That's easy!
1) People are just people. Generally nobody is morally superior.
2) People are not just one identity. They're a mix of many different identities. Right? It's intersectionality. When I think of a "white" man do I think of Noam Chomsky or Pat Buchanan? The CIO at my company or the bum at the gas station who asked me for $2?

So the "black" people who voted against gay marriage were also conservative Christians or older people or people that didn't like what they saw as facile comparisons between gay struggle and black struggle or people that believed in traditional marriage or whatever. We can't just say someone is a particular race or gender and thus therefore they should feel this. Because their perspective on the world is going to be just as warped or as personal as any other person. And some of the "white" gay backlash over the issue was quite nasty and racist, which also besmirched their claim to the moral high ground.

I don't know if you've ever seen the show Weeds but I always cracked up at this scene in which the boy's grandfather shows an honest lack of empathy to other's problems. That is just part of human nature and can be found in all of us.

Yeah, I used to love this show, this last season was awful though.

You're right, that statement was quite judgmental.

So, if somebody simply pays taxes they're entitled to whatever "right" they can think up?



If you say so.

Equal rights as anyone else. You like the opposite sex and you get to marry one. They like their own sex, so they should be able to marry one of their own sex. That's only fair.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose behind the bill?



http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/03/16/corbett_defends_ultrasound_bill.html

That was an unfair characterization of you on my part, Afs, I apologize.

Your views are indeed plugged in with a great number of Americans today. Even in Texas for example I know that Austin and other parts of Central Texas always vote Democrat, but the remainder of the state always goes Republican, as does the rest of the South and most of the Midwest other than some of the biggest cities I assume.

I don't know if I'd exactly compare America to France though, and if you survived 15 months in Birmingham, you might now actually be certified redneck. You're Gangster BB's democrat version of Bobby Jindal.

Speaking of the Lone Star State, this is already causing controvery:

Phase-out of women’s program to begin

By Jason Embry | Thursday, March 15, 2012, 05:51 PM

Federal officials asked the state Thursday to start phasing out a program that provides health care for more than 100,000 low-income women.

The Women’s Health Program, which is part of Medicaid and is largely paid for with federal money, provides Pap smears, breast exams, birth control and other services to poor, uninsured women between the ages of 18 and 44. A newly enforced state law says money for the program cannot go to providers that are affiliated with abortion providers. That law was in large part an effort to keep tax dollars from going to Planned Parenthood, even though the clinics participating in the program are legally separated from those that provide abortions.

Federal law, however, says women should be able to select their own caregivers. So federal officials gave the state formal notice Thursday that funding for the program will end, and they asked the state to submit a formal plan for phasing out the program so that services are not immediately cut off.

“Neither the federal government nor the state government are permitted to stop people from getting services from their trusted source of care, as long as the provider is qualified to provide the service and the provider participates in the Medicaid program,” said Cindy Mann, director of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “Texas has decided to implement a new rule which is contrary to this freedom-of-choice provision.”

Numerous other clinics and providers treat women enrolled in the Women’s Health Program. But almost half of all services under the program last year were provided by clinics that Texas now wants to exclude, Mann said in a letter to state officials.

The full phase-out of the Women’s Health Program could last until the end of 2012. The state has until April 16 to submit a phase-out plan to the federal government. Then, for three months, the state would identify other Medicaid programs that participants may be eligible for and start the process of notifying patients and referring them to other providers. The state could also use this three-month period to move to a new program that would be entirely state funded. Gov. Rick Perry has said he supports a state-funded program if the current Women’s Health Program disappears. (The federal government is scheduled to pick up about $30 million of the program’s costs this year, with the state paying about $3.3 million.)

If the state does not transfer the women to another program in that first three months, it would get another six months to stop enrollment and help existing clients find other care.

Perry has said he wants to find money for the state program in other areas of the state’s budget for health and human services.

“Texans send a substantial amount of our tax dollars to Washington, D.C., and it is unconscionable that the Obama Administration has essentially told Texas it will send our tax dollars back to fund this program only if we violate state law and include its pro-abortion allies,” Perry said Thursday.

If the state can find the money, it can easily transfer the services to its own program, said Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

“We’ll use all the same processes to enroll women, pay providers, etc.,” Goodman said. “The source of the funding will just change from a mix of state and federal funds to all state funds. Making that change is really the easiest part of the process.”

