E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSConservative and centrist congressional Democrats are joining the chorus of voices urging President Barack Obama to reverse or modify a decision made by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to not exempt health insurance plans sponsored by religious-affiliated employers from the requirement to provide contraception as part of their basic benefit package.
Under the 2010 health care law, Congress gave Sebelius the power define the minimum essential benefits package in most of the nation’s health insurance plans.
Most of the outrage over the decision has come from religious groups and Republicans but some Democrats are uneasy as well. Sen. Bob Casey, D- Pa., said Tuesday morning he hadn’t yet gotten a response to his letter to Obama asking him to reverse Sebelius’s decision, but “it’s something I’m sure we’ll be having further discussions with the administration about,” he said,
Obama political advisor David Axelrod said on MSNBC Tuesday, “This is an important issue … We want to resolve it in an appropriate way and we’re going to do that.”
Speaking for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, said on Jan. 20, the day Sebelius made her announcement, that the administration had "ordered almost every employer and insurer in the country to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans.”
Meanwhile some congressional Democrats were working behind the scenes Tuesday to persuade Obama to reverse course; some warned of a potential threat to the president’s re-election chances in states with large Catholic populations such as Pennsylvania, where Catholics accounted for a third of the electorate according to 2008 exit polls.
It’s not clear how much of an effect the controversy will have on the estimated 47 percent of self-identified Catholic voters who said they supported for Obama in 2008.
But some Democratic supporters of Obama and of his health care law were emphatic in their opposition to the choice the administration had made.
“It’s a question of whether or not we’re going to allow -- as we should -- an institution that has a religious mission to make decisions that are consistent with their faith tradition,” Casey said. “Unfortunately what this does is impose upon them rules that I don’t think we should impose upon an institution that has a faith mission.”
Casey said he wants to preserve women’s access to contraception. “There’s a way to do this, and not run afoul of the religious freedoms that I think an institution should be able to exercise,” he said. “I think we can get this balance right … It means working out a compromise that makes sense to everybody.”
Casey is running for a second term this year.
Republicans may try to put the issue to a vote in the House and Senate. But that could end up benefiting Democrats who seek to distance themselves Obama on this issue by giving them a chance to show their opposition.
Another Democratic senator up for re-election this November, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said Tuesday afternoon, she didn’t know if the administration would change its position.
“I think they are going to look at various options. I haven’t talked to anyone in the administration about this … about whether or not there’s a way to find something similar to what they’ve done in Hawaii where there’s a rider” -- an add-on to an insurance policy -- and “the costs are so de minimis that it doesn’t in any way punish the women who want to access birth control.”
She added, “I’m hopeful they can work out a situation with riders, like they have in Hawaii, that might work out in these instances. Keep in mind there are a lot of Catholic hospitals and universities that are dealing with this right now and have been for a number of years.”
She said those opposed abortion “need to quit putting barriers” to women’s access to birth control. “We should be trying very hard to give women universal access to birth control” without them having to pay for it themselves.
Asked about the Catholic bishops’ statement that some contraceptives may cause abortion, McCaskill said, “I’m somebody who believes the morning after pill is particularly important, especially for rape victims.” She said she was “someone has spent a lot of time in the courtroom prosecuting rape cases,” as a former attorney in Missouri.
Another Democratic Senate candidate, Rep. Joe Donnelly, D- Ind., who also voted for the Affordable Care Act, said he was “puzzled” by the Sebelius decision. “I’ve sent my position to the White House.”
Sebelius gave nonprofits who, based on religious beliefs, don’t provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan until August 2013 to comply.
Leave a Comment:
Compromise -- If only conservatives could do it too. What's fair is fair, speaking of which, employers and insurers that cover Viagra should cover women's prescription birth control too.
"LOL"
True Patriot - They lied to the Churches. A reversal is nice, but the bottom line is that the administration cannot be trusted. Anyone want to bet they would find some other way to effect what they want, afterall that has been the MO from day one.
DB, spot on...the link for that is in my post below ( post #8).
When those Catholic institutions stop taking federal funds then they can decide what they'll cover for the employees and what they won't. Faith-based my ass.
Not one in one hundred Catholics actually follow the churches teaching on birth control. 98% of all Catholic woman report having used birth control at some time in their lives. A priest asked me about our"family plans" when we were getting married. I told him it was none of his FN business Flabbergasted he continued. I asked him "are you going to come to my house every week with 10 bags of groceries?" He said no. I asked him "are you going to come to my house withbags of new clothes when needed?" He said no. I asked him would he allow me to send all my kids to elementary school for free? He said no. I asked about high school? He said no. I asked would I be able to send them all to Notre Dame for college for free? He said no. I said, "THEN IT IS NONE OF YOUR FN BUSINESS"!
religion makes for good religion. not for good policy.
facilitating access to contraceptives is good policy.
zaruski,
I agree, but government policy forcing compliance upon a faith based organization is wrong.
So, in reality, what is happening here is that the Government is saying that it no longer wishes to support Catholic Hospitals and Medical facilities unless they officially comply with their edicts?
Question, What was wrong with the way it has been done for the last 40-50 years? There was no problem until Sebelius stuck her nose in it and created an election year problem for the president.
Neither position is good for the current administration, he would be well advised to curtail this usurpation...
Egilman,
the problem, as I see it, is the use of Federal funding in discriminatory and oppressive policies.
These Catholic programs can easily get around this order by not accepting Federal Funding. but i do not want MY tax dollars going to any organization that preaches intolerance, bigotry, and an unrealistic view of the world.
What do Catholic bishops and rappers have in common? Bright, ostentatious clothing and bling.
How do they differ? Rappers don't present themselves as angels of light.
So before you, Catholic bishops, try to remove straw from our eyes regarding reproductive choices, remove the rafter out of your own eyes first. Quit selling forgiveness, harboring criminals, and raping our children.
Then, they won't be able to take medicare, medicaid either. Furthermore, they cannot even comply with issuing not only health services, but also they have to comply with health insurance mandates which also requires, not only abortion, contraception, genetic counselling, government mandated type of end of life counselling, and homosexual rights.
The BS is coming from your side!
the problem is the Federal Government (a) deciding what is morally right for everyone, (b) violating the 1st amendment prohibition of actions regarding the free exercise of religion, and (c) insisting that is the Federal Government's right to use taxpayer dollars to promote an agenda.
Regarding whether many Catholics use contraception -- that is their choice, and they should be responsible for it. If someone is in significant disagreement with that Church, they can always align themselves with another.
What ever happened to the admonition "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and render unto God that which is Gods". When the church or organized religion pays my medical bills, then they can tell me what my health insurance will cover, until then butt out.
Remember Nancy Pelosi who said we needed to pass it to find out what was in it. Just another horrible piece of legislation written behind closed doors for special interest groups and ideologues. Even most Democrats that championed its passage had never read it. It was rammed down everyone's throat, and this is by no means the end of the surprises.
I can't understand how these Catholic owned institutions can claim that complying with the law is morally wrong. Any female employee can choose birth control is she wants it, just like they will be able to do in any employer-paid health coverage plan. If the female employee is Catholic she is not required to get birth control, so what's the problem? It'd be like a Muslim-owned BP franchise refusing to sell hot dogs because Sharia Law prohibits consuming pork. I bet BP would be allowed to end his franchise ownership.
Let me get this straight. No one is forcing anyone to take contraceptives- only to make them available for anyone who wants them. The vast majority of Catholics take contraceptives of some kind in spite of the church's beliefs. It seems to me like the problem has is with their parishoners. That is, besides the church's own sex scandals.
Is anyone forcing you to be a Catholic? - No.
apparently the Dems see this as a bigger deal then they first thought. And when you add it to the growing list of things the Center right see Mr Obama infringing on, its obvious they dont want to add another one.
No one is asking the Catholic church to hand out the pill, for God's sake. Talk about a tempest in a tea cup! But once again, women's health needs are placed secondary to zealotry and dogma.
I'm sure the Catholic church would no problem funding chastity belts. After all - they invented them.
True-Patriot (that's a misnomer) - This isn't compromise, it's running scared. Maybe the Democrats could learn to govern correctly instead of heavily-handed with their union thugs and special interest concerns.
They don't seem to have a problem being a tax exempt organization. Maybe we can trade one for the other and then find out where they really stand.
Organized crime pedophilia ring.
Colorado-Man, as with most Republicans, you have it all wrong.
Norm903, you hit the nail on the head with the Catholic church.
So my simple question to Catholics on the vine, if you disagree with so much of Catholic ideology why are you a Catholic ?
The churches themselves are exempt from the birth control demand. The policy is about having Catholic hospitals and clinics offer their employees (who are most likely not Catholic) full access to insurance. This is a non-issue, except for those insisting that there is a 'war' on religion. The issue is does your employer have the right to shove their religion down your throat.
When did our government start listening to a church .. the Catholic church should be ashamed of themselves .. they spend hugh amounts of Money on 2 things ..#1 protecting the pedophiles and sexual predators that infest their clergy and #2 pushing their opinion on Abortion .. the Catholic Church is Anti Women and pro Pedophile .. the Government should not allow any church the option to opt out of a federal law just because the heirarchy of that institution does not agree with the law ... the Catholic Church answers to the VAtican a Foreign Government ...Did our country sink so low that republicans are now saying we should respect the wishes of Foreign Governments when it comes to our Constitution and Laws I challenge any one to come up with a catholic that has not or wont practice Birth Control
If the Catholic church gets into any other bussiness besides religion, then they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
They should not be allowed to hide behind their religion.
Why should an employee at a Catholic school have to jump through hoops to get the same coverage?
Why should a non-religiously sponsored bussiness have to supply that coverage, and the Catholic bussiness not?
What are the odds, do ya think, the very same people all riled up about this would be the first ones to deny another religion?
Keep pushing Libbies, keep insisting on gov intrusion into our lives, and you will help push Obama out of office. This administration has over-reached in every area and policy, and it is time that it stopped. I'm not happy with the Rep candidates, they are all lacking, but I'll support any of them against the President and all of you liberal nuts.
Why should the Catholic Church get "special" rights?? They tap Medicare and Medicaid--public insurances--in their hospitals.
What next? They get the right not to treat gays??
Plus, 99% of American catholic women use birth control according to a recent study.
The catholic Church is back in the 16th century.
Wakeup... are you loony or something? What has the faith based people been doing by PUSHING their intrusion through legislation in what women do when they are pregnant or what 2 of the same sex couples do. You don't see the blatant hypocrisy? Seems like you need to WAKE UP! Yet you call liberals nuts? Give me a fuking break...
Wake up2840,
Yes us libbies will keep pushing. Pushing away religion from government. And Republicans intruding in a female's body without consent. Again, we are a secular government by design. Don't like it? Move somewhere else and quit trying to change America.
Obama actually said that Jesus wants him to raise taxes on the rich but I don't think Jesus wants him to force any church to comply with any government policy that violates their religious principles. Christ did say render unto Casear that which is Casears but in the same sentence he also said render unto God that which is God's. In this case Obama wants what is God's, he is violating the line Christ drew between religion and government, Government has NO right to anything that is God's. Which also makes Obama's statement about taxing the rich rediculous, Christ never said give Casear the money God means for you to give directly to the poor so that Casear can determine what to do with it, he said give it directly to the poor. So in both cases Obama has crossed the line that Christ drew and is inserting government into God's business. We need to help Obama out of office and out of God's business.
This is not an attack on religion, it is nothing so simple as that. This is an attempt to find a balance between a woman's right to choice/privacy and religious freedom. These are not singularly religious institutions, they're also businesses. Catholic hospitals employ thousands of workers and they aren't all Catholics, let alone devout Catholics. Why should those women who work for them be denied access to contraception? And please don't say, "They can go get another job". Get real, it's not that easy.
These establishments have a year to figure out they are going to do this. The Catholic institutions don't even have to be the one's that offer it, they can refer their workers to other services. This is about access, not force. No one will be forced to take a Plan B pill, or use any other form of contraception they don't believe in. Not to mention that it's already the policy in I think 23 states, or some such.
I'm truly going bonkers, here. This is my body, and no employer can hold my sex life and my job hostage to their religious beliefs, especially if I don't share them. Listen, this is the free market. If you don't want to offer it, fine, but than when you can't find anyone to work for you and go out of business, don't complain. And if you don't want to follow our rules and respect our rights to privacy, don't reap the benefits of our country. You don't have to support it, you don't have to pay for it, you definitly don't have to take it, just offer me an alternative if you don't want to offer it yourself.
