Just because you claim it not as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.
No, it's really not evidence. It doesn't mention CM. It cites to a worker survey from a decade ago. And it defines terms. That's not evidence of favoritism in dealings with CM.
The fact that favoritism is "always a complaint in government service" is not evidence of favoritism in dealings with CM. The study you cite is about employees who think that government departments play favorites in their promotion practices, not that the Dept. of Energy plays favorites in its dealings with outside businesses. It's a huge leap for you to say that one survey citing worker complaints of favoritism means that all of government is acting out of favoritism. That would be like me saying that because I know a conservative who once made a racist joke, all conservatives must be racists. Logic doesn't support that kind of an argument.
You did not show a pattern. One instance is not a pattern. You pointed to one instance where a campaign contributor got funding. How many loan applications were there, how many were granted, and how many of those were campaign contributors? Show a pattern.
Now, you have cited a news investigation that questions whether there is favoritism in government lending practices. So there's a question as to whether there is favoritism. But a question that there has been favoritism is not proof of favoritism, and it's certainly not proof of favoritism in dealings with CM. You've got evidence to raise the question, but it doesn't prove your point.
Your SCU stuff wasn't evidence of favoritism, it was just a definition of various kinds of favoritism (and a pretty good one) and an assertion that favoritism is always a problem in governments. That doesn't provide any evidence for whether the CM loan is an instance of favoritism.
Really - show me a pattern here, and I'll agree that maybe it smells like a rat. You clearly try to stay informed on the topic of government lending. You've got one example where a contributor got funding and a non-contributor didn't, but absent the hard evidence of favoritism (like there's some big news expose with government documents and I just don't know about it), you're going to have to provide enough evidence that I can infer that this is an instance of favoritism. So can you show a pattern?
Actually, I don't think that the comment about the quality of debate is elitism. It's not elitism to say that a sophisticated level of debate involves people who are educated on the issues presenting well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence, which is what I am used to in debating, and which sadly is not something I see much of 'round here. Unless it is "elitism" to say wow, you guys can't present a well-reasoned argument worth a sh!t, nor can you even be bothered to read one. I guess that does give me some insight into why conservatives are so easily led around like sheeple, though. (Was that elitist of me?)
Right, but what I'm saying is that you haven't presented any evidence that this particular instance is an example of government favoritism. All you've presented is evidence that the folks who aren't getting $310 mil are complaining of favoritism.
I'm not asking you to produce impossible evidence, just to present some evidence. Is it out there? Point me at it.
You say that favoritism is always something of a problem in government, ok, but again that's neither here nor there when it comes to this particular example of the CM loan.
You say it's favoritism; I'm just saying ok, show me evidence of that.
No, I think it's just that I'm used to a much more sophisticated level of debate, where the debaters are highly educated individuals who research the topics of debate and present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence; whereas a large percentage of the people here just like to rant.
Not at all. I welcome you to read it. I have given the subject serious consideration and responded to it in the hopes that others would do likewise because that it what makes debate interesting. Please, by all means give a well-reasoned rebuttal.
You did. And I have presented evidence that your point is debatable. You are welcome to read it and to argue against it. Until that point, since you have asserted that you have no intention of doing so, you have conceded the debate. Sorry, but that's how debating works.
No, you conceded, which means you lost. You said, in effect, "I am not going to rebut any of your arguments." That means you conceded, you lose.
I find it very immature that you would get on a debate site and then refuse to read the arguments made by other debaters. Why would you even be here if you are not interested in participating in debate? I have made an argument, and you have conceded; but if you would like to re-join the debate, the burden is now on you to rebut my arguments.
then the definition of government is beyond your understanding
That would be sort of surprising, because I have a law degree from a top-tier school.
You did proceed to state your point about government budgets much more clearly, though, so now your assertion is much more comprehensible. I will agree that government budgets are "political" in the sense of "pertaining to the body politic." That's neither here nor there on the issue of government favoritism, though.
You have also presented a bit of evidence, which is that Solyandra contributed to the Obama campaign whereas CM didn't. That's potentially relevant, but it's not enough to show me that the government acted with favoritism. Can you show a pattern of loan approval to campaign donors, or evidence of conversations about a secret "deal" between Solyandra and any government official? One incident where a campaign donor got a loan, plus one incident where a non-donor didn't, isn't enough to show that there's government favoritism at work.
