catholic church affects our government

Why do you selectively chastise? You lose credibility when you zero in on one poster when that person is not the only one in this post making generalizations.

What's the difference between kkddbb's broad statements and Lucifer Sam saying "religion makes people fly into buildings" and Alpha Crab stating flat-out that the Catholic church is archaic? If those aren't also blanket generalizations I don't know what is.

I'm not saying any of this is indicative of what intelligent and thoughtful members of this board contribute but c'mon, Kurt, fair's fair. Your rules are good but they should go for everybody.

What you are promoting (probably unintentionally) with statements like this is division of this forum, which is worse than the problem you are trying to defend. Some see what they want to see. We enforce rules as fairly as we are able. Some will never see it this way, or can't. No one can see everything, which is why we rely on forum members to help moderate. It is why we have a "report post" feature. If you feel this forum is slanted one way or the other then it is probably a result of your own feelings, or maybe it is a result of the "report post" feature reflecting the actual makeup.

Much goes on behind the scenes which renders your comments unhelpful and simply wrong.

When someone is "chastised", as you put it, the particular name can often be replaced by many names. I believe people know if it applies to them or not. If they don't then they don't hear the message, they don't learn, and they don't remain.

Why do you selectively chastise? You lose credibility when you zero in on one poster when that person is not the only one in this post making generalizations.

What's the difference between kkddbb's broad statements and Lucifer Sam saying "religion makes people fly into buildings" and Alpha Crab stating flat-out that the Catholic church is archaic? If those aren't also blanket generalizations I don't know what is.

I'm not saying any of this is indicative of what intelligent and thoughtful members of this board contribute but c'mon, Kurt, fair's fair. Your rules are good but they should go for everybody.

The generalizations you talk about are not personally directed, they are aimed at institutions. Why wouldn't you generalize about the Catholic Church? In fact, I hesitate to even call them generalizations. The church has a rigid set of very descriptive guidelines with an "infallible" leader that leaves little room for interpretation. I do think it would be very wrong to generalize about people who call themselves Catholic. Did you have a problem with my generalization about science?

I just looked at this thread. I am not Catholic, but went to a Catholic HS. Though I don't believe in their doctrines and rules, I wouldn't bash them. The main belief of catholicism that separates them in the Christian Doctrines is the transubstantiation, which in the Anglican Prayer Book, 'The Book of Common Prayer,' claims it to be 'repugnant.' Are the Anglicans therefore bashing the Catholics? Or, separating themselves from the belief?

I wouldn't bash the Muslim faith, Judaism, Agnosticism or atheism to boot.

Generalizations certainly come in different packages these days~~~~~~

I just looked at this thread. I am not Catholic, but went to a Catholic HS. Though I don't believe in their doctrines and rules, I wouldn't bash them. The main belief of catholicism that separates them in the Christian Doctrines is the transubstantiation, which in the Anglican Prayer Book, 'The Book of Common Prayer,' claims it to be 'repugnant.' Are the Anglicans therefore bashing the Catholics? Or, separating themselves from the belief?

I wouldn't bash the Muslim faith, Judaism, Agnosticism or atheism to boot.

Generalizations certainly come in different packages these days~~~~~~

As Kurt so aptly put, some see what they want to see.

Science flies men to the moon, religion flies them into buildings.

Men fly to the moon by leveraging what's learned through science, Men fly planes into buildings using religion as an excuse. You would do away with religion? But that wouldn't solve the problem now would it, because excuses are easy to come by. Heck, one could use science as an excuse too. What would you do then?

let's mentally rumble

As Kurt so aptly put, some see what they want to see.

Yes and it is evident.

Men fly to the moon by leveraging what's learned through science, Men fly planes into buildings using religion as an excuse. You would do away with religion? But that wouldn't solve the problem now would it, because excuses are easy to come by. Heck, one could use science as an excuse too. What would you do then?

Very valid point; there will always be something to instigate a war or two - in the name of God, Allah, non-belief or going to the Moon.

let's mentally rumble

Precious

Men fly to the moon by leveraging what's learned through science, Men fly planes into buildings using religion as an excuse. You would do away with religion? But that wouldn't solve the problem now would it, because excuses are easy to come by. Heck, one could use science as an excuse too. What would you do then?

http://www.sowal.com/bb/politics-current-events/42124-catholic-church-affects-our-government.html#post625077

What apparently is tucked into the Stupak amendment, and is the big bone of contention, is this bit that requires that any insurance company that participates in the exchange has to offer the same policies in the exchange as it does in the open market to prevent insurers from offering substandard policies to the poor while extending better policies to those who are better off. So, assuming a big chunk of the insurance market action will be on the exchange, every insurer will want to participate, meaning they they would have to get rid of abortion coverage in all their policies that they offer.