Furthermore, men, below is a very concise list of the "female agenda". It's not like we're asking for the world here...
1. To be able to sleep with a man, if I so desire.
2. To have access to affordable/dependable BC and healthcare specific to our needs.
3. If I fall victim to rape/assault/harassment, to have access to justice that is equivalent to the crime committed against me.
4. If I fall on hard times, most likely due to being a single parent (child support is surprisingly easy to dodge), to have access to reasonable programs that will assist me in regaining my feet and protecting my children.
5. To be paid the same as a male with an equivalent work/educational history, and job. Also, to have access to recourse against employers who fail to do this.
6. If I find myself scared, alone, and pregnant, to be able to make a decision that effects my body and my life (and only MY body and MY life only) without being subjected to name calling or vitriolic, religious based hate. Or any hate for that matter. Specifically from people who have never been in my shoes. And most importantly, to have the same right to make decisions about my body and the same right to privacy as a man.
Keep your politics, your religion, your pandering, and your paranoia out of my body.
Your body is gross. No one wants that anyway.
Translation: I have absolutely zero chance of being able to debate with your post on a substantive level, and I'm somewhat scared of you, ergo I'm simply going to insult you. Plus, I've only reached the maturity level of a 13 year old.
Boyd. Obama never said anything remotely like that. Why do you have to lie?
Egilman
zaruski,
I agree, but government policy forcing compliance upon a faith based organization is wrong.
So, in reality, what is happening here is that the Government is saying that it no longer wishes to support Catholic Hospitals and Medical facilities unless they officially comply with their edicts?
Unless they comply with the Constitution of the United States
Question, What was wrong with the way it has been done for the last 40-50 years? There was no problem until Sebelius stuck her nose in it and created an election year problem for the president.
Answer: Fifty years ago interracial marriage was a felony in some states....there was not problem then, until the Government stuck it's nose in it.
Answer: One hundred and fifty years ago slavery was legal in the United States, until the Government stuck it's nose in it.
Neither position is good for the current administration, he would be well advised to curtail this usurpation...
This is not a usurpation. For more than on hundred years, the government has allowed unconstitutional inequities to occur in it's acquiescence to religion, and almost exclusively, Christianity. No rights are being taken away. Unconstitutional acts are being terminated.
Incidentally, this rule has been in effect in eight states, for several years. This caused no problems until the Catholic Church decided they expect the government to respect their religion and give Catholics a special law upholding their ritual beliefs.
Pedestrian,
Your post inspired me to go back and read Boyd's. My eyes might be permenantly rolled into the back of my head now.
Seriously, Boyd??? Seriously?
In case you missed the memo, the Bible has nothing to do with this. It's about balancing interests and policy that provides for equal access to care. And we sure as hell don't pass tax laws or tax reform based on Caesar, God, or the Bible. Keep it in the realm of sanity. I know sometimes logic is too much to ask for, and good luck with bi-partisanship, but really, let's at least keep it on this planet.
LOL. No Sarah (remember, there are many Dems against this as well),
its not the Catholic church's fault(or taxpayers) that you decided to have unprotected sex knowing the potential risks involved. You do not get to violate everyone else's First Amendment rights for your ignorance and mistakes. I realize liberals hate that whole Constitution-thingy, but you should give it a gander. Very simple. Take your forced provision of ALL companies to ensure providing abortion-inducing drugs (killing babies) elsewhere.
Roanoke,
First, provide credible scientific evidence that a baby equals a fetus.
Second, contraception, of all kinds, can fail through no fault of the user, should women not be allowed to have sex than???
Third, have I told you you can't be Catholic, or you have to take birth control? How exactly is YOUR freedom to practice religion being infringed upon?
Fourth, you bring up taxpayers??? I'm one also, and why should my tax money go to fund a BUSINESS that doesn't allow me equal access?
Perhaps you missed the point about this not being about churches per se? This is about businesses they run, which benefit from our tax money, and ensuring their employees who may not even be Catholic have ACCESS, not even necesarily through that business, just access.
Call me when someone crams a plan b pill down your throat. Until than, troll away.
Sarah, as usual, it seems it is YOU who has missed the point. Contraceptives claim to work 99.9% of the time. So, your argument for .1% of the population falls on deaf ears. No one is saying those persons cannot go get an abortion or contraceptive measures ELSEWHERE. So that argument is so typically straw-man, but hey, you are a liberal, so you're used to making straw-man arguments.
Then, you ask me to provide credible evidence that a 'fetus' is a baby? Hmm, well, how about a heart-beat that exists in the womb?? I guess in your deluded world, being able to hear a heart beating inside a woman and then KILLING that heart beat doesnt matter, because YOU LABEL it a 'fetus.'
This has EVERYTHING to do with one's first amendment rights (again, we've established that you libs dont care at all about that constitution-thingy; its ok with you to trample the rights of others as long as YOU get what you want).
Taxpayers already pay for abortions across the country. Planned Parenthood? Yep. Even though taxpayer funds, supposedly, do not fund the actual abortions, taxpayer funds do pay for all the employees, the operations of the specific center, utilities...and the drugs that kill the baby. So, sure, spin spin away.
Those women who CHOOSE to work at a CATHOLIC-RUN organization have the RIGHT to leave or to purchase an insurance rider on their own if they want contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to be provided by their insurance. This is America, it is about CHOICE, fool. FORCING religious organizations to provide items that they are completely opposed to is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the First Amendment. This is not about ACCESS, as you flailingly CLAIM. Access to abortions and contraceptives are all over the place, so again, please stop with your pathetic straw-man arguments. It's sad to witness.
Your assertion does not proof make. Find me some credible scientific evidence of when life begins.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM!!!!!!!!! IT COULD JUST BE A REFERRAL, FOR PETE'S SAKE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM!
And no one is saying that Catholic institution has to provide the abortion or the contraception. They're saying they have to provide access to someone who will.
No they don't. The Hyde Amendment? Do you use a bank? You know when you deposit a $100 dollar bill, and then withdraw a $100 dollar bill, you don't get that very same bill back, right? You get it's equivalent in value, ergo the loss in value to the bank is the same. Good. God.
How can I respond to this until you answer my first question? How am I stopping you from practicing your religion?
This is basically the same thing, they just don't have to leave their job to get it.
Damn skippy, it is about choice. My God, how hypocritical can you be. My body, my choice.
So is your unjustifiably disrespectful, patronizing, ignorant tripe.
So some people get to make a choice but others cannot? When will you people learn that the government should not tell you how to live your life, enough with the nanny state mentality. If I wanted to start a health insurance company that only covers injuries related to ceiling fans, then what right does the government have to tell me that I should hand out condoms at my desk?
You know, Roanoke, life's much simpler once you learn how to breathe through your nose. I'm guessing you take crap all day long from everybody, and than get online, where it's safe, to take it out on strangers from a distance.
I'd be willing to bet, if you were face to face with me, you wouldn't have the guts to say boo, let alone call me a fool or whatever it was you said.
Wow, what an adult you are.
Wake up,
Those with the BODIES BEING EFFECTED get to make the choice. I don't dictate to you, or block your access to protate exams, do I???? The rest of your post is so ridiculously off point, I can't even begin.
I guess they wouldn't??? As long as those ceiling fans didn't harm only one of the two genders, and you were trying to get tax breaks and advantages based on our laws, while simultaneously denying access to the gender being harmed from gaining coverage who didn't have a problem with it????
Roanoke.
Chew on this....
When any religious organization goes into any business that is not the business of religion, then they should follow the same rules.
Allowing a business to follow different rules then other businesses simply because of religion, seems to violate the spirit, at least, of the First Amendment.
And why should a person working for a Catholic Hospital have to jump thorugh extra hoops just to get the same services as everyone else?
Sarah, again it would appear that you have a reading and comprehension problem (I'm not surprised, you are obviously a product of our public school system).
From the above article: " a decision made by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to not exempt health insurance plans sponsored by religious-affiliated employers from the requirement to provide contraception as part of their basic benefit package." AND "ordered almost every employer and insurer in the country to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans.” And, from YOUR VERY OWN DEMOCRAT, CASEY: “Unfortunately what this does is impose upon them rules that I don’t think we should impose upon an institution that has a faith mission.” Casey said he wants to preserve women’s access to contraception. “There’s a way to do this, and not run afoul of the religious freedoms that I think an institution should be able to exercise." And finally, from yet another FEMALE Democrat: "I haven’t talked to anyone in the administration about this … about whether or not there’s a way to find something similar to what they’ve done in Hawaii where there’s a rider” -- an add-on to an insurance policy -- the costs are so de minimis that it doesn’t in any way punish the women who want to access birth control.” As you see, it is FORCING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO PROVIDE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS TO EMPLOYEES VIA INSURANCE WHEN THE INSTITUTION CHOOSES NOT TO PROVIDE SUCH COVERAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. (Are you intentionally this obtuse?).
Yikes, so again, there goes your feminazi slogan of "my body, my choice." Sure, its your body, but you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE your perceived choicesONTO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION OR RELIGION who might be opposed or think your 'choice' is morally wrong.
The rest of your pathetic pseudo-intellectual rant is based on MORE straw-man arguments and semantics. I have studied the Hyde Amendment ( I did back in graduate school). IT DOES NOTHING to limit the amount of taxpayer funds that KEEP ABORTION CLINICS LIKE PLANNED PARENTHOOD open. You conveniently skipped over that paragraph, eh? Yes, it is FACT, that taxpayer dollars pay the salaries of PP workers, pay for the buildings, the upkeep, the equipment, the utilities, and the drugs used to murder babies...or fetuses as you call them.
More semantics when you beseech me to 'provide scientific evidence that a fetus is a baby.' Again, you conveniently skipped over my response. If YOU CHOOSE to disregard a BEATING HEART INSIDE A WOMB, THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. When I hear a beating heart, I hear life. You can choose to ignore this all you like, but that is evidence enough for me, no matter how you rationalize and justify it in your own head.
Either way, I hope Obama doubles-down on this; this reversal coupled with his other reversal this week (to accept SuperPAC money after demonizing the right for two years over SuperPACs) will be his undoing by election time, especially considering a majority of the swing states he has to win have large Catholic majorities. (Not to mention unemployment going up to 9.2% by next year according to the CBO, plus the Supreme Court ruling Obamacare unconstitutional this Summer). So, the Repubs take the Senate and the Presidency and repeal all of these pathetic socialized implementations by this farce of an administration).
Happy day!
Cants, (been a long time, how ya been?)
"And why should a person working for a Catholic Hospital have to jump thorugh extra hoops just to get the same services as everyone else?"
--Again, very simple. Choice. A person CHOOSES to work for a Catholic Hospital, they are NOT FORCED. Accepting the job with a Catholic Hospital means that the employee knows and understands the policy and coverage when it comes to insurance. If the employee disagrees, it is THEIR CHOICE to walk away, or they can purchase a rider for minimal cost, while still NOT FORCING a Catholic Hospital to provide insurance items that go directly against church doctrine.
I am a Catholic and a woman. Personally, using birth control is a woman's decision between her, her doctor and God.
However, I strongly am opposed to forcing Catholic institutions to go against their beliefs and doctrine to fund birth control.
When someone is hired by any company, there is compliance. I work for a major bank and was subject to SEC clearance. If I didn't want the invasion of my privacy, then I won't have worked for them.
And it's not just the Catholics, it's Jewish organizations as well.
The democrats and President Obama are in MAJOR VIOLATION of the First Amendment of the Constitution: That the Government will not impose any religion or religious beliefs.
This is why I'm a former liberal and democrat: it's OK to violate the Constitution as long as it pushes the agenda.
I don't understand why access to free contraception is more important that a women's access to high blood pressure medication since heart disease is the number one killer of American women.
Why should free contraception be forced to be included in every health insurance policy? Is it really needed for a single male, or anyone over 60? It should be a choice left to the individual.
Republicants...
I give the floor to you. Roanoke's sucking IQ points from me with his every post.
Arm,
Birth control is an issue because it's being denied by these institutions. There is no difference, they're both necessary.
It's because it's preventative care. There are also issues that are specific to men listed under preventative care. This is a GOOD thing. This will lead to lowering health costs. Republicans like "trickle down" right??? Think of this as trickle down health. If we cover things now, while they're relatively cheaper, we keep more expensive things from happening later. Before, simply being a woman was a pre-existing condition, because of pregnancy.
