Paul,
I never said you remarked about me or said anything about me. I don't think you did. I find your statement offensive because it attempts to reduce women's reproductive rights and the impact of that control to women trying to get free contraception. 'Those women just want to have lots of sex and have someone else pay for it.'
I'm not going to write a treatise here about how a woman's ability to control her own body impacts much of her life and her employment options. If you don't think that's true, or don't think it's important, then I doubt I'm going to change your mind. But for some context, here's Limbaugh talking about Sandra Fluke:
'The conservative radio host sparked outrage
on Wednesday when he called Fluke "a slut" and "a prostitute." He
alleged that she was "having so much sex" that she couldn't afford
contraception.
He went further
the next day, adding, "if we're going to pay for your contraceptives
and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you
to post the videos online so we can all watch."'
I don't know if that's the company you want to keep, but that's what your comment looks like to me.
You talk about taking a libertarian position, but you're jumping in with the people who want to restrict contraception because they want to limit women's choices and options. This is happening as states do their best to make abortion as inaccessible as they can; do you remember the attempt by Chuck Winder to pass legislation in Idaho to require an intrusive ultrasound examination for women?
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/feb/27/pre-abortion-ultrasound-bill-introduced-idaho/
Maybe you prefer a narrative where you're a libertarian bravely fighting for individual rights, but you're placing yourself with the repressive folks who are still fighting a culture war to restrict womens' options.
And the thing is, the law didn't force people to sacrifice their religious beliefs. It made a legal fiction, created to limit personal liability, provide contraception as part of employment compensation.
Tell me this: How is it the corporation's owners get to limit their personal liability for their own financial protection, yet demand the protection of their consciences? They want the personal advantage the corporate form provides, yet they claim their personal religious beliefs are being imposed on. Sorry. You want the personal benefit the corporate form provides? Then take the bitter with the sweet, and don't impose your religion on your employees.
Scott, do you really think this is just limited to Hobby Lobby. You do see that it's a way for other corporations to make the same claim? Which right is being restricted? The right of a woman to control her reproduction. That right.
Sunil
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 18:17:01 -0700
From: godshatter at yahoo.com
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
I made no disparaging remarks about you personally. I didn't try
to imply that you had something wrong with you because you thought
a certain way, I made no insinuations about you in any way. You
may have found it offensive, but you cannot categorize it as an
attack on you.
So which right *is* being restricted? Since we are on the subject.
What if it was a company objecting to paying for homeopathy
treatments? Shouldn't employers have a lot to say about what is
in the benefit packages they provide to their employees?
Paul
On 07/01/2014 05:41 PM, Sunil wrote:
Paul,
I'll bet I'm not the only person who found this offensive:
'Which right is being restricted, a woman's right to free
contraceptives?'
Maybe people unload on you when you say things that Rush
Limbaugh does. Don't put on your martyr hat when you say that
and people respond.
Sunil
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:23:39 -0700
From: godshatter at yahoo.com
To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.
It's statements like these that I'm objecting to:
"...of
course it’s of no consequence to you that..."
"...but
it’s good to know you belong in the “tyranny of the
bigots” category..."
"...why
on earth should you care that..."
Are they really necessary? Can't we discuss the issues
without getting personal?
In response to your question, when I look at my latest pay
stub (posted for the 3rd of June), I see a line item for "Employer Contribution for
Benefits". It's about $350 in my case, paid by the
employer per biweek. I also see employer amounts
for "Pre-Tax Health Savings Account" (their match for the
amount I'm putting in my HSA), and "Long" and "Short Term
Disability Coverage". Also Medicare, but all employers have
to pay FHI if I remember correctly.
Paul
On 07/01/2014 01:44 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
I
was hoping we could actually discuss your thinking
without you playing your predictable “why is everybody
always picking on me” card to avoid discussing
statements you make that you want us to just blindly
accept. I don’t think pointing out the flaws,
limitations, and obvious conclusions of your thinking
are personal insults, but I’m sorry if your
sensitivities made you feel as though they were
because that wasn’t my intention.
Just
as, I assume, you weren’t intending to personally
insult those of us with concerns about guns on campus
by calling our concerns “irrational fears,” or a lot
of other comments you’ve made that might have felt
like personal attacks if you were on the receiving
end. What’s that saying? Something about people in
glass houses . . .
So,
let’s try this one point again:
Paul
wrote:
“It's
subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what the
employer pays.”
