Best
215 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    There is a natural contraceptive known as abstinence. obama does not have the authority, right, nor mandate to shove his family planning values down the throats of a patriotic conservative Christian college. Amen to Liberty University (beautiful name, btw), fight the good fight!
  • #12
    !
    Once an organization steps outside of a purely religious role, they should have to follow the same rules everybody else does.
  • #18
    !
    @Jet_Silverman - I disagree. I believe this college should not be forced to violate its principles. This college had these beliefs before obama took office and should not be forced to abandon those beliefs. The war on Christianity will be defeated. I hope Liberty University stays strong and fights this unholy and unjust law until the end.
  • #23
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix they can keep their beliefs. We would be much better off and much more advanced without Christianity. It's pure superstition. If only getting rid of Christianity were as simple as making a school buy insurance.
  • #24
    !
    @dances-weebles - I'm married, and I can afford more kids so I'm not worried. I'm talking about the ones who don't want to take responsibility for themselves and would rather rob hard working taxpayers to pay for their contraception. It's not morally or ethically just. It's wrong and we will not take this lying down. More power to Liberty U.
  • R Load more replies

  • #27
    !
    No, if it goes against their beliefs they should not be required to provide it. Prayer was taken out of school because a fraction of a percent was against it. Nativity Scenes are not permitted because the atheists are
    "offended" by it. If you don't like the beliefs of the Christian School, leave and go where your beliefs are embraced. Non- Christians do not want Christian views pushed on them and I agree. However, those who
    find the beliefs of that school contradictory to what they believe, should find a school or workplace that can
    accomodate those beliefs. It's all about attention...the "war" on women...Please!
  • #30
    !
    It's not a war on women, it's a war on Christianity. As long as faithful Christians like you and I remain vigilant, we will not have to worry about obama forcing his family planning values down our throats. Go Liberty U!
  • #57
    !
    Exactly! If you are working for a Catholic school or hospital or charity, you know going in the rules, if you can't abide by them, get a different job. A teacher lost her job and lost her court case at Ursuline Academy right here in DE because her name was bold and beautiful on a full page add of Pro-Abortion women. She lost her job, tried to sue and lost because Ursuline is a private Catholic school for girls (mu daughter went there), all teachers had to support the teachings of the Church and what they thought privately, was their business, but to have her name published in the paper was just too much.
  • #64
    !
    I so agree. I mean , personally I don't drink so I don't go to bars. I don't care for 99% of television programming so I don't own a TV, I don't believe in porn so don't go to adult book stores. It would be really nice if people could adopt the same attitude of respect and "tolerance" concerning things like Christian schools, boy scouts, and Christian hospitals and clinics.
  • #4
    !
    this administration cares not about contraception one way or another,what they are seeking is legal precedent to carry on their march against the christian ideology
  • #13
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix the reality is quite to the contrary. Religion may be assaulting the areligious, however. No one is stopping you from believing whatever fiction you care to believe. That religion may NEVER carry the weight if law.
  • #16
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix wish it were real. Imagine how much more our society could have achieved if it didn't constantly have to fight against Christianity in order to progress.
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    Religious freedom is a personal, not institutional freedom. To allow institutions tosubstitite their judgment or morals views for individuals violates the first and fourteenth amendment's.
  • #7
    !
    The same was said about freedom of speech until the Supreme Court said otherwise in the Citizens United case.
  • #9
    !
    @FFX_VA citizens united did not address freedom of religion. The decision is also irreparably logically flawed. It will be overturned upon appeal eventually, because the legal reasoning behind it is, at best, dubious.
  • #37
    !
    is this college a private institution ?if so they are allowed to make policy as they see fit,but I hope no one is fooled into thinking this issue has anything to do with wo new rights,its just a made up justification,a vehicle if you will
  • #40
    !
    @MongoAPillager no institution, private or otherwise, may subvert the free will of individuals. Which is to say they may not reject reality, and substitute their own.

