View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Tom Purcell: Little nuns vs. Goliath

Posted: January 20, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: January 20, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

It’s a story about how freedom is all.

I speak of the Little Sisters of the Poor, an international congregation of Roman Catholic nuns who have devoted their lives to caring for the elderly poor.

I am lucky to know more about this remarkable organization than many.

In 2007, I wrote a column about Gorman Johnston, who was living in the Little Sisters retirement home in Pittsburgh, PA. I was scheduled to interview him one wintry December night, but I didn’t want to go.

It was dark outside and bitter cold. The roads were icing up. I’d had a big party at my home the night before and my head was throbbing — but I went.

I met Gorman in a sitting room near the entrance and he told me his story.

When his wife had died a few years before, his doctors told him he needed care, too. They said he should move to a retirement home.

He was a longtime volunteer at the Little Sisters home — he did odd jobs to repay the nuns for caring for his elderly mother in her last years — and was lucky when a spot opened up for him there.

The best part of the story is that the nuns found a clever way to accommodate his dog, Abner. They arranged for a married couple, two regular volunteers, to adopt Abner. 

They took Abner home at night and brought him to stay with Gorman during the day. Abner quickly became the beloved house dog.

It was a grand story, but as soon as the interview was done, I wanted to go home — but Sister Regina urged me to tour the home.

I was immediately struck by the laughter and camaraderie on every floor — even in the infirmary, where people are near their end, joy was abundant.

There were several people there, mostly women, sitting in wheelchairs and hooked to IVs. They were in their very last stage of life — yet they were cheerful.

One woman called me over. She put her hands on mine and told me she wished me and my family the merriest Christmas.

Sister Regina introduced me to 93-year-old Nick, whose eyes sparkled with mischief and intelligence. He loved to sing and took requests. He belted out a Sinatra song that was remarkable.

Most cheerful of all were the nuns who cared for the elderly residents. They loved their work — loved serving God by bringing dignity to the last years of others’ lives.

By the time we finished our tour, I was glowing. My mood had been transformed by what I had witnessed. There was a powerful presence there — in my view, the presence of God.

Which brings us back to freedom.

The nuns who live and work at the home are freely practicing their faith. They voluntarily chose to do their godly work.

Their vow is to advance the dignity of life for every person, no matter how weak or unwanted. They can never support any program that runs contrary to their beliefs — they can never fund insurance policies that cover the cost of contraception, abortive drugs and sterilization.

Our federal government has a different notion, however. It has mandated that these things must be covered by law.

It has made some exceptions for religious organizations, but to become exempt, the Little Sisters must submit a waiver form to the government.

That is, they can only be exempt from the law at the pleasure of the federal government — until the federal government one day arbitrarily changes the rule, as it is doing now with so many other rules and regulations.
So the Little Sisters sued.

They argue that their constitutional right to freely practice their faith is being obstructed by our ever-growing government. They are right. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently issued an injunction siding with them.

As I said, this is really just a story about freedom. This is what it looks like when the state disagrees with the religious convictions of a private organization and slowly takes that freedom away.

If you want to experience real freedom while you still can, visit the Little Sisters of the Poor retirement home nearest you.

You will be moved by the experience.

©2014 Tom Purcell. Purcell is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review humor columnist and is nationally syndicated exclusively by Cagle Cartoons Inc.

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: January 20, 2014 6:24 a.m.