I don't understand this reasoning. Why would you end a program that provides vital and potentially life-saving services to women who can't otherwise afford them? Because the provider may also offer abortion services? Doesn't that seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater??

No worries Frank. I actually liked a lot of things about life in Dixie.

I'm resurrecting this thread, since I've come to know a little bit more about contraceptive pills, which I didn't know before. They could be used in medical capacities as well as merely birth control. If a woman experiences irregular menstruation, heavy bleeding and some problems in her ovaries, these pills might be prescribed. Just as any other woman problem that's hush hush, and god forbid people talk about it, I'd never heard about this bit of information before.

So again my question is this: Would catholic hospitals and their doctors give these pills to their patients in such cases, or this too goes against their moral code? Would their morals dictate leaving the poor woman to bleed to near death state?

Afs, I'm not sure, but I do know that my children were born in a Catholic hospital. My doctors cannot perform any operations there such as the tying of fallopian tubes. They have to admit you to another hospital.

My mother is an ovarian cancer survivor and carries the gene mutation. It is recommended that her female descendants take oral contraceptives, as it lowers the chance of them developing ovarian cancer by 60%. I've never asked my priest what it means to the Church.

By hush hush, do you mean in your country, Afs?

Because that's pretty common knowledge here in the United Stated.

I mean, I'm a middle aged guy and even I knew that (and that's saying something because so much escapes me ).

Thanks SB for the input. I hope you gals stay safe from ovarian cancer.

Pizzaboy, well, not that information like that is being taught in schools, but if we go to the local clinics, it's available. Still I would have liked that it be taught in our high schools, to both male and female students. However, I partly meant in the US, cause if this is common knowledge, then how is that Catholic organizations are against birth control pills being covered by their insurance plans? And why in the world would O'Reily come out and shamelessly say "go buy your birth control pill yourself woman?" The nerve of these republicans. Either that or ignorance I assumed.

My understanding is that it's allowed as along as the purpose isn't contraceptive.

Eye rolling and puking face aside, when talking about Catholics...your understanding is correct, ht2. If it's not used as a contraceptive, they can be used for health concerns.

That being said, I've never heard of a woman bleeding "to near death state" and a doctor saying, "here, take these pills, this should save your life and stop all that massive bleeding."

I assume this is quote of an American woman, ignorant of this issue. When I say many don't know about this even there, or it seems so, pizzaboy says I know it and I'm a middle aged man.



I don't think that if it happened to you, you'd be so eager to talk about it with the rest of the world, as it is with many other women. You most likely would go to a doctor, and will be told to come back if it didn't stop by day 10. You could search about it online, here is an example:
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Womens-Health/Period-wont-stop/show/26045

When church fights so that their insurance plans do not cover birth control, that means a woman would have to buy her own LD out of her own pocket. That means this sort of pill is not covered. Prescription by a doctor of a Catholic hospital is one thing, you being covered to get the pills cheaper is another issue. And the asshole O'Reily and many of the GOPers saying buy your own birth control pill yourself woman is another issue again.

And yes, I too had not heard a woman bleeding to acute anemia and her doctor saying "here, take these pills, this should save your life and stop all that massive bleeding." but guess what, it happened to me. Just so that you hear another woman saying that. I don't think I'd have to be ashamed of that, this is just what religious upbringing wants us to behave, so that our issues not get addressed properly.

I think what O'Reilly is saying is that Catholic institutions should not be forced to pay premiums for pills if the underlying purpose is contraception or abortion. On this he is correct.

Using these medications to heal bleeding or serious medical problems is another matter altogether, having nothing to do with contraception. The whole matter of premiums could easily be settled without ruffling feathers, but for some strange reason the HHS has chosen not to.

First of all, the same good old birth control pills that are nothing more than female hormones are used to treat ovaries' cysts, prevent ovarian cancer, heavy and irregular menstruation, etc. So basically if you use this medication, you are on contraceptives. There's no other way to put this.

Did you watch Rumble 2012? He said: "Sandra Fluke, buy your own birth control, we shouldn't pay for it, like many other things, that's why we've such massive debt."



And here is what Jon said in reply: "A good portion of this country has created an alternate universe in which the issues that we face revolve around a woman from Georgetown who wanted birth control, which is a health issue for women, covered on her health insurance in the same way that Viagra is covered. I call this alternate reality, this place where these people live, Bullshit Mountain."