OK. What you've really got there is one source, because they all cite to this new Arthur Brooks book as the basis of the assertion that conservatives give more to charity. Still, ok, seems to be a valid enough source. (Not that I necessarily agree with Brooks' conclusions, mind you.) It supports your assertion that "conservatives give more to charity." It does not support your assertion that "liberals want freebies," so you still need to present evidence on that point.
But let's look at the point you have presented evidence to support, which is that conservatives give more to charities. There are a number of relevant talking points about Brooks' conclusions, like (a) what charities are these folks giving to, (b) what exactly constitutes "charitable giving," and (c) what's the motive for it.
Notably, the judge who reviewed the book observes that "The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism . . . is religion." So I think it is very relevant to inquire what percentage of charitable giving was attached to a religiously-sponsored charity, and most especially which of those charities also has a political agenda. It would appear from your sources and mine (cited below) that a substantial amount -- although by no means all -- of conservative charitable giving is attached to religious causes. (I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing -- only that it speaks to both the motives for charitable giving, and the likely recipients of conservative largesse.)
"Consider a typical family living in Searcy, Arkansas . . . The kids go to camp run by the Church, and they play basketball every day after school on the courts behind the Church. The mom is a member of a Church book club. The dad goes there to hear lectures on one or another topic. Part of family entertainment includes Church fairs, Church-sponsored trips to Little Rock to watch the Arkansas Travelers minor league ball team or up to Fayetteville to watch of the U of Arkansas Hogs play football, the occasional Church play, and of course, Sunday services. From what I can tell, when they pony up money to the Church for each of these activities, they’re engaging in tax deductible charity. Now, consider a family of Godless heathens in pagan Los Angeles. The kids play soccer in some league… league fees are not tax deductible, and not charity. The mom is a member of a book club… none of those costs are considered charity. The dad shows up at the occasional lecture series for one or another local university… nothing charity related here. And going to Disneyland, watching the Galaxy or the Dodgers or the Lakers, or going to the beach are not considered to be Charity." (Angry Bear blog, http://www.angrybearblog.com/2006/12/
So, it bears considering just where those "charitable donations" are going and what they're going for. In the example above, what Brooks considers "charitable giving" could be just as aptly be described as "family entertainment."
"When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires . . . if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes." (N. Kristof, New York Times op-ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/
Okay. So Brooks argues that even when religious giving is excluded, liberals give more in total dollars than conservatives, but conservatives give a higher percentage of their income than liberals do. (If that's true, then the average income of a liberal household would have to be higher than that of a conservative household, or else the math wouldn't work. I'm not entirely certain that census data would back that up, and I've seen a few sources that criticize Brooks' statistical data -- particularly on this point.)
It might also be relevant here to consider how giving relates to wealth, rather than percentage of income. For example, we might assume that most charitable giving comes out of the higher income brackets, because they've got more cash. And no doubt if we're talking about forking over a few million to set up some sort of foundation, that's true. But 20/20 suggests that the stronger correlation with giving isn't party politics, it's poverty. The 20/20 report says that poorer Americans give more because they have a personal understanding of what it's like to be in need. (J. Stossel and K. Kendall for ABC's 20/20, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/
When we think about this correlation, it's probably not surprising. The rich can afford to give. The lower income classes know what it's like to be really in need, and many of them don't have what we would think of as middle-class aspirations. (For example, a large number of poorer Americans don't expect to ever buy a house, so that goal isn't part of their budgeting. ) The middle class is also trying to budget for the future, which means devoting income to future needs (like planning for mortgage payments, maintaining a credit rating, getting a retirement plan, putting aside money for the kids' college and orthodontics and whatnot, etc.) The poor don't have the option of budgeting for the future because there's just no money for that sort of thing, and for people who have been in the lower-income brackets for their whole lives, that type of future budgeting might not even be a part of how they think about money because that's just not something that the people they know ever do. So we are likely talking about a middle class that -- especially in the current economy -- doesn't perceive itself as having "leftover" money for charitable giving. (I'm not saying that's a correct analysis or that it's a morally "right" position, just that it's probably what's going on.) So with that in mind, it's also worth asking how conservative and liberal views correlate to income class. If the answer is that conservatives tend to be mostly in the top and bottom classes, and liberals in the middle class, then it's likely that the factors relevant to charitable giving have a lot less to do with party politics than with perceived economic pressures on the different income classes, particularly in the current crummy economy.
