Bingowings said:

Fluke (the woman not the whale's tail) isn't in the business of politics, she is the business of politics (an American citizen). 

What distinction are you making?

She would be just orbiting the public eye because of the testimony she gave but she wasn't in the public eye until Looney Tunes called her a prostitute on his wacky radio show.

Democrats love that the narrative has changed from the thorny problem of making religious organizations provide coverage of birth control contrary to their beliefs...to Republicans allegedly wanting to deny birth control to women.

Jon Stewart presents this narrative as unvarnished comedic truth. In his clips, Fox News personalities also fall into the trap of this false narrative. The compelling vigor of Stewart's presentation is a testament to how far the debate has been distorted.

There is evidence of a concerted effort to obscure the truth, dating back to before the regulation was announced, when a (former) Democratic operative served as a moderator for a Republican primary debate, asking the candidates, out of the blue, whether they want to ban contraception. The candidates were all, "huh?!"

Stewart falls into a diatribe that we're all forced to pay for stuff we don't like ("Iraq war, oil subsidies") but that is a false equivalency. If the government wishes to tax us and then use those general funds to provide birth control it can - and does. The government can wage war, tax us to supply all manner of firearms, but it cannot force us to spend our own after-tax money for such purposes. That we would be forced to do so by contracting with a third party wouldn't make it less objectionable. Stewart ends with a clip he has misrepresented before. He uses it to further the argument about the non-issue not at stake. The issue is not about the legality of contraception nor about the government making contraception more available - it is about compelling religious objectors to violate their conscience.

tl;dr = I agree that Fluke's testimony should have passed with no comments other than on the merits/relevancy.

I'm sorry I thought the distinction I was making is perfectly clear backed up by examples in my post.

Palin is a professional Politician.

Her goal is to not just be a representative of an American state but ultimately the entire American nation and the money propelling her along the various stages of her ambitions is astonishing.

Fluke is a private American citizen.

She may have undisclosed ambitions to enter the professional political arena but her testimony was not overtly intended to be a major step into that spotlight.

She hasn't got millions of Dollars backing whatever ambitions she may have, she was making a case (not legislating) for having a comparatively tiny sum out of the health insurance of students to pay for their personal health requirements.

When a politician enters the business of politics they either do so in the full knowledge that they will be target of scrutiny and name calling or they learn it very quickly and can decide to live with it, campaign against it or leave.

When a private citizen, of whatever sphere of expertise is asked to give informed testimony to a committee, they are do not and should not expect that sort of reaction, especially when what they are asking for is something as basic as funded contraception (something that here in the UK is usually paid for out of direct taxation anyway).

What next, jury members called pedophiles because they require child care during a lengthy case?

A financial contract is a financial contract.

It's illegal for in the UK for an Hotelier or the owner of a Bed and Breakfast establishment to deny a double room to two men which is available to a man and a woman, regardless of their religious convictions because it's a business transaction.

Private Health Insurance is a business transaction it should be illegal for Religious considerations to interfere with a transaction registered to a business.

America of all places should recognise this as it's enshrined in the founding literature of your nation.

Business law comes under the purview of the state and religion and state are partitioned realms.

You don't have an established Church like we do.

Mrebo said:

Democrats love that the narrative has changed from the thorny problem of making religious organizations provide coverage of birth control contrary to their beliefs...to Republicans allegedly wanting to deny birth control to women.

I'm sure nearly all republicans are not for banning birth control. However, Santorum has said openly that he believes birth control should be banned and he is close enough to being the Republican nominee that it has been an issue. Sure the liberal media has gone wild with it, but the right wing media gets wild about shit as well. It's not just a left or right problem, it's an American media problem.

 

There is evidence of a concerted effort to obscure the truth, dating back to before the regulation was announced, when a (former) Democratic operative served as a moderator for a Republican primary debate, asking the candidates, out of the blue, whether they want to ban contraception. The candidates were all, "huh?!"