These "Little Sisters" are trying to take over the world. They are an employer who hires from the same candidate pools as everyone else and the people they hire should not have to adopt the beliefs of The Sisters in order to find work. Geriatric care is not a religious service.

http://littlesistersofthepoor.org/ourlife/worldwide-expansion

Worldwide Expansion

In 1851 a small group of Little Sisters crossed the English Channel to establish the first home outside France in Hammersmith, a suburb of London. Spain followed, then Belgium, Ireland, North Africa and North America.
The first truly missionary foundation was made in Calcutta, India in 1882. Our newest homes have been founded in the last decade in India, Peru and the Philippines.
Today there are Little Sisters following in the footsteps of Saint Jeanne Jugan and serving the needy elderly in 31 countries, including:
North America
United States


South America
Argentina
Chile
Colombia
Peru

Europe
Belgium
England
France
Ireland
Italy
Malta
Portugal
Scotland
Spain
Oceania
Australia
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Western Samoa
Africa
Algeria
Benin
Kenya
Nigeria
Republic of the Congo

Asia
Hong Kong
India
Malaysia
Philippines
South Korea
Sri Lanka
TaiwanA Resident and Little Sister in Cotounu, Benin, pause before the Holy Family, model of “our little family,” as Saint Jeanne Jugan said.
Turkey


chefgirl358: Posted: January 20, 2014 7:10 a.m.

Ricketzz, for once I agree with you completely. Little sisters my foot, more like big brother if you happen to be unfortunate enough to work for them and can't get birth control or even well women's services because of it.


technologist: Posted: January 20, 2014 10:27 a.m.

Frequently Asked Questions for Little Sisters of the Poor
Re: Little Sisters of the Poor Lawsuit Against the HHS Mandate

http://www.becketfund.org/faqlittlesisters/

Little Sisters of the Poor Granted Temporary Injunction by Supreme Court

http://www.becketfund.org/scotusgrantsrelief/


CaptGene: Posted: January 20, 2014 1:28 p.m.

So, chefgirl, how does working for Little Sisters somehow make a person unable to get birth control or well women's services? Little Sisters can't stop anyone from receiving those services.


Unreal: Posted: January 20, 2014 2:02 p.m.

CaptGene: I agree exactly. The only one that they are trying to force to do something against their will is the Nuns. They will not.

If we no longer have religious liberty then who gives a cr*p about this country anymore. Not me.


ricketzz: Posted: January 21, 2014 6:56 a.m.

It is a slippery slope. Where does conscientious objection stop? My religion thinks fat people are divine and we don't want to pay for lap bands. Slippery slope.

If the global corporation wants to hire from the secular candidate pool for their gerontologists, etc., they must follow secular law. It is the fair way to do it. No right is absolute.


Unreal: Posted: January 21, 2014 8:44 a.m.

Not killing babies is pretty clear. Not much of a slippery slope there.


hepnerkid: Posted: January 21, 2014 9:38 a.m.

The only slippery slope has been the advance of socialism. For the government to dictate to a citizen about their religious beliefs is something that is unheard of. Socialism is a cancer that seeks to destroy us all. It has never worked and never will. What happens is that people learn to live with the misery that comes and over a matter of time accept it as the norm. It is a way to live but not the best. Freedom always trumps socialism.


17trillion: Posted: January 21, 2014 11:35 a.m.

"more like big brother if you happen to be unfortunate enough to work for them and can't get birth control or even well women's services because of it"

THEN DON'T WORK FOR THEM! They are nuns for Christ's sake and you lunatics can't even give ground to even them, of all people?

Chefgirl, a months worth of birth control pills is 7 bucks at target. You can buy a rubber online for about a quarter at condomdepot.com, (yes I checked). Exactly how much sex do you or anyone else require before this becomes a financial burden?


17trillion: Posted: January 21, 2014 12:39 p.m.

And how dare some of you critique a group of nuns who have done nothing but help and aid those that aren't as fortunate as you are. You people know nothing of their good deeds and to infer that they are "taking over the world" is about as ignorant as it gets. In the name of free rubbers, birth control, and fetus destroying drugs, you crap on people whose only motivation is to help the less fortunate. Congrats, you have really advanced human species with your selfish ignorance.

I'm an atheist, just in case you think that my be relevant to my rant.


AlwaysRight: Posted: January 21, 2014 12:47 p.m.

17t- "They are nuns for Christ's sake..." Exactly.
You made my day, sir.