    Freedom of speech and free will are still in play.
  • R Load more replies

  • #100
    !
    Obamacare is a good start, but it's not the best or final answer.
    We need an all inclusive health care, non-profit, insurance system. We really need to look towards the more successful European health care systems for our cue, instead of trying to reinvent it the "American way." Believe it or not, other nations have good, sometimes superior, methods.
  • #102
    !
    I don't think that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a good start. I think that it began as an attempt to do what you are suggesting, but it got derailed by health insurance companies who claimed that it was unfair to prevent them from profiting off the American people like a rancher profits from cattle.
  • #103
    !
    @Dan_Tien
    I agree Dan, so let's just erase the word "good."
    "Obamacare is a .... start!"
    I know I catch shirt for it, but I think that certain industries need to be nationalized: insurance, oil, banking, pharmaceuticals. Their quest for astronomical profits, their greed, supersedes the needs, the good of society as a whole. In a nation which touts itself as great as does the United States, no one should have to chose between a roof over the head, food in the stomach, gas in the car or life/pain saving medication or medical treatment.
  • #104
    !
    @Keyjo I agree, and I think that we should both be prepared to be labeled liberals, socialists and communists for thinking that the good of the many is more important than the profit of the few.
  • #105
    !
    @Dan_Tien
    I guess this is where I am supposed to say, "I hate labels." Yeah, I am a moderate, but definitely a liberal leaning one. Communist; NO.(Moderate) Socialist; YES. Capitalist: tempered with humanity and regulation.
  • #97
    !
    Absolutely. This is Federal mandate. If you don't want to use birth control because you're subscribed to a religion that is afraid that people might actually like sex, that's an individual choice. But tough shit to Liberty. Unless you employ exclusively devout Catholics and don't ask for federal money from me, who believes the catholic church is a joke ... go read the part of the constitution that says there is a separation of church and state again. You do not make the rules. The public does.
  • #77
    !
    Once a church goes into business, they are then a business and faith has nothing to do with it. IMO, not only should they abide by the same laws as secular businesses, but they should also pay taxes just like any other corporation. Businesses such as Liberty University have been getting away it for far too long.
  • #68
    !
    Last I checked, no one was forcing anyone to take contraception. The only ones who should be objecting to this are the people that have never had sex for pleasure. Both of them.
  • #50
    !
    " Should employers be required to provide contraceptives, even if it goes against their faith?" No, there is a reason there is a 1st. Amendment, we have freedom OF religion and the State may not interfere wit that by mandating anything that would be against the tenets of any religion, i.e. mandatory birth control, sterilization etc. coverage by Catholics or other religions that prohibit any of those practices, mandatory providing of pork products in lunches at a Muslim or Jewish establishment and so on.
  • #38
    !
    No employer is required to provide contraception. The question was poorly worded. This is about insurance companies being required to pay for contraception as part of a benefits package. There is nobody requiring anyone to take advantage of contraception. Maybe the Christian school should make their employees sign a Norquist type pledge to not use contraception if they are so against it. This is just another attack on the Affordable Healthcare Act.
  • #34
    !
    no. only atheist employers should be forced to supply birth control. it can't go against their believe because they don't have any
  • #29
    !
    Simply, no. Employers pay for labor. Prevention of a result from an optional action should rely solely on the individual
  • #53
    !
    IMO: WHEN there is a conflict between the job you have and the coverage you want, perhaps you should look for another position that has the benefits you seek.
  • #28
    !
    NO!!! Obama is the most anti Christian president we've ever had, if it was another religion besides Christian the original mandate would have had opt out options included!
  • #10
    !
    Great, another blow for women. Just because you pay for insurance that someone else determines may be used for contraception does not mean you are for contraception. Know what stops abortions? Contraception! if ever there was a reason to have a individual obtain their own insurance (single payer) rather than employer sponsored this is it
  • #6
    !
    As already determined by the Supreme Court, the government isn't requiring healthcare insurance to be provided by the employer, its just "taxing" said employer in the event certain healthcare insurance requirements aren't provided. The obvious solution for Liberty College is to drop insurance coverage for its employees and pay the tax.
  • #45
    !
    Or they could just cut everyone's hours under 30, forcing people to buy their own. That's what many employers are either doing or planning on doing.
  • #120
    !
    So say they do that paying a tax penalty and have to lay off employees and cut wages on them. Then the union they're part of makes the school pay more causing them to go bankrupt and shut down and this school were people could go to school is shut down and now people seeking their education are out of luck.

    So they don't want to do something and you think it's ok to make them do it or make them pay more money not to do it. What's wrong with freedom of choice? If people want to go or work for a college that provides contraceptives in their insurance then let them, if they want to go or work somewhere that doesn't provide insurance let them do that as well.

    Why must the government be involved in this?
  • #3
    !
    Simply unbelievable that the right wing cares so much about abortion yet they oppose other birth control. But why wouldn't they? They care so much for the fetus but so little for the child once born.
  • #15
    !
    @Jet_Silverman I am not in favor of abortion beyond incest, rape, mother's life but you get that down by promoting cheaper, easier, more accessible alternatives. I think you may be right. The right wing just wants to put women "in their place". Kinda like the Taliban.
  • #17
    !
    @jessejaymes I'm not in favor of abortion, just choice. It seems to me to make a lot more sense to use birth control, but no birth control method is perfect. Well, except for waiting. (Until you reach menopause.) :)
  • #44
    !
    The same logic could be applied to the left as well. Why is it a "a woman's body" and her "choice" until that choice means taking responsibility for using means to NOT get pregnant, then it suddenly becomes someone else's problem. By the same token, why is it a "woman's choice" to have an abortion and the man has no say but if the woman decides to have the child the man needs to take responsibility? BTW, I'm a pro choice Republican.....
  • R Load more replies

  • #161
    !
    Yes, there's NOTHING about this that would merit a religious exemption. What if I am Jehovah's Witness and I believe that blood transfusions are wrong, can I refuse to cover that for my employees?
    All this wrangling with private health insurance and these mandates is just wasting money when what we should have done was adopt a limited single payer system and fund it directly out of general revenue. By limited I mean the government would be the only "insurance" but it wouldn't pay for everything. If affordable people should pay but with their own money and not insurance except for a few services such as contraception since reducing unwanted pregnancies will be positive for everyone. When everyone is buying insurance that inflates the price of health care services by requiring more money to go to the insurance company middlemen. Instead of mandating insurance Obama should've done away with it.
  • #164
    !
    To elaborate a little bit more, some people won't buy contraception even if it's only $5 and some of these people really, really need to get contraception. And while ideally it should be their responsibility we'll all save in money and safer neighborhoods and a more educated populace as the result of less unwanted pregnancies if contraception is free.
  • #130
    !
    Freedom means not being in confinement. What this school proposes is not religious freedom, its religious confinement.
  • R Load more comments...
Post