These "Stop the Mandate" protesters were at the Capitol (Sacramento) today. I was at a meeting inside and the building had to be evacuated (I heard it was because of them but who knows).
Do you agree that this is a religious freedom issue or is it being twisted into one?
The Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society are pleased to announce that the next Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally will take place on Friday, June 8, in cities and towns across the United States.
The June 8 Stand Up Rally builds on the tremendous momentum created by the first Stand Up Rally on March 23.
On that day, over 63,000 Americans came out in 145 cities coast to coast pushed back against the new mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that requires all employers provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans, even in violation of their consciences.
Now the fight continues with the next Stand Up Rally on Friday, June 8.
Right now the entire Obamacare law, with its oppressive mandates and abortion loopholes, is under review by the United States Supreme Court. A ruling is coming at the end of June.
If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, the June 8 Rally sets the agenda for future health care reform, demanding respect for religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
But if the Court leaves Obamacare intact, the June 8 Rally advances our demand that the HHS Mandate must go.
Come out on June 8, 2012—the 223rd anniversary of the day our Founding Father James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights, with its guarantee of religious freedom, to the First Congress—and stand up for religious freedom!
Abortion isn't a religious issue. It's a rights issue.
It's unfortunate the religious folk don't know their place. The fact that any religious organization should in fact have and maintain the rights according to their practicing religion.
So, if a Christian owner chooses not to do anything at all to aid employees, or operates a "healthcare" network or insurance company, then they can do so.
Do business with those who have your best interest in mind. If a Christian organization chooses not to participate with providing women things they need, then so be it. I suggest they find another place to get insurance, healthcare and possibly find another job.
If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold Obamacare, which I am pretty sure it won't. The "basis" for getting affordable healthcare for citizens isn't going to rest upon the shoulders of these two foolish organization.
The only things that the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society can do is blow smoke up other people's a$$e$. These bigoted organizations will do whatever it takes to force conformity to Christian way of life via G/god's rules and laws.
These people cannot see past themselves to see the damage they justify.
It's a freedom FROM religion issue!
We have the right to live free from religious oppression. Whether they like it or not.
I'm concerned that the first rally was March 23rd. Satanists are superstitious, and believe that certain dates have more power than others. March 19 to March 24 are their favorites. I don't know why, they just like those numbers.
Examples: Skull & Bones 322, Libya bombing start: March 19, Iraq war start: March 19. Most cult "suicides" also happen in those few days of the year.
Here is a long list of 32 and 322 used by wicked groups: http://hubpages.com/t/1b0640
I dislike the mandate, but see it as a temp solution that can serve as the base for a more fair one. I assume you're familiar with the arguments pro-mandate (offer women opportunities even if they can only find work in a Christian job setting, religious freedom, public healthcare) and of course for the against ones (individual rights, big gov, religious freedom) so I won't waste time repeating. But I do think it is a good idea for the gov to provide opportunites for contraception and maybe even abortion to all. I just don't think a mandate on privates is a good way to do it.
It most certainly is a right to life issue since it involves life. The idea that this is a religious issue I am a little bit hesitant to say because all religions do not view life the same way.
Birth is a miracle of life, and am I to think that once the population increases the concern for this miracle of life now becomes diminished?
Before those start with sacrificing the child because of the threat to the mother's life and I forget what the other argument was pertaining to the same general area to justify abortion. A few years back a report came out that those statistics that were presented were grossly overstated.
We would not tolerate someone taking the life of a child in a crib but taking the life of a child inside its mother is somehow supposed to be different? The origin of fetus-that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb
Of course there is this argument that we don't know what it is-OK is it going to be a dog, a cat, a giraffe? I got my money on its going to be a human baby.
Yeah, everything would be okay if everyone who isn't Christian actually took the Christians' interpretation of "right to life".
Too bad, most don't know or understand what a basic "right" is to begin with or how rights are actually obtained, outside their own religious belief.
Like I said previously I'm not certain about religious perspectives regarding this issue but I daresay it's probably a good thing that your parents did not think of abortion the way you do.
An interesting post. The "right to life" organizations are Christian based. It is the only interpretation out there, that people can use to determine "right to life". It's a biased perspective based on Christian interpretation of the bible.
Now you can be certain of that.
The "right to life" isn't and shouldn't be about the unborn at all. The unborn are exactly that, unborn. To apply "right to life" to an unborn is to say that it can make an active choice in being born, which is cannot and doesn't, because the process is automatic.
Life is about choices. You are never going to have only ONE choice to do anything in your life. There's however, one thing that only has one choice without rights and that would be a pregnant lady. If abortion didn't exist, then women would go to the extremes to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy. Thus, creating more damage to the overall of society versus the termination of one human organism. Which is why abortion is legal.
The "right to life" of the mother is what is most important. Her physical, mental and emotional state of mind are the most important thing because she is already a living product, adding to the collective of humankind. Her right to life takes precedence over the unborn.