17trillion: Posted: January 21, 2014 12:59 p.m.

Probably a poor choice of words.....

However, if there is one group of people we should admire for their selfless work, shouldn't it be them? But no, instead we turn it into "rogue nuns taking over the world" and "waaaaa, pay for my condoms....waaaaaaa!"


stevehw: Posted: January 21, 2014 3:29 p.m.

Apparently, merely signing a form and thereby relieving themselves of any involvement in providing contraceptive coverage is just *too terrible a burden* for the poor, put-upon nuns.

That's really all this is... they sign a form asserting that they shouldn't have to provide certain coverage to their employees because of religious beliefs, and that ends their involvement in it.

But nope...gotta file a lawsuit to prevent anyone *else's* involvement, even though they've essentially distanced themselves from the issue.


technologist: Posted: January 21, 2014 6:31 p.m.

That's not an accurate representation at all, Steve.

Read the FAQs I provided and let me know when you wish to debate the legality of the issue. The SCOTUS issued a stay for a non-trival purpose.


therightstuff: Posted: January 21, 2014 7:54 p.m.

"""Apparently, merely signing a form and thereby relieving themselves of any involvement in providing contraceptive coverage is just *too terrible a burden* for the poor, put-upon nuns."""

Kind of like providing contraceptive protection was *too terrible a burden* for poor, put-upon Sandra Fluke.


stevehw: Posted: January 22, 2014 12:53 a.m.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/analysis-the-little-sisters-case-and-ebsa-form-700/


ricketzz: Posted: January 22, 2014 5:56 a.m.

Sandra Fluke was advocating for a friend with a gynecological condition that required hormone therapy. It had nothing to do with recreational sex.

Birth control prevents abortion. It would be nice if everybody got their own way all the time, but it ain't going to happen here, as long as the Little Sisters claim an exemption. I am subsidizing them and I don't believe in Voodoo or Gris Gris or whatever hocus pocus which claims to have an inside line to the Big Kahuna.

Church is exempt. Running a global corporation is not.


chefgirl358: Posted: January 22, 2014 7:05 a.m.

These nuns can't just sign a stupid form? Bull.

What's also bull is that an employee with medical insurance should be able to do whatever she/he and their doctors decide upon, and shouldn't be any business at all of anyone else...specifically the nuns! You really think your employer should be able to dictate what care or services you receive through your healthcare provider? SERIOUSLY! I'm incredulous at some of your comments. You really think your employer should be able to dictate the type of medical treatment you receive? Because that's exactly what this boils down to. Any employer, including the church, who provides medical insurance, shouldn't have any sort of say in what is covered for their employees or what types of treatment they receive.

Additionally, patients shouldn't have to pay out of pocket for medications that are covered by pretty much any insurance. Here's a newsflash, birth control pills can be quite expensive out of pocket, like over $200 for a 3 month supply. --edited.


therightstuff: Posted: January 22, 2014 8:00 a.m.

"""Here's a newsflash, birth control pills can be quite expensive out of pocket, like over $200 for a 3 month supply."""

Where you been shoppin', girl? For gals like Sandra Fluke who can afford tuition at Georgetown University but need taxpayer's help for their sexual activity, here's a news flash:

"For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month. For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest co-pays on generic medication -- usually $5 to $15 -- and higher co-pays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands."
http://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html


17trillion: Posted: January 22, 2014 8:20 a.m.

Perhaps you should try Target for your birth control and leave the nuns alone. You can also try Condomdepot.com where you can enjoy all the rubbers you want for 25 cents!

So, you would rather dump on a bunch of people doing nothing but good so your recreational sex can be paid for? I don't think I've ever heard anything as low as that in my life. What caused the damage in your brain to have such an absurd viewpoint?


CaptGene: Posted: January 22, 2014 8:37 a.m.

"You really think your employer should be able to dictate what care or services you receive through your healthcare provider?"

