I described.

Then there's abortion. Harris is pro-choice, of course, but her stance goes well beyond ensuring abortion is legal and accessible. She's a vocal proponent of federal funding for abortion. In California, she championed legislation forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise free or cheap abortion options to their clients. (The law was later struck down as a First Amendment violation.) Critics and supporters alike have said Harris' bill to weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could be used to require Catholic health care providers, for example, to perform abortions.

 

[1ofakind]

How is it forced? It is a right provided to all citizens regardless of affiliation. They are not personally participating in anything. Your beliefs are yours and beholden or preclude no one else.
If they personally do not want an abortion, they are free to choose not to have one.

Pay = participation.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

From the article I posted with regard to legislation as I described.

Then there's abortion. Harris is pro-choice, of course, but her stance goes well beyond ensuring abortion is legal and accessible. She's a vocal proponent of federal funding for abortion. In California, she championed legislation forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise free or cheap abortion options to their clients. (The law was later struck down as a First Amendment violation.) Critics and supporters alike have said Harris' bill to weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could be used to require Catholic health care providers, for example, to perform abortions.

Do you have an issue with federal funding being used to provide healthcare options (including abortion) to low income residents if there is no religious impediment to the institution providing the service? If a facility of any bent is going to provide healthcare, is it not only right they provide access to information about all of the health options available whether they preform them or not? It doesn't mean they have to preform them, and they can counsel as they see fit-after they provide all relevant information.

Pay = participation.

Do they hold or perform the procedure? Or is that access to a right should be impinged upon out of personal distaste?
Is it then acceptable for taxpayers who do not follow religion/different religion to deny funding on personal grounds in return?

 

[redwood66]

Do you have an issue with federal funding being used to provide healthcare options (including abortion) to low income residents if there is no religious impediment to the institution providing the service? If a facility of any bent is going to provide healthcare, is it not only right they provide access to information about all of the health options available whether they preform them or not? It doesn't mean they have to preform them, and they can counsel as they see fit-after they provide all relevant information.

My problem is always with government forcing anyone to do anything that goes against a deeply held belief. This includes requiring a health care provider to provide materials about abortion. Abortion information is readily available everywhere for free.

I don't have a grind against abortion providers or low income people receiving temporary assistance.

 

[redwood66]

Ok, that's fair. But should an employer's personal religious beliefs come between a doctor and patient? I really don't see why one is not ok and the other is.

Employers are people and have the same rights as you and I. I don't want the government to tell that they need to provide something against their beliefs. That is between the employer and the employee.

 

[jaaron]

I'm not really sure where the line is, though. I mean, I have rights, but I don't get to say my tax dollars don't go to causes I don't personally believe in or are against my value system. What if I'm a Quaker and my tax money funding the military goes against my religious beliefs?

 

[redwood66]

I'm not really sure where the line is, though. I mean, I have rights, but I don't get to say my tax dollars don't go to causes I don't personally believe in or are against my value system. What if I'm a Quaker and my tax money funding the military goes against my religious beliefs?

Are we still talking about employers or have we moved the conversation elsewhere? Believe me I would love to have less taxes going anywhere, including the military. But what does that have to do with Harris wanting legislation that goes against the 1st Amendment?

 

[jaaron]

Well I don't think it's a completely clear cut issue. If you're against birth control for employees you can proselytise that all day long, but imposing that on someone else might equally violate their first amendment rights.

And my point wasn't about the amounts of taxes. It was that we have all the freedoms we want to practice religion as individuals. But were I a Quaker, I wouldn't have the freedom to withhold taxes on the basis that using them to fund the military violates my first amendment rights. So it's not apples and oranges. It's Harris having legislative views that run along relatively accepted lines of separation of church and state philosophy.

 

[partgypsy]

I think a good argument could be made if there was a draft, and only men were drafted. So there were instances up to say Vietnam war. There may be other cases but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

[OboeGal]

The whole problem here is that we still have people getting their health care coverage through their employers.

It's LONG PAST TIME for employment and health care coverage to NOT be in any way connected. How is it right for an employer to have influence or control over their employees' income AND their retirement plan choices AND their healthcare coverage, which then gives them control over their employees' health care decisions? Employers have way, way too much power over the lives of their employees in the US.

As has been pointed out, as things stand now, it's not as simple as "if you don't like your employer's stand on birth control, go get another job." Too many people live in areas where job opportunities are too limited. The answer to this, and lots of other dilemmas, is to separate employment and health care.

 

[OboeGal]

No, Joe Biden And Kamala Harris Aren’t ‘Rockefeller Republicans’

In the face of rising radicalism in the Democratic Party, the media’s new tactic is to paint Biden and Harris as milquetoast moderates.

thefederalist.com

The Federalist is an extremely biased source.

 

[scouty]

I think a good argument could be made if there was a draft, and only men were drafted. So there were instances up to say Vietnam war. There may be other cases but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

That is true, I did not think of the draft.

 

[redwood66]

The Federalist is an extremely biased source.

So is nearly everything posted here. Equality and all that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The Federalist is an extremely biased source.

But not the NYT or WP??

 

[OboeGal]

But not the NYT or WP??