Should have been an easy answer then.

Democratic "operative:" Do you want to ban contraception?
Candidates: Of course not. Next question

It seems if the the left is all wild about contraception bans the easiest way to ease their troubled minds would be to ask the candidates in a straight forward yes or no question. Right?

Stewart falls into a diatribe that we're all forced to pay for stuff we don't like ("Iraq war, oil subsidies") but that is a false equivalency. If the government wishes to tax us and then use those general funds to provide birth control it can - and does. The government can wage war, tax us to supply all manner of firearms, but it cannot force us to spend our own after-tax money for such purposes. That we would be forced to do so by contracting with a third party wouldn't make it less objectionable. Stewart ends with a clip he has misrepresented before. He uses it to further the argument about the non-issue not at stake. The issue is not about the legality of contraception nor about the government making contraception more available - it is about compelling religious objectors to violate their conscience.

Some Republicans get wild about taking their tax money and spending it on things they don't want right? Things like abortion, welfare, other safety nets, maybe birth control, I don't know. But there are things they don't want their tax dollars going to, right?

Well some liberals (myself included) don't want their tax dollars going towards wars that should have been over years ago. Especially wars we were against from the very beginning. I didn't want the government spending money to bail out the auto industry (I think that is in line with most conservatives as well. I could be wrong).

Warbler said:

Tell me something, if Jehovah's Witnesses owned a business and had to pay for Health Insurance, would they have the right to refuse to cover blood transfusions?   They object to blood transfusions on a religious grounds.   Just how far should the right to refuse coverage on the a religious basis go? 

This is a great point. I'm interested to hear someone try to explain that away.

Bingowings said:

A financial contract is a financial contract.

It's illegal for in the UK for an Hotelier or the owner of a Bed and Breakfast establishment to deny a double room to two men which is available to a man and a woman, regardless of their religious convictions because it's a business transaction.

Private Health Insurance is a business transaction it should be illegal for Religious considerations to interfere with a transaction registered as a business.

I completely agree.

America of all places should recognise this as it's enshrined in the founding literature of your nation.

You'd think so but that's just not how it is. Talk of our founding fathers and our founding literature is only brought up when either side wants to use it to their advantage and even then it's mostly bullshit.

For example, this country likes to pretend that our founding fathers were all Christians when that is simply not true. Sure some of them were Christians but very few. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Thomas Paine, Madison, and other all had terrible things to say about religion. Many of them were deists but that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Business law comes under the purview of the state and religion and state are partitioned realms.

You don't have an established Church like we do.

The separation between church and state in this country doesn't really exist. Obama basically had to prove that he was a Christian during our last election. And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Christian Democrats run attack adds about how Mormons aren't real Christians, blah, blah, blah, and when that happens I promise I will be just as upset as any Republican/conservative. I don't necessarily disagree when people refer to Mormonism as a cult or say they aren't true Christians, but that should not be grounds for losing an election.

So do we have an established church? No. But Christians are the majority and many of them expect the government to reflect that.

walkingdork said:

Warbler said:

Tell me something, if Jehovah's Witnesses owned a business and had to pay for Health Insurance, would they have the right to refuse to cover blood transfusions?   They object to blood transfusions on a religious grounds.   Just how far should the right to refuse coverage on the a religious basis go? 

This is a great point. I'm interested to hear someone try to explain that away.

 Such a great conversation and I hardly have time to squeak a note in on a somewhat tangential point.  A Jehovah's Witness is not the Watchtower Society.  Requiring the Catholic Church to do something he/she is opposed to is different from requiring a Catholic business owner to do what he/she opposes.

