California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else[W:19,205]

[ptif219]

Here you go again. more of democrats showing their hate for Christians and trampling on the 1st amendment. This goes against the hyde amendment

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/

For the past four years, the Obama administration and its friends on the Left were careful to claim that they still strongly support religious liberty while arguing that Hobby Lobby’s Green family, Conestoga Wood Specialties’ Hahn family, and others like them must lose. Principally, they contended, religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because (1) It is a for-profit corporation, (2) It isn’t a church (and thus not a true “religious employer,” and (3) It is wrong on the science—Plan B, a copper intrauterine device, et cetera, they claimed, do not cause abortions. They implied, if not claimed outright, that they would surely support religious freedom in another case, but Hobby Lobby was unworthy to claim its protections.
The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.
At the insistence of the American Civil Liberties Union, the DMHC concluded that a 40-year-old state law requiring health plans to cover “basic health services” had been misinterpreted all these decades. Every plan in the state was immediately ordered, effective August 22, to cover elective abortion. California had not even applied this test to its own state employee health plans (which covered only “medically necessary” abortions). But this novel reading was nevertheless quietly imposed on every plan in the state by fiat.
The news has slowly leaked out as insurers grappling with this change have begun quietly informing employers of this sudden change in the terms of their policy. This is how Kaiser Permanente broke the news to one California church that its insurance policy for its pastors and staff would now include elective abortion coverage:

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

IS Hobby Lobby a business? ARE they a church?







On another not, WHO are the people looking to get abortions? Poor folks, mostly. Kids. People that would have ended up as tax drains. In the long run, you guys paying for abortions saves you money. Something the Hobby Lobby seems pretty concerned about.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Here you go again. more of democrats showing their hate for Christians and trampling on the 1st amendment. This goes against the hyde amendment

California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions

Well, well, well, another whining republican/conservative crying foul about democrat/liberals doing something to make their lives miserable.

Of course it's made very clear that republican/conservatives are without sin. And that they are good, democrat/liberals are evil, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'd say that one of the most successful things that the two parties have achieved since their beginning is to "divide and conquer". Over the last 230 plus years our government has figured out effective ways to dumb-down the American people and they've become so gullible as to believe that either party gives a genuine rats ass about their followers.

Some use the term political sycophant to describe people who sell their soul to some philosophy or party. Some use the term cognitive rigidity. Some use both. But in the end, arguments are build around a concrete ideology, which is the do all to end all and use it to debase other's beliefs. Now surely that's not something you are doing is it?

This may be a shock to you, but Republican Conservative women...GET ABORTIONS. :shock: Catholic women who are devoted to their faith GET ABORTIONS. :shock: Yadda, yadda, yadda.

And your source...hardcore conservative site. Imagine that. Way to go... :thumbs: Thanks for bringing in the political aspect to their horrid situation ...along with religion.

Allah be with you! And give praise to Brother Boehner just for ****s and grins!

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Well, well, well, another whining republican/conservative crying foul about democrat/liberals doing something to make their lives miserable.

Of course it's made very clear that republican/conservatives are without sin. And that they are good, democrat/liberals are evil, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'd say that one of the most successful things that the two parties have achieved since their beginning is to "divide and conquer". Over the last 230 plus years our government has figured out effective ways to dumb-down the American people and they've become so gullible as to believe that either party gives a genuine rats ass about their followers.

Some use the term political sycophant to describe people who sell their soul to some philosophy or party. Some use the term cognitive rigidity. Some use both. But in the end, arguments are build around a concrete ideology, which is the do all to end all and use it to debase other's beliefs. Now surely that's not something you are doing is it?

This may be a shock to you, but Republican Conservative women...GET ABORTIONS. :shock: Catholic women who are devoted to their faith GET ABORTIONS. :shock: Yadda, yadda, yadda.

And your source...hardcore conservative site. Imagine that. Way to go... :thumbs: Thanks for bringing in the political aspect to their horrid situation ...along with religion.

Allah be with you! And give praise to Brother Boehner just for ****s and grins!

All of that and yet you failed to even approach the topic.:roll:

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

All of that and yet you failed to even approach the topic.:roll:

Exactly...and for good reason.

 

[Henrin]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Why is that people can't pay for their own choices? Why must they feel compelled to force other people to take part in their decision to end their pregnancy? You know, ignoring how someone feels about your choice and forcing them to take part in it doesn't somehow garner you any respect.

Perhaps people just find what you desire to do immoral and don't want to take part in it? Why is it so bad to respect their wish and pay for your own choices?

I understand we are nation of laws and all of that nonsense, but where is the respect for each other in laws like this? I don't see it.

 

[ptif219]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

IS Hobby Lobby a business? ARE they a church?