If we're talking articles, not opinion pieces, then neither one is extremely biased. Slighly, perhaps, but not extremely. Their editorial board/opinion pieces can be very, very biased but that can be to either side. I've seen both sides represented in both publications when it comes to the opinion pieces.

They are very different from sources like, for example, Slate, in which everything put out by them is heavily slanted to the left, or the Federalist, which is heavily slanted to the right. I'm not interested in getting information from such places. There is no reason to trust anything from them because the whole website/media source exists to put out biased stuff as if it is fact. I feel the same way about Fox News and MSNBC, conservative talk radio, etc. I don't care which way they are biased; I don't want bias.

 

[partgypsy]

The Federalist is considered far right. Maybe we can stick to sites in thecenter, so no one had an "advantage"

 

[Musia]

The Federalist is considered far right. Maybe we can stick to sites in thecenter, so no one had an "advantage"

Thank you.

 

[OboeGal]

The Federalist is considered far right. Maybe we can stick to sites in thecenter, so no one had an "advantage"

Yes, thank you! I was just digging around looking for a similar chart that I saw a while back, but couldn't find it.

DH and I prefer to get our news from the sources in the center - particularly AP and Reuters, BBC, Bloomberg, NPR (and PBS as well), and USA Today. We occasionally read news, opinion pieces, and analysis from the "lean left" and "lean right" sources, but not as often, and we take them with a grain of salt. We want nothing to do with the far left or far right sources.

 

[jaaron]

Yes, thank you! I was just digging around looking for a similar chart that I saw a while back, but couldn't find it.

DH and I prefer to get our news from the sources in the center - particularly AP and Reuters, BBC, Bloomberg, NPR (and PBS as well), and USA Today. We occasionally read news, opinion pieces, and analysis from the "lean left" and "lean right" sources, but not as often, and we take them with a grain of salt. We want nothing to do with the far left or far right sources.

I think that chart is pretty good. I'd probably take Newsweek out of the L column since it's really not Newsweek anymore (I think the name was sold on when the magazine disbanded), and I'm not sure the New Yorker can be categorised quite so easily. The Financial Times is also a really great centre publication, for anyone looking. Personally, I don't mind a biased source as long as I am aware of the bias going in.

 

[jaaron]

But back to the topic... To take it to a further extreme of the same principle, what if the employer is a Jehovah's Witness? Is it ok for them to refuse to cover blood transfusions in their employee health insurance?

 

[missy]

But back to the topic... To take it to a further extreme of the same principle, what if the employer is a Jehovah's Witness? Is it ok for them to refuse to cover blood transfusions in their employee health insurance?

No. They shouldn’t impose their personal views on others. You work for them. They’re not the boss of your personal life. They shouldn’t impose their moral views on their employees.

 

[1ofakind]

But back to the topic... To take it to a further extreme of the same principle, what if the employer is a Jehovah's Witness? Is it ok for them to refuse to cover blood transfusions in their employee health insurance?

This isn't a good example. A Jehovah's witness believes it is a sin for THEM to have a blood transfusion. There isn't a cause for them to stop the procedure for others. While each believes the action is a sin for them, Pro-life proponents also believe abortion is murder....so yes they want to prevent others from committing murder and being murdered. Huge difference.

 

[missy]

This isn't a good example. A Jehovah's witness believes it is a sin for THEM to have a blood transfusion. There isn't a cause for them to stop the procedure for others. While each believes the action is a sin for them, Pro-life proponents also believe abortion is murder....so yes they want to prevent others from committing murder and being murdered. Huge difference.

It is still the law so the comparison holds. As long as Roe V Wade is in effect and it is the law of the land and abortion is legal. Anti choice people have no right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do re their pregnancy. They can do what they please re their bodies but stay the hell out of my and other's personal business.

 

[1ofakind]

It is still the law so the comparison holds. As long as Roe V Wade is in effect and it is the law of the land and abortion is legal. Anti choice people have no right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do re their pregnancy. They can do what they please re their bodies but stay the hell out of my and other's personal business.

I never suggested otherwise so no need to lecture me. The question is whether an individual should be forced to pay for another’s choice....especially when that choice results in what they consider to be a murder. The argument is that it is no longer one’s personal business if they demand someone else pay for it.

 

[missy]

I never suggested otherwise so no need to lecture me. The question is whether an individual should be forced to pay for another’s choice....especially when that choice results in what they consider to be a murder. The argument is that it is no longer one’s personal business if they demand someone else pay for it.

I was commenting with my thoughts in reply to your comment that @jaaron 's example wasn't a good analogy. It was a fine analogy. And if the company providing the insurance is in the USA where abortion is legal then IMO yes the health insurance should be inclusive. I wasn't aiming my comments at your personally. I wasn't lecturing you.

The hypocrisy (not talking about you as I don't know you) of (many of) the anti choice people is rich.
As an example they felt it was fine and OK to tear children away from their parents with no plans to reunite them. Deny affordable healthcare to low income people. Cut programs that feed hungry kids. Incite violence. I could go on and on and on.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

That is living in a democracy and abiding by it's agreed upon rules. In this case it still leaves a personal choice on what you do as an individual but it prevents dictation upon anyone else to unduly influence the whole to contravene said rules.
A equitable solution to personal scruple would be Universal Healthcare.