So, you're still standing by the opinion that the Little Sister are denying their employees access to certain medical procedures? I'd like to know how they are doing that.


17trillion: Posted: January 22, 2014 9:08 a.m.

Don't waste your time Gene. These "people" are beyond logic. Hey Chefgirl, give me your address so I can send you a check for 7 bucks for a months worth of condoms then maybe you can leave the nuns alone for a while. Of course, if you need more than 20 I will cut the extra check for that as well.

You see, if you're going to mandate that someone else pay for your recreational sex, then it becomes a valid point of discussion. So tell us, how much money do you require each month to pay for your recreation? I want to know how much selling one's soul is worth!


technologist: Posted: January 22, 2014 10:04 a.m.

"Apparently, merely signing a form and thereby relieving themselves of any involvement in providing contraceptive coverage is just *too terrible a burden* for the poor, put-upon nuns."

"These nuns can't just sign a stupid form? Bull."

See below why these assumptions are incorrect.

Steve, I'm ready to check you when you state that the Christian Brothers entity has already indicated they'll not provide mandated services. No doubt the SCOTUS will contemplate other scenarios in this class action suit. So you should be considering those factors as well before responding.

(3) What are the Little Sisters of the Poor asking the court for?

They are simply asking for the right to continue with their ministry as they’ve always conducted it: caring for the elderly poor, and providing health benefits to their employees, but without coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

Back To Top

(4) Where is the lawsuit being filed?

In federal court in Denver, Colorado.

Back To Top

(5) Who are Christian Brothers Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust?

They are organizations that help provide health benefits for ministries like the Little Sisters. Most Little Sisters homes obtain their insurance through Christian Brothers, which only works with Catholic ministries.

Back To Top

(6) Why is the lawsuit a “class action”?

A class action lawsuit is a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs assert not only their own rights, but also the rights of other parties facing the same problem. In this lawsuit, the Little Sisters of the Poor are asking for relief not only for themselves, but for other Catholic ministries who face the same burden on their religion from the Mandate, and who get their benefits through Christian Brothers.

Back To Top

(7) How much are the fines if the Little Sisters do not comply?

It varies from home to home. Some fines are about $2,000 per employee per year; others are about $100 per employee per day. The bottom line is that they are severe and would needlessly take money that should be spent on our ministry of helping the elderly poor.

Back To Top

(8) When to the fines begin?

Fines can start as of January 1, 2014. They don’t start for a specific Little Sisters home until that home’s health insurance plan year starts, which can be anytime from January 1 to December 1 of a given year. So, for instance, a home with a health insurance plan year starting on June 1, 2014, won’t start facing fines until that day.

(cont.) --edited.


technologist: Posted: January 22, 2014 10:05 a.m.

(9) Isn’t there a “religious employer exemption” that would cover the Little Sisters?

No. The exemption is only for churches and certain types of church-like organizations. The Little Sisters don’t qualify.

Back To Top

(10) Didn’t the government announce some kind of “accommodation” for religious non-profits?

Yes, but the law still forces the Little Sisters to participate in providing access to the drugs and treats the Little Sisters as second-class citizens.

First, the government has refused to simply exempt the Little Sisters—even though it exempts churches and other religious organizations. That is wrong—the Little Sisters should receive the same exemption churches do.

Second, the so-called “accommodation” still forces the Little Sisters to find an insurer who will cover sterilization, contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and will provide related counseling and education to promote those things. The Sisters would also be required to sign a form that triggers the start of that coverage. In good conscience, they can’t do that. So the “accommodation” still violates their religious beliefs.

http://www.becketfund.org/faqlittlesisters/


chefgirl358: Posted: January 22, 2014 10:21 a.m.

17trillion, the fact that you and any other man think birth control pills are used solely for sex just shows what ignorant people you are. Millions of women take bcp's because of actual medical conditions such as endemetriosis, chronic painful periods / cramping / regulating their cycles, balancing out their hormones, and even severe acne.