On another not, WHO are the people looking to get abortions? Poor folks, mostly. Kids. People that would have ended up as tax drains. In the long run, you guys paying for abortions saves you money. Something the Hobby Lobby seems pretty concerned about.

What does owning a business have to do with the first amendment? It is about individual rights. You do not lose constitutional rights because you won a business.

It is against the law to 8use taxpayer money for abortions

 

[ptif219]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Well, well, well, another whining republican/conservative crying foul about democrat/liberals doing something to make their lives miserable.

Of course it's made very clear that republican/conservatives are without sin. And that they are good, democrat/liberals are evil, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'd say that one of the most successful things that the two parties have achieved since their beginning is to "divide and conquer". Over the last 230 plus years our government has figured out effective ways to dumb-down the American people and they've become so gullible as to believe that either party gives a genuine rats ass about their followers.

Some use the term political sycophant to describe people who sell their soul to some philosophy or party. Some use the term cognitive rigidity. Some use both. But in the end, arguments are build around a concrete ideology, which is the do all to end all and use it to debase other's beliefs. Now surely that's not something you are doing is it?

This may be a shock to you, but Republican Conservative women...GET ABORTIONS. :shock: Catholic women who are devoted to their faith GET ABORTIONS. :shock: Yadda, yadda, yadda.

And your source...hardcore conservative site. Imagine that. Way to go... :thumbs: Thanks for bringing in the political aspect to their horrid situation ...along with religion.

Allah be with you! And give praise to Brother Boehner just for ****s and grins!

So all you have is useless opinions and a useless rant

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

What does owning a business have to do with the first amendment? It is about individual rights. You do not lose constitutional rights because you won a business.

It is against the law to 8use taxpayer money for abortions

It's equally against the law to discriminate against customers of a public store or business based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

 

[1750Texan]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

What does owning a business have to do with the first amendment? It is about individual rights. You do not lose constitutional rights because you won a business.

It is against the law to 8use taxpayer money for abortions

Hyde amendment. Federal dollars.


The Churches may have a case. The California law was passed in 1975...long before ACA. ACA gives exemption to Churches and chrurch based businesses. ACA may over-ride the California law.

This may be more a question of Supremacy clause and not a constitutional protection issue.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

So all you have is useless opinions and a useless rant

When a whining OP is created in the Abortion forum based on conservatism or liberalism - it sets my hair on fire. Abortion isn't about liberalism or conservatism.

Your source...come on now...it's a hardcore Conservative site. Here's how the article starts:

California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

A regulatory change in California has placed abortion in the category of ‘basic health services’ all insurance plans must cover. Even those churches buy.
OCTOBER 22, 2014 By Casey Mattox

For the past four years, the Obama administration and its friends on the Left were careful to claim that they still strongly support religious liberty while arguing that Hobby Lobby’s Green family, Conestoga Wood Specialties’ Hahn family, and others like them must lose. Principally, they contended, religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because (1) It is a for-profit corporation, (2) It isn’t a church (and thus not a true “religious employer,” and (3) It is wrong on the science—Plan B, a copper intrauterine device, et cetera, they claimed, do not cause abortions. They implied, if not claimed outright, that they would surely support religious freedom in another case, but Hobby Lobby was unworthy to claim its protections.

And your OP Title...California Churches to Fund Abortions or Else. WHAT A CROCK OF ****!

