Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Michigan's "Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act"

  1. -1
    Spesh's Avatar
    8/31/14 Never Forget

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,790
    vCash:
    2830
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Michigan's "Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act"

    Michigan lawmakers passed a controversial measure on Wednesday that will ban all insurance plans in the state from covering abortion unless the woman's life is in danger. The law, which takes effect in March, will force women and employers to purchase a separate abortion rider if they would like the procedure covered, even in cases of rape and incest.

    Supporters of the "Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act" argue that it allows people who are opposed to abortion to avoid paying into a plan that covers it. Opponents have nicknamed it the "rape insurance" initiative, because it would force some women to anticipate the possibility of being raped by purchasing the extra abortion insurance ahead of time.

    “This tells women who were raped … that they should have thought ahead and planned for it,” said Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing)during debates. “Make no mistake, this is anything but a citizens' initiative. It’s a special interest group’s perverted dream come true.”

    The Michigan State Legislature first passed the measure last year, but Governor Rick Snyder (R) vetoed it, saying he does not "believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage."

    But the anti-abortion group Right to Life of Michigan was able to collect more than 300,000 voter signatures on a petition this year to force a second vote on the measure. Having been passed by both chambers, the bill automatically becomes law now, even without Snyder's approval.

    More than 80 percent of private insurance plans currently cover abortions, the New York Times reported, citing research organization the Guttmacher Institute. Eight states have passed similar laws banning the insurance coverage of abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, but only two of them have actually made the abortion rider available to women.

    "This body made up of 80 percent men will make a decision that will impact 100 percent of women," he said.

    Several Democratic women lawmakers became emotional during debates on Wednesday as they told personal stories of miscarriage and abortion, and State Rep. David Knezek (D) blasted the measure as misogynistic.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4428432.html
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  2. -2
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,490
    vCash:
    11199
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Although I completely disagree with any government dollars being allocated to abortion, I also disagree with mandating that private insurance can't cover it. I would be just as irate if they mandated that they cover it as well. What is covered under a policy is completely up to the insurance and the insured. Why can't people just mind their own damn business?



    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3
    jguig's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2004
    Posts:
    2,485
    vCash:
    1091
    Thanks / No Thanks
    It is an abuse of power for force people who feel abortion and/or contraception is against the tenets of their faith to participate in forwarding these practices. The Constitution protects us in the expression of our faith. People who need contraception can go to the drug store and use their own money for this purpose rather than forcing others to pay for their recreation.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -4
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,107
    vCash:
    29317
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jguig View Post
    It is an abuse of power for force people who feel abortion and/or contraception is against the tenets of their faith to participate in forwarding these practices. The Constitution protects us in the expression of our faith. People who need contraception can go to the drug store and use their own money for this purpose rather than forcing others to pay for their recreation.
    It's not that black and white. The law of the land is still the law of the land, and there are times where you're forced to abide by it even if it violates your religious principles. For instance, in the famous court case where a Florida judge ruled that Muslim women are not allowed to wear a veil when taking their driver's license photos. In that case, the compelling state interest of being able to identify people by their facial features overruled the religious freedom aspect.

    Perhaps a better specific example in this matter are the Quakers, whose religious belief absolutely forbids them from participating in war. As a result, many of them were declared conscientious objectors in the draft era... however, that does not exclude them from having to pay the portion of the federal income taxes that go to our war mongering Defense Department (which would be about a quarter). As I have brought up in other threads on this subject, being Christian Scientist precludes you from availing yourself of modern medicine. Nevertheless, if you're a Christian Scientist business owner, you're still required by law to provide some kind of health insurance to your full time employees, even though any health insurance is by it's very nature against your religious faith.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 01-13-2014 at 06:58 PM.
    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -5
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,660
    vCash:
    4959
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    So what I am hearing is forcing people to have health-care is legal but forcing people to have certain areas of health-care is illegal??? Interesting.
    Peace and Humptiness Forever


    Quote Quote  

  6. -6
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    3,716
    vCash:
    587
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jguig View Post
    It is an abuse of power for force people who feel abortion and/or contraception is against the tenets of their faith to participate in forwarding these practices. The Constitution protects us in the expression of our faith. People who need contraception can go to the drug store and use their own money for this purpose rather than forcing others to pay for their recreation.
    Maybe we should have the boner pills also disallowed then. Oh I forgot. In pretty much every religion the male species is superior to females so boner pills should be covered under health insurance.