Some people take bcp's like Seasonique that are a 3 month cycle pill for medical conditions like those I previously mentioned that isn't covered by certain crappy hmo's. I have a couple of friends who were put on the pill by their doctors after getting their tubes tied, because their hormones were so imbalanced.

Wow, it's truly disturbing to me that a bunch of men who obviously know nothing about women's health issues can jump to such radical conclusions and judgments and try to tell people what sort of medication they should take and where they should obtain it. Here's another newsflash, certain medications such as Seasonique can run as high as $200 or more for a 3 month supply at ANY Pharmacy in this valley...INCLUDING TARGET!


therightstuff: Posted: January 22, 2014 11:23 a.m.

chefgirl, I confess that I was not aware of the facts you posted. Thank you for setting me straight.


CaptGene: Posted: January 22, 2014 4:22 p.m.

That's all very informative, but it does not explain how the Little Sisters are denying anyone access to birth control. My employer provided health insurance did not cover my vasectomy, yet somehow I was able to get one.


ricketzz: Posted: January 23, 2014 6:25 a.m.

The Little Sisters are milking this for all it's worth. I'm sure their tax deductible donations have spiked. When people give deductible donations to religion I have to pay more tax to pick up their slack. I think religion is a racket, but I am forced to subsidize it anyway. How is this not a violation of my rights?


17trillion: Posted: January 23, 2014 8:17 a.m.

"17trillion, the fact that you and any other man think birth control pills are used solely for sex just shows what ignorant people you are. Millions of women take bcp's because of actual medical conditions such as endemetriosis, chronic painful periods / cramping / regulating their cycles, balancing out their hormones, and even severe acne."

What a load of crap! Show me where millions take the pill for the above. And no matter what, IT STILL ONLY COSTS A FEW DOLLARS A MONTH! You sell you soul for a few dollars a month because you can't wrap you mind around the fact that some people have moral objections to birth control? How disgusting!

"Here's another newsflash, certain medications such as Seasonique can run as high as $200 or more for a 3 month supply at ANY Pharmacy in this valley...INCLUDING TARGET!"

What a load. First of all there are other types of birth control. Second, you can also get it for 35 bucks for 3 months at Walgreens. Yea, I checked. And finally, if you're going to ask me to pay for your birth control then I have every right to comment.


chefgirl358: Posted: January 23, 2014 10:41 a.m.

17, the only one with a load of crap is you!

It's true that millions of women take bcp for medical conditions, I don't care what you think, I happen to KNOW this for a FACT being that I am one of them and have tons of friends and family taking bcp for medical reasons only as well. I happen to know for a FACT what my own medication costs and I know that I was quoted over $200 for seasonique at TARGET last year for a 3 month supply. You do NOT get to tell me what I should or shouldn't take or where I should buy it, especially since you aren't a doctor and have no freaking clue why one pill works better for some women than others. There are dozens of types of bcp's and they all work differently for each person. It's not at all uncommon for women to change pills numerous times throughout the years until they find the one that works best for them.

What on earth are you talking about selling my soul? To who? For what? My whole point is, that there are many legitimate medical uses for bcp's, and that it is not used solely for birth control, and that no employer of any kind should be able to dictate what happens between a doctor and a patient just because your employer is paying for your health insurance. If you are obese, diabetic, mentally ill, etc., should your employer be able to dictate what medications or treatments they condone or oppose because they pay for your health insurance...no, I don't think so!

You sound like an ignorant troglodyte in your arguments...a backwards thinking, ignorant person with ZERO knowledge of women's anatomy or medical issues, treatments and needs. You probably know nothing about hormone replacement therapy for women either. When women enter peri-menopause or actual menopause, they often need hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to deal with the horrible side effects of these conditions. They are given varying doses of...wait for it...ESTROGEN and PROGESTERONE! The same types of hormones that are in bcp's. It's just that when women are still menstruating, they often need bcp's for the same types of conditions that menopausal women take HRT for, not for preventing babies, but for dealing with hormone related issues.

