[Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

[Scott Dredge]

Roger - you're too far out to lunch to reason with so I'm only responding for anyone else who might be reading this silly thread.

<The SCOTUS decision was in favor of the separation of church and state.>
Correct. 
 So stick with the facts of the case which is 'separation of church and 
state' and quit trying to throw in costs because you can't make a 
logical argument using cost.

<This is not a disease. Why should someone else pay for the consequences of your pleasure.>
In your fantasy world, should sexually transmitted diseases not be covered by health insurance, and if not, why not?  STDs certainly fall under the category of 'disease'.

<Abstinence is only one option. I agree that not many will use it. I listed others.>
Married women working for Hobby Lobby probably won't use abstinence and, if they do, they probably won't stay married for very long.  Planned Parenthood only provides free birth control for poor women.  Check it our for yourself.

< Forcing some one to pay for the 
consequences of some one else's pleasure is the opposite of separation 
of church and state.>
Health insurance isn't void if 
you go to the doctor for some reason because of something that happened 
while you were having pleasure.  With 
your logic, you'd claim that forcing some one to pay for the 
consequences of 'playing soccer or basketball or hockey or skiing' is 
the opposite of church and state.

Your pleasure clause doesn't work.  Neither does your cost clause.  Unwanted pregnancies are huge cost to women and to society.  Stick with objection to other's having access to birth control coverage on religious objections because nothing else will work with SCOTUS.

Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 18:06:21 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
From: lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Fw: RE:  SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision





 

The SCOTUS decision was in favor of the separation of church and state. This is not a disease. Why should someone else pay for the consequences of your pleasure. Abstinence is only one option. I agree that not many will use it. I listed others. If an Insurance Company wants to offer a birth control policy, fine. If someone wants to buy it, fine. If some one wants to provide it free, fine. I am not into forcing anyone to do anything, with a few exceptions such as paying taxes. Forcing some one to pay for the consequences of some one else's pleasure is the opposite of separation of church and state. To claim otherwise is Orwellian.
Roger
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: "Scott Dredge" <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>, viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>, "Lynn McCollough" <lmccollough at gmail.com>
Date: 07/08/14 22:54
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

Roger - the gloom and doom is so-called 'religious freedom' being used to exert control over women's options for birth control coverage.  If you want to make an argument against birth control coverage based on cost, then put up the numbers.  Note that:

Insurance companies aren't the ones pushing for dropping birth control likely because it's lower cost than prenatal care and birthing
Employers aren't basing their objections based on cost



Your comments regarding abstinence are just plain nutty.  That's never worked for the simple fact that the vast majority of men and woman do not abstain.  Get real.


-Scott



Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 21:26:40 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com; lmccollough at gmail.com
From: lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

 

Why the gloom and doom. It is not a disease like cancer that you have mostly no control over. It is the result of sex that except for rape is voluntary. A person can abstain, pay for their own control or go the Planed Parenthood. I understand they give away birth control products free.
This from my oldest daughter- If a women's  preferred method of birth control is to keep her clothes on, will her employer pay for her clothes?
Roger
 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Lynn McCollough" <lmccollough at gmail.com>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: 07/08/14 07:42
Subject:  [Vision2020] SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

 On Thurday, SCOTUS filed an injunction that widely expanded an employers ability to not cover birth control for women. This decision will have much greater impact than their decision regarding the Hobby Lobby filing.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2014/07/08/12325985/

 It is a shame this isn't getting the media coverage.
 
=======================================================
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/20140709/0c811be5/attachment-0001.html>