Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

christx30

(6,241 posts)
17. There is something that has been
Thu Mar 15, 2012, 03:33 PM
Mar 2012

bouncing around in my head for a while about this subject...
Since these people hate contraception and abortion, they are claiming that their consciences demand they not be forced to provide them, and most of them would like them banned. And to them that is perfectly fine, especially if they are the only potential providers, and the person seeking the care will be unable to get it.
So what if it WERE illegal? Ban abortion and contraception. Make it a felony to get an abortion or to provide one. Make possession of contraception a misdemeanor. They have to know that not everyone will agree with them. And they have to know that people will break the law. Banning drugs hasn't made them go away. So will people be able to claim that their beliefs and consciences demanded that they provide those services? A rape victim (because the ones I've spoken to do not want an exception for rape) goes to a doctor and begs for his help. He sneaks her in around midnight, does it, and they agree to never speak of it again. This desperate woman begged for his help, and his conscience refused to let him turn his back on her.
The cons say that pharmacists shouldn't have any consequences for refusing people. Should this doctor or this woman face any? To the cons, she is a murderess. Does it go both ways?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

ACLJ Files Suit Challenging HHS Mandate for Violating Religious Beliefs of Missouri Business Owner rfranklin Mar 2012 #1
All righty then LibertyLover Mar 2012 #29
ACLJ is Pat Robertson's legal org; lastlib Mar 2012 #2
I was just getting ready to Google that proud2BlibKansan Mar 2012 #4
Looks like a legitimate company proud2BlibKansan Mar 2012 #3
St Louis is a major center for industrial refractories - the hedgehog Mar 2012 #6
How does it violate his religious beliefs? Quantess Mar 2012 #5
Yup. Shadowflash Mar 2012 #12
The mandate says any new plan must provide contraceptive products at no cost .... BOHICA12 Mar 2012 #27
I see your point, but I think it's a matter of perpective Quantess Mar 2012 #31
I'm with you there somewhat .... but BOHICA12 Mar 2012 #32
It is an earning for the employee jmowreader Mar 2012 #52
Bingo. aquart Mar 2012 #34
Their Mission Statement Bonhomme Richard Mar 2012 #7
"Mean spirited behavior will not be tolerated. " Old and In the Way Mar 2012 #11
I was thinking about something similar. Control-Z Mar 2012 #24
Don't forget ongoing pediatric care, too. aquart Mar 2012 #35
We will not discriminate based on anyone's personal belief system" crazylikafox Mar 2012 #13
"We will not discriminate based on anyone's belief system." There it is in a nutshell. They are not jwirr Mar 2012 #14
He left one out bongbong Mar 2012 #22
If he has ONE employee that works on a Sunday, he will lose. Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #8
Good luck with that. Where are the damages? caseymoz Mar 2012 #9
All they can show is more costs loyalsister Mar 2012 #38
I argue with my Dad about this. caseymoz Mar 2012 #39
So can a Jehovah's Witness business owner ban covering transfusions? denverbill Mar 2012 #10
There is nothing to stop a JW employer from excluding blood transfusion coverage from kestrel91316 Mar 2012 #15
To stop the slippery slope? The Supreme Court put limits on religious freedom. 1878 Reynolds v. US Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #20
I should have specified that nothing other than the USSC kestrel91316 Mar 2012 #23
That little nagging voice whispers that the last thing the administration wants to do in an election 24601 Mar 2012 #33
Yeah but, earlier legal precedents, disallowing religious exemptions, don't just include tax cases Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #36
oh no starbucks! greymattermom Mar 2012 #26
There is clear legal precedent stopping this joeglow3 Mar 2012 #30
All organizations accepting government funding/regulation, should obey full federal HHS law Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #37
How about everyone else joeglow3 Mar 2012 #43
Lots of cases do not allow private citizens religious exemption from law Brettongarcia Mar 2012 #45
Apples and Oranges joeglow3 Mar 2012 #50
Does the insurance EC Mar 2012 #16
There is something that has been christx30 Mar 2012 #17
Yeah, I've been thinking about that too. EC Mar 2012 #19
Why is he allowed to know what medications his employees are on? Aerows Mar 2012 #18
plain and simple SemperEadem Mar 2012 #21
...and the rightwing crazies are complaining ... la la Mar 2012 #25
I wonder if the Obama Administration didn't start this issue just for this to happen lunatica Mar 2012 #28
question??? onethatcares Mar 2012 #40
Do you mean to imply that this fine, upstanding gentleman, hedgehog Mar 2012 #41
Guess this guys doesn't do birth control.... SamG Mar 2012 #42
Here is a non right wing source alp227 Mar 2012 #44
Thank you for posting that URL for Conwebwatch. So glad to see it. n/t Judi Lynn Mar 2012 #47
I'm pro choice cstanleytech Mar 2012 #46
Under the Health Care Reform, businesses over a certain size must provide hedgehog Mar 2012 #48
Yes I know that its under that however is it constitutional? After all our government does from time cstanleytech Mar 2012 #49
HEY!!! You know what? I have objections about my taxes being used for bogus wars! KansDem Mar 2012 #51
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Missouri Man Is First Pri...»Reply #17