bbauska wrote:Answer enough for you. I hope I made it as simply clear as you needed.

Here, for example, is Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, describing a nightmare of monstrous cruelty that he imagines is now taking place in the Netherlands:

“In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly,” Santorum said. “And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — 10 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”

The happy truth, of course, is that this is all complete nonsense. Nothing like this is happening in the Netherlands. No such bracelets exist. Santorum’s nightmare is entirely false — it’s a fabricated delusion based on a fantasy apparently invented out of whole cloth by the Louisiana Right to Life Federation.

In 2001, The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia, setting forth a complex process. The law, which went into effect a year later, codified a practice that has been unofficially tolerated for many years.

Under the Dutch law, a doctor must diagnose the illness as incurable and the patient must have full control of his or her mental faculties. The patient must voluntarily and repeatedly request the procedure, and another doctor must provide a written opinion agreeing with the diagnosis. After the death, a commission made up of a doctor, a jurist and an ethical expert also are required to verify that the requirements for euthanasia have been met.

Late last year, in the first such case, a 64-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer’s disease was euthanized, on the strength of her insisting for years that she wanted the procedure to be done.

Nevertheless, the statistics show it is still a relatively uncommon form of death. In 2010, the number of euthanasia cases reported to one of five special commissions was 3,136, according to their annual report. This was a 19 percent increase over 2009, but “this amounts to 2.3 percent of all 136,058 deaths in the Netherlands in 2010,” said Carla Bundy, spokeswoman for the Dutch embassy in Washington.

At the time of the annual report, the commissions had been able to reach conclusions in 2,667 euthanasia notifications reported to the agency and found only nine in which “the physician had not acted in accordance with the due care criteria,” the annual report said. More than 80 percent of the patients were suffering from cancer; almost 80 percent died at home.

A 2005 study by the New England Journal of Medicine found only a minimal number of the cases — 0.4 percent — in which there was an ending of life without explicit request by the patient. The study concluded the rate had actually been cut in half since the euthanasia law was passed.

Just because an employer chooses to not pay for something, does not mean it is removing access.

bbauska wrote:I have already disagreed with you on this. The employer must have the choice (a strange word to those on the left, I know...) to not provide a morally based service. The employer does NOT have the choice to terminate employment based upon an employee using these services on their own time. Just like an employer cannot make a decision for an employee not on the company clock, an employee cannot make a decision for the employer when off the company clock either.

You cannot have it both ways.

By the way, still waiting for the evidence of the Catholic Church precluding access to ANY birth control services at any non-Catholic entity. I don't think that will be forthcoming, but you may surprise me.

The employer must have the choice (a strange word to those on the left, I know...) to not provide a morally based service.

bbauska wrote:98% of Catholic women exercise free choice when it comes to their birth control decisions according to your statistic (which I have not verified). The other 2%, I assume, do not use birth control services, and that would be their choice as well.

Still waiting for an example of an employer making prohibiting access to birth control services.

Yes, Individuals have free choice. They can go to Planned Parenthood, free clinics, their own doctor for goodness sake! I not only disagree with the Government making moral choices for employers based on religious grounds, but financial. To use your analogy: The Government edict passed down to employers (remember corporations are people too?) is a moral choice made with the consequences are borne by others.

bbauska wrote:Yes, Danivon. IF the insurance provided through work covers it. Sounds like you understand the choice the employer is making. "IF" denotes two or more options, therefore a choice.

bbauska wrote:The EEOC disagreement is based upon the constitutionality of ANYONE being required to purchase/provide insurance at the government's edict.

I would much rather have all employers not provide insurance, and the extra money going to the employee to use as they see fit. Hmmm, I bet that would work for Social Security as well.