The nuns aren't opposing paying for Viagra are they? And I'll bet if they were, you'd be crying like a big baby.


17trillion: Posted: January 23, 2014 11:30 a.m.

"It's true that millions of women take bcp for medical conditions, I don't care what you think, I happen to KNOW this for a FACT being that I am one of them and have tons of friends and family taking bcp for medical reasons only as well"

How scientific! You take birth control and have a "ton" of friends that take it for medical reasons. Well then, I guess that settles the argument. Yea right.....

" I happen to know for a FACT what my own medication costs and I know that I was quoted over $200 for seasonique at TARGET last year for a 3 month supply."

Apparently since it was last year, you've DISCOVERED a cheaper alternative, which exist in many forms. Yes, I've checked that too. Furthermore, what the hell does your medical condition have to do with nuns having a religious objection

"You do NOT get to tell me what I should or shouldn't take."

Show me where I said I said what you should or shouldn't take?

"There are dozens of types of bcp's and they all work differently for each person."

Thank you for making my point. Some are even cheap or, gasp, free!

"that no employer of any kind should be able to dictate what happens between a doctor and a patient just because your employer is paying for your health insurance"

Typical liberal, "you have no right to dictate to me even though you're paying for it".

"If you are obese, diabetic, mentally ill, etc., should your employer be able to dictate what medications or treatments they condone or oppose because they pay for your health insurance."

I don't think so either, but I'm still wondering what that has to do with me paying for your recreational sex? Ooops, I forgot, you're not having recreational sex and you ONLY take birth control for other medical reasons along with other "millions" and "tons of friends".

"You sound like an ignorant troglodyte in your arguments...a backwards thinking, ignorant person with ZERO knowledge of women's anatomy or medical issues, treatments and needs"

And you sound like someone who is losing the argument and needs to resort to name calling. I have a lot of personal knowledge of a woman's anatomy and it sounds like, based on my research and your lack of same, that I have far more knowledge than you on this topic.

"You probably know nothing about hormone replacement therapy."

Relevance?

"If you are obese, diabetic, mentally ill, etc., should your employer be able to dictate what medications or treatments they condone or oppose because they pay for your health insurance."

Where is the religious objection in the above?

"The nuns aren't opposing paying for Viagra are they? And I'll bet if they were, you'd be crying like a big baby.'

I'm not aware that Viagra is covered in any policy but if it is, show me a religious objection to it? Furthermore, assuming I would want Viagra, I certainly wouldn't expect YOU to pay for it. How ignorant that you assume I want or use Viagra as if that's germane to the issue.


17trillion: Posted: January 23, 2014 11:36 a.m.

You may also be interested to learn that there are many other hormonal methods such as the ring, patch, implant and IUD that offer the same types of noncontraceptive benefits as the pill.

But lets not have that little fact get in the way of a bunch of nuns who do unbelievable work with poor people and people in need who just may have a legitimate religious objection to the birth control pill. Screw em, right Chefgirl? You will have your birth control pill and be damned all those who have the temerity to object!


chefgirl358: Posted: January 23, 2014 2:06 p.m.

I don't need your uneducated advice on birth control. I don't know WHERE you get that you are paying for my medication? I have insurance and who said I found my meds cheaper somewhere other than Target? I never said that at all. How are you paying for me to have sex again?

YOU have more knowledge of a woman's anatomy than a woman? HA! BAHAHAHAHA! WHEW, am I GLAD that YOU aren't making medical decisions for any of us! Tell you what, the day you go to the store to buy Tampax for YOURSELF because you have period cramps, take advil for your headache, and deal with ovarian cysts, endemetriosis, hot flashes and hormone fluctutations, squeeze your boobs into a mammogram machine, get a pap smear, oh and I almost forgot...CARRY A PREGNANCY FOR 9 MONTHS, then you can tell me how much you know about women's anatomy, thankyouverymuch. The only loser in this argument...is you. Also, as to your "other hormonal methods"....those all have some really horrific side effects for many women. There was a reason IUD's went the way of the dinosaur for decades and that the new ones aren't widely used...because they are sheer misery for most people. Let's not let that little fact get in the way of common sense though shall we?

