Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Back on topic: H.R. 347

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

To be honest, I don't know a lot about Catholicism. And from what little I do know, I actually find it rather confusing.

In many ways, one could posit that the Catholic church is the "purest" form of the Christian church in existence today, pointing to their strict adherence to so much of the ancient tradition which defined the faith in its earliest years and was discarded and renounced during the Reformation Movement of the 16th century.

On the other hand, there are so many aspects of the church which seem humanistic to the point of paganism. Take, for instance, the tradition of praying to various saints, and erecting statues and other talismans of their likeness. In my mind, that runs pretty hard afoul of the Graven Images Rule, which was one of the Big Ten that G-man & Mo got pretty tweaked about back in the day.

And the whole concept of confession and the sale of indulgences is downright anti-scriptural. The Big JC cleared that up pretty well in John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.")



► But more to the point, I just don't know what the actual position of the Church is on this. So while I won't claim to be an authority on the subject, I have done far more than the usual amount of research in preparation for this post (which is why it took me three days to respond.) What I did find were numerous passages which condemn contraception or contraceptive devices in any form. What I did not find were any passages within Catholic doctrine which provide an exception to the above for reasons of medical necessity.

I'll cite a few examples which come directly from Catholic dogma:

Looking outside the official policies of the church, there are what appear to be concurring opinions in the form of scholarly research. For instance, in his 1979 book How the Pope Became Infallible, Catholic historian and theologian August Bernhard Hasler writes:Clearly, Hasler indicates that, from his research, he finds the point of view of the Church to be that contraception IS "evil unto itself", because were the Church to find any other way, it would contradict itself, and this is impossible within the context of an infallible Church.




Now, from a legal perspective, there's some interesting legislation which has occurred in recent years.

The US Department of Health and Human Services already requires that all private insurance companies offer coverage for prescription contraceptives, sterilization, and related patient education and counseling (76 Fed. Reg. 46621). So if Sandra (and her friends) have been denied contraceptive coverage by their insurer, then they are tilting at the wrong windmill. Either they signed up for a healthcare plan which does not include this coverage (remember, the insurer only has to OFFER it- it's up to the purchaser whether to elect to purchase this coverage) or if they did, then they just need to bring a civil suit against the insurer.

Additionally, HHS specifically excludes religious hospitals from the requirement to actually provide any of these services or medications to their patients. In other words, a Catholic hospital (which I would imagine includes the student clinic of a Catholic university) is not required to perform abortions, prescribe or provide contraceptive medications, etc. So if the problem is just that the student clinic won't give them contraceptives, then regardless of the intended use of the medication, this is again fully consistent with the law, and as I have described above, with logic and reason (if one assumes the Catholic Church to be logical and reasonable.)


I think that's fair.





You know what, you're absolutely correct.

I'll admit that I've found this a very stimulating discussion, and have been taking it in directions which are slightly tangential to the main point, which required in some places a rather liberal interpretation of the facts.


And so I fully concede to your argument here.








In the spirit of humorous discourse, however, I will posit the following:

Sandra (and friends) find themselves in a position which requires, at most, a civil suit against one particular insurance company to resolve. There is no need for her to be involving Congress, as they (by way of HHS) have already ruled in her favor a couple of years ago. As such, the only logical explanation for her behavior is that she wishes to exploit Congress for her own personal aggrandizement (eg: to make a name for herself). As such, I believe that she meets the common standard of an "Attention Wh0re."

So Mr. Limbaugh was merely shortening for the sake of brevity. He should have referred to her as an "Attention Prostitute", and by shortening this to simply "Prostitute", he allowed for misinterpretation out of context.





Shifting gears here, I am slightly dismayed by how Rule 34 has seemingly thus far failed to hold true, so in the spirit of Rule 35, I have created the following original works:






Finally, a mostly unrelated observation that, sometimes, Google Images is funny all by itself. I came across this while searching for "Sandra Fluke", and apart from cropping, I have not edited or modified this screenshot in any way:

RattleTrap

Wow, looking at my last post I'm inclined to believe I should not be allowed near a keyboard whilst drinking. I know I'm snarky, but...

I'll address a couple of your points in earnest.
As is Ms. Sandra Fluke.
Or do you not see it this way because you agree with her?

We ask Gov't to hang a sword over another's head, we give them authority to hang one over our head on another's behalf.

Such is the nature of human beings and the warning of George Orwell.

I do not believe Sandra to be so much 'smart' as others here have made point of, *cough*Joe *cough*, but she does have loads of blind ambition.
While she's demonstrated she has absolutely no business in law even to the point of facilitating arbitration of grade-school recess-yard arguments, she looks to have a stellar career in marketing or proctology if for no other reason than her uncanny ability to pull things out of her ***.

Or politics...

Then there's this, sent to me by my darling girlfriend who understands my sense of humor...