It's also relevant to ask if there is an urban/rural correlation with charitable giving, especially on the issue of volunteering. As a general rule, urban areas tend to be more liberal and rural areas tend to be more conservative. But what Brooks has not told us is how those two environments differ in terms of motives and opportunities for charitable giving and volunteering. Take, for example, a town of 700 people where the annual Fireman's Fund drive is a huge community deal. That's not because these are 700 people who are unusually charitable and civic-minded. It's because these are 700 people who are bored. Also, there may be a stronger incentive to donate time or money because there is a stronger sense of community belonging and participation. If everybody shows up for the Fireman's Fund carnival, and everybody has a friend or a relative who works for the Fire Department, then there's a strong personal incentive to give your time and money. People are aware of volunteer activities because there's a lot of local attention on the event and a lot of community participation. So much like the folks in Searcy, Arkansas whose main entertainments are church-related, in this case the main entertainments are civic-related. Again, that's not at all a bad thing, but it is definitely relevant to the questions of why people give to charities and what charities they give to.
Psychology Today also expounds on the point that charitable giving does not necessarily correlate directly to "altruism."
"Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes." (S. Kanazawa, Psychology Today - The Scientific Fundamentalist, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/
It is also worth considering that many altrusitic activities fall, as one writer puts it, "below the radar":
"[M]any forms of charity fall below the radar, especially when they are the types of activities more likely to be engaged in by city dwellers. I am kind of reluctant to discuss myself in this context, but here goes… every morning, I spend 30 minutes doing some rounds feeding a few colonies of feral cats. It doesn’t make me Mother Teresa, but I feel good doing it . . . I mention this [because] As far as the government is concerned, most people who feed stray animals are not engaging in charity… there is no write-off occurring." (Angry Bear blog, http://www.angrybearblog.com/2006/12/
This brings up another point worth addressing -- write-offs. If you give to a recognized 501(c)(3) charity, you can get a tax write-off. If you buy breakfast for the homeless guy on the corner -- no write-off. Now, I am not going to point a finger at either party here, but I am confident that a significant amount of high-dollar charitable donations by individuals and businesses -- regardless of the party they back -- is done on the advice of a tax analyst. So this is also a significant issue to consider in looking at why people are giving to charities and what charities they're giving to.
Brooks' ultimate analysis is this: the religious right gives more, but the reason for this revolves around religion, not political ideology. The relatively large religious right and fairly small religious left are both far more "charitable" than secularists from either political side. The most "uncharitable" group is conservatives who are also secularists.
With these things in mind, while you do have one source that argues that conservatives give more to charities, I am not at all certain that it speaks either way to the question of whether either party is willing to "share" or refusing to "admit" to such a refusal. It seems to me that your evidence is more demonstrative of a difference in conservative and liberal lifestyles than it is of a difference in willingness to "share."
Or maybe it simply begs the question: share with whom?
Government is an political entity, so it stands as proof of an political agenda.
That doesn't make any sense. The existence of government is not proof of a political "agenda" per se -- it's just proof of the existence of government. If what you mean to say is "government exists, and therefore it must be doing something" -- again, well duh.
Loans to Solyandra are not the issue you posted for debate here, and yelling "Solyandra" is not proof of government favoritism. You will now have to show that the Department of Energy did act out of favoritism (and not just plain poor judgment) in its loans to Solyandra, as well as in the loans it denied to Carbon Motors, in order to support your arguments. Thus far you have done neither.
And of course the CEO is "outraged." That's not evidence of favoritism either. That's the CEO making accusations of favoritism because he doesn't get $310 million in government money. So that is not evidence of anything other than a P.O.ed CEO.
You still have no evidence. But, at least you did apparently read a minimum of one sentence out of the article you pointed to.
You really didn't read it, did you?
Read the things you cite to before you post. You just look like an idiot otherwise.
"The government decides who wins and who loses"? We're talking about a loan from the Department of Energy, so yeah, I'd imagine that the Department of Energy does decide who can and can't have the Department's money. Um -- duh.
You must actually provide some evidence that the government acted out of favoritism to prove your point. So far, the only source you have says that the government refused the loan because they don't think it's likely to get paid back. Find some evidence to support your argument. So far you have presented no evidence -- you're just ranting.
I'm not sure you even read the article you're complaining about.
