[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Tue Jul 1 14:52:12 PDT 2014

Gary, gender-based discrimination isn’t OK, or are you completely unfamiliar with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution or with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Additionally, have you never heard of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978?  Do a little research -- that pesky little law is the reason pregnancy &maternity health care, among other protections, are mandatory when health care benefits are offered to employees.  And, of course, the reason the PDA was required was because employers discriminated against women.  With respect to health care, it was because pregnancy & maternity care are expensive and excluding that coverage resulted not only in cheaper rates for everyone but pregnant women, but also kept the economic burden off those who didn’t need or want the coverage.

OTOH, with the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision, perhaps it’s time to repeal the PDA!  After all, why should employers with sincerely held religious beliefs that include the position that being good stewards of God’s creation requires reversing population growth be forced to pay for pregnancy & maternity care?

And, repealing the PDA would have lots of other benefits as well.  Why should pregnant women not have to privately buy “pregnancy insurance” the same way Paul seems to think women should have to privately buy “contraceptive insurance” or some think women should have to privately purchase “rape insurance?”

Also, I find it objectionable . . . wrong, I tell you, blatantly wrong and an unfairly burdensome infringement on MY economic liberty & health to pay for wimins wanting to pop out one kid after another after another!  I’m sick of my money being stolen to pay for other people’s free choices and my insurance rates do just that!  Them breeders are entitled to their choices but not on MY dime or MY conscience!

It would also be a great way to reign in those ballooning health care costs for all of us!

Yeah . . . that’s the ticket!

Saundra

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Gary Crabtree
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 8:59 AM
To: Sunil
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

And does that part of your compensation cover every possible thing that your heart could desire or are there drugs or procedures which are excluded?

g

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> > wrote:

Paul,

Is your UI healthcare free or is it part of your employment compensation?

Sunil

  _____  

Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 08:03:00 -0700
From: godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> ; vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 

Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free contraceptives?

Paul

  _____  

From: Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com <mailto:sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> >
To: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> > 
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

I couldn't disagree more. 

Roe recognized a woman's right to privacy. Hobby Lobby creates religious rights for legal fictions, and restricts the rights of flesh-and-blood people. HL is not about restricting the power of government and it's naive to think that's its objective. If the government were restricting birth control, as it once did, this majority would have no objection to that exercise of government power.

Sunil

  _____  

From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com <mailto:scooterd408 at hotmail.com> 
To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> ; donaldrose at cpcinternet.com <mailto:donaldrose at cpcinternet.com> ; vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:20:24 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Comparing Burwell v Hobby to Roe v Wade I don't see inconsistency in rulings.  In both cases the rulings restricted the power of the government.

  _____  

From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm <mailto:v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> 
To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com <mailto:donaldrose at cpcinternet.com> ; vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 17:14:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Great points, Rose, and I’m afraid I agree with your assessment.  Thank you for pointing out the obvious even if it’s uncomfortable some.

It’s long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same code of ethics federal judges must adhere to.

Saundra

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>  [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com> ] On Behalf Of Rosemary Huskey
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Subject: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a certain philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped by private values that we trust and hold dear.  In light of the  Supreme Court decision supporting the Hobby Lobby owners refusal to provide forms of birth control they claim to be at odds with their religious beliefs,  I wondered if the court was persuaded not by legal arguments but by their own religious affiliations.  Were any of the five male justices associated with religious groups that  uphold the doctrine of patriarchy,  i.e., do they attend churches that deny women ministerial or priesthood roles. Guess what?  Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman Catholic. 

In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was announced in 1973 eight of the nine male justices were members of main stream Protestant churches. There may or may not be a direct correlation between religion affiliation and legal opinions, but it is my firm belief that unearned gender privilege nurtured in the cradle, and deferred to in the church certainly creates an atmosphere that celebrates and bestows unique privilege for male members.  And, what could possibly more be patriarchal than controlling women’s reproductive choices?

Rose Huskey

======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>  =======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/> 
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140701/24dcaf57/attachment-0001.html>