Many of you have likely seen the heart rending testimony of Ms.
Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University, before a
Congressional Committee this week. She was lamenting that no one
would subsidize her birth control expenses, which she claimed would
amount to $3000 during her three years in law school. After
watching Ms. Fluke describe her desperate situation I set to
thinking of ways to help her out of her crisis.
First, of course I had to pass through the grieving period I
experienced after hearing of her inhumane treatment at the hands
of the Georgetown administration and our Government – what
cruelty lurks in the heart of men that they would leave this poor
woman to fend for herself when all she wanted to do was get laid
seven times a day (see my analysis below).

Once I recovered from my grief, I set to thinking about ways to
help this poor girl. Being a Physicist, I sat down with my
calculator and worked through some numbers. Ms. Fluke’s expense
account for birth control (aka sexual entertainment) was claimed to
be $3000 for three years at law school. Let’s presume that as an
educated woman she wants to be doubly safe and uses both birth
control pills to prevent pregnancy and condoms to prevent STD
(sexually transmitted disease).

Using the Wal-Mart cost for birth control pills of $9 per month,
her birth control pills will cost her $324 for her entire law
school career (if you can call it a career – I can think of other
names). This leaves only $2676 for her condoms.

I went to Amazon.com, and found quality condoms available for 33
cents each in packages of 60 condoms each. This cost includes tax
and shipping. Since she has $2676 for her 33 cent condoms, she will
be buying 8109 condoms during her law school “career”.

To use her 8109 condoms (remember, $3000 was Ms. Flukes’ own
number) she would have to have sex 7 times a day. This number
presumes that she has sex ten times a day on Sundays when she has
more free time.
So, having worked through these numbers, I have some suggestions
for Ms. Fluke to help her work through her crisis:

1. Find dates who are gentlemanly enough to either provide
their own condoms, or at least split the cost with her. Selection
criteria is the key to this one.
2. Spend more time studying. Even seven “quickies” a day will
seriously cut into quality study time. This would not only save
money but would improve her education as well.
3. Seek funding from the EPA from one of their Wetlands
Protection programs – surely Ms. Flukes’ nether regions would
qualify as wetlands given sex seven times a day.

Just trying to help out a starving student.
By the way, the average starting salary of new Georgetown Law
School graduates is $160,000 a year, FYI.

Booth R. Myers, PhD

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

H.r. 347

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

H.r. 347 .

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

H.r. 347 ..

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

H.r. 347 ...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

H.r. 347 ....

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

The American Civil Liberties Union warns against H.R. 347. Nevertheless, the ACLU observes, “It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971.”

Section 1752 of title 18 in the United States Code is entitled “Restricted Building or Grounds.” This 1971 bill was intended to prevent assassination, kidnapping, or other attempts to harm the political elite, especially the president. The section of title 18 that immediately precedes it, section 1751, is entitled “Presidential and Presidential Staff Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault; Penalties.” Thus, section 1752 restricts people from entering or blocking access to or from public areas that have been cordoned off by the Secret Service for the protection of a person (or for a “special event of national significance,” which could range from the Olympics to a political convention). The penalty for violating section 1752 includes a possible one-year jail term; if a “dangerous weapon” is involved, then the jail term rises to a possible ten years.
(source)


We now return to our regularly scheduled debauchery.


First off, is it just me, or is there a sort of "Sigourney Weaver in Aliens" vibe here?





And then, an illustrated jocularity:





To round out the discussion, this is perhaps the best concise explanation I have yet seen about how liberals and the media interact (and bear in mind my well-known opinion vis-a-vis the concept of "The Media" vs. "Political Agenda"):

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i already posted that image....maybe in the other thread.

anways, the issue with the law is that it expands the law by changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" with respect to the mental state required to be charged with a crime.

RattleTrap

HR 347: H.r. 347 H.r. 347 H.r. ad infinitum...
Not unlike Brain's previous posts, redundancy in law, or just busy-work?
I agree with the ACLU's assessment as posted by Joe above.



Are they trying to redefine intent?

It was un-necessary to continue to include 'will' because they know 'The People' no longer have any...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

joe, this came from your same page and this is the issue i have with it:

"H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law. To be sure, this is of concern to the ACLU. We will monitor the implementation of H.R. 347 for any abuse or misuse.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections.

"

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyl...-school-tests/

Don't offend me, bro.

RattleTrap

Wow.
Tests in 2021:
Sign your name at the top of the page and turn it in.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

To be fair, it's probably the only reasonable thing to do when faced with a legion of "citizens" who are weak-minded, easily offended, and have nothing better to do with their time than file frivolous lawsuits.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

i think i read about that once in 1984.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

now you cant go on bigfoot hunts:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29...r-lack-permit/

RattleTrap

You can, just can't take paying 'customers' along. He needs to become a 'non-profit' and take 'donations'. 'We worship the Yeti...'

Where do people come up with these ideas?!? I mean, 500 USD for a daytrip to 'find' bigfoot?
And there are people willing to pay for this?!?
I've so obviously been doing it wrong...

Bigfoot ain't up there now anyway. He's here on vacation. I seen him by the pool drinkin' peach-pomegranate margaritas...

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Nah, that's Pusha.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)