The Stupak amendment wasn't just to make sure that the Hyde Amendment stood-- which prohibits federal funding of abortions and has been around since the 70's. This was to prevent insurance companies from providing abortion coverage PERIOD in either a policy or a rider.

So, it was no surprise that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops supported and lobbied for the Stupak Amendment. It doesn't make them any different than any other pro-life group with the exception of making a statement to all women that regardless of your religious beliefs, it doesn't matter, and that our way is the right way. Is that the message the Catholic Church wants to espouse?

What apparently is tucked into the Stupak amendment, and is the big bone of contention, is this bit that requires that any insurance company that participates in the exchange has to offer the same policies in the exchange as it does in the open market to prevent insurers from offering substandard policies to the poor while extending better policies to those who are better off. So, assuming a big chunk of the insurance market action will be on the exchange, every insurer will want to participate, meaning they they would have to get rid of abortion coverage in all their policies that they offer.

The Stupak amendment wasn't just to make sure that the Hyde Amendment stood-- which prohibits federal funding of abortions and has been around since the 70's. This was to prevent insurance companies from providing abortion coverage PERIOD in either a policy or a rider.

So, it was no surprise that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops supported and lobbied for the Stupak Amendment. It doesn't make them any different than any other pro-life group with the exception of making a statement to all women that regardless of your religious beliefs, it doesn't matter, and that our way is the right way. Is that the message the Catholic Church wants to espouse?

Not trolling or flaming, but do most insurance policies cover elective abortions, ie those performed when there is no clear medical contraindication to pregnancy?

Not trolling or flaming, but do most insurance policies cover elective abortions, ie those performed when there is no clear medical contraindication to pregnancy?

A lot of them do during first trimester. Second trimester if adverse medical situation ensues and the procedure is still elective. They started this in the 80's and to not pose religious beliefs in their policies. Furthermore, most large corporations who subsidize the medical plans make certain abortions are covered - all part of diversity in today's world. There are those who do not, however because it's not a mandate.

Thanks for getting back to topic and discussing nicely.

There are a few people who are on a short leash. They are on both sides "of the aisle". They know who they are.

A lot of them do during first trimester. Second trimester if adverse medical situation ensues and the procedure is still elective. They started this in the 80's and to not pose religious beliefs in their policies. Furthermore, most large corporations who subsidize the medical plans make certain abortions are covered - all part of diversity in today's world. There are those who do not, however because it's not a mandate.

I guess the question is what percentage of women who have elective abortions that would be covered by insurance pay cash to avoid the potential of some nut following a paper trail and humiliating them in public or worse.

I guess the question is what percentage of women who have elective abortions that would be covered by insurance pay cash to avoid the potential of some nut following a paper trail and humiliating them in public or worse.

Spot on! This happens more than we could imagine.

Today's valuable Sowal lesson: pay cash for an abortion!

Today's valuable Sowal lesson: pay cash for an abortion!

If this passes the Senate, this will be the only option. A reverse mandate of sorts.....could this actually make it to the Supreme Court?
I am just guessing, but I suspect this won't change the plan offerings at Chic-fil-A, whom I admire for not opening on Sunday.

It's not a perfect comparison by any means, I didn't come up with it, but it is food for thought at least for me. First of all, science is a methodology, and religion is an ideology. Science is morally neutral and deals with observable facts. One could certainly use the results of a scientific discovery to perpetrate evil motivated by his ideology. And yes, people of faith do good things in the name of their religion. However, when a group of people band together and do something totally irrational and evil be it an act of terrorism or a soccer riot, some sort of fundementalist belief is at work. Often it has a religious basis.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project"]Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Not always.

What apparently is tucked into the Stupak amendment, and is the big bone of contention, is this bit that requires that any insurance company that participates in the exchange has to offer the same policies in the exchange as it does in the open market to prevent insurers from offering substandard policies to the poor while extending better policies to those who are better off. So, assuming a big chunk of the insurance market action will be on the exchange, every insurer will want to participate, meaning they they would have to get rid of abortion coverage in all their policies that they offer.