I'm waiting for the government to force insurance companies to cover lasic surgery. I can't afford it on my own.
Birth control is an elective. The insurance company does not have to cover it. Personally, I believe that providing birth control makes mathematical sense. Less dependents to cover, but the insurance company doesn't have to cover it.
Fertility treatments are also elective. Would you advocate that all insurance companies provide fertility treatments as vigorously as you are for them to provide birth control. One prevents birth, the other causes a birth.
Sarah,
You only prove my point that people no longer have a choice, the choice to choose what there business is and a choice to pick what insurance they want. Fan blades do not discriminate based upon race, religion, sex, or politics.
Sarah,
There are several issues with your logic:
1) a fetus IS a living creature. How do we know that? Because at some point every person acknowledges that fetus is a living creature but the debate is "how long". For example, many states have laws that killing a pregnant woman in, say, the 8 month is murder of two victims. At 6 months (and even 5 months) a fetus can survive. So the argument is NOT whether a fetus is a living creature but WHEN should the law acknowledge it is a living creature. So let's assume the law were to say 90 days. Then on the 89th day it is NOT a living creature but a day later it is? That's nonsense. So then one must ask about the 88th day or the 87th day. Nobody can make the EXACT determination it is a living creature so one can only come to the determination that any sterilized egg is a living creature.
2) Our 1st Amendment has made it VERY clear that there needs to be a separation of church and state. Liberals LOVE that amendment when they don't want government to acknowledge "god" but here is a case where government is DICTATING to a religion to against their beliefs. This is NOT withholding health care from individuals. You can STILL get an abortion but the church is simply stating we do not SUPPORT abortions and are not going to finance it. You want an abortion then get one - but pay for it yourself. You want a "morning after pill" then "have at it" - but pay for it yourself.
3) The more important point is now we are starting to see the catastrophic dangers to a nationalized health care system. All the things we warned the public about is now starting to be seen as we "peel away the onion". The biggest issue of the health care bill (and is now being seen in this issue) is the power this health care law gives government. Now that government has control of health care and can claim that controlling the cost of health care is the requirement of the government do you realize government can now control EVERY part of your life?!?!?
The first goal of the government controlled health care will be an electronic record of all your medical records (and btw is mandated in the health care law to be implemented). Why would they want that? Of course they SAY it is to make records "more efficient" but why is the GOVERNMENT concerned about that? It is because once they can monitor you and know EXACTLY what your medical records say then they can mandate your behavior. Here are some future examples I worry about:
1) Want to order a pizza? Before Pizza Hut can fulfill your order they will be required to confirm you are ALLOWED to eat pizza. What is that? You are 20 pounds overweight with high cholesterol? Sorry, your request to order a pizza has been denied.
2) You go to the grocery store and load up your cart. Before your order can be scanned you must supply your medical ID card to be scanned. Now time to ring up the Breyers Ice Cream. Sorry - DENIED!! You have been diagnosed with 1st stage diabetes and you have been restricted on what you can buy. But the alfalfa sprouts are approved!!
3) Your doctor has prescribed 4 hours of exercise per week so you are REQUIRED to join an approved gym membership and REQUIRED to go 4 hours per week. Now THAT can't be possible - can it? Can government FORCE you to buy a gym membership? We used to not think so but isn't the current argument that FORCING people to buy health insurance should be legal because, afterall, it is for their OWN GOOD!! Well, if that is allowed then forcing you to attend a gym is okay as well. But if you are considered "poor" and can't go don't worry - the rich will pay for it.
4) But with all the above you STILL can't seem to lose the weight. But government knows ITS costs will increase so what can they do? Well, if government controls the health care and government feels it is THEIR responsibility to control costs and your 20 lbs overweight and high cholesterol will increase YOUR costs of health care and the above restrictions haven't helped then what is left that the government can do? Are you ready for this?!?! They will start TAXING you if you don't maintain approved medical weight and blood levels. That's right - you will pay a TAX for being overweight or having high cholesterol!!
You liberals need to wake up and realize that government's goal is CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE!! Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said "A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have". Just keep that in mind...............
Sarah,
Birth control is never denied to anyone. Anybody can walk into any drug store and buy contraceptives. The only question with the current ruling is that it is now mandated that it is part of every health care policy free of charge.
It will not reduce costs. It only reduces the out-of-pocket price that consumers pay by shifting costs to everyone not using the service.
Oh, and Sarah, if I was face to face with you, I'd say much worse things to you than "boo." The only thing that prevents me from doing this at present are the newsvine "rules." LOL. And it would appear you should go and re-take some of those psychology courses, as your acumen in that area is sorely lacking. I take crap from no one during the day, I love my life and enjoy my job. I just enjoy coming onto these liberal forums and arguing with libs when I have the chance. It's my day's comedic relief, if you will. LOL. I just love to watch the heads spin away.
Liberals are greatly dismissing and misinterpreting this law:
It doesn't matter if the hospitals take federal dollars or not, they're still required to provide this health insurance. It doesn't even matter if it's a hospital or a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter, they're all required to provide this health insurance.
It doesn't matter that they're not required to personally provide the abortion pill (why would you ask a soup kitchen to stock such medications for it's employees, anyway?). What matters is that they're being required to pay for it. When you liberals will pay for pastors and priests to deliver sermons on NPR*, you can ask Christians to pay for things that violate their beliefs.
It doesn't matter whether most Catholic followers practice this or not. It is the official policy of the religion in question. The followers can sin all they want, but that doesn't change the fact that their priests are telling them its a sin.
*I'm not actually suggesting this be done. I'm pointing out what this policy actually requires: the funding of morally objectionable practices.
Arm,
But we're all contirbuting through the individual mandate, so we're all paying!!! What we have now is more akin to what you're complaining about! I will be covering crap I don't use too!
Pro,
Again, your assertion does not prove when human life begins. No one's assertion does. Until the scientific community proves indefintily when life begins, what I do with my body is none of anyone's concern. Lot's of things are alive and not humans. Your sperm, let's say. Being "alive" doesn't equal "human life who's rights trump mine."
Off point, and impossible to compare. Commerce Clause in the Constitution. They can regulate interstate commerce. We all, every last one, are going to need health services, we all won't need a gym. We can either all pay, or just some of us pay, even though we all use. Again, what your complaining about is what AHA is fixing.
There isn't an iota of truth in that entire paragraph.
Oh. My. God. Really? After telling me the government can tell me what I can and can't do with my body, although you have nothing more than your assertions, you than post that. Wow.
Roanoke,
Than why do you feel it's necessary to deny it to me? Why does it matter to you what I presume about you? If it isn't true, it isn't true? Why try to prove it to me?
C. Smith
Exactly. Another good analogy that the liberals may understand would be to include a free firearm as part of health insurance and force organizations like the Sierra club to provide free guns to it's employees.
Sarah.. just so you know ..an unfertilized egg is a living cell ... will the right wing nut jobs say a womans monthly cycle is an abortion .. or any sex that does not result in a pregnancy is criminal
Sarah,
Exactly the reason I am against the entire mandate.
Sarah,
I disagree with what you say about everyone using health insurance. If I have millions of dollars and want to self insure, I am allowed to do that. I take the risk of having to pay more money to the hospital when I get sick. But not everyone has to pay for insurance. I use the health services, but am using paying for it out of my own pocket. Forcing me to pay for insurance that I don't want or need is against the same commerce clause that you stated in your above post.
IndependantJim,
Whew, and here I thought us women were mass murderers every month. What kills me, is how they think they're going to enforce that??? Am I going to be investigated for murder every month that I'm not pregnant???
Bohn and Arm,
There are limited options...
1. We can continue to allow universal access to healthcare with only some of us paying for it all.
2. We can continue to allow universal access to healthcare with all of us paying for it.
3. We can deny uninsured people healthcare.
If you like number three, that's your right. But we can't be griping about the individual mandate forces us to pay for eachother, when it's actually the opposite. The mandate, mandates we all pay. What we have now, is what is forcing other's to pay and other's not to.
Furthermore, the problem with our healthcare system is that it is exempt from the anti-trust laws, and a monoply which is run on a fee for service system. If you really wanna fix it and cut costs, that should be what we're focused on. That should be the source of legitimate outrage.
All this B.S. is just a diversion and a wedge issue.
Waaay too much logic and objectivity in here for Sarah. As a typical liberal, when cornered with the facts and having her arguments destroyed, she simply runs and hides. LOL. Cheers, Sarah.
Sarah,
I believe that everyone should have some level of health care. I prefer the system in Switzerland that requires individuals to purchase insurance, and the government offers a basic policy for those who cannot afford it.
The problem I have with the current law is that the mandate requires a minimum policy that is beyond what historically been considered a good policy.
I just love the arguments all the libs keep repeating that these Catholic institutions are accepting federal dollars so they should have to abide by this law...so, in other words, as long as an entity is getting money from the govt, then the govt has a right to dictate to a certain degree how that entity behaves itself. Using that logic, I would expect not to hear all you libs whine about drug testing for welfare recipients. Taking this argument further, since these Catholic institutions are paying the lion's share of their employee's health insurance, they have every right to dictate to a certain degree which services they will cover - kind of like the whole "you take fed funding, you do what the fed wants" idea. Furthermore, you keep saying "access" to BC; no one is denying access just because it's not in the insurance plan. BC is cheap; why should it be free? Plus, there are plenty of outlets that provide free BC. And, lastly, condoms are very cheap! Engaging in sex is a personal decision; if you decide to do that (yes, most of us have made that decision), then the responsibility of preventing pregnancy is the individual's. They should pay for their own BC. Why do you feel that the govt or the insurance companies should provide everything to everyone? That's why we conservatives are saying that the US is becoming a "nanny" state. None of you want to take responsibility for your own actions!!!! We've become a nation of dependency and it's the liberals/Dem Party's fault!
When they were trying to get the votes for the health care bill, several Dems were concerned how abortion would be treated . They were assured, NO funds would be for abortion. Lie. Maybe Obama will back down but if he's elected again, it will be right back in place.
Even if Obama would back down, this should scare the hell out of EVERYBODY. We already have the govt telling us we have to buy something and now they're designing what you have to buy. What else is he going to do that violates the Bill of rights and the Constitution? I'm wondering if Obama told everybody they have to pay a tax to support churches what would the liberals be saying??? For those who would laugh and say he'd never do that, think again. Who thought he'd out and out violate the Constitution not just with this issue but also recently when they tried to tell churches they couldn't fire a minister? You better start thinking, folks. If this man is re-elected, I dare say NONE of your rights are safe. He will push and push until the govt controls everything, including YOU!
So many of you have written that women should have access; some have written it should be 'provided" and "paid for". You also act like this would have no financial impact on the church and its organizations. You obviously don't understand how the price of insurance goes up with each service that's added. It has been estimated that this will cost Notre Dame $10 million per year. And, yes, Notre Dame would be paying, tho indirectly, for somebody to have an abortion. So it DOES violate their tenets. But, that's what you get when you open the door to socialism. Be ready because your life as you know it will be over, your freedoms will be gone.
Roanoke,
You never answered my last question...
Than why do you feel it's necessary to deny it to me? Why does it matter to you what I presume about you? If it isn't true, it isn't true? Why try to prove it to me?
How were they destroyed?
Arm,
That's because, as I mentioned above, the fee for service system. The impetus behind fee for service, is to have people get sick and than offer them treatments.
It isn't longterm health. If we promote longterm health and preventative care, while on a fee for service system, less people will get sick, ergo less treatment, ergo less money.
Sarah, you go girl, you are doing great against the repressive tide of patriarchy.
I find that drug testing anyone (unless they hold the safety of others in their hands) is intrusive government or business - which is exactly what republicans are doing in Florida and God knows where else. If they want to drug test welfare recipients (who pays again?) then all of the politicians need to follow the same dictate and take the piss test. Every frigging one of them. First.
Meanwhile, RCC needs to follow the law or get out of business that isn't the church. Period. And stop with the attacks on women and their bodies.
Sarah, not requiring free BC pills in insurance plans is NOT denying you access to BC. BC pills are cheap...buy them yourself. Or get them from Planned Parenthood. Or buy some condoms. Why do you think contraception should be free? You want to have sex and don't want to get pregnant? Buy your own damn BC pills. When are you libs going to stop expecting everyone else to foot the bill for you?