This is a private auto manufacturer that wants a $310 million government loan to build a police car that, according to one authority quoted in the Fox News article linked to the one you cited up-top, "makes no sense" and probably isn't a good use of taxpayer money in the first place. What's more, according to the source you cited, the big reason they didn't get the loan is that the government doesn't think there's a "reasonable chance" that the auto manufacturer would ever pay back the loan.
From the article you referred us all to:
"When Energy Secretary Steven Chu visited Indianapolis on Monday, he told reporters that the department wanted to go forward with the loan but that it has 'a responsibility to the taxpayers and they need to make sure it’s written in the statute that there's a reasonable chance of repayment.'"
So how is it "crony capitalism" when the government decides not to approve a $310 million dollar loan to a private auto manufacturer, in the middle of the worst recession in decades, because the government thinks there should be at least a "reasonable chance" that the loan will get repaid?
Left-wingers want to force everyone to pay for stuff that they believe is right. right wingers do too, but not as much.
I guess that explains the overwhelming public support for the last administration's enormous military expenditures. Oh, wait...
Hinduism is polytheistic. I suppose that one could argue that, with the Trinity, Christianity is also polytheistic, but as far as I am concerned your point is invalidated by that fact.
Okay. It is fair to require a greater similarity between the faiths. It does seem as though that argument would at least have the effect of collapsing individual faiths into broader categories, though, like "all monotheisms are the same" or "all polytheisms are the same."
aliens worshiping what is comparable to a specific apparently earth-based religion could conceivably add credence in the minds of some.
Okay, I'll go with that. So let's say we encounter these hypothetical aliens, and we translate their holy book, and it is a very recognizable Bible -- not just in its broad outlines, but like chapter-and-verse type of recognizable. It does involve events that take place on another planet (Earth), and has the exact same stories and parables that we would recognize from the Bible. Would I convert?
Well, no, but then I am a big ol' pagan, so I would probably just accept this as possible evidence that the Christian trinity-god is among the many gods that exist. I would still not be convinced that it's is the only god or that it's a god I'm interested in worshiping. Granted, the original question was specifically posed to atheists, so I'm really not of much help on that point.
If providing contraceptives helps insurers lower costs, why would the government need to tell the insurance company to provide it?
First, because some businesses do dumb stuff. Surely you must realize that.
Next, because insurers don't all bear those costs equally. If the consequence of not providing contraceptives is a covered medical cost, the insurer is gonna eat it. If it's something else, somebody else is gonna eat it -- most likely either another insurer or the taxpayers.
Third, because government has an interest in correcting the problem now. While the overall trend among insurance companies has been towards providing contraceptive coverage, and while "market forces" might eventually act on all insurers to induce them to provide more comprehensive contraceptive coverage, the economic and social costs of waiting for the market to self-correct are enormous. If the house is on fire, you don't wait for water to go on sale.
...
We have taken Darwinism out of society
"Darwinism" has never had a proper place in social science theory. To the extent that "Social Darwinism" has been used as a label for different social philosophies, some of its most common applications have included the ideologies of the 19th and 20th century fascists, that of the eugenics movement, and the ethos of racial and cultural imperialism.
Really, man, if you don't know what something is, please review the Wikipedia entry on it before you post about it. You will find the Wikipedia entry on "Social Darwinism" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
...
People feel entitled to other people's money. They think the world owes them.
First and foremost, I'd like you to explain how that statement relates at all to the topic of contraception coverage.
Next, since you object so strenuously to "entitlements," I would like you to itemize each and every instance in which you or your family have availed yourself of an "entitlement" to "other people's money" and I would like you to justify each occurrence.
Please begin by justifying each and every occurrence in which you or your family has used a government program to avail yourselves of "other people's money." This would include the purchase of any food or other good containing any subsidized agricultural products (corn, soy, wheat, rice, meat); the use of any subsidized commercial or industrial product (gas and oil); the use of any government-underwritten service (student loans, home loans, subsidized housing, student housing); the use of any government-funded service (roads, public schools and state universities, libraries, police and fire, post office, public transportation, trash pick-up); any commerce you have transacted with any business or other entity that has received government funds or special legal treatment in order to sustain itself in the market (non-exhaustive list includes any purchase of automobiles or automobile components, any use of airlines or railroads, and any transaction with any of the following: Citigroup/Citicorp, Bank of America, Merrill-Lynch, Chase-Manhattan/Bear-Sterns, AIG/Farmer's Insurance/21st Century Insurance, and any home or business utility provider such as electric, gas, and water/sewage); the receipt of any government benefit (social security, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, VA benefits); and any and all claims you have ever made to a tax credit that is part of an entitlement program (earned income tax credit, child tax credit, education tax credit).