The State of California is now calling their bluff. California’s Department of Managed Health Care has ordered all insurance plans in the state to immediately begin covering elective abortion. Not Plan B. Not contraceptives. Elective surgical dismemberment abortion.

~~~SNIP~~~

Churches Can Exclude Chemical Baby Killing, But Not Surgical

Several other California churches have received similar notices from their insurers, and others will follow. While California (like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS) exempts churches from its contraceptive mandate, there is no exception to this bureaucratic abortion mandate. This leaves California churches in the illogical and impossible position of being free to exclude contraceptives from their health plan for reasons of religious conscience but required to provide their employees with abortion coverage.

This California mandate is in blatant violation of federal law that specifically prohibits California from discriminating against health care plans on the basis that they do not cover abortion. Alliance Defending Freedom and Life Legal Defense Foundation have filed administrative complaints with the HHS Office of Civil Rights (which oversees this federal law) on behalf of individual employees and seven California churches forced into abortion coverage in violation of their conscience.

Not all religions oppose abortion...even in California. And even if a church doesn't support abortion, once again, the church is trying to rule over social justice by denying women who work for them the right to use their insurance for abortion.

FYI...some food for thought....

Do you have a clue what the pro-choice argument is?

Do you realize that pro-choice arguments can be made without using the words, 'abortion', 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', or even 'unborn'? And never raise a political stance or philosophy in their argument? Or even anything remotely related to religion? PRO-LIFE CAN'T!

 

[ptif219]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Hyde amendment. Federal dollars.


The Churches may have a case. The California law was passed in 1975...long before ACA. ACA gives exemption to Churches and chrurch based businesses. ACA may over-ride the California law.

This may be more a question of Supremacy clause and not a constitutional protection issue.

So you think a federal law will not apply here? So why are the feds interfering with same sex marriage

 

[ptif219]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

When a whining OP is created in the Abortion forum based on conservatism or liberalism - it sets my hair on fire. Abortion isn't about liberalism or conservatism.

Your source...come on now...it's a hardcore Conservative site. Here's how the article starts:

California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

A regulatory change in California has placed abortion in the category of ‘basic health services’ all insurance plans must cover. Even those churches buy.
OCTOBER 22, 2014 By Casey Mattox

For the past four years, the Obama administration and its friends on the Left were careful to claim that they still strongly support religious liberty while arguing that Hobby Lobby’s Green family, Conestoga Wood Specialties’ Hahn family, and others like them must lose. Principally, they contended, religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because (1) It is a for-profit corporation, (2) It isn’t a church (and thus not a true “religious employer,” and (3) It is wrong on the science—Plan B, a copper intrauterine device, et cetera, they claimed, do not cause abortions. They implied, if not claimed outright, that they would surely support religious freedom in another case, but Hobby Lobby was unworthy to claim its protections.

And your OP Title...California Churches to Fund Abortions or Else. WHAT A CROCK OF ****!



~~~SNIP~~~



Not all religions oppose abortion...even in California. And even if a church doesn't support abortion, once again, the church is trying to rule over social justice by denying women who work for them the right to use their insurance for abortion.

FYI...some food for thought....

Do you have a clue what the pro-choice argument is?

Do you realize that pro-choice arguments can be made without using the words, 'abortion', 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', or even 'unborn'? And never raise a political stance or philosophy in their argument? Or even anything remotely related to religion? PRO-LIFE CAN'T!

You show what a liberal partisan you are. Abortion is about a mother killing her child. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that and neither should insurance providers.

 

[1750Texan]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

So you think a federal law will not apply here? So why are the feds interfering with same sex marriage

No... I think the federal ACA law trumps California's 1975 law.

To my knowledge, the DOJ has not brought suit against any state on SSM.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Another view. Perhaps less biased.

A women's rights victory as California nixes an attack on abortion coverage - LA Times

With minimal fanfare, California state officials have nixed an underhanded effort by two Catholic-affiliated universities and their insurers to deprive the universities' employees of insurance coverage for abortions.

The move by the Department of Managed Health Care is one of the strongest statements in favor of women's reproductive health rights you're likely to hear from officials of any state, at a time when those rights are under systematic attack. So it's proper to pay attention.

On Friday, the DMHC informed the state's major health insurers by letter that provisions in health plans eliminating coverage of "voluntary" or "elective" abortions, or limiting coverage only to "medically necessary" abortions, violate state law and the state constitution.

A copy of the letter--this version sent to Anthem Blue Cross--can be found here. It says health plans in California are prohibited from "discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally."

DMHC director Michelle Rouillard ordered such "discriminatory coverage exclusions and limitations" to be stricken from the health plans immediately.

Although the DMHC letter went out to more than a half-dozen insurance companies, the real targets were two: Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser. That's because those carriers had worked with Loyola Marymount University and Santa Clara University, which are both Jesuit-affiliated, to create health plans dropping abortion coverage for employees.

According to California Lawyer magazine, Anthem quietly obtained approval from the DMHC in 2008 to make such changes. Kaiser Permanente told the magazine it won approval in 2012 "to market a plan excluding abortions deemed not 'medically necessary' even to non-Catholic clients.

The effort became public only after Loyola Marymount started implementing the changes in 2013. The dropping of abortion coverage created an uproar among faculty on the Los Angeles campus, not least because of the vagueness of the provision's language: coverage was to remain in place only for "therapeutic" abortions, a term that ostensibly meant those deemed medically necessary.


But that term appears nowhere in California law. The state's Therapeutic Abortion Act was overturned by the state Supreme Court in 1972, and supplanted by the Reproductive Privacy Act in 2003. As is explained by Stephen F. Diamond, a Santa Clara University law professor who has followed the controversy closely, the latter law "guarantees a woman's right to both terminate a pregnancy and to birth control."

California law doesn't recognize the terms "medically necessary," "elective" or "voluntary" as they apply to abortions, the DMHC letter observes. The only abortions performed by a medical professional that are outlawed in California, and thus not eligible for insurance coverage, are those performed after a fetus is viable.

and from the same article

In upholding the law against a constitutional challenge from Catholic Charities in 2004, the state Supreme Court noted that the law's definition of a "religious employer" entitled to an exemption is specific. The employer must be a nonprofit entity whose purpose is the "inculcation of religious values," and which "primarily employs"and primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets. Not even Catholic Charities qualifies for an exemption under those rules. Nor would Loyola Marymount or Santa Clara University.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

You show what a liberal partisan you are. Abortion is about a mother killing her child. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that and neither should insurance providers.