OMG!!! When did we get to "free" birth control in this ridiculous argument? Yesterday it was abortion. We are talking about INSURANCE here. Is a hospital a church? No? Then the hospital is a business with employees. The ruling says that EMPLOYERS that provide insurance coverage for prescription drugs (BTW employees pay for the insurance and then pay the co-pay for the drugs - nothing is free here) cannot pick and choose which prescriptions will be covered by the insurance because the owner of the business doesn't believe in birth control.
That's a good question, but it's not really at issue here.
The women who work for Catholic hospitals can use birth control or have abortions, and no one can stop them because those things are now legal everywhere in the United States.
The question is: who has to pay for it? The Catholic Church finds abortion to be immoral on religious (and other) grounds. Forcing them to pay for abortions is a violation of First Amendment freedoms.
How much money are we talking about anyway? Not a large amount, even if you add in the annual cost of birth control PLUS an abortion every year. The main reason we need health care insurance is to cover LARGE and CATASTROPHIC expenditures, not every little penny.
Option 2 is clearly the best. But it doesn't have to cover everything for everybody. Toothpaste need not be covered. Deodorant need not be covered. As for condoms, there is NO reason why every insurance company and every employer should be forced to pay for them.
Certain organizations have very clear, religious based objections. Those should be respected, since they CAN be without endangering anyone's health.
There will be many other providers who will choose to cover such purchases, but FORCING people to abandon their own moral and beliefs is not right.
If you want to have an abortion, that's your privilege. But FORCING others to pay for your abortion is not.
Common,
No one is being forced to do anything. It's allowing access. It could be as simple as a referral, which I believe is what Hawaii does. The Catholic church doesn't have to pay a cent. Give me a referral for so and so, whatever.
Birth control is a health issue. There are many women who can not carry children without endangering their health. I normally don't like personal stories but, my sister has MS. If she were to get pregnant she would have to cease taking her daily injection, if she didn't the baby would suffer, if she does she suffers. In addition, abortions, in any form except medical necessaties, are not covered, nor will they ever be. The only abortions covered are those that are needed to save the mother, or those that are spontaneous, i.e. miscarriages.
It would by far be cheaper to keep my sister on BC for the rest of her life, BC being the most likely to NOT fail contraceptive, than dealing with an exasperation of her MS. That is why we have preventative care.
Again, our whole system has always been run on fee for service, so it actually works in the opposite direction of what we need it to. Health providers don't get paid, until we get sick and need treatment. If we focus on preventative care, we will, as a society, inevitably need less treatment.
Costs of health care are skyrocketing, because the industry is exempt from anti-trust laws. All of the people crying about the free market, should be outraged by that. It is a monopoly.
I can not say it enough...
The problem with our healthcare system is that it is exempt from the anti-trust laws, and a monoply which is run on a fee for service system. If you really wanna fix it and cut costs, that should be what we're focused on. That should be the source of legitimate outrage.
All this B.S. is just a diversion and a wedge issue.
The REAL issue is whether the federal government has the right to shove religion down your throat.
According to the Constitution, the answer is no.
So MKM,
If my doctor prescribes fertility treatment, then that will be covered? What about Lasic?
Sarah: All I can say is "Bless your heart". One day you will realize actual "real life". Just be careful what you seem to want to allow government to do. Government has NEVER reduced their power and control over people. They continue to take a little piece by piece. I could go through each of your supposed "arguments" but what good would that do? You would not listen to the counterargument and supply a debatable response. You have an opinion and it is only that-an opinion. A wrong opinion but that is irrelevant. I could explain the reason you were wrong but you would not be able to listen to the response in an unbiased method anyway so not worth the time.
BTW, that reminds me of a joke: President Obama was driving around and saw a child playing with newborn puppies. Obama thought it was cute so stopped to talk briefly with the child asking the girl what kind of puppies were they. The girl responded "these are Democrat puppies".
Obama roared with laughter and thought that was so cute!! But not to lose an excellent media photo opportunity decided a few days later to be driving with some from the media and drive by this little girl's house. He saw the girl outside playing with the puppies and stopped. Media with cameras and video ready he asks the girl what kind of puppies these were. The girl responded "these are Republican puppies".
Stunned Obama says that just a few days ago she called the puppies "Democrat puppies" and why did that change? The little girl responded "yes they used to be Democrat puppies but now their eyes are open so now they are Republican puppies".
Amazing how the joke and this post are so closely related........
Pro,
Ditto.
Sarah, I have a very high regard for all of your opnions, but I do see things a bit differently on this one.
To my way of thinking, "access' merely means "ability to obtain". If "referal" is all we're talking about, that changes things.
That much I understand, and agree with. So will many (but far from all) Catholic priests.
Good point. Is that actually what is in the proposed rule?
Common,
I too, have the utmost respect for you. We're allies against Angelica, lol.
Yes, it is true that abortions in terms of "I got knocked up and don't want it" aren't going to be covered. They aren't considered contraception or preventative care. Also, the Hyde Amendment prohibits any public funding from being used on that type of abortion.
When you hear the word abortion in medical discussions, it most likely is referring to what the public calls miscarriages. None of this has anything to do with what the Catholic church has to offer their patients or their employees, it's about access. It's also in place in something like 23 states already and they have an entire year to hash it out.
I look at it like this, my job can not be held hostage to an employer's religion. If the church is going to expand into businesses, i.e. hospitals, than they need to at least provide me with an option to get contraception of my choosing. Especially because they are receiving benefits from the government. Simply saying I can go get another job, is overly simplistic, and will inevitably lead, through the free market, to Catholic backed businesses going out of business.
Health contraception is an option just like people choose their own health plant, therefore, this is not a mandatory per se. For GOP and conservative to convert this into political issue is a shame; when you have GOP rooting for American economy to fail, rooting for American workers to fail, so they can unseat President’s Obama in November. Thus, it’s clearly that GOP and conservative party have being betrayed American and American workers spirit to success in this country and around the world.
Why is it ok for church to tell their employee what to do with their insurance, but against government supporting women right in their health prevention, when church get tax exemption from government to begin with? Why can’t church give their employee an option to choose, since this is an option for women right to choose for their health prevention? Isn't freedom to choose your health option and right for women health and is what conservative wants?
Sarah: My hat's off to you for using reason and logic with folks who just insist on ignoring both. All anyone has to do is decide NOT to use birth control if it's against their religion. These are not churches and exempting them as though they were is turning the "strong arm" government tactic on its head. They are NOT exempt from following the laws in this country (as the churches repeatedly claim to be on issue after issue) and hiding behind those exemptions is ridiculous. (Don't get drawn into the abortion debate with the likes of these folks who equate women with 'incubators' and zygotes with "babies" as though their religious interpretations were "law"...you can't have a battle of wits with those who are unarmed.)
Sarah...
No one is being forced to do anything. It's allowing access. It could be as simple as a referral, which I believe is what Hawaii does. The Catholic church doesn't have to pay a cent. Give me a referral for so and so, whatever.
I'm sorry , but you are wrong here. The Church is being made to pay for the coverage. The Church is not prohibiting its employees access to birth control, it simply doesn't think it should have to pay for it. If the Obama administration would allow that the insurance policies have a rider that covers birth control, WITH A COPAY, then I do not think most Catholics would be opposed to this. But what is being done is saying that the Church must provide coverage for birth control, and the morning after bill with NO COPAY. Contraception is not a necessary in the vast majority of cases. The church is not denying its employees access to birth control, only asking for those employees to pay for it themselves. I noticed how in all your posts you have not once addressed the several other posts that called you out on your statement that that issue here is denying access to birth control. What is wrong with asking a woman, or man, to pay for their own birthcontrol when it conflicts with the churches teachings.
Sarah,
After all that, Sarah, you bring your bottom line down to this: "I look at it like this, my job can not be held hostage to an employer's religion."--This is exactly what people are upset about, Sarah. Sadly, you do NOT seem to get it (or you intentionally refuse to understand the difference). LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT: YOU CHOOSE TO WORK FOR THAT EMPLOYER. YOU KNOW BEFORE TAKING THAT JOB WHAT THAT EMPLOYER'S POLICIES ARE AND WHAT THEY COVER AND DO NOT COVER UNDER THEIR INSURANCE PROGRAM. AGAIN, YOU CHOOSE THAT JOB, AND BY ACCEPTING THAT JOB, YOU AGREE TO THEIR TERMS AND POLICIES. END OF STORY. IT IS ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR BUSINESSES' CHOICE IN WHAT TO OFFER IN INSURANCE, AND IT'S YOURS TO WORK THERE OR NOT (or get a rider for cheap as the FEMALE Democrat in the above article suggests). Either way, it is ALWAYS YOUR CHOICE, and not up to you to start forcing businesses to adhere TO YOUR BELIEFS. No one is FORCING you to work there, but you are advocating FORCING businesses, and religious-affiliated ones at that, to conform to YOUR idea as to what should be offered in an insurance program, whether it violates that businesses religious doctrine or not. That is where the disconnect between you, myself, the majority of Catholics, many Democrats and almost all Republicans is occurring (and other religious groups as well). It's just the liberal in you. Justify that by calling it 'overly simplistic' all you want.
And if, as your doomsday theory suggests, the free market determines that a Catholic-backed business needs to go out of business, than SO BE IT. But at least they had the CHOICE, THE FREEDOM, to run THEIR business according to THEIR religious beliefs. That IS a true free market. It just shows you don't really understand what you are talking about.
Roanoke,
They can offer referrals. Your hopeless, paranoid and rude, and you never answered my last question. Until you answer why you got so defensive about my "psychology" I have nothing more to say to you.
Everyone, all together...
The church doesn't have to pay for it, they just have to offer a referral or access to a separate program that offers it!!! That is how Hawaii does it. That is how 23 states do it.
The church doesn't offer it. The church doesn't pay for it. The church doesn't take it. The church doesn't have anything to do with it except saying, "Here, call them."
Sure, simply deflect away from the real issue. And you are spewing lies and intentionally not responding to several posters who have called you out on your lies. I have nothing left to say to a liar and an obtuse intellectually challenged ideologue such as yourself. Your pathetic arguments have been thouroughly destroyed, all over this vine. Your failure to address all the other posters who poked massive holes in your statements proves this. Did you actually miss this, from just above, or did you intentionally disregard it...as well? LOL. From another poster, to YOU:
"I'm sorry , but you are wrong here. The Church is being made to pay for the coverage. The Church is not prohibiting its employees access to birth control, it simply doesn't think it should have to pay for it. If the Obama administration would allow that the insurance policies have a rider that covers birth control, WITH A COPAY, then I do not think most Catholics would be opposed to this. But what is being done is saying that the Church must provide coverage for birth control, and the morning after bill with NO COPAY. Contraception is not a necessary in the vast majority of cases. The church is not denying its employees access to birth control, only asking for those employees to pay for it themselves. I noticed how in all your posts you have not once addressed the several other posts that called you out on your statement that that issue here is denying access to birth control."
AP,
Thank you this bears repeating.
Roanoke,
No amount of logic penetrates psychosis, and you still haven't answered that question.
MkM,
Great post! This also bears repeating.
Excellent job here, Sarah. Well done!
If a person is unwilling to provide basic medical care to people, they have no business in any medical profession.
Toasty,
I'm still waiting for my lasic and fertility treatment to be covered. Those are my basic needs.
Sarah,
If what you say is true about them not having to add birth control into their policies, but only forced to be able to give a referral to another insurance provider which would cover it or be able to provide it, I would be fine with it. But the impression I am getting from some of your earlier statements along with other peoples statements is that the catholic organizations would be required to pay for birth control. That I would be against completely.
This quote from the article "ordered almost every employer and insurer in the country to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans" shows that they would be required to provide, not refer. Therefore I am against it unless you can prove otherwise.
bohnnman,
Dont bother with Sarah or the other failed libs. They dont want to actually read the specific words of the argument or debate the fact that they ARE forcing these Catholic organizations to pay for these provisions. Notice how Sarah and the other libs dogde this HUGE issue time and time again throughout this thread and simply engage in semantics and playing literary games to further their political agenda. You are wasting your time. They are not ignorant, they read the article too, they are simply choosing to ignore certain facts that dont correlate with their politics (which is worse than being ignorant).
Roanoke,
I don't play games like that. I disagree with them, but am always willing to have an open conversation. What they believe is their opinion. What I believe is my opinion. I don't like liberals that call people names, and I don't like conservatives that call people names. In the end, if Sarah etc. want to ignore what I point out, it is her right. It is also my right to ignore what Sarah etc. point out. I don't think that there is any issue (barring murder) where there isn't room for compromise. Open conversation is how compromise is reached, not hatred for the other side. In my opinion, that is why congress cannot reach agreement on many of the most important and controversial issues like this one.