Next, I would like you to justify each and every occurrence in which you or your family has used a private company such as an insurer to in order to take "other people's money" for yourself. Please justify the use of monies collected from other people's premiums to provide pay-outs on each of your claims, and also justify the risk you created of a raise to other people's premiums by filing insurance claims. This would include any and all instances in which you have made use of health insurance, car insurance, homeowner's or renter's insurance, fire insurance, and any other insurance or risk-management pool in which you have participated.
Now, I would like you to present your strategy for providing for the needs of yourself and your family absent any such entitlements to other people's money. Please identify, by specific percentage amount or dollar range, the estimated cost increase that you would incur in each of the following categories were it not for your use of "other people's money," and explain how you will pay for these increases: food, gasoline, housing, utility services, transportation/travel, education, health care. Be sure to also explain how your family will pay for the health care and retirement living needs of aging parents or grandparents.
I'm not being facetious. I really want you to do this stuff -- even if you don't post it in full. I want you to explain exactly how your personal budget is impacted by "entitlements" and exactly how it would change if those "entitlements" were gone, and how that change is an improvement.
In other words, I'd like you to make argument and back it up. Because frankly, if you can't do that, you're just talking out of your keister.
...
Look, no offense here, but so far you haven't given me any indication that you have any idea at all what you're talking about. You've just spouted a bunch of buzzwords that you heard on TV, and I don't think you even know what most of them mean. This is supposed to be a debate forum. Why don't you try making an argument -- like one with major premises and supporting evidence leading to a conclusion? Better yet, why not try making an argument for or against the issue you presented in this forum -- the contraception coverage requirement?
If you think that utilizing health insurance coverage is a failure to stand "on your own two feet," then the answer for you is very simple -- don't buy health insurance.
So is that really what you believe -- that you are failing to stand on your own two feet every time your insurance pays for a percentage of your pap smear, your mammogram, your antibiotics, your annual physical, your blood culture, your emergency medical procedure, etc.? Because "you can't have it both ways, honey."
1. My primary "goal" in posting on this thread has been to participate in debate about the TOPIC, which is the contraception coverage requirement. My secondary goal has been to provide some discussion of how Constitutional law applies to the issue of contraception coverage requirements whenever you respond to one of my posts with an incorrect assertion on that subject. I didn't really expect to change your mind, especially given that you led off by noting that you hadn't actually bothered to read my argument and that you didn't really give a crap about the arguments for and against contraception coverage anyway.
...
2. As for the whole rest of your first paragraph, that's all ducky for you, but none of those things are the debate topic that you posted here. If you'd like to debate any or all of those issues, you are entirely welcome to create new debate threads for each of them (and frankly I'd be interested to see if you even know what "Obamacare" does), but those things aren't the topic of this debate. The topic (and you should know it; you posted it) is the contraception coverage requirement.
...
3. Your second paragraph is a rather remarkable combination of the straw man fallacy, the appeal to popularity, and plain old brute force. The topic isn't whether government should "get in the business of telling insurance companies how to run their business." The topic is the much more narrow issue of whether insurance companies should be required to provide contraception coverage, and even more specifically whether they should be required to provide it to individuals insured under a plan offered by a school or hospital that is affiliated with a religion.
Also, claiming that your friends agree with you (on a straw man position) has nothing at all to do with whether or not your arguments are logically sound or rhetorically persuasive.
As for the bit about "I have the power" . . . c'mon, seriously? What are you, She-Ra? I thought this was a site for debate. Please show me that you're better and more intelligent than that. Besides, the ability to delete a debate that you posted from this site does not mean that you "own" it or that you have any particular power. It merely means that the site administrators have set up the site so that whoever creates a given debate page can also delete it. You have the exact same amount of "power" as any other site user. Also, the site TOS says that all posted user content is under a Creative Commons license that entitles them (and anyone else) to use and/or reproduce user content for any lawful purpose. So no, you actually don't "own" this thread.
...