It is in the best interest of society because to do otherwise is to create ramifications which could theoretically cause humankind to be put into a position which would destroy even more lives than all abortions combined.
"Bias perspective?" When did saving lives become bias?
A religious base only perspective out there I guess that might be nice perceive however in America the law says-The Law says if you harm either the mother or The Baby you will be punished.
Saving lives? You're joking right? Do even comprehend the damage created by saving that one life and forcing other people to live by it? Probably not. No worldview. That's your problem.
Yes, I know what the Law says. There are a lot of LAWS I disagree with.
Well this going to drag on forever so "I disagree with you and you disagree with me so we're even.
Why would it drag out? Because you refuse to identify the person living's right to life over that of a human organism which would eventually turn into a baby.
Your refusal to apply rights properly is the problem. I don't care whether or not you agree or disagree.
I am making it clear that you haven't a clue because you have no worldview. Not to mention, lacking understanding, love, mercy and compassion.
Well, that is certainly a show for all to watch. Thank you for the conversation.
I am not sure I interpreted your comment correctly so I am looking to clarify.
Are you saying that saving a life is not a good thing?
I am talking about the importance of saving the life of the person who is already living versus the unborn(human organism).
You twisting the words.
Yes, saving a life of a person is valuable. But, the oppression of individual rights is what matters and the ramifications if not as it is now.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure. It gives a woman a choice which isn't available otherwise. Being pregnant has only one outcome and it's an automatic system, no choice.
Abortion is legal to give a woman a choice in this aspect of life. It is supported by her "right to life" which takes precedence over the unborn, as it should be.
I noticed you handpicked something you could twist. There's nothing else in my post to dispute.
I was not twisting your words, I'm sorry you took it that way.I said I was not sure I interpreted your comment correctly and that was why I asked for clarification.
I don't know why you decided to go ballistic and then accuse me of handpicking. Is that all you want to do argue with people? did I make a comment on your stance, did I disagree with you, that I put up an ulterior argument? I don't think so.
Are you not smarter than a 5th grader? I mean seriously, you ask for clarification on something which used plenty of words to explain a specific position which cannot be disputed.
As for my post, there wasn't anything arguable in it.
Typical, I don't know why I would expect anything less of you than to continue to act like that. This was your response.
"Saving lives? You're joking right? Do even comprehend the damage created by saving that one life and forcing other people to live by it? Probably not. No worldview."
You said saving live with a question mark. So what's clear about that?
Is it? if I post that somewhere, do you know that means but would you want to ask somebody to know what that means.
Two words is not plenty of words to explain the specific position, Especially when those two words don't even define a position.
As far as your earlier comment, there is plenty to be disputed, I just chose not to. You can't have an intelligent conversation with somebody who gets pissy when you ask for clarification. Enjoy yourself
I don't expect anything of you other than the response you just posted.
Yes, I said saving life with a question mark? It's part and parcel, goes hand in hand, with being dense. The original statement about saving life was completely ignorant, hence my post.
No, Span Star original comment to you about bias was correct. You are free to disagree, but of course you can't do that without attacking. Have fun
I see it as rights issue (for the women who need those rights respected by the government), but I don't see employers' being responsible for the preservation of the particular in rights in question; because on the other side I think there should be some other rights respected that involve the employers' rights. At the same time, I think the government shouldn't factor in religious beliefs into government and should only be involved with not getting in the way of each individual following his own, personal, religious beliefs - not his belief that everyone else ought to go along with his religion.
People can join a protest for their own reasons, of course; but I think if religious-angle people turn it into a religious issue, and think that their numbers will help them accomplish what they want, I think it's likely to backfire on them. (Because stepping on employers' rights to include what they choose in their healthcare plan is one thing, but aiming to make laws, or undo them, based on religious beliefs is a whole other thing.) The religious people just may well muck up what might have otherwise been a viable reason to protest (or other legitimate, non-religion-based, gripes), and what might "fly" better than their argument ever will.
by American View4 years ago
Ernest Istook once said “While even pornography is protected as free speech, the courts have consciously undermined religious speech and freedom of religion for years. ”Is he right, and thoughts?
by Sooner284 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/us/re … odayspaperWhy is this still allowed? If the Catholic Church ever had a doctrine that said African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans could not be...
by weholdthesetruths6 years ago
In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation. ...
by Credence23 years ago
Oh yes, boys and girls, I am back, like a bad penny. I wonder what are conservative poster's positions on this topic is; are they really for freedom of religion or should children be hogtied and forced to participate in...
by Dan Harmon21 months ago
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has issued a statement that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is illegal. “Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further...
by Chabely Valera4 years ago
This is so sad... It just speaks volumes in just that picture.What is societies role in women's sex organs and why does it rate higher than societies role in gun crime? Perfect illustration....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.