I don't mind if they mandate that the Catholic organizations provide referrals to a health insurance provider that does cover the controversial issue of birth control. But to force the Catholic Church (or any religious organization) to pay for something that they don't believe in is wrong. What they are trying to do in my opinion is similar to trying to force a company founded by gays to outreach to gay persons for help, to provide counseling to gays to "overcome their homosexuality." That would be wrong.
An issue being missed here are religious organizations imposing their morals on the rest of society... Organizations that have questionable moral judgment as well as questionable lack of character...
Most important is the bottom line, the attack on women and on womens health... Why is it that men walking around in dresses, who deny themselves normal human functions of the body are correct to judge what is right for a woman?
Get religion out of politics and government off of a woman's body...
Terry,
Are the religious imposing on your right to murder? What about your right to steal? How about your right to rape someone? Are those not morals that have been imposed on us as a nation?
Those are all completely bad, but where did we get those "morals" They came from an inner moral compass of someone. If my inner compass tells me that eating meat is wrong and I vote to outlaw the sale of meat products, that is my perogative. So a religious group teaches it's members that something is wrong and it's members go out and vote on it. That is their right. If I get enough people together and we all vote that the sale of meat will not occur in our state, we can do that.
Laws come from the morals of society. As a society of mainly judeo christians, that is probably where a majority of our laws come from. Even if they outlaw meat in your state, you don't have to believe that the consumption of meat is wrong.
Again, the fundamental issue is that it's ABOUT CHOICE. YOU CHOOSE TO WORK THERE, thus NO ONE IS IMPOSING THEIR RELIGION ON ANYONE. Why is this sooo hard to understand?
With a 3% decrease in Obama's approval rating in the last few days, I suspect that Obama really stuck his foot in it this time.
The idea that he could force religious institutions to provide and pay for abortions is ludicrous, and incredibly dumb.
Just this week the Supreme Court ruled against the Obama Administration when they tried to force a religious school to rehire a teacher under ADA, claiming the teachers duties were primarily secular. The decision was UNANIMOUS that it violated religious freedom. Even Obama's ultra-liberal new justices voted against him.
Unless Obama reverses himself again, it will be a HUGE issue of the government trying to force its secular policies on religious organizations.
Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare "We have to pass it to see what's in it". I guess we're finding out 'what's in it'.
Sarah-3043284
You seem to miss the whole point, which is that the Obama Administration is forcing religious based organizations to pay for abortions, when such activities are completely against their core beliefs. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that such coercion is an infringement of the Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
As for 'When does life begin', it depends on whether you are talking about 'Legally' or 'Morally'. From a 'Legal' standpoint, that has changed frequently. For example, just a few years ago it was 'Legal' for a woman to carry a child to full term, have the doctor deliver just the head, pierce the child's brain to kill it, and then deliver the rest of the 'body' and discard it (Partial Birth Abortion, which even President Obama supported). Before Roe v Wade, almost any abortions were 'illegal' in many jurisdictions, so the 'Legal' concept is subject to change at the whims of legislative bodies.
When life begins from a 'Moral' standpoint seems to be where people have a difference of opinion that seems to be incapable of being bridged. The Bible makes it pretty clear that God considers the killing of an unborn child to be a sin deserving of death for the person responsible - for example, Exodus 21:22,23 says “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life" NIV.
Those who have disdain for what the Bible says obviously will ridicule its teachings, and do whatever they wish, without regard for the concept of 'Morality'. For them, the concept of 'Morality' is whatever they think is right for them.
Just this past week the Obama Administration tried to force a Lutheran school to rehire a teacher at their school based on ADA, which is the law for all secular organizations. The Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the government could not impose secular rules on religious organizations. Even Obama's far-left recent appointments ruled against him.
Anyway, it's time to get ready for 'church'. Bye
If insurance companies have to "pick up the bill" on contraceptives, they will simply pass the cost onto the consumers right? So what will America do when insurance becomes so expensive that only the 1% can afford it? It's ok for the Democrats to gut Medicare/Medicaid by over a half a billion dollars through the passage of Obamacare but not ok for Americans to simply put a quarter or two in the condom dispenser in the men's room, or taking a taxi to Walgreens to pick up their favorite contraceptive, or simply picking up their supplies when they go grocery shopping all because our government wants to have more control over the people?
No problem. The Pulpits all over America will answer this attack on the seperation between Church and State. Goodbye Kenyan Barry and good riddance,
Most people in the pews just don't pay attention when they start that cr@p. Either that or their are a lot more atheists ,Jews, Buddists etc etc that you think. BTW give up that Kenyan crap it just make you look stupid as it has been proved false numerous times. Just own up to it your a racist. Bet their isn't one black face in your church on Sunday. Churches are the most segregated places I have ever seen. 98% of Catholic women report having used birth contol sometimes in their life. So someone isn't following il Papa.
Would those churches be segregated like Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church??? Ya know, when he is hating Jews and preaching "god-damn" America? And Obama considered him his mentor FOR OVER 20 YEARS? Sure, no big deal, Obama's mentor was just a Jew-hating, America-hating, racist bigot. But hey Devil, I bet there are plenty of black faces at his sermons every Sunday, so it must be okay. WOW.
Liberals are so hypocritcally pathetic and racist.
Amen Roanoke !!!
LOL @ Roanoke1. Fox News is in da house! ;)
Funny thing about pre civil war politics. Republicans were in the north and Democrats were in the south. Which party supported slavery? Which party believed in free labor while wearing white hoods at night hanging minorities? But some how the Republicans are all racist, priceless!
I'm a democrat and I'm agnostice and I do believe that the decision should be reversed. I think that the president meant to aid women but I think the thing has backfired on him. It is clear that the Obama administration went over the public opinion polls when they made the decision they made but sometimes people say things in polls and then later change their minds when it comes to reality. President obama was trying to help women and he was trying to do what a majority of catholics said in polls they believe but then reality sinks in and now it's obvious that the majority of catholics do not really support this idea so I think that the President should respectfully amend the decision.
Except, except, except.
An institution is not an individual. An institution cannot hold religious beliefs. The individuals within an institution hold religious beliefs. The individuals working for that institution hold religious beliefs. Forcing individuals to conform to the beliefs of an employer, however that employer defines itself, is an assault on religious freedoms.
Except, Except, Except,
When an employer is a religious organization, and has core beliefs of it's own that it has held for over a thousand years, to conform to the policies of a political party in control of the government, is an assault on religious freedoms also.
If an organization can hold political beliefs, and that is ok, (think labor unions) and act in support of and on behalf of those beliefs, why is it wrong for an organization to hold religious beliefs, (think church backed hospital) to act in support of and on behalf of their beliefs?
Can someone please explain how this is not religious bigotry?
You are right! They cease being a religious institution when they hire people outside their faith. If they are sooo concerned about their faith, then why don't their own congregation volunteer their efforts?
The fact is, they hire those outside their faith in order to impose their faith upon them.
Faceit, if they are truly the one true faith, they don't need to depend on these kinds of enforcements, do they?
John, I would take issue with your statement that the majority of Catholics oppose this decision. In fact, the vast majority of Catholics ignore church teachings when it comes to contraception.
Now, when conservatives and Obama haters sniff out a "wedge" issue, suddenly everyone's a practicing Catholic.
BS.
1. Should Catholics, or any other religious group, be able to dictate public policy?
2. The ruling states that religious organizations themselves are exempt, but corporations run by religious organizations are not. For example, employees of the Catholic Church could be excluded from receiving contraceptive coverage, while employees of Sisters of Mercy Medical Center could not.
The solution is simple. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to violate it's faith, either close the hospitals, or stop providing health insurance to it's employees.
They cannot in good conscience provide birth control. What will likely happen is that they will stop providing health insurance to their employees. I hope that they also increase their employees pay by the amount they were paying for health insurance so that employees won't be hit too hard.
I bet if a muslim institution tried to say something along these lines all these "christians" would be up in arms saying that they are having their rights suppressed by a religion. just saying
milidad - not only this affects catholic hospitals, but Jewish, Protestant, and Muslim.
Akron has 4 major hospitals - 1 is Catholic That would be 25% of the hospital services GONE.
Cleveland has a number of Catholic hospitals in the poorer communities. There is a number of Jewish and Luthern Hospitals - Gone
One of Pittsburgh's largest health systems is presbyterian.
Your postion is as unreasonable as the Obama Administration and the Democratic Super Majority who went against the majority of Americans and passed it any how.
Currently 54% of Americans oppose the HCL. Want to bet that number heads higher?
Notice how getyourheadoutofyourazz asked the Priest about all the things the priest or the Church would "GIVE" him for free. What a typical liberal!! If you aren't giving me and my family free food and free clothes and a free education (all of which you get free from the taxpayers anyway) than I dont want to hear your opinion and I don't care about your religious beliefs. "GIMME GIMME GIMME...then we can talk." Yep, truly a typical Liberal douchebag.
Oh, and stop making wild flailing generalizations about Catholics and their adherence to Church doctrine all across America, it is obvious you are just pseudo-intellectual ideologue and have no idea what you are talking about!
I hope the majority of Catholics don't believe in segregation.
I dont know Jamey, a majority of Democrats believed in segregation for over hundred years!! (which is why Democrats filibustered the passing of the Civil Rights Act). LOL, good stuff Dems!!
That was directed at DevilsSon, my bad.
I'm Catholic, and I belive that any business required to provide insurance should follow the same rules as any other business, regardless of who runs it. Of course, if we had universal health care, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
Jamey- the only segregation I believe in is that my hubby needs to stay on his side of the bed, so he's not snoring in my ear :)
Jamey
before Republicans first to start desegregation (1863) and the democrats started considering minority rights (1943) the catholic church was reaching out to all races for HUNDREDS of years.
By kicking religion out of all aspects of education has created a "lost" generation of uninformed people. This is big reason why kids coming out of public schools are failing at critical thinking skills. By removing the opposition, you don't need to reason about anything.
If Catholic hospitals only want to use catholic rules, they must stop billing Medicare and Medicaid, public insurances, for their care. They must be able to enslave their staff as slavery is allowed in the Bible. They must allow polygamy. They must stop employees from wearing polycotton blends. They must not hire anyone with tattoos...etc, etc, etc.
Catholics like to pick and choose from the Bible like everyone else.
DB you are correct religion should be in schools. Lets put it in the library in the Fiction section.
The requirement to include contraception in a health plan does NOT mean pills will be shoved down anyone's throat. You don't want it, don't take it. You don't want to prescribe/dispense it, get a new profession.
DB, the lack of religion is schools in preventing kids from learning critical thinking? No, the lack of critical thinking in schools is preventing kids from learning critical thinking. Maybe, give them a science question to figure out?
The bigger question is why should contraceptives be included in health insurance at all?
I can understand it if there is a medical necessity for a woman's health (like she is unable to carry a pregnancy due to something like an abdominal aortic aneurysm that could rupture if a pregnancy occurred). Otherwise it should be left to the individual to provide payment.
Otherwise, let's mandate that auto insurance includes all oil changes...
I wrote to my Representative and both my Senators to make sure they do not reverse HHS decision on the issue of contraception.
Armurray,
Only a man, who will never have to suffer through a birth or more likely single parenting, can make that stupid a comment.
jimsepa,
The real question isn't about prescribing the pills. It's about paying for the pills. Why should you force a religious institution who is providing services to the community as a whole (rather than just their own congregation) to pay for services that violate their beliefs?
Anabanana:
You're completely wrong. My proof? My wife, who just gave birth to our first child, says exactly what armurray says. The bigoted femenist belief that they represent all women is a blatant lie. Many, many women are social conservatives, about as many as men. These women don't want to pay for someone else's abortions, and they don't want their churches to be forced to pay for someone else's abortion pills.
C. Smith,
Nor do conservative woman want to pay to raise poor children and help the disadvantaged so why should I, as a liberal woman, care what a social conservative woman wants. The truth is I care about her and the poor and when you walk away from her when she is no longer perfect and old, I, and woman like me, will take care of her also.
Ana -
That is where you are wrong - you will expect someone else to take care of her as you will use tax moneys that are collected from taxpayers.
C. Smith
Actually, the churches already have an exception to the rule. The problem is the hospitals and other for-profit institutions. The solution is simple, basically give everyone a health plan allowance, the ones that want a plan that covers more have to pay extra. Just offer two plans, one with the prescription and one without. Let the employee decide which one they want. If there is a price difference, the employee can pay it.