4. "Faith-based institution" is neither legally nor factually the same as "church." Hospitals aren't churches. Schools aren't churches. Soup kitchens aren't churches. Thrift stores aren't churches. Churches are churches. That's really not hard to understand. As my original post explains, there is a difference between an organization with a religious affiliation and one with a religious mission. Organizations with a religious mission, like churches and synagogues, are exempt from a number of provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including those that deal with contraception. Organizations with a religious affiliation, like Catholic or Jewish hospitals, are not exempt. This is because they aren't "churches," they're businesses. Their primary mission isn't to spread a religion or celebrate religious rituals; their primary mission is to provide patient care. You don't get special treatment under the law for being affiliated with a church, or agreeing with a church, or being a member of a church, or going to church, or having the same name as a church. You get special treatment for being a church.
Okay -- what's interesting to me is that I think you just accidentally disemboweled the whole topic.
Try this word game:
You are assuming that, if Hindus who worship the "Christian" God exist, the Hindus who worship the "Christian" God are completely without any form of cultural exchange granted them by whatever may pose as their Bible. Also, you assume that . . . Jesus mayn't have lived in other countries as well.
Would this line of logic not be every bit as valid in arguing that Krishna is Jesus and the Bhagavad-Gita is a valid alternative "Bible," or that Buddha is Jesus and the teachings of the Buddha are a valid alternative "Bible"? Because now it seems like the argument has been boiled down to "assuming all gods are the same God, if we discovered God-fearing aliens, would you be persuaded to believe in a god?"
Hmmm . . . let's refine the hypothetical a bit. Let's assume that the alien holy book has a whole lot of very definite parallels to the Bible. Let's assume it's monotheistic; it has a creation-and-fall story like Genesis; it's got a bad-tempered god who spends a lot of early alien history doing stuff like ordering his followers about from behind a flaming shrubbery and raining small alien amphibians down on folks he doesn't like; it's got a redeemer-child-of-the-god who sacrifices him/her/it self for the redemption of alien-kind and then rises from the dead; it's got an apocalypse story where believers are rewarded and nonbelievers are cast into a fiery torment. Would that convince me to convert to Christianity?
Nope.
It would suggest that this alien civilization might have once had a lot of interesting cultural parallels with ancient Mesopotamia and/or middle-ages Europe that led to the development and spread of a similar mythology. It might suggest that certain broadly-defined mental strategies for assigning "meaning" to experiences through myth-making are universal and necessary to the evolution of sentience, or at least to some "stage" in the evolution of sentience. It would certainly suggest that these hypothetical aliens are surprisingly un-alien in their thinking and their way of life if they conceptualize the universe in a way that would enable them to develop a religious mythology that parallels one from Earth. But no, it wouldn't persuade me to convert.
(And in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not an atheist. I just thought the discussion was interesting.)
It is most assuredly empowered to regulate commerce among the states
YES!!! But a religious organization that is solely based in one state does NOT fall under that clause.
1) Health care providers and insurers are not "religious organizations"; and
2) A business does not have to operate in multiple states to affect commerce "among the states" in such a way that Congress can successfully invoke the Commerce Clause to regulate it. As an example, Congress has successfully invoked the Commerce Clause as its authority for prohibiting people from growing dope in their homes for 100% personal use -- because that affects local dope prices, which affects state dope prices, which affects interstate dope prices, which affects commerce among the states. (Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).) The Commerce Clause is that far-reaching.
You will also find plenty of decisional law that says Congress can set nearly any conditions it pleases on the receipt of federal funding.
YES!!! Which is why those religious organizations should get off federal funding.
1) Health care providers and insurers are not "religious organizations"; and
2) That's not the topic of debate in this forum, but by all means feel free to create another debate concerning the question of whether health care providers should refuse to take Medicare and Medicaid. (I can tell you right now that most health care providers would answer "good God no; we'd go belly-up if we didn't take it.")
And it's really not "YOUR" debate per se
Oh really? ;) Would you like to put that to the test? How about I delete it? That ought to prove who's debate it is ;)
That actually wouldn't prove anything -- except, perhaps, that your position is too weak to withstand debate. ;)
I agree, but it sounds like both birth mom and bio mom were prepared and planned to do that, and perhaps would have done that, except that birth mom effectively "kidnapped" the kid and hightailed it off to Australia. As a practical matter, birth mom did do more parenting than bio mom, but again that's because birth mom ran off with the kid and bio mom didn't have the opportunity to act as a parent. There's no indication that bio mom would not have also loved and nurtured the child if she'd had the chance to do so. So while I agree with your principle, I don't think it answers the question of who should have parental rights in this situation.