I'm well aware. In literature I've read if patient is taking them for something like ovarian cysts or any serious medical problem, it is okay since underlying purpose is not contraception.

Then how could you polish what O'Reily is saying? Clearly, unless birth control pills are covered by healthcare plans, then it doesn't matter what you are using them for, you'd have to pay for it yourself, while viagra is covered.

Simple, in the US and other nations, medical billing is detailed enough to specify the reason for any treatment.

I wonder if this issue was addressed in this mandate at all and if Catholic organization employees would be covered for birth control pills in such capacities.

There are some Catholic institutions who have ignored or stretched the Church's interpretation of what is allowable birth control. But the mandate didn't make any distinction between birth control used for medical reasons besides contraception and that used strictly for contraception, which is part of the reason that many (not all) Church leaders hit the roof. HHS did single out contraception as being the chief reason for the mandate in the first place, which was like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

Since the PPACA was upheld by the SC the mandate was upheld as well. There are separate cases against the mandate which are winding their way through the courts. In one case a Denver company which was owned by Catholics tried to argue that it shouldn't have to comply. This argument was rejected as the company is a HVAC firm, hardly a religious organization. The second case is by the Church affiliated organizations. I don't know where that is.

It is also important to point out that the overwhelming majority of US companies and private insurance plans already covered birth control. The argument is over the removal of the co-pay-which effectively means people who don't use it pay for those who do- and forcing those few plans who didn't cover it to do so.

Thanks for the explanation Lilo.

I have no issue talking about this sort of stuff and neither do any women I know. This also happened to me and I got up in the middle of the night passing clots of blood as big as grapefruit. My husband took me to the ER. I wasn't given birth control pills. I was given a D&C procedure. Pills were irrelevant at that point. I was bleeding severely and in need of medical treatment. Not pills.
It seems our definition of "bleeding to near death state" is very different. When you used that phrase, I took it to mean: life and death situation, immediate emergency, 911.

I know the uses of birth control pills in all situations, but I wasn't thinking about a long, extremely heavy period, when I read your question. If a woman develops severe acute anemia, where death is possible, and there is tremendous loss of blood, a blood transfusion better be given. My definition of bleeding to "near death state" is: Get this woman help NOW, else she dies; in which case pills are useless. But if for whatever reason that were the case, a Catholic hospital would do whatever it took to save a life, and I'm sure their morals wouldn't dictate letting her die. But again, we were on different pages with our definitions of bleeding to near death state.

As far as paying out of pocket for birth control pills...we pay $1,100 per MONTH out of pocket to purchase health insurance for my husband, myself, and our 2 children. So to throw another pack of pills on my tab if I needed them, the hell i care.

Anyway, I appreciate your reply, I have read your posts in the past. You're obviously a well educated, intelligent, well spoken woman. I do read down in General Discussion every once in awhile, although, I broke my own rule of not posting in these hot topics, God knows why.

It might be useful to those who engage in this debate to read Thomas Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom (in Virginia) which was enacted into Virginia law in 1786. It is useful because upon it James Madison based his composition of the religion-related text of the US Constitution's 1st amendment. One should also read Madison's speech to the Congress in 1789 in which he proposed his version of the Bill of Rights which cite by my count about 19 rights one of which was freedom of conscience which the Congress rejected.

carmela, I'm sorry for my part in this misunderstanding and I too appreciate your reply and the time you spent, going out of your way to post here. Thank you.

Birth control was the best invention of the 20th century. Before it came, families were way too big. Poverty blossomed in many parts of the world because families had so many mouths to feed. Nowadays, we got a higher standard of living because we moderate the number of children that we have. Henry Hill realized the importance of birth control long before the modern day and he reaped the benefits. All that bad skin his wife spoke about was partly a result of too many people being born.

You're a good person, afs. Like I said, I've read many of your posts. I don't always agree with your views, but it's obvious you're educated and probably moreso than many americans on many issues. Take care.

It's nice to see a show of respect from one member to another. Recognizing the good points in people is something that anger sometimes prevents. I have personal experience in this matter. A few months ago, a guy said to me that he thought I hadn't grown up properly because of action I'd taken against a group of people. He didn't stop to acknowledge the resentment I felt or the good I was trying to express, however violently. All he thought of was his view on the matter.