Kinda why I liked referring to it as a smoking gun.

 

On a more serious note, I think your point is only one of the issues. Not only do you have to look at the material but you have to determine the logic/lobbying behind the material.

Why so? If the material is to help the patient, not convert them to Catholicism, but to insure their medical welfare, how is that faulty logic?

That's fine. If a Satanist employer doesn't want to pay for some drug or service mandated by Obamacare based on his/her beliefs then so be it, that's the only precedent this case set and I'm fine with it. If I as a potential employee of that Satanist want to work for someone who pays for that service/product I don't work for the Satanist. Simple.

 

If a Christian Scientist employer doesn't want to pay for health care so be it, I would take that into consideration when deciding to work for that company. The same thing applies if a Jehovah's Witness employer didn't want to pay for transfusion services.

 

I think the point 22p and I are trying to make is the Hobby Lobby decision is fruit of the poisonous religion tree and it is going to create nothing but more legal issues and entanglements until the tide turns down the road.

Why so? If the material is to help the patient, not convert them to Catholicism, but to insure their medical welfare, how is that faulty logic?

 

We are splitting hairs at this point, for you let's just stick with lobbying.

Simple, straightforward question for you Guru. Do you believe patients should be informed of all the potential medical risks, side-effects, etc. associated with a procedure before they undergo a medical procedure?

I disagree. Even before the Hobby Lobby decision how many cases have we seen where some Atheist got his knickers in a bunch because someone said God to close to him? The anti-religious have been filing suits like this for years.

Simple, straightforward question for you Guru. Do you believe patients should be informed of all the potential medical risks, side-effects, etc. associated with a procedure before they undergo a medical procedure?

 

Yes.

 

But I don't believe in all the hoops/mandates women have to go through for an abortion. I think what they have to do far exceeds the yes to your question.

I obviously don't get the point then. If the information is there for the welfare of the patient and not based in religious undertone, then this whole thing is silly. If it does have religious slant then it needs to be changed, not removed. Patient awareness is critical, especially in abortion. We often think it a benign procedure, and it's just not.

 

How much clearer does that have to be? It's open and shut to me, all you have to do is review the material.

I disagree. Even before the Hobby Lobby decision how many cases have we seen where some Atheist got his knickers in a bunch because someone said God to close to him? The anti-religious have been filing suits like this for years.

 

Without getting into a protracted debate religion/God needs to be out of all law/government/etc.

I obviously don't get the point then. If the information is there for the welfare of the patient and not based in religious undertone, then this whole thing is silly. If it does have religious slant then it needs to be changed, not removed. Patient awareness is critical, especially in abortion. We often think it a benign procedure, and it's just not.

 

How much clearer does that have to be? It's open and shut to me, all you have to do is review the material.

 

What about the states that require counseling?

I think the point 22p and I are trying to make is the Hobby Lobby decision is fruit of the poisonous religion tree and it is going to create nothing but more legal issues and entanglements until the tide turns down the road.

 

The opinion was written specific enough that any good court should simply throw it out.

What about the states that require counseling?

 

Each state has their own protocol. I think that's good. I think the states should be independent on certain issues like these. I can tell you this much, if the counseling is simply supportive in nature, I see no problem. If the counseling is again, religiously pointed, I think it's outside the line.

What about the states that require counseling?

 

If there's scientific evidence that shows women who have abortions are more likely to off themselves, then sorry I don't have an issue with that. Also it seems you're under the impression that abortion is the sole procedure that requires counseling. Where have you found that information? I'd venture others do as well.

 

Along those same lines, I know a few women who have unfortunately made the decision to have an abortion. Not a single one had to jump through this myriad of hoops you paint. :idunno:

Without getting into a protracted debate religion/God needs to be out of all law/government/etc.

 

Bill of Rights pretty much assures that it will never happen.

And let me be clear, patients are not required to have post op counseling against their will. They can walk out, tell you to pack salt and you can do nothing about it. But to be required to offer it is different than required to accept it. Pre op counseling, again, as long as it's medically supportive is something I'm all for.

Bill of Rights pretty much assures that it will never happen.

 

I wish it were that simple.