Ha! Very groovy of you to GUESS AT WHAT I MIGHT be considered - "philosophically". Dude, you don't have a clue! NADA, KAPUT, NONE! And after you last post it's obvious that you aren't psychic.

What a frickin cop out! Abortion is about none of your business...according to the Constitution. Why? Because women can't be discriminated against because they have a uterus. Why? Can you guess why - since you so great at guessing about things you have NO knowledge about?

If ever an unborn is Constitutionally declared entitled to the same protections as born persons...please don't hesitate to give me a call. Then we'll be having a different type of discussion.

Once again: Do you realize that pro-choice arguments can be made without using the words, 'abortion', 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', or even 'unborn'? And never raise a political stance or philosophy in their argument, Did you know, huh, did you know? Or even anything remotely related to any aspect about religion. Did you know, huh, did you know?

Obviously pro-life can't make their arguments without probably most of the things above.

Thanks...

 

[Henrin]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Ha! Very groovy of you to GUESS AT WHAT I MIGHT be considered - "philosophically". Dude, you don't have a clue! NADA, KAPUT, NONE! And after you last post it's obvious that you aren't psychic.

What a frickin cop out! Abortion is about none of your business...according to the Constitution. Why? Because women can't be discriminated against because they have a uterus. Why? Can you guess why - since you so great at guessing about things you have NO knowledge about?

If ever an unborn is Constitutionally declared entitled to the same protections as born persons...please don't hesitate to give me a call. Then we'll be having a different type of discussion.

Once again: Do you realize that pro-choice arguments can be made without using the words, 'abortion', 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', or even 'unborn'? And never raise a political stance or philosophy in their argument, Did you know, huh, did you know? Or even anything remotely related to any aspect about religion. Did you know, huh, did you know?

Obviously pro-life can't make their arguments without probably most of the things above.

Thanks...

Did you guys ever consider that it might be a good idea to keep people out of your affairs if you want them to mind their own business? Forcing other parties to take part in a woman killing her unborn child doesn't really do that. At that point other peoples rights come into the equation and there is a good chance they will know it.

Why do liberals support forced commerce anyway? Where in the hell did they get the idea other people owe them things?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

You show what a liberal partisan you are. Abortion is about a mother killing her child. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that and neither should insurance providers.

Why should I be forced to pay for welfare queens to give birth?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Moderator's Warning:

The rhetoric and making things personal needs to stop now. Discuss the topic or get out. This warning will not stop action from being taken for the posts before this was put into place either.

 

[ptif219]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

No... I think the federal ACA law trumps California's 1975 law.

To my knowledge, the DOJ has not brought suit against any state on SSM.

Do you really think Obama or Holder would do anything against abortion? HAHAHAHA

 

[ptif219]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Another view. Perhaps less biased.

A women's rights victory as California nixes an attack on abortion coverage - LA Times




and from the same article

More biased since they are a liberal rag that supports abortion


[h=4]Michael Hiltzik is a liberal hack as proof here is his article from earlier this week[/h]

How racism underlies voter ID laws: the academics weigh in - LA Times

 

[ptif219]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Ha! Very groovy of you to GUESS AT WHAT I MIGHT be considered - "philosophically". Dude, you don't have a clue! NADA, KAPUT, NONE! And after you last post it's obvious that you aren't psychic.

What a frickin cop out! Abortion is about none of your business...according to the Constitution. Why? Because women can't be discriminated against because they have a uterus. Why? Can you guess why - since you so great at guessing about things you have NO knowledge about?

If ever an unborn is Constitutionally declared entitled to the same protections as born persons...please don't hesitate to give me a call. Then we'll be having a different type of discussion.

Once again: Do you realize that pro-choice arguments can be made without using the words, 'abortion', 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', or even 'unborn'? And never raise a political stance or philosophy in their argument, Did you know, huh, did you know? Or even anything remotely related to any aspect about religion. Did you know, huh, did you know?

Obviously pro-life can't make their arguments without probably most of the things above.

Thanks...

Only liberals try to pervert the constitution to justify and defend killing babies

 

[ptif219]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

Why should I be forced to pay for welfare queens to give birth?

You would rather pay to kill the baby. That is sick

 

[Ocean007]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

So all you have is useless opinions and a useless rant

:roll:

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: California Orders Churches To Fund Abortions—Or Else

You would rather pay to kill the baby. That is sick

Where did I say that?