But by denying that coverage to all employees is equivalent to them forcing a religious belief upon all of their employees, whether they are catholic or not. In my view, that amounts to religious discrimination by a for-profit entity.
And Tammy, that makes no sense. In your scenario AnaBanana will also be paying for it with her taxes. So she is really taking care of her too.
So when do I get to have lasic coverage and fertility treatments? Those are my rights as well.
The truth is many states already have this law in place, if you provide health insurance for your workers, it should have contraception offered. Being raised Catholic, and all the Catholic women I know do use some form of it. But it has been blown up into this huge ATTACK ON RELIGION. Which I don't think it is, but maybe they should see how the states handle it!
Hummbird - the states that do, exempt the faith based. That according to Kaiser Permanente.
The usual misinformation from DB. Dead wrong. This is a federal issue so states don't even have a say in it. Kaiser provides contraception coverage in all its plans. Do your homework before talking out your ass.
Hummbird - 26 states have this in practice - this is a red herring
Also the Catholic Church - 'sly old devils' are trying to deflect all of their suits against them to make themselves relevant - Pedophiles anyone?
They are not making anyone take anything. As well, there are many non-Catholics that work for church related industries.
Barbara, are you a pathetic anti-religious bigot against all religions, or just Catholicism? Do you hate Muslims too? (yeah, didn't think so). What a dumb bit*h.
jamey if they weren't there would be no back peddling - would there?
The church should support contraception or else the pedophiles might get their vitcims pregnant.
Roanoke... seems like you are the "female dog" in this issue. Are there not pedophiles in the catholic church? Yep, and they recieve protection to... so do you hate children by defending the catholic church, or are you that much against children and THEIR sanctity? STFU moron... The only bigots seem to be those who dislike non-religious people...
Also...about the free statement... you troll, the point was being made that if you want to intrude into ones personal life are you going to help? Guess you are to stuck on stupid (maybe that wine your sippin) to understand what was trying to be conveyed? Grade A tonka toy TOOL!
KingUnjust,
Seems you are a typical liberal spin doctor who enjoys imposing the right to kill babies on us all. Thanks! And your argument is a straw-man argument, as is the case with ALL liberal pseudo-intellectualism. Pedophiles are in ALL walks of life, libtard. Pedophiles exist in ALL religions, professions, countries, etc etc. But, like a typical racist religion-hating Jew-hating liberal, you only point out the pedophilia that has happened in the catholic Church. Nice try at deflecting away from the real issue like a complete and total fool. It is obvious you were schooled in our pathetic public school system, as you are unable to stay on topic and make a rational, logical argument. Just because someone supports their religion and their right to NOT have companies force abortion and contraception down their throat does not mean that they support pedophilia. First Amendment, I suggest you read it (if they ever taught you to read). Do you see how weak and pathetic your argument is?
And what are you doing online? Dont you have a park to be pooping in and cops to assault and women to rape and drugs to ingest all while living in a tent beating the drums and complaining about what you dont have in this life?? Better get to it!!
The easiest solution is to completely remove the contraception requirement from the bill.
Just make it a tax credit at the end of the year if it is so important.
armmurray: spoken like someone so ignorant they actually think pregnancy isn't the single largest health issue for women...This is why we HAVE separation of church and state in this country...so such plain, unadulterated ignorance isn't confused with public policy and the law.
KingJust627, Roanoke1,you can do way better than this, even if your recent histories don't demonstrate much of that. You're each suspended for a week for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat said Tuesday afternoon, said she doesn't know if Obama would change HHS's position.
First off, there are two points here that McCaskill alludes to;
Access and Costs
Under Access, she makes two points;
1. Catholic Hospitals and medical providers have been dealing with this in some way for decades and have been a barrier to,
2. Women's universal access to birth control. (abortion=birth control)
Under Costs, she makes one point;
1. Access should be paid for by someone else other than Women.
So what she (McCaskill) is saying is that Kathleen Sebelius position is that Women should have unlimited access to abortions and that the Catholic church through it's medical facilities should pay for it.
This is not going to fly with the Catholics, who tend to vote their faith. It is a direct attack against the Church's stance on abortion and has the potential to cost Obama the election.
He would be wise to alter his subordinates course.....
Egilmen- Birth control doesn't =abortion, Birth control the pill,IUD, patches etc!
hummbird-3359530,
I didn't mention abortion oe equate it with Birth Control, McCaskill did, IN THE ARTICLE, she raised it under the discussion of birth control....
Go tell her.
Egilman: Maybe you can't read, or failed reading comprehension. Sen. McCaskill said: "...those opposed abortion [THAT'S YOU] “need to quit putting barriers to women’s access to birth control [THAT'S THE INSURED WOMEN]."
In no way does the Senator equate birth control and abortion. She saying that's what YOU'RE doing. Which you are.
What a tool.
You know, you don't know me at all, and you think you turned the point around at me, but you are wrong. What was written in the article stands by itself and doesn't need your explanation to make it any clearer, this is why I quoted it precisely.
Second of all, I don't have a political axe to grind here either way, what a woman does with her body is between her and her god and NO ONE ELSE!
That includes you and people of your ilk.
I suggest that you quote: Geturheadoutofurazz!
Egil: Respond to what I said. Where does the Senator equate birth control with abortion???? Where is it????
Let me point out the big falacy in your statement: that abortion = birth control. It does not, these are distinguishable concepts and although one can argue that abortion is a subset of birth control in its broadest sense, no one can make the statement that "abortion is birth control" as these terms are used and understood.
egilman, where exactly did you find the article where she says 'someone else has to pay for it'??
AZZ,
I'll quote it again, one more time...
ie. Those people who appose abortion appose birth control by putting barriers to birth control access.
She equated access to birth control with abortion opposition.
what's not to understand?
zaruski,
I quoted it right out of the article above, the article we are posting in response to?
oh. that wasnt a direct quote. i get it now.
so what she did say is:
but what you did there was very dishonest. what she meant was that we should make birth control more accessible to women, and one such method would be through their health insurance policies. because otherwise those women would be paying for them completely out of their own pocket. she did not mean that you or i or any other tax payer ought to be paying for it.
.
zaruski,
I didn't claim that,
Nowhere did I make that claim, and I didn't accredit this to her either, she didn't say anything about the taxpayers paying for anything...
orly?
Joe D.Glenn,
Then, why didn't she directly say that, I'm not assuming nor extrapolating any meanings from what she said, I'm taking her direct word. This is how politicians get into trouble, they are so used to "Soundbite" statements, they don't really state what they mean.
McCaskill usually is a moderate, and is reasonable in her positions, I"m sure she thought she was being clear but she wasn't.
She did, probably thoughtlessly, equate the two positions.
From the article above....
Speaking for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, said on Jan. 20, the day Sebelius made her announcement, that the administration had
Does this answer the issue of abortion=birth control?
“We should be trying very hard to give women universal access to birth control” without them having to pay for it themselves.
Why? They are doing the f@cking, are they not? This should be an issue of finances. Can you afford a child? No? Can you afford birth control? No? Then don't f@ck!
rick that is very narrow minded thinking. so if a woman is married and wants to have sex with her husband she shouldnt be allowed to unless she is willing to have a child? that is a very backwards way of thinking.
Egilman,
Don't get caught up in the libs' version of arguing semantics. Usually, even after you post the direct quote you were referring to the entire time, they will come back with more demonizing tactics and insults...anything to skirt around the facts that have backed them into a corner.
Not a good week for our Flip-Flopper in chief. First, he does an about-face on abortion/contraceptives/Obamacare and he also FLIP FLOPPED on now being Pro SuperPAC after denigrating Republicans for the last two years for using SuperPACs! LOL!! Also, WHERE IS CATHOLIC JOE BIDEN IN ALL OF THIS??? NOT ONE PEEP SO FAR, HOW PATHETIC. AND WHERE IS THE SESTAK 7, YA KNOW, THE 7 DEMOCRATS WHO WERE OPPOSED TO OBAMA'S HEALTHCARE PLAN FOR THIS EXACT REASON? OBAMA PROMISED THEM THAT THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN, THUS ACQUIRING THEIR VOTES. NOW HE SHOWS HIMSELF FOR THE LIAR HE IS, AND THE SESTAK 7 IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. DEMOCRATS ARE SO PATHETIC.
Roanoke and Egliman... both of you just don't get it. It has been pointed and proved about the point that the Sen. was making. Creating strawmen to suit your argument are really un-jesus like. Why are both of you so keen on intruding into womens decisions on their health?
"Does this answer the issue of abortion=birth control?" Ummm, no you tool. That would mean that miscarriages were a form of self birth control... according to your stupid logic. Abortion is aborting a pregnancy. Birth control prevents the pregnancy... or tries to. I can't beleive you don't understand the different... and you have your cheerleader Roanoke1 claiming dems are pathetic? LOL Both of you tools are laughable.
I fully support a women's right to have sex or not have sex. But the consequences of those actions should not be paid by taxpayers. Is it any wonder this country is headed down the toilet when no one ever has to held accountable for their own actions?
Get in over your head with a house you could never afford, the government is here for you. Lost your job because the government ensured manufacturing would head overseas, no problem the government will extend unemployment benefits. Need birth control, no problem the government is here for you. Can't pay back your loans from college, the government is here for you. Don't...
Silver spoons up too many butts has put this country in a serious rut. We'll bury generations with mountains of debt, because its for us so what the heck. Moral behavior, never heard of it. Ethical standards, no longer apply. We are a country of mamby pambys, and thank goodness we have a government that understands how needy we are.
Also, if Obamacare is so great-why is Obama, his family, Congress and their families all exempt from it. Please explain this in depth liberals.
Breeze: I do believe you are more than a bit confused. No one is obligated to do anything except get some kind of insurance. Congress and the President already has insurance. If you want to make an argument for millions of uninsured, you go right ahead. (you can skip the in depth part).
This doesn't need a reversal - maybe some tweaking. The administration has appropriately given an exemption to churches. But hospitals and schools with religious affiliation hire many employees from different religious backgrounds. Should they be denied provision of these benefits just because everyone else they work with believes differently? Surely, it should be possible to identify those employees for whom the benefit can be extended individually without stepping on the religious rights of the others.
Ironically, if the Catholic church were secure about it's own beliefs they could truly trust their members to "follow their individual consciences" - even if the benefit is there, they wouldn't accept contraceptives, right? The reality is that the vast majority of practicing Catholics have been ignoring the Vatican on this issue since the 1970s - they have followed their indivdual consciences and decided that it was more important to care for their health than to populate the world with more Catholics.
Then you don't truly don't respect other faiths.
The only thing that should overrule religious beliefs or practices is if they are harming members with incest, rape, pedophilia, murder, or treason
Otherwise hands off!
OK DB, FLDS believe in poligamy? What about that? Can a man have 5 fives if they are all over 18?
There's DB with his head in his ass again. Doesn't respond directly to Lib's excellent argument and observations. Just goes on his usual Obama hate rant (AGAIN). That's what passes for reasoning in DB's world.
Also doesn't have a clue what the phrase "equal protection" means. That's why HE can say "hands off" as if he knows anything about the law.
What a tool!
You are all missing the point. Universal health care was never about a choice 1 policy governed by the government. All the Dems knew this and now they are walking away from it. Why? Because the Dems are the biggest supporters of the separation of church and state. All of a sudden, Sebelius has now taken that separation away by the government dictating what a religious organization can do. She has effectively conjoined the federal government and religious entities. This is a precedence that could roll back alot of actions that have been determined as the result of the separation. Question is this, If the federal government can impose it's belief on a religious entity, regardless of who it employs, then can a religious entity impose it's belief on the federal government since the two are no longer separate? I see alot of smart attorneys attacking any separation of church and state issue with this single decision. And the Supreme Court will have no choice but to eat it.
Lynn - Correction - WAS the biggest supporters. They are currently overrun by people who really don't care. I urge Democrats to dump this leadership and return to their roots of tolerance for all.
Devils son - doesn't appear to be a federal law about that, but there is plenty of state laws. Are you saying that you can peek in people's houses to see if they have two or more wives, but you cannot deny homosexual's marriage or women a right to an abortion. Interesting double standard from where I sit.
That's kind of like the partial birth abortioins in how it's okay to abort a fetus 24 weeks or older and yet we go to great lengths to save others born pre-maturely at 24 or more weeks.
