Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, November 10, 2016

What happened to Seperation of Church and State??



I had excepted the election results yesterday morning. I understood that at the least 8 years was all I have to wait for a man I completely disagree with to be out of office. However, last night I saw something on Facebook about Trump and Pence’s plans for Birth Control. I have Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS). Trump and Pence want to at the very least make birth control un affordable to everyone REGARDLESS of if it is needed for medical reasons. If I cannot get birth control it will most likely lead to my death. Either my Cysts will cause internal damage when they rupture, or they will turn into Ovarian Cancer. Even more upsetting, they want to outlaw birth control because it is “anti-Christian”. Our founding fathers put in the constitution that we have the Freedom of Religion. There is supposed to be a complete separation of Church and state. But apparently if the president feels like his Christian views should be law than that’s fine. I should have to fear for my life because of the president’s religious views. Everything else can be undone when he is gone. But people who died from not having access to the medications they need (because of a President’s and Vice President’s religious views) cannot be brought back. Why should I have to fear dying young for someone else's religious views? (H1)

12 comments:

  1. I have not heard or read about this until now. I completely agree with you. I feel like people don't understand that birth control is used for more than to just prevent pregnancy and even if it were, there is nothing wrong with that. Trump and Pence are against abortion, but want to make birth control unaffordable? They have bashed Obama's free health care plans, arguing that health care and medications are more expensive, but wants to make birth control unaffordable? Wow. We can't let this happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Changes won’t come immediately, but Vice President-elect Mike Pence is promising that some of the laws he believes are anti-Christian will be repealed as soon as possible. In a recent interview, Pence restated his commitment to abolishing birth control mandates and. . ." -inquistr.com This is only one of almost 30 different things i read last night on this topic.

      Delete
  2. PCOS has a low death rate and will most likely -not- cause death especially with treatment. There are many different treatment options that do not include contraceptives. Look into things such as Fertility agents, antiandrogens, progestins. Additionally, a healthy lifestyle of exercise and healthy eating can help diminished the majority of the small cases of fatality which is related to health complications.

    Anyhow, I don't believe that he will focus on these matters as much as he campaigns to in order to acquire votes. And if he were to, it would not be mascaraed as a religious decision, but rather one in the name of preserving life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For many women, including myself, those "other options" are not viable treatments for them. And the death rate when it turns to cancer is high. And when you have extremely large cysts that form, as do i, everyone that ruptures could cause nternal and deadly damage. I should not have to fear this due to their religious views.

      Delete
    2. Also, they have already referred to birth control being covered by insurance at all as anti-Christian on many occassions. It's to late to take their religious motives behind this out of the picture.

      Delete
  3. I can understand the concern; at least, I could, were it warranted. I don't particularly like our newly anointed leaders, but you do realize that by having both the Democrats against them and their own party trying to cut ties with them, they have zero chance of passing anything stupid through congress, right? The president doesn't just get to magically create laws out of thin air. Everybody is freaking out about the implications of this election and they have absolutely no logical argumentation to back up their paranoid ravings. Just be glad we basically get at least 4 years of an executive-congressional standstill, as opposed to the alternative being Clinton as president, pretending to be a champion of the people while making her power plays behind our backs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

      Delete
    2. "If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order."
      "In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes"

      I'm quite familiar with the executive's ability to issue ordinances without initial consent, but I appreciate the evidence you've provided to prove my point. Executive orders are made in dire situations that call for immediate action instead of a lengthy trip through bureaucratic channels, which is why the legislative and judicial branches are fine with them most of the time. The situation you are describing is one neither congress nor the supreme court would consider acceptable. Even if Trump was foolish enough to even suggest such an idea, it would do nothing but earn him even more animosity from the rest of the government as well as the people as a whole, and likely an impeachment as well. What you should be more concerned about is your representatives at both the national and state level. It's far more likely that your rights successfully be infringed upon by a concentrated number of trashy people in your state government than the vastly overestimated power of the president.

      Delete
  4. Hopefully they will not be able to make birth control unaffordable. Obama is trying to pass a law "forbidding states from withholding Title X funding for family planning providers for any reason other than an inability to provide services effectively, thus banning attempts to defund providers like Planned Parenthood." If this is passed, at least planned parenthood could still provide birth control. (H3)

    ReplyDelete
  5. As stated above, the president and VP do not have supreme power over the entire government. Although the House and Senate are majority Republican now, there is little chance in something like this coming into effect in the near future, if at all H3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is still a chance that it could though. And myself and others should not have to fear their safety because someone's religious views do not agree with Birth Control use.

      Delete
  6. "You can't deny women their basic rights and pretend it's about your 'religious freedom'. If you don't like birth control, don't use it. Religious freedom doesn't mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs" -Barack Obama

    ReplyDelete