Furthermore, if someone has a conscientious objection to something, he shouldn't be required to pay for it at all.  If an insurance plan did not cover blood transfusions, a JW businessman should have every right to use that insurance plan without the government interfering.  His employees should legally be made aware of this prior to gaining employment.  If his business fails because no one wants to work for him, that is his own problem to deal with.  If someone wants to work for a Catholic and knows about insurance plan issues, they have other options.  The government should not interfere with moral/religous objections.

darth_ender said:

Furthermore, if someone has a conscientious objection to something, he shouldn't be required to pay for it at all.  If an insurance plan did not cover blood transfusions, a JW businessman should have every right to use that insurance plan without the government interfering.  His employees should legally be made aware of this prior to gaining employment.  If his business fails because no one wants to work for him, that is his own problem to deal with.  If someone wants to work for a Catholic and knows about insurance plan issues, they have other options.  The government should not interfere with moral/religous objections.

Except that most of our country is Christian and corporations love finding loopholes like this to save money.

Warbler said:

 I myself, am willing to vote for someone whom is a non-Christian.  

As am I. Too bad it's unlikely we'll ever get that opportunity in our lifetime.

My point was that, Christians are the majority, therefore (for the most part) Christians run this country and make decisions based upon their beliefs. It's not a scandal it's just not a real separation between church and state.

Warbler said:

walkingdork said:

Warbler said:

 I myself, am willing to vote for someone whom is a non-Christian.  

As am I. Too bad it's unlikely we'll ever get that opportunity in our lifetime.

My point was that, Christians are the majority, therefore (for the most part) Christians run this country and make decisions based upon their beliefs. It's not a scandal it's just not a real separation between church and state.

I wouldn't say that just because the Christians are in the majority, means that there is not real separation between church and state.    True, the Christians weld a lot of influence over elections, but that doesn't mean there isn't a separation between church and state.   Remember the 1st amendment.  

Right. As I said we don't have an established church. But  the large (and I mean huge) majority of this country is Christian and most politicians are Christians who make decisions based upon their Christian beliefs

Gays don't have the rights that heterosexuals have and those rights are blocked by religious politicians who decide they should have the same rights based on the religious beliefs of those politicians.

If there was an true separation of church (or should I just say religion instead?) and state I don't think that would be the case.

This is the problem with private health care and private health insurance.

Healthcare is a service it should not be up to either the whim of private provider or a body like a religious group if it is distributed or not.

You pay your National Insurance you get your contraception regardless of what your employer or educator's religious convictions are but if your religious convictions inform a decision to deny yourself that service, you paid for it, you can refuse it, for yourself but not for anyone else.

Simple.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

walkingdork said:

Warbler said:

Tell me something, if Jehovah's Witnesses owned a business and had to pay for Health Insurance, would they have the right to refuse to cover blood transfusions?   They object to blood transfusions on a religious grounds.   Just how far should the right to refuse coverage on the a religious basis go? 

This is a great point. I'm interested to hear someone try to explain that away.

 Such a great conversation and I hardly have time to squeak a note in on a somewhat tangential point.  A Jehovah's Witness is not the Watchtower Society. 

it isn't?

Are you a citizen or are you the United States of America?  Are you the church you attend, or merely a member.  Requiring an employer who happens to be a JW to cover something is not the same as requiring the actual religious entity called the Watchtower Society to cover something.  The Watchtower also is an untaxable entity, but the members must pay.  See the distinction I'm making here?

darth_ender said:

Requiring the Catholic Church to do something he/she is opposed to is different from requiring a Catholic business owner to do what he/she opposes.

well then lets say we are talking about requiring the Jehovah's Witness church  to cover blood transfusions.

That is what we're talking about, but the clear analogy is the recent Catholic Church/birth control discussion

darth_ender said:

Furthermore, if someone has a conscientious objection to something, he shouldn't be required to pay for it at all.  If an insurance plan did not cover blood transfusions, a JW businessman should have every right to use that insurance plan without the government interfering.  His employees should legally be made aware of this prior to gaining employment.  If his business fails because no one wants to work for him, that is his own problem to deal with.  If someone wants to work for a Catholic and knows about insurance plan issues, they have other options.  The government should not interfere with moral/religous objections.

if go that the route, companies and entities and business owners could get ridiculous in what they cover.    Do you realize a business owner could refuse to cover the spouse of an employee, just because the the employee is white and the spouse is black and  the business owner doesn't believe in mixed race marriages?    Just how ridiculous do you want this to get? 