DevilSon isnt worried about religion unless it can offer he and his family free stuff...he made that clear in his post above. "If you cant give me free stuff then I dont care about your opinion." Typical Democrat.
Azz has clearly never read the First Amendment. But that doesnt surprise me. Most liberals have NEVER read the constitution, and are always for trampling all over it. Just ask liberal Justice Ginsburg how great she feels the US Constitution is, and then you will see the liberals' general feeling on that whole Constitution-thingy, which is why there are so willing to deny Catholics this right.
Roanoke1... are the churches getting free money from the governments? WOW the blatant hypocrisy man... get over your self and your stupid religion.
KingJust,
Thank you for outing yourself as a typical liberal religion-hating bigot, you and Helen Thomas were made for each other! I guess Obama promising this wouldnt happen during the healthcare debate to acquire votes from his own party (Sestak 7), even signing an executive order TO ENSURE this would not happen, and now he flipflops, LIES, and you go all bat-shi*t crazy trying to defend him...when even many Democrats are upset about this. LOL, what a troll. If you dont care about the First Amendment, I'm sure your Nazi Jew-hating buddies in Germany will be more than happy to take you!
If this is an option, then it's like an option when you pick out your health plant, so what's is the problem? Catholic Church do not want to give people choices?
No, the choice exists when an employee CHOOSES to work for a Catholic organization and by doing so CHOOSES to adhere to the organizations rules and regulations. These employees can walk away at any time or purchase a rider for a small cost. CHOICE. NOT FORCING CATHOLICISM TO provide insurance for abortion-inducing drugs.
DB: seriously? You're going to advocate right wing Republican leadership and "tolerance" in the same sentence?? No wonder your side is losing and will lose so badly. You don't even understand the absurdity of your own argument.
Roanoke: No, you do not give up your rights as a citizen of the United States by working for a religious organization. There are exemptions for CHURCHES but don't confuse that with private organizations operating in the public sphere (i.e. hospitals). Would you seriously argue that a Catholic hospital could prohibit anyone from entering or working for them who wasn't Catholic? Of course not. Being Catholic doesn't mean you get to avoid the laws of the United States.
Last I checked, FORCING a religious-based organization to directly engage, financially and ethically, in something that said religious-based organization is doctrinally opposed, IS NOT LAW and is in direct violation of the First Amendment. Again, YOU CHOOSE to work there, you are not FORCED, but you are advocating it be the other way around...
This one is clear to me. Even religious organizations are subject toi the law!
If you don't agree, then this is tantamount to excusing the Catholic church for their recent evasions of pedophilia because, after all, it is a religious right to abuse altar boys! Do you seriously believe this?
hmmm, so the separation of church and state that the left screams about all the time means nothing now? Can't have it both ways.
EEngineer
And this one is clear to me, IF, your position is that anyone who thinks that the church shouldn't give up it's religious convictions to government control, approves of raping children and has the right to rape children!
If this is really your position you are one sick AZZ!
I see also, your position is that anyone who thinks that the church shouldn't give up it religious convictions to government control approves of raping children!
Well, no, It is the position of the Catholic Church that government should not be able to prosecute the Catholic church, because it is a church, no matter how perverse it is! Is that OK?
EEngineer,
No it is not OK! pedophiles should be dressed in skirt and panties and let out in prison general population, that is the only punishment fit for their crime.
But please tell me that you really do not believe what you posted above, that anyone who supports the church supports pedophilia? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Rather than clouding the issue Egilman, let's go back to the central point here, which is that Catholic hospitals are not the equivalent to the church. They are employers, AND they accept federal funds. Therefore, they are subject to federal law. Isn't that clear? Why should these type of institutions get a waiver for contraception prescriptions?
Folks like Vol Fan should educate themselves about what a church/state 1st Amendment issue is and what it isn't. I assume they have libraries there in Tennessee, right?
All you have to do is read the Catholic church's response to the charges leveled against them.
If you are truly a Catholic and you believe in what they say, then you have to believe pedophilia is OK!
You know that might be what Vol Fan responded to, I responded to the balance of EE's post concerning pedo's and a position he proposed.
What is lost on you in this? Why call me out for responding on a topic that EE raised?
Again you need to practice some Geturheadoutofurazz!.....
EEngineer
Well, I guess you really do personally believe this then, my prior statement stands...
Azz;
Here you go read the first amendment.
The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
So free exercise of religion means that the government will not interfere with people who wish to exercise that religion. Not commit a crime. There are no protections for child abuse in the first amendment. Next point is that it is the peoples right to exercise that religion and not have any other religious views or non religious views pounded down their throat. If a religious entity does not believe in contraception as a component of their belief then the Federal government must back off because of the first amendment. If you work for a Church sanctioned Hospital, you are not required to believe in their faith but they get to chose what is in the health care package. (exercising their religious belief) You have a choice to walk away or buy your own rider to the policy. (exercising your religious belief) When the Federal government tells a church that their belief structure is no longer in line with the federal government. Then the federal government has sanctioned a religion. (making any law respecting an establishment of religion). So there is no longer separation. The Federal Government has made a law that is supported by religions that do believe in contraceptive care. This truly sucks for all of you people who always cry separation of church and state.
Freedom of religion eh, So muslim institution should be allowed to exercise sharia law because the christian laws go against some of their beliefs?
The Catholic Church is against pedophilia and always has been. However there is a difference between the Catholic Church official teaching and what some Catholics do. The Church is against bank robbery yet some Catholics rob banks. The Catholic Church is against birth control, euthanasia, abortion, prostitution, etc. and should not be expected to support it.
If a hospital is founded as a Catholic institution it should not be forced to support something it is opposed to. The current employees of the hospital are not losing anything. Some Catholic hospitals do have insurance policies that include birth control and their policies would not need to change. It is a matter of choice. You have the choice to do what you want as long as it does not affect me.
I should not be required to pay for whatever you choose. For me to argue that Nevada allows prostitution does not mean I should require you to pay me to fly to Nevada and pay for a prostitute!
Well this is interesting indeed. Here's a Dem Representative who now says she would NEVER have voted for it if she had known that the Executive order Obama signed to get it passed was a sham:
You cannot trust this ADM. PERIOD!! They will say and do whatever for a vote.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-kathy-dahlkemper-i-wouldnt-have-voted-obamacare-if-id-known-about-hhs-regulation_626302.ht
Vol Fan: Some representative in a swing district bends with the wind and you use that for the basis for a hate Obama rant? Pathetic.
Also, your information is so much BS. Representatives don't vote for Executive Orders; they are issued by the President and have the force of law. What a tool!
Finally, the issue is CONTRACEPTIVES, NOT ABORTIONS. Can't you read?
Your ignorance was also on display up at 7.1; see my response at 7.5.
I love it, you provide DEMOCRATS who are against this, but AZZ comes back with silly little justifications and attempts at skirting the issue...even when its proven that there are plenty of Dems against this (hence the title of the ENTIRE ARTICLE). LOL!! Gotta love liberal spin. Oh, and Azz, it appears you have a reading comprehension problem, how many times are you going to blindly ignore it, from the article above: "ordered almost every employer and insurer in the country to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans.”---LOL. Oops, eh? Can't you read? Talk about ignorance. Lol.
"I care about the very rich and the very poor," Santorum told supporters. "I care about 100 percent of America." ... lmfao
Why is that funny to you?
is this the best the republican party can do? seriously...
0bama doesn't mind messing with Catholics but he's a wimp when it's time to take on the muslims.
No one is forcing them to take the pill. they just want everone to have access, The church doesn't even want that. Why? Because even their own people use birth control.
you are exactly right. you can either take it or not. when 98 % of women are taking it already and 28 states already have these measures in place. what exactly is going on.
There is a difference to women having access, and the Catholic Church providing access. They aren't trying to pass laws preventing women from getting access to birth control. They don't care what people do that aren't Catholics. They are fighting to not be required to PROVIDE access to birth control.
Wait a minute, there are two hospitals in my city. One St Al's is Catholic and the other St Luke's is Episcopal. So it is fair that employees at St Luke's as part of their insurance have access to contraception and because St Al's is Catholic their employees regardless of their faith do not.
Bottom line is Insurance is Insurance. If the Catholic church does not want it's members using birth control they should be addressing their members not forcing their beliefs on non members who work for a business run by the church.
"They are fighting to not be required to PROVIDE access to birth control." And you do find this disturbing?
KingUnjust has a reading problem,
He keeps making claims that this is just about contraception (and forgetting that Obama garnered many votes on his HCA precisley for siging an executive order stating that this WOULD NOT HAPPEN). LOL. Oh well, who cares about those pesky facts, eh? Certainly not parrot liberals like you!
From the above article, since you cant read: "ordered almost every employer and insurer in the country to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans." -Its not just preventative tools, you douchebag, it also forces employers, who might be against abortion, to PROVIDE the drugs that are used to kill babies in the womb in their insurance plans. WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT THAT? LOL. Liberals are so dense.
it is amazing how this country continues to try and take away rights and freedoms from women.
What right have they been denied with this issue? They still have the freedom to get the medications they wish. They also have the freedom to pay for it.
I have no problem with contraceptives, or if a woman chooses to get an abortion. That is a choice she must make. She also made the decision to f@ck and that has consequences, and most likely financial consequences for the rest of us.
Rick... especially when women are FORCED to have these children because of the anti abortion zealots. Ironic huh?
Yeah, stop taking away women's rights. Like the ability of all women to have sex whenever, where ever, and with whomever they want without having to worry about who will pay for the consequences for their own actions. Freedom from sexual consequences needs to be in the Bill of Rights.
They were also forced to lay down and get plowed without using protection. But sure, that should always be the taxpayers' fault. Everyone else should have to pay for the consequences of their actions. Gotcha. Liberal policies at their brightest.
So now we're assuming that every woman taking contraception is an irresponsible slut? What about those who are trying to keep their family small, or know they can't afford to support another child?
Contraception is a very important service, and possibly (i) government-paid, or (ii) reduced-premium "without contraception" insurance plus the availability of low-cost health insurance for contraception--with the total hopefully no more than customary inclusive insurance--might be one approach. It would be fair to find a workable solution that reasonably accommodates to religious dogma within religious institutions. (This is true even though, for example, 98-99% of both Catholic and non-Catholic women will practice birth control during their lives--and even though the best and most effective way to reduce abortions may be through the use of contraception.)
[This is completely different from a pharmacist denying contraception on the claim that, for the pharmacist, it is is a matter of "conscience" or "religious belief".]
sig - I like your idea of a government paid insurance rider that would not require institutions to pay for the health insurance coverage they find offensive. I don't think that Catholic hospitals are against paying for coverage that is acceptable.
Tom: Thanks. I do think it is important that all elements of a "package" are stated, acceptable all around and implemented together. The reason: the wording of an exception for Catholic hospitals and institutions is important so that it is clear to all what is intended, and that the insurance coverage is available and can be continued or put in place immediately.
You dont have to be a Catholic to find this progressive-engineered effort utterly offensive and anti-Constitutional....you just have to believe an innocent human being should not be killed in the same fashion as those killed by Dr Mengele.
Obama reallly put his foot in it this time, and I dont think he will be able to scrape it and its smell off before the election.
This is why people should really think hard before voting....emotion-based screw-ups like this can have far-ranging effects...
As usually Dems wants to bow to GOP pressure. If you bow to pressure,
you will pay the price, not the other way around. I guess Dems did not learn
from 2010. They ran away from healthcare & left the President fighting
alone, that is why they lost. Media always want white house controversy. They
have been craving for it from this white house particularly. As Dems, what is
your excuse?
Once again the media is reporting this wrong. You can’t even
tell by watching all these so called media report that the white house has
already exempt religious organizations from the contraception deal until you go
to whitehouse.gov to get the facts. The media pretends that there is no exemption
at all. The media should start these reports by telling the public the truth
that churches has already been exempt. The exemption they gave is enough, no additional
exemption. If you exempt businesses like hospital & schools then what good
is the coverage; nobody gets covered because these businesses are where most
women are in America. The republican extremist has been looking for ways to
take our birth control. It has nothing to do with abortion. We allowed them to
win the abortion fight, so now they have stretched it into birth control &
cancer treatment & other women health issues. How many decades are we going
to keep having the same fight?
Men, you have no idea
the pain we go through to find these necessities; so before you open your mouth
to talk rubbish, remember there are women all around you. If we are not happy
in our own country, this country will not be happy. So, republicans keep
pushing us & treating us even worse than your pets. Your pets can get all
the care they want but women in America can’t even get contraception and this
is 2012. Crazy! Yet they want us to keep having sex with our husbands & satisfying
all his sexual fantasy. You should hear Santorum’s lecture on marriage. These
people are crazy. They can’t have it both ways.
Just having their name on a piece of paper doesn’t mean they
run the hospital. Americans should know that Catholics do not run these so
called catholic hospitals. They hire people like us to do all the work while
they ripe the benefits, while imposing their believes on others. As a nursing
director & a board member (in a catholic hospital), most of us on the board
are not Catholics & Catholics do not run the day to day operation of these
facilities, we do and we believe in contraception for all women.
These hospitals have been providing contraception to their
employees for decades, so what seems to be the problem now; other than Precedent
Obama supporting it. GOP has been looking for a way to attach Obama to a religion
controversy. But they found a weak argument. They will lose on this one. America
should send GOP a strong message now & again in November which says, back
off (our men should also tell them). Stay away from women health issues. They
should be ashamed of themselves, picking on women. I am ashamed of today’s GOP
group for many reasons, one of them is healthcare. Healthcare is a very
important issue that affects millions of Americans, yet they treat it so cavalier.
The Media should make it clear that the administration has
no intention of intriguing on any body’s right. They have nothing to gain
politically or otherwise. It is a fine-print that needs to be resolved, just
like many states have done & the administration is working on it. Almost 1 1/2yrs
to resolve this. This is what majority want & the President is taking a
stand, as he should, as the President, that this choice should be available to
women, if they choose to use it. If he didn’t take a stand, we will still
complain. You can’t have it both ways.
Secondly, give this President credit for fighting for
American people, not allowing special interest groups to push him around, taking
on issues that his predecessors continuously ran away from since they were politically
unpopular. Yes, these major issues he takes on (& wins) are not politically
popular for him but they are necessary debate for the country to have. He is
doing it for us, not for himself. I am writing this with the assumption that he
will serve a second term. He knows if he doesn’t tackle it, we may have to wait
decades again for another president who will be bold enough like him; since not
all president want to deal with it. Ask yourselves, how long are you willing to
wait for your contraception, 20-50yrs? Surely, it causes him some political
pain but the public will be there for him in November. We will not abandon him.
I believe he will have the ultimate victory at the end.
When I talk to people, majority tell me they like his
policies & his achievements. They are all coming out in Nov to vote. It
seems that the gap between him & the GOP crown is wider than the polls are
reporting; 2008 gap was a surprise even to the media, 2012 may be even a bigger
surprise but we all have to come out & vote, every vote count. Some of
these people also told me that what we experienced was actually a depression according
to the indicators but economist & the markets prefer to use ‘major
recession’ instead. They only use the word ‘depression’ when the depression is
major & they simply can’t avoid using that word. Nevertheless, they said
major recession usually take a country approximately 7yrs to recover. Look at Japan;
it took them till 1993 to recover from their 1986 recession but not fully. Then
in 1997, they had another major recession, which many believe resulted from a
weakened economy carried over from the 1986 bubble. How many yrs did that one
take them?
The fact that we started gaining jobs in just one year,
23months ago & recovery (turning a corner) in just 3yrs is something that
republicans definitely did not want to hear. As the president knows, recovering
is not the only answer to an economic meltdown; what you put in place to
prevent it from happening again is equally crucial. These are also what he is fighting
for but republicans are blocking everything. He reminds me of my grandfather,
the most brilliant man I’ve ever known. He will not let GOP turn back the clock
& repeat Bush’s policies. The media should remind the public how it was with
Bush’s policies. People seem to have amnesia at election time. Also remember
when you vote for president, you are also voting for the person who will
appoint a Supreme Court justice (life time appointment), one of the most
important job in the land. Why do you thing the Supreme Court today is far
right? We need at least two lefts to make it neutral like it is suppose to be.
Majority still remembers what happened with Bush & GOP
policies & we will not go backwards. We will send a strong message that
money isn’t everything; GOP money verses people’s voice. I am exhausted, can’t see
the keys anymore. I am going to bed. This entire topic is very upsetting…..
I don't think they are bowing to the GOP. I think that perhaps even democrats recognize the freedoms as enumerated in the US Constitution, specifically, the First Amendment.
Yeah, Sig just provided an extremely long-winded, heavily partisan, pseudo-intellectual, completely lacking in objectivity, rant in which she attempts to justify and make excuses for trampling the First Amendment. Yikes. The half-truth is harder to discern and much more palatable than the outright lie, especially when spooned with the syrup of 'scholalry' prose. She doesn't care about our rights, only HER beliefs. Carry on with your propaganda, Sig.
Oh, and as for polls Sig, I suggest you check out Obamas polls in ALL 12 SWING STATES. HE IS UNDER 50% APPROVAL IN ALL 12!! And most of them are CATHOLIC-Heavy states!! LOL!! And in many polls, Romney and Obama are in a virtual tie!! Couple this with OBama LYING about SuperPACS and LYING about contraceptives and abortion to millions of Catholics, it would seem that he has a tough road to sled to get re-elected. Especially considering NO incumbent president HAS EVER BEEN RE-ELECTED with approval numbers as low as Obama's!!!! LOL!!!
VBEST, the above comment is for YOU. NOT sig. My fault.
Everyone is missing the real point in all of this, and that is this has nothing to do with helping women. This was a back room deal between the Democrats in Congress that wrote this garbage piece of legislation and Big Pharma to get a lavish and very profitable perk slipped into ObamaCare. After all the taxpayers from some distant generation will be picking up the tab, so who cares?
the democrats mentioned in the article are not bowing to the republicans, they are up for re-election.
Vbest - You wrote: "These hospitals have been providing contraception to their employees for decades, so what seems to be the problem now; other than Precedent Obama supporting it."
Some hospitals provide contraception and I think that over 20 states say they should. If the hospital decides to offer contraception then it will still be able to. The issue is "forcing" a religious organization to support something they are opposed to. A Catholic hospital is not going to say that none of their employees are allowed to use birth control. However to say that a Catholic hospital is "required" to provide birth control insurance coverage is different. To "require" the hospital to provide birth control insurance coverage is to force the hospital to support something it opposes.
Bet most people don't know that 28 states already require health insurance plans to cover contraceptives; 8 of those states require it with no exemptions, not even for churches or any other religious institution. In fact many major Catholic universities and hospitals, even if they are not located in one of the 28 states that require them to cover contraceptives for employees, do so.
I've seen this referenced over and over. Please stop. "This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false. All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA). None of these havens is available under the federal mandate. It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption. It is broader: It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule's narrow tax code criterion. Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as 'emergency contraceptives' like Preven."
Learn the Facts:
There is nothing about this that states you have to buy or use contraceptives. There is nothing about this that forces the faithful to violate their religion. Some would even say this is a test from their deity to resist that which is against their beliefs but is freely offered to them. Do you not use contraceptives only because they are too expensive or because your faith says not to. This ruling does nothing to your relationship with your deity.
Oppie, it's not about use. They're going to make Catholic institutions PAY for it.
Oppie - I am not preventing you from buying or using contraceptives just because I don't want to pay for it.
Why don't we hear large groups of Catholics speaking out against this issue?
The answer is easy, as several other post today have noted virtually every Catholic woman takes, or has taken birth control. The only Catholics that support the leadership decisioon are the leaders of the Church and a very small lay person group. In short Catholics are not agains birth control, the very strict leaders are.
So, why don't we hear Catholics speaking in favor of the issue? Again, an easy answer: to even voice support for birth control is to risk excommunication by the Church.
I think that the President said it very well during the State of the Union address when he quoted President Lincoln; "government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more." That is exactly what is happening here. Why should an employee of a Catholic institution (not a church) be denied the same benefits that are available to all others? Remember if they requested this benefit the could be excommunicated.
Meanwhile, while the great majority of Catholics are muzzled the right speaks out against this as if they know what's right for Catholics. Shame on them!
Where do we draw this line? Do we say that it's okay fo @!$%#e's from Saudi Arabia to beat their wives and forbid them from driving, or going outside without being accompanied by a male because their religious leads say it is? No body is making the Church members take a drug or change their behavior. What if those leaders object on religious grounds to the education of their daughters is that okay?
So your argument is that the US government should force this abomination to protect Catholics from being excommunicated? Really?
Your point about people from Saudi Arabia is a straw man. You see, in this country, it is illegal to beat people. As for driving, etc., if the wife wants to obey her husband as presumably she has been brought up to believe is the right thing to do - why else would she marry into that kind of relationship? - it is certainly no business of the government. She has free will.
This is about to change as you will see large groups of Catholics speaking out on this and the sole reason why I created an account here today. Mark my words, if this mandate is not reversed, you WILL see large numbers of Catholics speaking out against this on Tuesday, November 6, 2012.
The other posts here "not[ing] virtually every Catholic woman takes, or has taken birth control" is irrelevant and misleading. The survey by the Guttmacher institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, actually reads, "this is true of 98% of 'sexually experienced' women". The more relevant statistic is that the drugs and devices subject to this mandate (sterilization, hormonal prescription contraceptives and IUDs) are used by 69% of those women who are 'sexually active' and 'do not want to become pregnant'. Surely that is a minority of the general public, yet every man and woman who needs health insurance will have to pay for this coverage.
That is patently FALSE! If that were true, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, also Catholic, would have been booted out of the Church a long time ago.
"There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing." Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
The government has no right to tell men or women what they can or cannot do, consensually, in their bedrooms. All Democrats and Republicans should agree on that as a first principle. When that has been accepted by all, then we can gather all the scientific facts regarding sex and reproduction, study them, and decide whether or not they belong in the bedroom category of rights. For the nonce, in the name of individual liberty, the rights of women to control their own bodies and well being should be paramount.
This is all about organizations from the religious right acting to restirct access to birth control. As far as I am aware, there has not been a case of someone being forced to excercise birth control (although many would argue that the Repubs should be forced to excercise birth conrol). Conversely, the religious right frequently acts, oftern criminally, to preclude access to birth control, which, the last time I checked, was perfectly legal. The administrations decision was the correct decision.
If your mom had had the morning after pill the world would be a better place.
Hey, Malcolm X was fine racist bigot of a man. Nice idol.
JCnGAM - There is nothing in the law that prevents you from buying me a cup of coffee every day if it is your choice. However, I doubt that you would be in favor of me forcing you to buy me a cup of coffee every day.
None of the arguments I have seen so far have anything to do with forcing or not forcing birth control. You can choose to use birth control if you want to but why should I have to pay for it?
Catholic hierarchy should stay out of this.....you cannot have two sets of laws.....one for the rest of us and one for the Catholic Church.
Thats what the Catholic church has had for its entire existence. Do as I say not as I do
Well said. Laws and regulations should treat everyone equally. This regulation does that. It follows the first amemdment to the letter. Case closed.
The Nazi thugs don't care about the mother physically or psychologically, just squeeze that baby out and high fives all around.
Are you under the impression that catholic hospitals are Americans only source of contraception? Aren't their Private doctors and Wallmart Pharmacies all over the country?
No contraception...the Church doesnt want to run out of its supply of little boys
You obsess to much about little boys.
What? Catholics do not use birth control? Yea.... right.... My father was from North Dakota with a big catholic town.... more families... 5 to 8 kids (my father was one of 10).... now?..... Catholics are just like the rest of us... they may bitch about it... but most of them are on the pill and ignore the Vatican..... but why would they say that... The Catholic church is a bunch of old men running a world wide institution and they just don't get it.
I'm guessing you don't believe in God. do you believe in freedom of religion?
I believe in freedom of religion . So much so that it should gain no special treatment from the government . Right now churches are subsidized by the taxpayers by having to pay no taxes . My tax dollars are helping keep nutjobs like that fool from Florida who keeps burning Korans in business . End all special treatment for churches . Make them pay their fair share in taxes . Make them obey the law of the land like everybody else . Freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion .
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
..., or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Thus No Freedom FROM Religion in the USA, it is unconstitutional. Move to N Korea is you want Freedom From Religion. Then we will not have to listen to your lies and bigotry.
My lies and bigotry are what keeps you from having to bow to the Religion of the day . If you had your way the faith of the land would be dictated by whoever was in power . Prohibiting the free exercise thereof is fine , as long as people like you stop trying to enforce your silly myths on me . You can be all the fool you like , don't make me subscribe to your fantasy . And don't make me pay for your delusion .
Well said, Mike. Well said...