You are g.d. right screw them. If I or any other woman wants to take any sort of medication that those nuns object to, then screw them. Absolutely. They shouldn't have the right to dictate who gets what treatment, it's NONE of their business! It's between the doctor and the patient! NO employer should have any business being involved in what happens beyond providing medical insurance to someone.

I'm not even going to argue over the viagra question with you since it's so clearly apparent to me and you don't even get it, it's just not worth the typing to try to explain or debate with you.

I am not a liberal. I do not side with any particular party as I don't agree with many of the core beliefs of the various political parties. I am registered as a Republican however, but haven't aligned myself with many, not all, but many, of their stances in years. I agree with many beliefs from all of the parties, but not one in particular.


AlwaysRight: Posted: January 23, 2014 2:10 p.m.

Whoa. They are gonna take my Viagara? Things are going 'way too far.


17trillion: Posted: January 23, 2014 2:41 p.m.

"I don't know WHERE you get that you are paying for my medication?"

It's really simple. I have coverage for birth control even though I don't want it or need it. It's mandated, therefore everyone is chipping in for that coverage. And again, who cares about you. It's not about you!

"YOU have more knowledge of a woman's anatomy than a woman? HA! BAHAHAHAHA! WHEW, am I GLAD that YOU aren't making medical decisions for any of us"

You clearly have a reading problem. You said I had ZERO, (you even capitalized it) knowledge of a woman's anatomy. I said I had plenty of knowledge based upon personal experience and a general knowledge of anatomy. I NEVER said I had more knowledge than "a woman", although I'm guessing I probably do have more knowledge than SOME women. But I guess I'm just not allowed to comment because I don't get periods. How lame! I guess my retort is that men die 5 years earlier than women so boo friggin hoo to your woes! I would trade all your woes for 6 years of life!

"There was a reason IUD's went the way of the dinosaur for decades and that the new ones aren't widely used...because they are sheer misery for most people. Let's not let that little fact get in the way of common sense though shall we?'

That was only one of four alternatives I mentioned. Nice try!

"You are g.d. right screw them. If I or any other woman wants to take any sort of medication that those nuns object to, then screw them."

I disagree. I think there should be exceptions. There are exceptions to almost everything in life. Shall I name a few that benefit women only? You say screw them because "you" think you're entitled to be provided birth control free of charge or almost free so stick to the nuns even though birth control is practically free anyway. I think that's selfish of you.

" it's just not worth the typing to try to explain or debate with you."

Usually the response when one doesn't have a coherent and logical position.

And finally, I know you're not a liberal so I retract that statement but I do feel if "I" pay for something, then "I" in limited cases can dictate how it's spent. It's a philosophical position that no doubt will be decided by the Supreme Court. Lets hope they don't screw it up like they did with abortion.


chefgirl358: Posted: January 23, 2014 2:59 p.m.

They ALL have side effects, I only bothered to list the one method that has the most. I'm sure there is one thing you would agree with me on and that is that there is no such thing as any kind of medication or treatment that doesn't have a single listed side effect.

Clearly, we obviously disagree on a variety of issues, we both think we are right and the other isn't and it's basically just time to call an end to this debate because we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see either one of us adding anything to our argument, we are just spinning our wheels with the same stuff and getting frustrated that the other person doesn't see it the way I/You do.

So, on that note...have a lovely weekend!


CaptGene: Posted: January 23, 2014 5:22 p.m.

Even after all that, nobody is being denied access to health care.


technologist: Posted: January 23, 2014 6:59 p.m.