The Stupak amendment wasn't just to make sure that the Hyde Amendment stood-- which prohibits federal funding of abortions and has been around since the 70's. This was to prevent insurance companies from providing abortion coverage PERIOD in either a policy or a rider.

So, it was no surprise that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops supported and lobbied for the Stupak Amendment. It doesn't make them any different than any other pro-life group with the exception of making a statement to all women that regardless of your religious beliefs, it doesn't matter, and that our way is the right way. Is that the message the Catholic Church wants to espouse?

I believe that is incorrect. The amendment allows for abortion riders on exchange plans. I have to assume it doesn't prevent the same on non-exchange plans.

Yes, I was right -

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/09/stupak-amendment-jessica/

Cost of Abortion

How much does a surgical abortion cost?

• In 2001, the average charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $468; but since most abortions in the United States are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure. (31)

How much does a medical abortion cost? In 2001, the average charge for a medical abortion was $487. (31)
Who pays for abortions?

• Some 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; 13% of abortions are covered by Medicaid, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Some women who pay for the procedure themselves may receive insurance reimbursement later. (31)

Does the U.S. government help poor women who need abortions pay for them?

• Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy, or in cases of rape or incest. As of November 2006, 17 states used their own funds to subsidize abortion for poor women. (38) In actuality, however, about half of these states provide little to no funds to cover these services. (39)

How many states prohibit public funding of abortions?

• A total of 32 states and the District of Columbia prohibit public funding of abortions, except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. South Dakota only provides public funding of abortions when necessary to protect the woman’s life, which is not in compliance with the federal Medicaid statute. (38)

Not sure how much has changed since 01. Perhaps someone else knows. I don't have a minute right now to look it up.

G

I believe that is incorrect. The amendment allows for abortion riders on exchange plans. I have to assume it doesn't prevent the same on non-exchange plans.

Yes, I was right -

Wonk Room ? Why The Stupak Amendment Is A Monumental Setback For Abortion Access

Yes, it looks all proper on the exterior. The amendment does state that a separate rider can be purchased, however, the amendment contradicts other parts of the Health care Bill, one being discrimination. The bill would require ?guaranteed issue.? This means that any insurer offering coverage to individuals on the health insurance exchange must accept all customers.

If the insurance companies offering plans on the exchange are not allowed to turn down any customers, it means no basic insurance plan on the exchange could cover abortion. There would be no way to prevent that at least one of the plan?s customer would be using affordability tax credits to help purchase the plan. So the effect is no plan sold on the exchange or the open market could/would offer abortion coverage as part of its basic package.

I cannot believe that in 2010 that something as insignificant and peripheral as "abortion rights" could actually jeopardize something as MAJOR healthcare reform that this nation has been waiting for 60 years for !

Now we have Catholic cardinals as part time lobbyists! What next?

Uh...Did they pass the Magna Carta yet?

Yes, it looks all proper on the exterior. The amendment does state that a separate rider can be purchased, however, the amendment contradicts other parts of the Health care Bill, one being discrimination. The bill would require “guaranteed issue.” This means that any insurer offering coverage to individuals on the health insurance exchange must accept all customers.

If the insurance companies offering plans on the exchange are not allowed to turn down any customers, it means no basic insurance plan on the exchange could cover abortion. There would be no way to prevent that at least one of the plan’s customer would be using affordability tax credits to help purchase the plan. So the effect is no plan sold on the exchange or the open market could/would offer abortion coverage as part of its basic package.

In order to get this passed, and avoid widening the pro-life, pro-choice divide we currently have, is this really such a major issue? Plus, aren't abortions relatively cheap? If a couple feel they want to have an abortion, I would think forcing them to pay out of pocket for it would be a very good thing. Plus shouldn't federal law currently in place be upheld? I sense that the pro-choice crowd is up in arms over a very minor issue.

Today's valuable Sowal lesson: pay cash for an abortion!

Some of the later term medically-necessary life-saving abortions are very expensive.

Some of the later term medically-necessary life-saving abortions are very expensive.

But aren't those covered in the exchange plans?

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not always.

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not always.

One could argue about whether wanting an atomic bomb in those days was irrational or totally evil. I definitely think there was ideology mixed in with the science. If one wants to blame the science, they should blame the math along with it. Was religion involved? Not sure. I'd have to look at the religious persuasion of the scientists who were essentially taking on the Nazis.