Jesus, Inc.

[karrie]

Your 'right' to make medical choices?... Sure, but if that medical system uses money to transact, then it is dependent on the capacity to pay, which goes to a corps right to conduct business in any manner they see fit... On this note, I always thought that it was the decision of a medical professional to make the decisions on the course(s) of action to take - not the patient.

Yes, the right to make medical choices. Under Canadian law, it's also known as the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Has no one ever taught you that you have a say in your medical care? Your doctor can't MAKE you take medications, they can't dictate the course of action, unless you are declared incompetent.


As to your assertion that it's dependent on capacity to pay.... they're claiming religious freedom of a corporation, not lack of ability to afford it.

 

[Spade]

Calling all Rebels Chris Hedges pt 1 - YouTube

Calling all Rebels Chris Hedges pt. 2 - YouTube

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/opinion/greenhouse-doesnt-eat-doesnt-pray-and-doesnt-love.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131128&_r=0
As one wag asked, "Can corporations go to heaven?"
My question: They can go to Hell!?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Sit down, take a deep breath and think about what you just said. You're comparing excluding contraceptives with cancer treatments? Really?

Did you miss the part about OB/GYN care?

Of course not, you're not stupid.

The issue here is whether corporate "personhood" extends to corporations having religious beliefs, which is to my mind pretty funny.

But don't get me wrong. I think anybody, and any organisation, should be free to exclude anybody for any reason at all. Because Jim Crow is fun and corporations are people.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes, the right to make medical choices. Under Canadian law, it's also known as the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Has no one ever taught you that you have a say in your medical care? Your doctor can't MAKE you take medications, they can't dictate the course of action, unless you are declared incompetent.


As to your assertion that it's dependent on capacity to pay.... they're claiming religious freedom of a corporation, not lack of ability to afford it.

You need to draw the line between contraception and women's health. You might also do well to understand that the 'right to life, liberty, and security of person' is not a statement that guarantees payment for healthcare (regardless of gender).

In terms of this example of a corporation's religious freedoms. why not? There is no mandate/legislation that dictates secularization, so who says they can't have a religious 'identity'?

An by the way; as long as consideration is exchanged for medical services, consultations, medications and/or supplies; affordability is exactly what it comes down to

The issue here is whether corporate "personhood" extends to corporations having religious beliefs, which is to my mind pretty funny.

Ever read the Mission Statement published by many/most corps?

 

[petros]

It's never going to happen.