My
response is that your statement is incorrect:
“The
last time I checked, my husband and I paid
100% of the cost of my health insurance
through the UI, and that’s the way it was for all
state employees the last time I checked. That’s been
the trend, too, with private sector employer-based
health insurance for a number of years, as
well as eroding the percentage of employer subsidy for
the employee. Indeed, there are more than a few
employers who offer absolutely no health insurance
subsidy for employees – their position is that their
“subsidy” is allowing the employee the benefit of
being a part of a larger group that gets a lower rate.”
What
say you?
Saundra
From:
Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 1:07 PM
To: Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point,
perhaps.
Well, I was hoping we could discuss this without the
personal insults.
Paul
On 07/01/2014 12:21 PM, Saundra Lund wrote:
Paul
wrote:
“It's
subsidized by everyone who pays into it, plus what
the employer pays.”
Boy,
you sure are out of touch with how modern
employer-based health insurance is paid! Keep
current, Paul, rather than disseminate long outdated
sound bites.
The
last time I checked, my husband and I paid
100% of the cost of my health insurance
through the UI, and that’s the way it was for all
state employees the last time I checked. That’s
been the trend, too, with private sector
employer-based health insurance for a number of
years, as well as eroding the percentage of
employer subsidy for the employee. Indeed, there
are more than a few employers who offer absolutely
no health insurance subsidy for employees – their
position is that their “subsidy” is allowing the
employee the benefit of being a part of a larger
group that gets a lower rate.
Paul
also wrote:
“I
don't see a problem with a small group of
"close-knit" people with similar beliefs objecting
to something they feel goes against their religious
beliefs.”
Of
course you don’t, but it’s good to know you belong
in the “tyranny of the bigots” category that thinks
that anyone should be able to impose their religious
beliefs on those with different beliefs, which
certainly contradicts a lot of the positions you’ve
stated on V2020. I’m in the category of thinking
that people are free to believe whatever they want,
but they don’t have the right to force their
religious beliefs on me.
Too,
why on earth should you care that about 90% of
companies in America responsible for employing
approximately 52% of working Americans qualify as
“small closely-held” companies that can now use
wholly false religious bigotry to deny access to
necessary health care for female employees and
employees with female family members? That may be
the America you want to live in, but it isn’t the
one the majority of Americans want to live in.
Paul
also wrote:
“Especially
when the consequence is to pay for a specific
contraceptive yourself.”
Once
again, your gender ignorance and economic
insensitivity would be stunning had you not
exhibited them so many times before.
Yes,
the American way is to force female crime victims to
bear the cost of being raped by men, isn’t it, Paul,
and that religious American ideal should be
preserved at all costs, shouldn’t it? It’s also the
American way relegate “immoral” women to forced
breeder status when they have sex, isn’t it?
And,
of course it’s of no consequence to you that
the cost of an IUD for women for whom that form of
birth control is most appropriate is about a month’s
wage for lower paid employees without health
insurance . . . or for plans that exclude coverage
for women. That may be economically feasible for you
since you don’t fall into that category, but
here’s a news flash for you: that is as financially
impossible for many women, particularly women who
have children to feed & clothe. Yet you find it
appropriate for religious bigots to punish women
& children in an attempt to coerce “moral”
behavior out of those uppity women.
Of
course, a viable alternative might have been
to direct those women to non-profit family planning
clinics like Planned Parenthood where contraceptives
are more affordable. At least, that might
have been a viable alternative before the Religious
Right started its war on women. Oops – guess that’s
not a viable alternative for a lot of women anymore.
Saundra
Moscow,
ID
Our
lives begin to end the day we become silent about
things that matter.
~
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
From:
vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:05 AM
To: Sunil; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine point,
perhaps.
Yes,
you're right. It's not free. It's subsidized
by everyone who pays into it, plus what the
employer pays. I don't see a problem with a
small group of "close-knit" people with similar
beliefs objecting to something they feel goes
against their religious beliefs. Especially
when the consequence is to pay for a specific
contraceptive yourself. It's not like they are
objecting to open-heart surgery.
Is
having the ability to get health care in general
from your employer a basic human right? Is the
ability to have your contraceptives in general
or the "morning after" pill in specific as a
part of your health plan offered at work a basic
human right?
Paul
From:
Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine
point, perhaps.
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
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A fine
point, perhaps.
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com;
vision2020 at moscow.com
Which
right is being restricted, a
woman's right to free
contraceptives?
Paul
From:
Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: vision 2020 <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
To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm; donaldrose at cpcinternet.com;
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
To: donaldrose at cpcinternet.com;
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]
On Behalf
Of Rosemary
Huskey
Sent:
Monday, June
30, 2014 2:49
PM
To: 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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
======================================================= 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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140701/82dddbee/attachment-0001.html>