So when do my decisions over my body trump someone elses decision over faith over me?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1344557.html
Printable View
So when do my decisions over my body trump someone elses decision over faith over me?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1344557.html
Madness. The theocratization of American politics now is genuinely worrying to Euros with an eye to politics. We sort of already see the US as a stewpot of Fundies (barring the east coast and california [maybe except bakersfield etc]).
For a country which separates church and state, and where "small government" seems to be the clarion call of many parts of the political spectrum, they certainly like to govern peoples' lives with faith-based policies.
It's a young country and it has a lot of growing up to do but, with religious mania running rampant, it's actually regressing.
US employment rights are bad enough already, without this crap.Quote:
The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.
Good luck, United Statesians.
Unless you think that this is good news, obviously, in which case I wish you all the bad luck you deserve. :smug:
Laughable. If this passes, it'll be a travesty.
That's about what I said when Santorum first entered the Republican primary. He's somehow still here, and I'm a little worried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Qenton
Is this really about employers with a moral objection to birth control, or simply about them not wanting to pay for it? Why should they have to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Halyanne
If we include coverage for women, don't we also need to include the cost of birth control for men who's female partners aren't working?
Maybe we should take this one step further and hand out "Employee Kits" during orientation and every pay day, which include male/female
condoms, instructional dvd's, and educational literature about the devastating impact unwanted childbirths are having on the nation's resources.
What a woman does with her body is her choice, but what about an employer's rights? Don't they have a right to control costs and to ensure that
health coverage isn't being abused? If we don't want them getting involved in our personal lives how can we except them to pick up the tab for it?
The workplace is already quite prejudiced against women; do we really want to give employers yet another reason to favour men over women
when it comes to hiring?
There isn't a single issue in this world, larger than a few individuals fighting over an insult, that doesn't all boil down to money..and most of those that aren't about money end up costing money.
Surely contraception is cheaper than maternity leave? Over here a woman is entitled to up to 52 weeks maternity leave, the first 6 being paid at 90% and the remainder being paid at roughly $203 a week. Not to mention the fact that your employer has to interview, train and pay for a replacement while you are away. My boss would probably happily pay for my contraception (even though it's free for everyone here) if it meant I didn't cause him the hassle of pregnancy!
This issue isn't about giving employers power over women, or thier bodies. This issue is about giving employers power over themselves and seizing it back from the government. The health bill which was practically forced through, which Obama himself declared he would MAKE happen was done up hastily. It basically forced churches that were opposed to contraception to provide it for their employees or be penalized. It BREECHED the separation of church and state. This bill restores that separation. You're welcome.
I know people from different countries are used to THIER healthcare programs. This is not that. Americans aren't used to be told by the government that they HAVE to do something they don't believe in. Such as provide something they believe is wrong to their employees.
Didn't I read somewhere that Viagra was covered? And has been for a while? I gotta call bullshit on covering penis pills and not birth control.
It's not about wether or not an insurance company wants to cover the medication, its about wether or not an employer should be forced to provide that coverage by the government. It's about freedom of choice, and the first amendment freedom of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callerre