Who says that man in a mixed marriage has to work there?  How many people would boycott the company for such a ridiculous coverage?  If the business owner has such an objection, he/she should not be required to cover the spouse, but then must face the serious repercussions to his/her business, and would probably not survive.

Moreover, civil rights legislation ensure everyone is treated equally, and therefore such a plan wouldn't work out.  But there is a difference between racial discrimination and birth control: one treats humans as less than human, the other means more babies.

Look, the real issue is a religious organization's choice.  If a religious organization chooses to limit what it offers, it also limits its pool of potential employees.  Once again, the free market decides whether a company's policies will allow it to survive or fail.

DominicCobb said:

Some left wingers might call Sarah Palin some bad things, but they're doing it privately.

No, actually much was said quite prominently and publicly on TV and the radio.

Rush was not. Palin is a public figure. Fluke is a private citizen.

Does that make Palin less of a human or less deserving of being treated with dignity?  Are sexist comments directed towards a public figure less demeaning towards all women than comments directed towards a private citizen?  And testifying before Congress subjects yourself to more public scrutiny, whether you like it or not.

Palin is stupid. Fluke stood up for a cause she believed in.

Palin's stupidity is really more subjective than liberals care to admit.  And is Palin not standing up for what she believes in?  Quite frankly, I find Fluke's position to be pretty darn stupid.

Birth control is much more important than Rush thinks. 

Of course it is.  It's also cheap.  It's also optional.  Freedom of speech is very important.  Should the government, insurance companies, schools, or some other organization be required to provide computers for everyone to practice their freedom of speech to whatever extent they desire?  Where does this stop?

Also, if you heard Rush's comments right after he called a private citizen a prostitute then, well... yeah.

I did in fact, and I've listened to a lot of Rush.  He has offended me on many occasions.  But he simply uses the ridiculous to make a point.  It was horribly tacky and sexist, but if liberals ever listened to something other than Huffington Post's soundbites, you'd know that he was being facetious.

Sorry to pick you out of the bunch, but your comment was brief and easier to dissect.  This is actually a response to many.

I wonder when Obama plans on phoning up many of these other disparaged women to see if they're okay.  Or maybe he'll call up Brian Terry's family to see if they're okay after their Border Patrol son was killed by one of Eric Holder's Fast and Furious guns.  What a joke our president is.  Ms. Fluke will survive this little incident with more publicity and support than she could have ever hoped when she made her little statement.

Darth_ender: we've all been a little facetious on your Mormon thread. How have you handled it? You never got offended did you? You never got your magic underwear in a bunch did you? You didn't get mad and take it out on your multiple, teenaged wives did you?

Don't get upset or offended, I'm just being facetious. I'm simply using "the ridiculous to make a point."

Oh and I never visit Huffington Post...ever. That would be like basing my all my morals, beliefs, and life decisions on a single source like...oh say...the bible (facetious!).

I know this is offensive and will start a big hub-bub, but don't worry I'll schedule an apology later.

darth_ender said:

Does that make Palin less of a human or less deserving of being treated with dignity?  Are sexist comments directed towards a public figure less demeaning towards all women than comments directed towards a private citizen?  And testifying before Congress subjects yourself to more public scrutiny, whether you like it or not?

Testifying to congress is like testifying in court.

You wouldn't expect a witness called to court to suffer that sort of abuse.

For a professional politician satire is an occupational hazard, if not a certainty of the workplace and it can be cruel.

The wrongs and rights of that cruelty are a different debate but currently it's a part of the political landscape that an individual must prepare for before stepping into it.

So sexist comments are still sexist but they are more insulting when they are thrown at a private citizen because it's not part of the arena they have opted into.