Of course. But it isn't about health care, is it, CG?


CaptGene: Posted: January 23, 2014 8:03 p.m.

Apparently not. I've asked a couple of times and still no explanation.


ricketzz: Posted: January 24, 2014 6:44 a.m.

Birth control prevents abortions. Do you want more abortions? My gawd, we still can't shake off the crazies from Holland and their warped social self-righteousness! Bans on homosexuality, abortions, etc., are all based on faulty assumptions that a man can only produce a finite (limited) amount of sperm. Western civilization requires fresh blood to sell stuff to, so they banned everything that might cut into their future market size. "Go forth and multiply my consumer base" is what fake God really said.


17trillion: Posted: January 24, 2014 8:04 a.m.

Ricketzz, you are clearly incapable of seeing the point. It's not about abortions and it's not about Chefgirl. It's about religious freedom, something I defend even though I'm not at all religious.

That being said, I agree with Chefgirl and we will agree to disagree.

Have a lovely weekend yourself!


technologist: Posted: January 25, 2014 9:22 p.m.

(ORDER LIST: 571 U.S.)
FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 2014
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
13A691 LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR, ET AL. V. SEBELIUS, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.

The application for an injunction having been submitted to
Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court, the Court
orders: If the employer applicants inform the Secretary of Health
and Human Services in writing that they are non-profit
organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have
religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive
services, the respondents are enjoined from enforcing against the
applicants the challenged provisions of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act and related regulations pending final
disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit. To meet the condition for injunction
pending appeal, applicants need not use the form prescribed by
the Government and need not send copies to third-party
administrators. The Court issues this order based on all of the
circumstances of the case, and this order should not be construed
as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012414zr_6jgm.pdf


ricketzz: Posted: January 26, 2014 5:58 a.m.

"Religious Freedom" is a contradiction in terms. Would you allow Satanists to collect blood for the Red Cross? How about letting Skull and Bones run foreign policy? That is somebody's idea of religious freedom.

Hocus Pocus, Voodoo and secret handshakes is no way to run a big country. Religion is old fashioned belief in the supernatural, which sophisticated modern people have a real problem with. We are tired of compromising with thin air and legends. We no longer have the time or the money to bend to your silly whims.


CaptGene: Posted: January 26, 2014 9:46 a.m.

Funny and ironic how anti-religion ricketzz has quite a god complex.


technologist: Posted: January 26, 2014 10:09 a.m.

Don't use the plural when speaking for yourself, ricketzz. You'll find that the majority of Americans support the substantial charitable works undertaken by religious organizations here and abroad.

The issue you and statists have is about control. The irritation is that the Constitution is limiting to your vision of how society should be ordered. There's an inclination to wield absolute power and direct all resources. Behind the mask is tyranny and intolerance. --edited.


technologist: Posted: January 26, 2014 10:36 a.m.

"Religious Freedom" is a contradiction in terms. - ricketzz

res ipsa loquitur


ricketzz: Posted: January 31, 2014 6:08 a.m.

At least I didn't call it a scam, or a power trip.

Note: there is a plot among followers of Rushdooney who plan to seize the USA govt and institute Biblical Law, just like the Muslim Brotherhood. Where does "freedom" end and "treason" begin? Think fast, because these people are all over the military. And the legislative. And the judiciary.

The Oath is to protect and defend the Constitution; that comes first. If "God" is more important to certain people than our Constitution those people are dangerous when in critical positions. I fear "religion" way more than "debt".


technologist: Posted: February 1, 2014 9:18 p.m.

"Note: there is a plot among followers of Rushdooney who plan to seize the USA govt and institute Biblical Law, just like the Muslim Brotherhood."

LOL!


CaptGene: Posted: February 1, 2014 11:38 a.m.

Still waiting to hear how an employer not paying for something is the same as not having access to it. My employer doesn't pay for my cell phone yet, somehow I was able to get one.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...