    For all you religious fanatics: if a guy can't get it anymore it is God's will.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    "You may think that you are some kind of god to these people. But we both know what you really are."
    "What's that? A criminal?"
    "Worse. A politician."
    Source: Under The Dome
    Quote Quote  

  7. -7
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,490
    vCash:
    11199
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    Maybe we should have the boner pills also disallowed then. Oh I forgot. In pretty much every religion the male species is superior to females so boner pills should be covered under health insurance.

    For all you religious fanatics: if a guy can't get it anymore it is God's will.
    This crap all goes back to insurance companies negotiating plans with companies or individuals. The government shouldn't be involved either way. If an insurer wants to cover asshole bleaching then its their prerogative. If they want to or don't want to cover abortions or ED pills or whatever then it is up to them and their customers. The while argument is dumb!

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  8. -8
    jguig's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2004
    Posts:
    2,485
    vCash:
    1091
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    It's not that black and white. The law of the land is still the law of the land, and there are times where you're forced to abide by it even if it violates your religious principles. For instance, in the famous court case where a Florida judge ruled that Muslim women are not allowed to wear a veil when taking their driver's license photos. In that case, the compelling state interest of being able to identify people by their facial features overruled the religious freedom aspect.

    Perhaps a better specific example in this matter are the Quakers, whose religious belief absolutely forbids them from participating in war. As a result, many of them were declared conscientious objectors in the draft era... however, that does not exclude them from having to pay the portion of the federal income taxes that go to our war mongering Defense Department (which would be about a quarter). As I have brought up in other threads on this subject, being Christian Scientist precludes you from availing yourself of modern medicine. Nevertheless, if you're a Christian Scientist business owner, you're still required by law to provide some kind of health insurance to your full time employees, even though any health insurance is by it's very nature against your religious faith.

    You are overlooking something significant. Wearing a head scarf is not quite the same as protecting a life. These are not proportional in terms of their significance to the religion. Your reference to war is nothing more than a red herring. It has no bearing on this argument. You don't know me, so I find it comical that you'd actually be arrogant enough to presume you could ascribe a particular religion to me.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -9
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,107
    vCash:
    29317
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jguig View Post
    You are overlooking something significant. Wearing a head scarf is not quite the same as protecting a life. These are not proportional in terms of their significance to the religion.
    "Significance to the religion" is irrelevant. And in any case for Muslim women of a certain tradition, the failure to wear the appropriate coverings is punishable by death, so I assure you it's of great significance to them.

    Your reference to war is nothing more than a red herring. It has no bearing on this argument.
    Of course it does. It's an example of the supremacy of the law over religious "objections" when it comes to the funding of a mandated program. We are all required to pay for things through taxes regardless of our moral or religious objections. It's nothing new.

    You don't know me, so I find it comical that you'd actually be arrogant enough to presume you could ascribe a particular religion to me.
    I wasn't presuming you were any one religion. I don't care and either way it's hardly the point.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -10
    jguig's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2004
    Posts:
    2,485
    vCash:
    1091
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    "Significance to the religion" is irrelevant. And in any case for Muslim women of a certain tradition, the failure to wear the appropriate coverings is punishable by death, so I assure you it's of great significance to them. .
    Again, proportionality. There is a vast difference between something that saves a life as opposed to something superficial. The fact that you conveniently overlook that reality makes your judgment questionable.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-25-2013, 03:22 PM
  2. Players union wants information about "Lockout insurance"
    By spydertl79 in forum General NFL Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 09:14 PM
  3. Reid's HC Plan Requires Monthly "Abortion Fee"
    By SnakeoilSeller in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-20-2009, 04:09 PM
  4. Obama To End Ban On Abortion "Global Gag Rule"
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-24-2009, 11:14 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-20-2005, 03:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •