This reminds me of the fight scene in Rocky IV. Rocky (aka the Republicans) seems to be up against a powerful and unbeatable Communist (Obama) who is using steroids (lying to the American public). Rocky is getting beat down but all of a sudden the Communist makes a mistake and leaves himself open. "HE'S CUT!!!!! He sees his blood and he knows he is vulnerable and Rocky knows he is not invincible and soon shows his Communist followers (democrats) he can be beaten. A tree is only dropped after several cuts to the trunk. Get ready for TIMBER!!!!!!!!

And the rights of women to control their own bodies...that will also be lost. I guess if a religious group decides to engage in something other than religious activity, like running a hospital, then they can take their beliefs and apply them to whatever that activity is, regardless of the impact on the rest of us. What if every hospital was run by a religious institution? Should they still be allowed this same freedom, even if it meant that women would be denied coverage for birth control. Funny how these beliefs ALWAYS seem to restrict the rights of women. No restrictions on men, just women. One would be forgiven for determining that this was about controlling the sexual choices women have. In other words, their freedom. If that's far left then I'm proud to be on that side of the spectrum.

Ben

I hope this is the beginning of pushing back the far left agenda. We have put up with this kind of crap for too long. President Obama should have run for governor of a state not Presidet of the United States of America. The Federal Government under this man keeps overstepping their authority.

I support this decision as much as I support the Komen reversal and am pro-planned parenthood.

All the major religions are sexist, without equal rights for women. However, we happen to protect the rights of those sexist religions in this country. If I were a woman, I wouldn't want to go to a Catholic Hospital for anything regarding the birth of a child, and I would expect my government to make sure a hospital was near enough to me to take care of me regardless of its religious agenda.

That doesn't make me conservative or liberal. It makes me respect conservatives and liberals rights.

I don't know why anyone is surprised about this. You should have known this when you voted for the clown and the Democrats that passed the abortion that is Health Care Reform. The Constitution is an old out of date document. So is the Bible. Heck, they didn't even have cell phones back then. What could they possibly know about the modern man and how smart he is today. Religions are also passe. The Radical Left Wing Liberal/Progressive Wack Jobs know what's best for you and me. Wasn't that what this country was founded on? Freedom of religion and association but only to the limits of what the Left Wing Liberal/Progressive Wack jobs will allow? Funny thing is I didn't know that there was such a problem getting birth control at your local pharmacy? I can understand someone that is jobless needing some assistance purchasing it, I believe Planned Parenthood gives it out for free for these people, but I didn't know it was a problem for working people. Things that make you go huh?

All the major religions are sexist

Heh, Catholics won't even allow women to be priests.

Once religious groups enter into "business" they need to follow the same rules as all other business!

Old white men trying to "control" women!

The party of freedom trying to deny women the right to control their own bodies . Anyone surprised ?

@Seanskie, The rights for women to control their own bodies is not lost at all with this. This doesn't make contraception illegal. It just means that those who want it, pay for it themselves, instead of using other peoples money to pay for it. That sounds fair to me.

I am an atheist and social liberal, but the Obama administration is trampling on the Constitution here.

Jo-An, would you prefer the church close all Catholic hospitals, universities, schools and social programs?

We all need to defend religious liberty, the federal government is out of line here and we need to reign it in.

JH are you kidding?! President Obama is nowhere NEAR left wing! As a liberal and a progressive, I can tell you, we are very, very unhappy with his constant cave-ins to the extreme fringe right wing. He's nothing more than a moderate, has continued most of Bush's policies, he's just "Bush-lite".

Marbles, Catholic hospitals, etc. employ and serve "non-Catholics", should they force their religion onto OTHERS?

They need to leave their religious belief's in their churches!

What about non-Catholic's rights??

Amen Marbles er I mean right on!! It's the constitution that's at question here.

You see it time and time again by the right.

"If you don't let us do what we want we'll close down all Catholic hospitals and everyone will suffer".

Nothing like the right trying to use religion to tell Americans what to do via religion. Unintended pregnancies is a problem here in the US and it takes a toll on the safety nets that are in place.

Over 60% of Catholic women use birth control and would love not to have to pay for it. Talk about hypocrisy.

As for Obama being socialist or communist or far left. Name what he's done that is socialist, communist, or far left. The guy is pretty much center right much to the chagrin of the left.

Also, where in the Bible does it say "thou shalt not have contraception"?

No one is stopping them from receiving care. They retain their rights. Catholic hospitals will employ no one if they are closed.

Doesn't Planned Parenthood provide such funding for example? Why do we need to federalize it?

Why is it that people get so riled up about the 2nd amendment, but prefer to ignore the first? Can someone please explain this to me? Thomas Jefferson spoke of the need to create a "a wall of separation between church and state". He did not, however, say that everyone should carry a semi-automatic hand gun.

Because it makes sense. If you want more affordable health care then you have to reduce things like unintended pregnancies.

Once the church becomes a business, they lose their right on this. They need to operate like any other health care business.

Stepping on the Constitution... what a load of crap. Twenty-eight states already have this identical mandate and there hasn't been any bitching or moaning from them so far. This is just a bunch of old white guys seeing this as an opportunity to force their views on the country. If they succeed here they'll try and get it over-turned in those states... any Republicans going to complain about states rights then?

It's time we as a nation stood up for women's rights rather than give it lip-service and ignore where women are trampled on. One this President Obama has been consistent on is women's rights, including getting the Lilly Ledbetter (sp?) act passed through.

Seriously... women's reproductive control being determined by a bunch of old white guys in dresses? Really?

This was to be expected. Appeared Obama might lose too many votes, so now he's trying to please everyone like Clinton did.

Mr. President, you might try sending out trial balloons first. That seemed to work OK for Clinton.

(For young people and/or those new to the political scene, trial balloons were basically used to test if an idea was politically favorable. Something used by politicians more interested in votes than acting on principle.)

JH-479998

The far left wing of this country will lose this issue.

Mr. Obama is the President of the far left wing. He is also the president of the rest of us but he loves the far left. He will lose.

I hate to burst your bubble, JH, but the majority of Americans, including Catholics, use birth control and believe it should be part of women's health care coverage.

This is not a 'left wing' issue! Mr. Obama is a moderate, which is why he is about to announce a compromise on this. Please get your terms straight. Obama is NOT left wing.

He will win.

Jo-An, Parrothead, apparently Mr. Obama is re-considering this position.

And please lay off the "old white guys" song and dance. It is racist and sexist.

This falls strictly under employment law.

These groups cannot discriminate in hiring - it is against the law. Therefore they will always have some employees that do not share their beliefs. And those employees have every right to be able to choose contraceptive services.

The religious wingnuts in this country need to quit trying to get their religion all over other people.

.

That's "old white guys in dresses" Marbles. :-)

My entire family is Catholic. I don't know of any of the women not using birth control at one point or another, and no one cared. This bill simply allows the poorest to be able to afford birth control as well. This IS an attack on women's right, and yes, it's sexist to the highest extent.

I stand by my comments. The only ones pitching a fit are the old white guys of the Catholic church. In dresses.

The President caves on this He's going to lose a political windfall. Women are rightly enraged about the overbearing, high handedness of the Catholic church and any politician who panders to It. I don't blame the women. That church is a goddamn fool telling women they haven't sense enough to make their own choices in such matters. Either way it goes, the Catholic churce is further diminished in this country.

I am an atheist and social liberal, but the Obama administration is trampling on the Constitution here.

I disagree. In this case, we are talking about religious affiliated organizations. Hospitals, Universities, etc., are NOT acting as a church - they are providing a service. Since they are not acting as a church, then how can they expect to be entitled to the exemptions allowed for churches?

In another post you mentioned Planned Parenthood. PP certainly does help a lot of women - and should continue doing so. However, their sliding fee or free services are available to low-income women only - in other words, many of the employees at the religious affiliated organizations would not qualify for programs that provide affordable access to birth control.

Also, keep in mind this regulation is already in place in over 20 states - 8 of them don't provide any exemptions (which the Administration's plan does allow exemptions). It just appears strange that this becomes an issue now, when in many places they are already required to provide access to birth control. Where was the furor over it when the states passed similar laws?

Well said SBParrothead! Well said!

And I will borrow

"old white guys in dresses"

Ain't that the truth!!!

Is there anyone here that didn't know that the Catholic Church has had a problem with birth control policy for oh say, a couple of centuries?

Now the flip side how many of you know that the Pill wasn't covered by insurance plans until a few years ago; When VIAGRA hit the market and was covered by prescription plans immediately. . . . Then the pill was approved.

The County I used to work for did a repeating grant from the Feds for male cancer screening, but had a greater percentage of cervical cancers and mortality. Where was the grant for that.

And women still get paid 70 odd cents on the dollar.

Please don't wrap this up in equality.

This is the President playing more games with voting blocs.

If you want to run a church, fine. The constitution protects them from government intrusion. But if that church wants to run a business, it's subject to labor laws. End of story. You don't get to deny people their pay because your religion doesn't allow work on the Sabbath, nor could you fire someone at 50 because your religion demands that the elderly stop working. If you start a business in America, you obey the laws.

Jo-An - the views of the Catholic Church are clear and very well known on the issue of contraception and morning after pills. If you don't agree with it, no one is forcing anyone to work for them - work somewhere else. Respect is a two way street. Just as you expect others to respect your right to "control your body" and use contraceptives if you so choose, you must respect the right of the church to stand by 2,000 years of their religious beliefs. No one is denying access to anything. The argument is that these religious institutions should not have to pay for something that they believe is a mortal sin.

Been: already, our tax dollars go to fund Planned Parenthood whether abortion is against your religious beliefs or not.

Your screen name has already alerted the rest of us that you are not receptive to the facts.

Indeed, your comment confirms it. No tax dollars or public funds go to abortion under Planned Parenthood. The Hyde Amendment specifically prevents it.

Are we all reading the same article? In here it states that the President has reversed his position from mandating that the hospitals provide it through their insurance plan to allowing employees to access it directly. The religious organizations are therefore not providing it (against their beliefs), but women still have access to it (providing for their right to choose birth control)....I think this seems like a win/win for both sides. Does everyone just like to complain?

Cruzin, the religious institutions won't be paying for it. The insurance companies will. Yes, it'll be covered in the policies offered to employees and the institutions will be paying their share of that, but so will the employee. It likely won't add to the cost of the policies much at all, and it gives greater access to women that can't afford it.

Perhaps it's time the Catholic church was drug into the moderm millenia. The current Pope actually acknowledged evolution as real scientific theory, so it's possible.

*to access it directly from the insurance companies*

It's sad how the angry old Tea Party Obama-haters want to prevent women from having access to medicine.

Contraceptives are medicine and should be covered by health insurance just like any other medicine. Many women use them not as birth control, but to help with a lot of other painful health conditions.

Angry old men in funny hats (Bishops) and angry old men in funny tin-foil hats (Tea Partiers) are allied together on the wrong side of this issue.

Thankfully, this policy only affects businesses and not churches, Mongoose.

Toasty, right on!

Cruzin, see Toasty's remarks.

No one is contesting the rights of the Catholic Church. They can do whatever they want behind the doors of their church. But when they venture into the business world, sponsoring hospitals and schools, they are subject to the rules of society at large.

If you want to run a church, fine. The constitution protects them from government intrusion. But if that church wants to run a business, it's subject to labor laws. End of story. You don't get to deny people their pay because your religion doesn't allow work on the Sabbath, nor could you fire someone at 50 because your religion demands that the elderly stop working. If you start a business in America, you obey the laws.

This is fact, not opinion. Absolutely correct

Toasty - the church and its institutions are excluded from certain regulations that govern most businesses - ie, the church/institution does not have to hire someone who is not of their belief system. There is something called a conscience clause which protects people from having to act against their conscience - an example is conscientious objector status for a member of the Jehovah's Witness religion.

Eric-913730

Because it makes sense. If you want more affordable health care then you have to reduce things like unintended pregnancies.

Once the church becomes a business, they lose their right on this. They need to operate like any other health care business.

Eric - unintended pregnancies - Oh Please! Personal responsibility. You forgot that. Everyone should be responsible and everyone should PAY for their own Birth Control - Men and Women! You want to have sex - then you protect yourself and make sure that unwanted pregnancies do not happen.

Here we go again - What happened to people making sure that they take Personal Responsibility?

Sven, the states have the same exemptions the HCA provision does.

Catholics vote more for the Democrats. Left wing idealogy is attacking the Catholic church. I don't have a problem with that action it is a win/win situation for the Republicans.

The solution obviously is for President Obama to undo the problem that he created. He will instead try to compromise. Good luck with that.

Cruizin, this isn't the church that is being affected, only profit-making businesses. Believe me, if this was an unconstitutional infringement on churches, I'd be the first to speak against it.

But it's not. These are labor laws that affect businesses.

Toasty,

Isn't a Catholic Hospital an establishment of religion?

Everybody seems to think this is such a clean cut issue.

Is it religious? Yes.

Is it a business? Yes.

It is BOTH, so really, do we want to have courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, rule either/or? I think not.

I'm siding with protecting the religion as long as there's non-religious hospitals within serviceable range. Because you don't HAVE to work there, and then you won't HAVE to go there, and that is that.

Religions can be neanderthalic. But if you want to go to a religious hospital, that only hires men, and doesn't give you birth control, and there's another hospital you can work at or go to, well, guess what. You may not like it, but that's how it is in a country that protects religion as well as gives you the rights to be non-religious.

Athiest crusades do not have a moral high ground in my book. If you want to convince someone of a point of view, that's fine. But stop using laws to inflict points of views on others instead of trying to have things work out for both groups of people.

Getting birth control requires a prescription - which requires a doctor visit. You can't just walk into a pharmacy and ask for it.

That means that women who need birth control have to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription. That's not cheap.

I think it's obvious that health coverage should include birth control and also obvious that, while Catholic churches should be exempt, any of their businesses that employ and serve non-Catholics should not. The alternative is to say that they can force all non-Catholic employees to abide by Catholic doctrine.

I also think it's obvious that Obama knows something the right wing doesn't - the word COMPROMISE.

They should do that some time. Hell, the mormons shouldn't have to ask for an exemption to those laws, as the laws shouldn't have even existed to begin with.

Simple soulution if the church gets off of the govt tit then they can deny all the services they want in the name of god. But as long as they are on the govt tit they do have to follow the same rules as everyone else. I realize this is probably not the most pc way to say it but there you have it

hungrynomgoose.

No. A Catholic Hosiptal, or any hospital, primarily provides a secular service, health care, not religion.

Toasty is right on the labor part. There are plenty of regulations that effect religious institutions. They are cannot hide behind their religion.

Obama's decision was purely political, which doesn't surprise me, because he's a politician. That's what they do. Personally, I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to use contraception, but I also support the rights of anyone who doesn't support that decision (for any reason, religious or otherwise) to not have to help pay for it.

fielden

No one is contesting the rights of the Catholic Church. They can do whatever they want behind the doors of their church. But when they venture into the business world, sponsoring hospitals and schools, they are subject to the rules of society at large.

And if the unintended consequence (something government NEVER takes into account) is that many of these hospitals and schools close rather than violating their beliefs what then? Oh well, as long as the minority gets their way once again, who cares right?

This is just another example of the liberal agenda deciding what's best for America whether America agrees with it or not and who gives a shti what America actually wants. How dare we make decisions on our own when the central planners can do so much "better".

No it is a heathcare faciity. they have some really good hospitals and they do not throw religion in your face in you are a patient...first hand experience on this one;.

When are they going to cover fertility treatments and lasic?

If I own a business and my personal belief is that diabetes is a curse from god and I want to provide insurance for my employees, I have every right to seek out an insurance company that doesn't cover diabetes. Does that make it a smart thing to do? Absolutely not. No sane insurance provider would make a policy like that. No sane person would go to work there and risk getting diabetes. But it is absolutely my right as a business owner to do.

I am still waiting for the liberals to explain to us why if Obamacare is so great, why is Obama, his family, congress and their families exempt from it.

No, Mongoose. It is a business.

Jo-An-4354969

Marbles, Catholic hospitals, etc. employ and serve "non-Catholics", should they force their religion onto OTHERS?

They need to leave their religious belief's in their churches!

What about non-Catholic's rights??

Jo-An - you can always go to a NON-Catholic Hospital and if you work for a Catholic Hospital then - Please by all means - go work for a Non-Catholic Hospital. No one is Forcing their religious beliefs on anyone. You still have the right to make your own Choices. Well - at least for now.

I would say to you then - What about the Catholics Rights??????

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or restricting the free exercise thereof

My religion says that I can use birth control. (So with they all, thou hast no right but to do thy Will. Do that and no other shall say nay.) No one has the right to pass laws that will hinder my right to use it. This law will not hinder religious groups' rights to refuse to use it. Where is the issue?

Oh right. The issue is that you're not really just trying to protect your rights. You're trying to force everyone else to live by your beliefs.

So Repulicants,

Should Catholic Hospitals be forced to do abortions?

Do we know how many hospitals the catholics own or have controlling interest in? I don't for sure but I bet it is more than we know. I grew up as a catholic and was always told we needed to help the sisters of charity because they were poor. I later found out that was such a falsehood. In the city I grew up in they now both hospitals and allot of the city land and in the state they are buying hospitals I think they now own something like 6. What is going to happen if all the hospitals are of some religion and won't help women? I am saying they don't help the sick because they do but they won't help women who have problems with reproduction, like a tubular pregnancies and etc where are these women going to go. The Constitution may be an old document but it is the base for our government and at this time it is being ignored.

I agree with you Joanne...when will secular hospitals be able to stop the Christian Outrage against legalized abortions in non-Christian run hospitals? If you do not like it, then go to any of the St. Whatever hospitals that are in your neighborhood...that should settle your outrage!

No one is forcing any of you to be a Catholic. Leave the church if you're not happy...I'm sure Islam will take you.

Beento.

Thanks for proving my point about this just being another issue to reinforce the right wing delusion, and providing other examples that do the same.

hungrymouse.

Should Catholic Hospitals be forced to do abortions?

Should they? In my opinion, no. However, if ALL hospitals were required to perform abortions, legally, they could be forced to follow the same rules as everyone else.

BTW, your deflection highlights the weakness of your argument.

My question: Should the Mormon church be allowed to practice polygamy?

Everyone wants separation of church and state but when the church ask to be separate and not have to follow a state/federal law everyone wants the separation done away with and make them do something that isn't there belief. These institution just want that recognition, either keep it separate or not what is it??.

Marbles, I am a Christian and thank you for your comments.

Mongoose, if that's the best argument you can come up with, your side is going to lose.

Republicants,

I dont blame you for not responding to my long rant in which I discussed MANY HIGH-LEVEL DEMOCRATS WHO ARE AGAINST THIS MANDATE!! There was waaaay to much objectivity and sanity in that post from all your other liberal politicians for you to respond with anything. LOL.

But, in all fairness, WE NOW HAVE TO REQUIRE ANY AND ALL BUSINESSES OWNED BY GAYS TO REQUIRE COUNSELING TO THEIR EMPLOYEES TO DEAL WITH THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY. LOL! Oh, you liberals are so much fun.

Another fine example of why the federal government should stick to what it was originally intended for: 1) Protection of our country (i.e. military) and 2) Protecting our individual freedoms. The federal government should have no say whatsoever with regard to health care, abortion, contraception, etc. All of this should be the responsibility of individuals. It should not be issuing mandates one way or the other to any institution - whether religious, non-profit or for-profit.

Everyone is arguing one side or the other on this, but the real issue is that it shouldn't even be an issue at the federal level. Why isn't everyone outraged that the federal government is even involved in this issue at all?

Republicants,

I am a mormon, so I may be biased so I'll answer it in a different way. I do believe that if Warren Jeffs decided to only marry consenting adults, I would have no issue.

If the Democrats attack the Catholic church and lose 20% of the Catholic vote then 2012 could be a very good election year. If they lose 10% in a close election it will also have the desired effect.

President Obama erred in attacking the Catholic church. He knows it. I know it. The only people who don't know seem to be the Liberal Progressive extremists.

An accommodation will not work, President Obama cannot be trusted. He should spearhead a law to exempt the Catholic church from the whims of the executive branch.

Obama did not err in attacking the catholic church. He is trying to accomodate American citizens with healthcareI find this a reasonable and just compromise on his part. However, if this was a republican president changing his position, it would be called "flip flopping". ;)

the rights of women to control their own bodies

Nobody is trying to dictate what women do with their own bodies. The issue is whether those who have a moral objection should be forced to pay for it.

I'm with Derek and Marbles on this one. NO ONE should not forced to PAY for someone else to violate their religious beliefs. Catholics are taking the heating on this one, but a lot of others feel the same way.

The Catholic Church does not establish schools and hospitals as a means for making profits. They are a logical and sincere extension of the mission of the Church, as the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world (and 65 million self-professed Catholics in America) see it.

It IS a Constitutional issue.

And all the anti-Catholic and anti-religion bashing doesn't make me feel less strongly about it.

I respect Toast McGrath's position (as opposed to those saying 'I hate Catholics' or 'I hate Christians'), but I disagree with him that hospitals run by religious organizations are essentially businesses with no religious affiliation whatsoever. The rules that apply to Wal-Mart do not necessarily apply to St. Luke's Episcopal Church, or to St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, NOR SHOULD THEY.

People,

If you do not like or agree with the teachings of a religion, do not put your foot into any establishment of it's religion ---- go elsewhere.

Otherwise, the religion won't be pure anymore if it is forced to change it's teachings (as if it would change).

Beento.

You listing of high level democrats says nothing about this issue reinforcing the right wing delusions about the gubment coming into your lives.

The fact that a handful of male Catholics in congress are against it should not be surprising, especially considering most are from swing states, and the polling on this issue is vague.

You need to deflect, for you obviously have no understanding of this issue beyond what you were fed. Try thinking it through, on your own, jr.

bohnman.

I am a mormon, so I may be biased so I'll answer it in a different way. I do believe that if Warren Jeffs decided to only marry consenting adults, I would have no issue.

So do you believe the government overreached by outlawing polygamy?

hungry mongoose you are grasping at straws. If the churh decied to build a investment firm would that still be a establishment of the church? pretty sure it wouldn't be. The church itself is the establishment.

The truth is there are many more Catholics in the country than the President realizes. And the fact of the matter is that the govt. can't do it all. At what point do we separate ourselves from our govt. as a people? When hurricane Katrina or Irene first came on the scene, it was the churches who responded the quickest, not the federal govt. They did it because of their beliefs. Do you really want to alienate a whole group of people because as an atheist you do not agree? You would not ask a muslim to consume pork or a hindu to consume beef, yet you would force birth control on someone who does not believe in it? The people on this site have a host of double standards.

we are missing the big picture and I think this was all done knowing this was going to happen. We are taking focus off of the FACT that gov. has NO RIGHT telling me I HAVE to have insurance. NONE! PERIOD! Dont give me the auto insurance equivalent either. You dont have to drive but I do have to live! KICK THIS BOZO AND ALL OF THE BOZO DEMS. OUT NEXT ELECTION!!! That goes for liberal republicans also!

Beento.

From YOUR VERY OWN MSNBC, CHRIS MATTHEWS:

LOL!!!

You are so used to being in lock step with anything your ideology feeds you, you are surprised by others who may generally agree, disagreeing on an issue.

So surprised, you think it makes your delusional, spoon fed point of view.

LOL!!! Wow.

It figures that Obama would cave to keep the Catholic vote. So now the Catholic hospitals don't have to pay for contraception, the insurance companies do. (ie. MY premiums will have to subsidize what the super-rich Catholic organization won't, non-profit my A$$) Does anyone actually know what the current president does stand for? Other than advancement of himself? Whatever it takes to get the most votes. What a joke!!

Backwardcountry164

This is just another example of the liberal agenda deciding what's best for America whether America agrees with it or not and who gives a shti what America actually wants. How dare we make decisions on our own when the central planners can do so much "better".

Ive corrected your post...

This is just another example of the OLD WHITE MEN agenda deciding what's best for WOMEN whether WOMEN agree with it or not and who gives a shti (sic) what WOMEN actually want. How dare we make decisions on our own when the central planners can do so much "better".

No one is forcing anyone else(or any religious groups flock) to use contraception.

I say again.

No one is forcing anyone else(or any religious groups flock) to use contraception.

All they are saying is it should be covered by health insurers and medical plans SHOULD A WOMAN CHOOSE TO REQUEST BC or if it is recommended by her doctor.

If men can get Viagra and other impotence(erection boosters) covered by HC insurers, then why shouldn't women get BC covered?

It definitely sounds misogynistic and a case of "men aren't subject to the same rules as women are" syndrome.

I can see it, and I'm no "lib".

Obama reacted the right way, and considered a thoughtful compromise to those who got their panties in a bunch over this non issue.

And no, Obama ISN'T a Muslim, Communist, Marxist, or leftist extremist.

He has governed more to the center, than the last 4 POTUS's.

That's why I'll be voting for him this time,even though I didn't last time(nor for McCain/Palin).

I want a centered leader and not a winger.

I'm kind of wondering when the hell all these religious organizations are going to start paying their dues. "Oh, we don't wanna pay taxes", "Oh, we don't wanna pay for contraception". If you aren't paying taxes and not paying for everything else WE are required to pay for, then that shows an intense favorism by the Government for religions, and that's just bullcrap.

I'm tired of wading around in the whining and crying of those clinging to their imaginary bestest best friend. Pay your dues or get the hell out of my country.

Why do the arguments of the Left always boil down to "You tax-payers better pay for the mistakes of our non-productive constituents."? Seriously, if a person can't afford to pay Walmart $9.00 for a 90 day supply (a dime a day for the math-challenged public school graduates) then they should probably not have sex. Why does the Left NEVER want someone to accept responsibility for their own actions? Oh and for the record, the money the DNC spent on advertising last year (not a major election year) would supply a perscription for the pill for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (legal and illegal) for almost ten years. Instead of buying votes with taxpayer money, could you guys just once reach into your own pocket? Yeah, I know, silly question. Of course you can't. You leeches will be the death of this country, one yen at a time. Oh and before anyone brings up the "financially challenged", if you have a job and can't afford a dime a day, you're pathetic. If you don't have a job, then you don't have to worry about employer sponsored health insurance, do you?

Obama's decisions to change Religious Institutions traditions and behavior re: Birth Control domination by the Government, shows this our President not in tune with the Constitution nor the people.

What a way to start a 2012 Campaign. Most people will remember this insensitive plan in 2012---19 per cent of Obama's voters last Election were Catholics. Impulsive moves.

The Religious Institutions and other faiths will not accept the dictate of a President.

O is still learning. Glad he will most likely change this Policy.

Just wait till Mitt gets the nod.. the church of JC of LDS will run the country. Then we will bow to our Christian masters...

Jim.

Why do the arguments of the Left always boil down to "You tax-payers better pay for the mistakes of our non-productive constituents."?

They don't. That is your projection, not reality.

Your entire post was an anecdotal rant meant only to reinforce the spoon fed delusional reality you want so desperately to believe in.

Less cable news would do you much good.

I would love to be able to ask these people why, instead of working on issues that are difficult like our massive debt, they work on easier things like invading our lives and undermining our civil liberties.

I would also love to force them to install debt clocks in the house, senate, and oval office to remind them every day what the true role of government should be.

Insurance companies don't pay for anything - they make money. This particular coverage will be charged to all the other policy holders. I am going to start a religion that does not believe in paying for surgery. Then, insurance companies will have to cover it "directly", and all you other morons can pay for it.... And yes, this is just like banning polygamy in the Mormon church. Except women didn't want polygamy, and women want birth control. See a pattern here?

Hawaii2.

Obama's decisions to change Religious Institutions traditions and behavior re: Birth Control domination by the Government, shows this our President not in tune with the Constitution nor the people.

This is not a constitutional issue. This is essentially a labor issue.

The Religious Institutions and other faiths will not accept the dictate of a President.

I expect the right wing to fully support polygamy, as it's banning was clearly a dictate, ando government overreach...

OBAMA outsmarted the Bishops and the Evangelicals....contraception is going to be more widespread now than ever before.....ha ha ha

OBAMA 2012

All:

You can slant & spin this issue any way you want, but it all boils down to obama making just another major blunder. This is just another vehicle intended to further divide our great country with the intent to further weaken her. He & his need to come up with something a little less controversial to distract from his pathetic performance thus far.

So what's the difference? They still have to provide insurance that includes contraception. The cost of the coverage will be rolled into the premium. Did the original policy mean the employers had to pay for contraception DIRECTLY???

Let's see .... the liberal mentality is that they do not want anyone telling them what they can do with their body. This is understandable. They simply want the government to pick up the tab for their condoms so they can have $ex at will, with "someone else" picking up the tab for the protection. This is ridiculous.

Ladies, if you don't want to get pregnant, then do something about it. Take personal responsibility. Men, same thing. If you want to have a "good time" be responsible.

I fail to see why the government has now decided to enter the bedrooms and mandate sexual "protection". This is not promoting the "common good", this is proliferation of the nanny state where our government has now decided what MUST HAPPEN between the sheets !

What next ? Will our government mandate the contents of Happy Meals under the new Obamacare ?? Oh wait, the libtards in San Francisco have already tried that one.

Mandate, mandate and more mandates ... growing government like a cancer on steroids !

the catholic church is becoming more and more draconian. catholics do not want tax money to pay for abortions but they will allow their church to be tax exempt, thereby, subsidizing the rape of childrens for decades.

This is so great!! Now if you belong to a church you will get contraceptives for free, but if you work for other than a church organization (aka mob, they're all despicable to me, despite their denomination) you have to pay from your own pocket. When we came to the point in time that we completely obliterate the meaning of 'equality'?

Tax all religions on their income and donations just like any other corporation. They want to have a say in politics, then pay taxes. One religion wants the government to pay to have baby's peepees cut and kosher food for inmates. Yet another wants to take away choice from women all the while raping boys. Lets not forget honor killings. Bah, all the same cr@p. Take on faith.

John:

Well said.

The issues taken on have nothing to do with the dire straits this Country is in---Poverty, 8.3 per cent unemployment, of which is still extremely high, people wandering around with too much time on their hands. (the OWS will be at the Powell Funeral for the 2 children killed)--

The US citizens all need to come together as one; and stop the petty Class Warfare fights going on. "Divided We Fall".

Each Political side stonewalling on passing important Bills. The Economy has not picked up yet. People are spending with no money.

Watch for another Recession, inflation, and people who have no purpose in life living without skills for a job, forgetting what a job means.

We can no longer supplement everyone with Unemployment Checks for years, nor keep so many on Welfare and Food Stamps. Our Country needs Leadership; not Bills proposed that do not affect everyone--picking religions apart.

Simple solution: Have the government write up a mandate that everyone is required to be spayed or neutered.

No added fees for 'free' contraceptives. No burdensome children weighing down on society.

Problem solved.

Unhappy

You would not ask a muslim to consume pork or a hindu to consume beef, yet you would force birth control on someone who does not believe in it? The people on this site have a host of double standards.

WOW! Big stretch and really bad analogy. No one will be FORCED to use birth control, hospitals were just being made to cover it for anyone who might CHOOSE to use it. The only logical comparison you could make would be if muslims and hindus were required to provide beef and pork to people who choose to eat them. Our taxes subsidize cattle and pig farmers so in essence American muslims and Hindus are financially contributing to other peoples availability to something they would not use. Several Christian denominations believe "thou shalt not kill" applies to military action and can receive "conscienscious objector status" as a result, but their taxes still pay for our military. Funding an activity and participating in it are two very different activities.

I know this is wrong because I am against abortion. BUT if you libs. want abortions then get all of them you want. It just cuts down on more children being raised liberal there for by default we have more conservatives. GO FOR IT!! I JUST DONT WANT TO PAY YOUR BILL!!

all of these little health care mandates (which are , in their entirety, unconstitutional) are part of the grand scheme to slowly drive private insurance companies out of business leaving no other option except creating the holy grail of libbie neo-comm ideologies...that's right , the single payer socialist system...hahaha , isn't it cool?

1. No where in this country are women denied access to birth control. Some states do deny access to abortion, but that is within the purview of States' rights.

2. How short a memory many of you have....20 years ago, no insurance benefits were available for any woman for birth control. Women purchased their birth control out of pocket and no one thought the first thing about it.

3. The President does not have the power to do this, not to mandate, nor to "compromise." Yet another reason this man need to be a 1 term President.

4. If a woman is so interested in birth control being given to her, then she needs to work for a company that has that benefit. In all honesty, the vast majority of those who work for a religious backed hospital, etc...do so because they WANT to as the workplace is in sync with their personal views.

President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees.

Instead, the White House is demanding that insurance companies be responsible for providing free contraception.

Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama's health care law that he insisted must remain.

But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.

Are we all so stupid we don't know where the Insurance companies are going to get the funds to pay for this? Straight from their customers, INCLUDING those religious institutions......Thanks for continuing to increase the cost of health care to the point where only the rich will be able to afford health insurance. Idiots!

Bottom line, this is not "free" we are all paying for this. Be responsible (personally,financially) for yourself!

*sigh* there's only one religion that prohibits contraception.

So replace the word religion with "Catholic" please.

Quit painting all relgions with the same brush. Thanks.

If religious zealots think Obama's "accommodation" is even remotely different than the original plan, they're sadly mistaken.  In essence, all women will still have reproductive services paid by the Catholic affiliated organization or their health insurance provider.  How this is construed as some kind of victory for the far right, who would have you believe they espouse freedom from government intrusion, yet would have the government dictate which health care benefits can be offered to women by insurance companies, is spin beyond the comprehension of thoughtful, reasonable citizens. 

RI Mom

your "choice" of "lifestyle" doesn't interest us...thanks anyway though

if that's the best argument you can come up with, your side is going to lose.

I'm on the losing side of a lot of arguments. Mostly, I try to stick up for whoever is being discrimated against unfairly, and that's rarely a popular tack to take. In this case, it's religious institutions.

I prefer that government stay out of most personal decisions (like this one). That means I don't favor laws making birth control illegal, and I don't favor laws forcing people to pay for other people's birth control.

I've been an ardent supporter of universal health care (and so is the Catholic Church if you'll just leave abortion and birth control out of it), but if it means religious institutions are REQUIRED to violate their own morality just so that a few people get FREE birth control, I will drop my support.

It's that simple. Universal health care is important. But First Amendment rights are more imortant.

Keep your hands off the Constitution.

Of course Obama is going to back track, after all it is an election year. If this were the day after his re-election there would be no compromise. Although he never read the bill he signed into law, he had all the confidence in the left wing zealots that wrote it.

Anyone that believes the federal government has the right to mandate everyone buy insurance, and then mandate what all insurance has to cover will some day awaken to wonder whatever happened to your freedom. Obama is only concerned with laws he agrees with, and the rest he ignores.

Obama believes the federal government should dictate how every American citizen should live. What our cars should run on, how we heat our homes, to what your health insurance should cover. Got to cover that morning after pill because people should not be held accountable for their own actions.

Obama revamps contraceptive policy

Check.....annnnd MATE!

@demproud

Backwardcountry164 Ive corrected your post...

This is just another example of the OLD WHITE MEN agenda deciding what's best for WOMEN whether WOMEN agree with it or not and who gives a shti (sic) what WOMEN actually want. How dare we make decisions on our own when the central planners can do so much "better".

First I have a question that I've asked many times without an answer. As a libertarian I often disagree with people on both the right and the left depending upon the issue BUT it is only those on the left who feel the need to call me some name like a third grader. What's up with that? Are you actually stupid enough to believe that somehow enhances your argument rather than just make you sound like a d-bag?

As for your "correction" I can only laugh at its ridiculousness. No one is forcing shti on women and how that makes sense to you is beyond me. I can only assume you've got your head shoved so far up your @ss that the oxygen has been cut off from your brain. Not requiring someone to pay for something is deciding what's best for women how exactly? Women can still pay for their own BC or they can opt for private insurance. Duhhhh

KC

you are correct...it is no "victory"...he has ursurped power that he does not have in the first place...interesting isn't it?

This isn't about religion. It's not about women's health either. It's about lots of things, but what it most comes down to is that liberals cannot accept liberty. There is an easier way to achieve the goals of the left AND the right than to go through this ridiculous exercise every time Mr. Obama trots out another threat to freedom.

Simply let people buy their own coverage, and to allow those without the money to buy it offer everyone a refundable tax credit (refundable means that if you have no tax liability you still get the money). Do it at the state level, not federal, and eliminate the prohibition on doing insurance business over state lines. There are a few other things attached to the solution, but what you end up with is more liberty, total portability, no worries about some bureaucrat rationing your care or forcing you to do somethign you don't want.

But, like I said, this isn't about religion, or women's health, or cutting costs. This is, as it has always been, about how to control more people and make them believe you have helped them so they will vote for you. We ARE serfs, there is no more denying it.

I've come to a conclusion today: whenever a person's desires are not fulfilled to their expectations, they cry that their rights are being violated.

We aren't prohibiting the use of contraceptives.

We're simply saying: if you want it, go get it on your own dime.

Got news for those who think this is a roll-back. It is not. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, and Muslims, aren't just employers. They also have there own Health insurance. Is there no end to this administrations clear lack of understanding of the problem.

Once the church becomes a business, they lose their right on this.

You never loose your rights to practice your religious beliefs. Even at work.

So, Republicant, prove me wrong. Show me one issue that doe not revolve around someone else picking up the tab. This one obviously does, because $3.00 per month should be affordable to anyone with a job, therefore it's not about access, it's about picking up the tab. Gay marriage? The stated purpose is to get the financial and legal benefits of marriage. Occupy? All about the money. Unions? Again, it's about money. With the Left it's always someone else's turn to pay.

You never loose your rights to practice your religious beliefs. Even at work.

This freedom is what pilgrims and many other religious groups came here for. It only seems to take one president and one party in complete control to establish a politically controlled religious or anti-religious tyranny.

On the one hand what they are forcing on everyone is contraception as a preventative treatment of cancer (I've seen how hard it is on women - preventing cancer is probably the last reason in the world to take contraception), on the other hand they are promoting abortion which increases the risk of getting cancer.

So much for smarter, better policies!

HOW OBAMA FEELS ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION!!! Chris Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action is outraged by President Obama’s attitude toward Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

In an editorial posted on The Daily Caller, Cox details a federal spending bill that included a prohibition against the National Institutes of Health for using any taxpayer dollars to “advocate or promote gun control.” The law was clear in its intent.

However, when Obama signed the bill, he added his own personal caveat: “I have advised Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.”

As Cox writes:

In other words: “Congress may pass laws, but I decide which of its laws are constitutional and which I can simply choose to ignore.”

So Barry is mandating the health companies add interesting things to policies. I have issue with how he believes he can make this a mandate.

Is he again using the Commerce Clause for this, or his sense of Constitutional Law?

Mr. Obama is the President of the far left wing

Yup... he so "far left" that he extended the Republican RIGHT WING tax cuts.

He is so "far left" that he continued the Republican RIGHT WING bail outs that REPUBLICAN President BUSH started. Bush also admitted that he would do them again, if he had to do it over.

He is so "far left" that he passed a Republican health care bill that the REPUBLICANS have been trying to pass for 20 years. Bob Dole was trying to pass the EXACT SAME bill, then the Republicans again tried to pass it as an alternative to Hillary care.

He is so "far left" that he stopped more EPA regulations from going into effect, just like the Republicans wanted.

He is so "far left" that he DECREASED gun laws to allow you to carry in MORE places.

He is so "far left" that he has deported MORE illegal immigrants than any other President.

He is so "far left" that he gave the REPUBLICANS 98% of what they wanted in the budget debates.

Yup... those are ALL "far left" policies.

The party of freedom trying to deny women the right to control their own bodies . Anyone surprised ?

First off, NO ONE is saying you DON'T have a right to control your own body. YOU DO.

Secondly, NO ONE is trying to deny you access to birth control.

All this says is that if you WANT to work for a Catholic institution, then follow it rules. If you DON'T, then DON'T work there.

If you want birth control AND work at a Catholic institution, then fork over the money and pay for it.

Don't like the services that a Catholic institution provides? Then DON'T go there.

Obama made the CORRECT call on this one.

There. That simple. Feel better?

Congrats true, spoken like a hysterical truly hostile repub. but hey, maybe you should look at the geography of just where all those teenage pregnancies and abortions are taking place. Give you a big boy, in the deepest red of the south. Places like Texas! but i guess you already knew that right? no? Not surprised.

Toasty, et al-

I get your frustration and misunderstanding with respect to religious businesses / institutions. But I'd be interested to know what labor laws you guys actually think are being violated. If you're familiar with labor laws you know that different laws apply and/or don't apply to certain classes of business. For example, there are different laws/regs for a grill&bar as opposed to a day care center. Labor laws for one business are not the same for another so it doesn't make sense just to blurt that religious businesses are in general violation just because you and others like you blindly hate and have no tolerance for "all things religion."

I'm still trying to figure out just when/how the President was given the authority to dictate to insurance companies what they will and will not cover...when did the President gain that much power? Where's the checks and balances? This joker in the WH needs to go and needs to go NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#1. This is not a Republican/Democratic issue. It is a Constitutional issue. It's not a birth control issue either. It's a CONSTIUTIONAL issue.

#2. Be it a Catholic, or any religious denomination owned, supported or run hospitals, universities and charitable organizations, they are not businesses. The are NON-PROFIT organizations.

#3. Obama is choosing the word "accommodating" over "compromising" for no other reason than to cover his a$$ and try not to lose votes. He's afraid if people see him as compromising he'll appear to be caving, but saying "accomodating" he thinks that people will view him as the bigger person, and it appears that he is GIVING something to the churches. Something he had no business taking away in the first place...Religious FREEDOM as GUARANTEED by the First Amendment. I'm sure SOME of his people will be sucked in by his by this spinning, but not those who can see his motives.

And what's the big deal with what he's "accommodating" anyway. Employees were always free to get supplemental insurance if they want that coverage. I don't think they ever needed his blessings to begin with. I guess he thinks people can't think for themselves.

Sally:

The South is largely Baptists who have no stance on BC

The majority of Catholics are in the North east or in largely hispanic regions like Florida. Hispanics tend to be Politically Liberal and socially conservative. Which is how Prop 8 got passed in California, a very liberal state. Devout Catholics in the Hispanic community are a powerful force. I highly suspect that Obama is trying not to annoy this bloc of voters.

Quoting statistics about teenage pregnancy and abortions can be interesting in context but does not tell the whole story about the diverse community that is "The South."

What's left unanswered is "Who pays for the birth control coverage?"

If the workers have to pay out of pocket for a separate 'rider', that would probably be OK, but if the church has to pay for the additional coverage, it still violates their church doctrine against supporting abortions and contraceptives.

If the workers pay out of pocket, it won't be 'free', like Obamacare requires of other employers.

It would be nice if some reporter would ask the right questions, so we get the full story.

So a church that continuously gets charged with child sexual abuse is telling other people what to do in their sex lives... and people not only listen to them, but they fight to protect them as well.

If you have ever wondered what is wrong with this country, there is your answer.

Oooo man just got home from work and had to travel on those evil communist roads to get home.

Another day in evil socialist communist society.

I know I know of course it's different there is always someone who sees it from a different perspective.

Oooo man just got home from work and had to travel on those evil communist roads to get home.

Well, I'm about to head off to work and have got to hit those cute little potholes on those evil commie roads. So don't rub it in- I hate ya enough already (J/K) Damn!

Republicant's,

Yes, I believe that the government overstepped their bounds in outlawing polygamy between consenting adults.

Good posts John and Hawaii2 ! I'm doubting the president's ability to even campaign anymore. Obama's approval ratings are not all that good. The economy's recovery is slight, basically smoke and mirrors. Now he's on the verge of alienating a huge population of religous voters. Doesn't Obama realize that Condom's and Catholics don't mix?

According to the logic of the opposition, we should allow the Catholic church not to follow American laws because of their beliefs. So in turn, by this same logic, does this not give legal clearance to Islamic honor killings in the USA or sharia law? Or will we as a country now discriminate against religions by offering/not offering waivers to our laws based on religious beliefs?

Btw the Republicans may be taking this "attack on religion" as an opportunity to jive with Latino Catholics as well... Gingrich is in a better position of course, being at least nominally Catholic. People might ask why does Romney care. Not only did he do something similar in his state but his religion allows contraception.

Edit: NJ-AZ Kim: Whenever a law conflicts with free practice of faith, the constitution governs. Lots of laws and legislation have been over turned because it has conflicted with someone's religious rights. Of course, the religion has to be real. (You can't say,make a Run-the-Red-Lights religion and expect that to fly.)

This is like Charlie Brown and the football. President Obama makes a statement about anything – pick a topic – and the Republicans go insane – allowing their most radical, fanatical base to run off the deepest of the deep end in front of everyone and be the voice of their party. Then things calm down and President Obama looks like the adult in the room and Republicans look like a bunch of spoiled brats. And – it seems to work every time. Rick Santorum is now the republican front runner. This is a religious fanatic who believes states have the right to outlaw birth control. This is the guy who was kicked out of office by more than a 2 to 1 margin the last time he ran for office. Meanwhile – this issue will be forgotten about in a week or so and Democrats have picked up a whole bunch of sound bites to be used against Republicans in campaign ads nest fall. Again - it's game,. set, match --- Obama.

The push to cover contraception is for parity: VIAGRA and CIALIS have been covered by insurance since the first day they hit the market.

Contraceptives for women weren't covered until lawsuits were filed. How is not discriminatory? We demand equal treatment, which means that contraceptive meds must be covered under insurance benefits.

Anything else discriminates against women.

BTW, women pay for their insurance benefits packages.

Alternative: let's take VIAGRA and CIALIS off the insurance rolls. Everyone OK with that? Let the old guys pay for their own sex pills.

Well boys n girls... have we learned how ridiculous the Health Care act is yet? Unconstitutional to the very core.

sally avoids the true issues.

Catholic

SISTER

CAROL

KEEHAN

agrees

with the

President of the United States

Political reality forced the White House to come up with a solution to a complex matter must faster than anticipated.

I'm glad the President was able to come up with a COMPROMISE, because that is what good leaders do.

Don't expect the Party of No to offer Mr. Obama any respect or gratitude.

The irony is that--once again-- the sheep are being led around by the nose (this time by that oh-so-holy institution, the Catholic church) to give up their own rights and benefits.

The Republicans have a genius for hoodwinking the public...I will give them that. But you can't fool all the people all the time, as their forgotten former President G.W. Bush discovered.

Mr. Obama will be re-elected in November.

Wow

I read these posts and not impressed. So we have a two faced government.

1) liberals lead by Obama
2) conservatives led by boehner

I still think congress is the problem and they all should go. It is the only way to fix this time will take toooooo long. Sorry :( to the good eggs

Changing the president changes nothing.

Control isn't the problem. Respect is!

OK all u idiots out here, why should i have to pay for some woman that wants to SCREW around? Why dont u pay for it?

I am so sick of men trying to dictate to women about what they can and can not do with their bodies. First of all birth control, abortion, liberty, the constitution, the flag are all social issues and has no place in the Presidential race. Nothing about those social issues will pay my mortgage, car loan, utility bills or credit cards; I can go to the grocery store and spend them to put food on the table; so why are we wasting time engaging in conversation about them. If a woman wants to take birth control pills, then it is her right to do. If the man wants to engage in sex with her than it becomes their issue not mine.

An answer to this whole abortion and birth control issue is to force the men to have a vasectomy and the men do not want to have the procedure than prohibit them from having sex. Besides where were the Catholics when all those priest were raping and sexual assaulting the little boys? Where is their lawsuit from those issues? But now when it comes to the rights of women they speak up - is amazing?

You people are delusional if you think this non-issue will convince people who are not religious fanatics to vote against Obama. The minority of extremists screaming about the president's "attacK" on religion will have little to no effect on the outcome of the 2012 election.

Meanwhile, 23 months straight of sustained job growth (established by way of a left-leaning president) will finally be pulling us out of the recession and the absolute mess left behind by the last "far right president".

sunshine

I could also pay my mortgage and shop more often if I didn't have to help some poor woman pay for her birth control. It is not a womans right to have me assist her to pay for her birth control.

dcooph - remember the republicans gained some control of Congress over 12 months ago. Maybe that could help explain some of the growth in the economy, if you opened your eyes to facts.

Starting this fight in the first place was a dumb decision for Obama. Trying to force a religious institution to support and pay for something that was against their core doctrines was bound to fail.

This was demonstrated in another case that was decided just last week, when the Obama Administration tried to force a religious school, under ADA, to rehire a teacher (alleging that the teacher's duties were primarily 'secular', and not religious) that had been dismissed by the church's leaders.

The decision by the Supreme Court was UNANIMOUS against the Obama Administration (9-0). Even his newly appointed far-left liberal judges voted against Obama.

This is just another example of Obama trying to force people to do what HE decides is right. Here's a link;

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12689/supreme_court_affirms_religious_exception_allowing_discrimination_retaliati/

dcooph--how long will it be before you libs take respons. for THIS econ.?? IF and I say IF you will do YOUR OWN research you will find the unemployment is MUCH MUCH higher than they are claiming AND we have less jobs NOW than we had when gw left office! GW did some things wrong but my GOD (sorry, you probably dont believe in GOD) he didnt TRY TO RUIN THIS COUNTRY!! B.H. Hitler is doing his BEST to destroy this country and "people" like you are just to stupid to see it! You can teach ignorance but you cant fix STUPID! YOU are delusional if you think this is a non-issue!! COME ON ELECTION DAY!! KICK THE BOZOS OUT!!

I think the Catholic Church should concentrate on the problem that 98% of their members are going straight to hell because they use birth control and that there has been rampant sexual abuse of children perpetrated by their clergy.

Take care of those two problems and I might be able to have a little concern for this latest issue. Otherwise, stop clamoring on and on about having to pay for insurance that covers contraceptives.

Bunch of hypocrites - do as I say and not as I do.

dcooph - "23 months of sustained job growth?" That's pretty funny....considering Payroll tax revenues for the last quarter went DOWN. Care to explain that? Me thinks you need to stop believing the propaganda coming from the White House. Wake up and smell the deception.....

Does this mean that I need not obey those laws which conflict with my beliefs?

jb-799024 and Harry Blank

OK...some of you just have a such a strong dislike for the President, that your arguments and comments are mean, immature, uninformed & senseless

I am a Lesbian and I have been paying in my premiums for men to get access to erectile dysfunction medication.

I guess im confused on why BIRTH CONTROL cant be covered?

Old Men who cant get it up arent having sex for procreation, and yet...christians are silent on this one.

quit pretending this is anything other than woman-hating.

you dont like the idea of birth control? DONT USE IT.

Gary from DCRestored

@Seanskie, The rights for women to control their own bodies is not lost at all with this. This doesn't make contraception illegal. It just means that those who want it, pay for it themselves, instead of using other peoples money to pay for it. That sounds fair to me.

No, the actual arrangement is that the insurance company will pay for this (it's still free), but the employer doesn't pay the insurance company for it. The insurance companies will make this up through premiums charged to everyone else.

ercillor-2107261 "Does this mean that I need not obey those laws which conflict with my beliefs?"

Yes, as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences

Seanski (#1.5). Congrats on the stupidest post of the day.

Jessica-1170252 (#1.168). Sorry, you came in second.

It pisses me off that churches take public money and get special tax breaks, then come back with "get the government out of my church!".

I'm all for freedom of religion, separation of church and state, all that. It is critical. But if you want everyone's money (even if you do great things with it, and you really, really like the tax breaks), you have to treat everyone according to the public's rules. Do what you want otherwise.

mike-1125760 "No, the actual arrangement is that the insurance company will pay for this (it's still free), but the employer doesn't pay the insurance company for it. The insurance companies will make this up through premiums charged to everyone else."

So how is that different from what it was before Obama made his 'accommodation'?

It was always going to be included in the premiums. It was paying to support contraception (Abortions, pills, operations, etc.) that was the original objection by Catholic leaders.

Is this just another example of meaningless Obama Rhetoric?

"The Breeze" said:

I am still waiting for the liberals to explain to us why if Obamacare is so great, why is Obama, his family, congress and their families exempt from it.

------------------

Breeze,

Okay, I'll bite.

Why DON'T the Republicans in Congress want to offer their Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) to the rest of us?

Seems like they went through a lot of effort -- even to this very day -- to block or to reverse as much of the Health Care Reform Act, as much as possible! HCR (also known as, "Obama Cares") was created to remediate much of the longstanding problems in private sector insurance health care, and the lack of it, for millions of uninsured Americans.

If it wasn't for the GOP Tea Party's regressive and hypocritical right-wing ideology, and their arbitrary desire to either eliminate the separation of church and state, or their irrational anarchist urge to do away with the public sector -- that drove them to block or filibuster every proposal of President Obama and the Democrats to help the American people during the Great Recession ...I'd wager we would all be enjoying health care coverage by now, similar to -- or believe it or not, LESS RESTRICTIVE, than what the GOP already enjoys in Congress.

Forbes Magazine's investigative journalists debunked that claim that 'liberals' (or anyone, including members of the GOP or any Independents) in Congress, are exempt from "Obamacare."

----------------------------

Congress Exempted From Obamacare?

Excerpts:

So, here’s the real deal –As things currently stand, Members of Congress and their staff, until 2014, will continue to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). This program, considered among the best in the nation, allows federal employees- including Members of Congress and their staff- to choose from a wide range of health plans and select the one that best suits their needs. Note that the current plan is neither ‘government’ insurance, ‘free’ insurance nor any other sort of sweet deal that the public has been led to believe is the case. The federal employee’s program involves private insurance policies with premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc.

Here’s the surprise – come 2014, when the lion’s share of the ACA provisions come on line, Members of Congress and their staff will be required to buy their health insurance on an exchange. In fact, their choices will be even more limited than our own. While it is expected that some 24 million people will elect to purchase their health care policy on a state run exchange, we are not required by law to do so. Members of Congress and their staff, however, must buy their insurance in this way.

Section 1312 of the Affordable Care Act reads as follows:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.-

(i) REQUIREMENT.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-

I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

(ii) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.-The term ”Member of Congress” means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.-The term ”congressional staff” means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

------------------------

Despite what Sean Hannity and friends would like you to believe, once we hit 2014, Members of Congress and their staff will be shopping in the same state based health care exchanges that many average Americans will be checking out for the best deals and plans available.

So, you may now cross this complaint off of your “Why I Hate Obamacare” list and see if you can come up with something based in reality. And, when you do, feel free to send them in to me and we can take a look at whether the facts match the complaints.

You might be surprised.

www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/08/congress-exempted-from-obamacare/

JH-479998

sunshine

I could also pay my mortgage and shop more often if I didn't have to help some poor woman pay for her birth control. It is not a womans right to have me assist her to pay for her birth control.

If you're whining now about insurance companies covering birth control, what are you going to say about the cost of all the babies that will be born due to a lack of contraception?

You are going to be so much happier paying for their schools and all the costs of another baby boom: roads, bridges, airports, healthcare, social security, etc. right?

May I respectfully request that all political conversation refrain from hyperbole.

The President of the United States, well versed in Constitutional Law, has showed a willingness for compromise.

If only others would consider statesman like conduct, our Congress would not have a 10% approval.

Inflammatory slurs and exaggerated condemnations being hurled at CPAC make some men look foolish. Name calling is immature.

Gratefully, name calling is something our President doesn't do.

The Catholic church should pay this much attention and have this much concern about their child molesting priests. They don't want women to use birth control so they keep producing the vicitms for these filthy b@stards.

I know. I was raised in a large Catholic family and went to private Catholic schools for 12 years. Both of my brothers were molested, my nephew was molested and many people I went to school with were molested by Catholic priests and everyone of them were hidden and protected by the church while preaching to women that they cannot use birth control. They make me sick!!!

Womens Rights Still Upheld! It's Still Available, but the CHURCH don't have to PAY FOR IT! ! Contraceptives have other medical uses besides "Birth Control". Catholic Church; Wake Up & Smell the Roses!! Obama, Great Work! Protect Our Women!!

What about Insurances paying for Vasectomies? Why is it always the womans responsibility to not have children. Wouldn't it be great if this subject actually involved the men? Just saying...........................

my gosh do none of you READ????

ThHis has NOTHING to do with how the hospitals treat their PATIENTS. just the people who are EMPLOYED there. READ the first paragraph

President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees.

these women can still get free birth control the same way everyone else does - through insurance or planned parenthood it says that in the SECOND paragraph.

what most of you fail to realize is that FREE isn't FREE - SOMEONE, has to pay. my stance has ALWAYS BEEN you have a choice, if you want to PLAY, then you NEED TO PAY for protection. if you can't afford to PAY then don't PLAY. No one is FORCING YOU TO HAVE SEX!!!!!

WOMEN do have a choice!!!! my goodness!!!!

my gosh do none of you READ????

ThHis has NOTHING to do with how the hospitals treat their PATIENTS. just the people who are EMPLOYED there. READ the first paragraph

President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees.

these women can still get free birth control the same way everyone else does - through insurance or planned parenthood it says that in the SECOND paragraph.

what most of you fail to realize is that FREE isn't FREE - SOMEONE, has to pay. my stance has ALWAYS BEEN you have a choice, if you want to PLAY, then you NEED TO PAY for protection. if you can't afford to PAY then don't PLAY. No one is FORCING YOU TO HAVE SEX!!!!!

WOMEN do have a choice!!!! my goodness!!!!

So a (country) that continuously gets charged with child sexual abuse is telling other people what to do in their sex lives...

Are you saying their is no child sexual abuse in America? Of course there is.

Does that mean that America continuously gets charged with child sexual abuse?

A church is a building. A Church is a bunch of people who hold certain set of beliefs to be true.

But the person who abuses a child is a pedophile and a criminal. A person who covers it up may be an accessory after the fact, and therefor also a criminal.

But neither the church building, nor the Church itself (the body of people who ascribe to the faith), nor the set of beliefs are guilty of any crime.

Pedophilia is not a tenet of Catholicism, nor is pedophilia more common among Catholics than non-Catholics. (In fact there are studies that suggest the opposite is true.) One of the main reasons you hear so much about pedophelia in the Catholic Church is that the heirarchy of the Church is determined to purge itself of anyone who would commit such a horrible crime. Most of the criminals are dead. Most of the crimes were committed decades ago, but the Church has waived the statute of limitations in all cases.

But this issue is not about pedophilia.

It is about the GOVERNMENT FORCING people to VIOLATE THEIR FAITH.

And that is unConstitutional.

And Barry of all people should know better.

Viagra, Cialis, (E.D.Meds) are NOT COVERED BY BLUE CROSS/B.S. DRUG Prog..

jessica...you dont have to worry about "birth control" so what is YOUR DEAL?? All you libs say your not a woman so mind your own business. WELL... the same applies to you. Sounds to me like you dont have a dog in this fight. After all the way you people multiply is by recruitment. Just go away!

truetexan: There are many reasons a woman takes contraception - and not all them are for birth control. ANY woman has a dog in this fight - regardless of what her sexuality is, whether she's had sex or not, no matter what her reasons for taking birth control are - the fact that she is a woman gives her a dog in this fight.

What I gather from this mess snooty Mr. Obama created is what a jumble of spoiled, all-for-me brats Americans have become. Can't we pay for anything ourselves ??? Is a co-pay so cruel ???

It was also a chance to see how back-handed and deceptive Mr. Obama and his minions truly are...they kept insisting the issue was only based on women's rights and access to contraception. Three years ago they kept ranting that the plan was not the government taking over anything.

And yet now, as this rushed health care plan starts taking shape...right off the bat we see the White House sticking it's thumb into the Catholic church's eye and telling the church what it will and will not be doing in the future.

I haven't been to a Catholic mass in thirty years...but I applaud them for standing firm on this.

I think Mr. Obama announced this reversal this morning because it was getting very clear that the newly certified 'Cardinal' for the Catholic church in New York was going to start explaining to America how Mr. Obama had lied right in his face when they had discussed this matter previously.

commensense & kath63: No one is FORCING Anyone!

RIMom said

The President of the United States, well versed in Constitutional Law, has showed a willingness for compromise.

I can't decide if that is the funniest or the saddest statement of the day. The President has shown nothing, if not a consistent disregard for the Constitution and has been trying to ignore it......The President has overstepped his power all along in this instance. To find you think he's doing the right thing....goes to show why such an unqualified man became President, with people such as yourself finding his words and actions appropriate and supporting him, no matter what.

kath...

You are correct....Americans want everything for free...having to make a lousy co-pay is like cruel & unusual punishment.

You are also correct in that this spat had NOTHING to do with any woman's access to birth control or anything else. The president's people were using classic misdirection techniques all over the media...their methods make me sick to my stomach because they know many people want to believe them when they speak.

Maybe this load of baloney will make people look deeper for what the 'truth' is because they certainly were not getting any truth from this snake-oily White House.

Are you going to tell me that Republicans don't use birth control???!!! Birth control is not a far left issue. The republicans don't want welfare moms getting more money per child but they don't want them to get birth control either. How does that make sense. You don't want people having abortions either but you're saying they shouldn't use birth control. W/ a world population of over 6 Bil soon to hit 7 you want to get rid of birth control??? You guys make absolutely no sense. By the way, the birth control is not 'free', it's simply covered by health insurance just like erectile dysfunction. Quite frankly I think birth control is more widely used and needed.

willow...

That comment was dead-nuts perfect !

Seanskie Uhhh yes they also have restrictions on men. Don't try and turn this into a sexist thing as you left wingers always try to do. If it isn't sexist it's racist you scream, you people are a joke. Men can't get a vasectomy at a Catholic institution. Do your homework before you start blathering your left wing venomous lies.

Willowbrook - If any one party is showing a disregard for the Constitution, it's the Republicans who trample on it continually. Yeah, it was their idea to give corporations 'the vote' w/ their campaign financing, just to mention one instance.

b-8...

Other people "make absolutely no sense" ?????

Where does this whole issue have anything to do with the "welfare moms" you brought into the conversation from somewhere in outer space ?

Our government has no business picking and choosing between the rights of citizens which they have been doing for awhile. When two peoples rights come into conflict our government needs to stay out of it. Finally they made a decision that doesn't choose one citizens rights over anothers.

Well, I would have stuck with the original position which had real religious exemptions for churches. Because it made a good distinction between business and religion. Something I think needs to be done as there are a lot of business organizations that try to hide behind religion for cover.

However, this is a great "compromise" and in reality it's a brilliant move. So now exempted churches who could have kept from providing this, in fact must now do so if they provide some health insurance at all. It's just that now it will be transparent and not specifically out in the open. It takes the decision out of the hands of religious organizations. If you have insurance, it comes with it as the standard, no exceptions.

In reality, religious organizations wanted a way out of seeming hypocritical. The President has provided that out. He lets them save face. One might argue that the religious organizations will in reality still end up paying for this, just not specifically spelled out to them. This is a win/win solution that you expect from a thoughtful President. In reality, the President's change here actually gets coverage provided to many more women who would have otherwise been exempted with the original HHS approach.

In all likelihood, this will actaully save the insurance companies money in the long run because they will end up paying for less unwanted pregnancies. In fact this is low cost "preventative care" that can prevent high cost health care procedures.

So although I think a stand here about what constitutes religious freedom was a debate worth having, it solves the issue at hand and puts the bigger question off for some later date when maybe the whole climate is better for it. We have enough other economic issues today more pressing, rather than to be spending a lot of time and emotion on this. So all things considered, this is a good decision by the President. Pretty quickly too. Job well done.

"President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees."

What a blatant lie.

Religious-affiliated institutions will still have to provide and pay for abortions, pills, and operations - they just won't have to TELL their employees about it.

Only the left-leaning media and the gullible will buy this silly 'accommodation' by our Rhetorician in Chief.

Religious organizations are still expected to pay for birth control, regardless of their core doctrines prohibiting it.

Any guesses as to how many votes it cost him before he was able to revamp "the administration's policy"?

Any guesses on how many more votes it will cost him now that he is acting like a fish on the dock (flip-flopping)?

Here lies the problem...woman think it is All about them! This issue has nothing to do with women's rights! It has everything to do with these religious groups wanting to protect human life...why is this so hard to understand? Women, get over yourselves and realize that this life is NOT all about you.

@IndieParty

So a church that continuously gets charged with child sexual abuse is telling other people what to do in their sex lives... and people not only listen to them, but they fight to protect them as well.

If you have ever wondered what is wrong with this country, there is your answer.

I agree, YOUR statement is what's wrong with this country. Judging the many by the actions of a very few. Gee, and I thought that was something liberals were opposed to, I hear it every time there is a discussion about the OWS crowd getting out of hand. "Those who are breaking the law don't represent us all", In fact I'm pretty sure YOU have made that very same argument yourself.

Do you people actually believe any of these politicians actually wrote the legislation in question? Or any other legislation at that!

Please get your head checked! LMFAO!

I am sure this was a clerical mistake at best. Change the wording, problem fixed.

Hammer these guys till we have jobs! Wait good paying life sustaining jobs the ones that make safety nets less necessary. Never mind blame a conservative wait wait blame a liberal. What a joke!

why would anyone question our king's assumprion that any of this crap is Constitutional?...after all he holds a J.D. degree in law...not an M.A.?...no , a J.D. degree...what the - is that , haha?...

from Wikipedia (but in Wikipedia's defense , the info does show up else here) are some these tidbits...haha

"Juris Doctor is a professional doctorate and the first professional graduate degree in law"

first?...ya

"...it is a law degree that in some common law jurisdictions has a goal of being the primary professional preparation for lawyers. It is a three year program in most jurisdictions."

primary as in basic and beginner?...ya...constitutional lawyer?...hmmm

this priceless , Wikipedia has a chart that says that given the equivelent school degree of some other nations , our kings law degree (J.D) is NOT sufficient education to get a law license in any of the following:

Australia , Canada , Hong Kong , or Japan

really?...'fraid so

@b-895713

Willowbrook - If any one party is showing a disregard for the Constitution, it's the Republicans who trample on it continually. Yeah, it was their idea to give corporations 'the vote' w/ their campaign financing, just to mention one instance.

You think defending the First Amendment is an example of trampling on the Constitution? Really? That somehow makes sense to you?

This is exactly how Obama will go down in history. The only principle the man has is that of following the polls to retain his hold on power. He is absolutely the epitome of the problem with Washington.

This is yet again another of his defining moments. Students will study this in future generations. Unfortunately for Obama, this is not how he perceives he will be studied (recall he thinks his first term defines him as one of the best Presidents ever in US history). The man is simply deluded....

Back...

The real issue in that post was....what on God's Green Earth do 'corporations' and 'campaign financing' have to do with the topic being discussed ???

We'll next be reading here about ol' George Bush and Fox News !!!

SeanskieRestored

And the rights of women to control their own bodies...that will also be lost.

Did they also lose control when they gapped open their legs to their boy friend who didnt pull out in time, or didnt want to wear protection because it sucks. How are they not in control for doing the act of having sex, and then not worry about paying the price of having a baby.

And before people go off spouting about incest, and rape, dont go there, it accounts for less then 1 percent of pregnancies.

The President neutered the GOP wedge issue and made it go away.

Now the Catholics are all scratching their head going, But, but, but ...

Obama 1
Wingnuts 0

kath63 - you are nuts! If you don't want to pay for birth control, don't have sex? is that really what you're saying? you seem to forget that not just single people need birth control.

not everybody wants to or has the means to produce a family the size of the Duggars. putting aside the whole 'sex before marriage' issue, many couples require birth control as well. it's even possible that a woman may have a pre-existing condition that makes pregnancy dangerous for her.

i understand the side of religious organizations operating within their belief system, however, if a Catholic hospital hires non-catholics, then it is obligated not to force its beliefs on the individual working there. If being Catholic is a pre-requisite for working in the Catholic hospital - which is perfectly legal - then they have a right to refuse to cover birth control.

My understanding is that if you offer benefits to employees it goes through a health insurance company - and the compay itself dictates what is covered. I think it is wrong for the Catholic hospital to dictate what the health insurance company should cover under religious parameters.

In addition, if these Catholic hospitals are operating for profit, then they are a business and regular business rules apply.

@Sally-1456674

Congrats true, spoken like a hysterical truly hostile repub. but hey, maybe you should look at the geography of just where all those teenage pregnancies and abortions are taking place. Give you a big boy, in the deepest red of the south. Places like Texas! but i guess you already knew that right? no? Not surprised.

Congratulations Sally, spoken like a full of shti truly hostile dem. Buy hey, why don't you SHOW US the geography of just where all those teen abortions are taking place?

"Teenage abortion rates were highest in New York (41 per 1,000), New Jersey, Nevada,Delaware and Connecticut"-http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

But hey, don't let any pesky little facts get in the way of a good rant.

It will be extremely interesting to watch as the various aspects of the healthcare-plan-nobody-wants-to-to-speak-about become known, one drop at a time.

This 'contraception' issue may be 'page one'...but we've barely gotten into the first chapter of this messy book.

One of the biggest and tide-shifting laws that's ever been put forth...and the Congress that wrote it & the president who demanded it and signed it rarely mention it...except in hushed tones.

State of the Union address !!! Barely a whisper. No preparing the masses. Just a hush falling over the land. One would think that if this plan is going to do all the wonderful things we were told it would do, the political hacks would be boasting of the plan's benefits by the hour.

But no...the silence if deafening. And I think we now know why that is.

I think this flap about 'contraception' and about the White House lording itself over individual pieces of the nation and making demands is just the start. And as each piece of this rushed and bastardized plan gets unfolded, we are going to be surprised again and again by the fact that this new plan is nothing like what we were told it would be.

And we will also see why the bulk of provisions in this horrid sausage of a plan will not be kicking in until after 2012...or make that after the upcoming elections !!!

Holy Crap! *please pardon the pun*

I have no idea what story many of the posters here read, but the story I read seemed to describe a fair and equitable compromise by the President that addresses the concerns of both religious institutions and women's rights organizations. That's successful leadership.

@tyler: You commented on the comments that we shouldn't report a person if we simply disagree with them; I couldn't disagree with you more.

I am a rape victim. Anything they say that limits the ability of a rape victim to get a morning after pill is very personal and damaging.

Anything that prevents women from getting hormones to regulate cycles because of chronic reproductive conditions that are very common also is very personal.

Those who equate a church with a business like a hospital are also personally attacking other churches: they must not know that if I print a purely religious book that only has worship services, no "inspirational" stories, the sale of such books is and has been taxed, including within a church building, so a service that can be billed to ANY insurance company is a business cost, and has nothing to do with religion according to the laws of the United States of America. It is not fair that one religion gets to call its hospitals "churches" and another religion cannot even call its worship books "church donations;" these people are attacking my religion as well as attacking women's rights.

And they create a financial burden on women, because women need a prescription (for good reason, in case a woman has a medical problem with a form of contraception that must be monitored) to have "the pill." And the Catholic hospitals force women to use their doctors and their pharmacies that have no hormones, not even hormones to regulate cycles, if the women go to those hospitals. Why would anybody go there? People say go down the road to the falling-apart overcrowded poor public hospital; that is not always an option.

I am sick of the outright attacks on women, and therefore, if you want to ban every woman who watches MSNBC or reads internet articles on MSNBC, then go ahead, but I think it is repugnant to say the least to tell us not to report those who are bigoted against women.

All you people bashing President Obama need to get a clue, he is compromising something the right doesn't know how to do.

No one is forcing you to go on birth control, they are simply making it available if you want it.

The liberty issue to me seems more like the Republicans are violating it, a bunch of men want to tell women what they can and can't do.

The Repubicans want to take focus away from the economy, even though they were repsonsible for the financial collaspe not President Obama.

They have cried wolf too often to my vote.

If you vote Repubilcan and are not a millionaire, you are literally voting against your financial interests.

(I guess sadly, they will get the vote of the ignorant creationists who beleive God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test your faith)

Only compromise here is Obama Wanting to be reelected! He will say or do anything to remain in power.

Tp-JH479998

Correction to your statement; the 2010 Republicans has voted on nothing to help the economy. The 2010 Tea party republicans have voted to ban abortions in all the states and to take away the birth control for women. Why are they so focused on taking away women rights? Abortion rights and planned parenthood have been their only focus. Could it be that this issue is more about denying minorities their civil liberties; such as the right to vote?

The Republican party has put forth nothing to help improve the disaster they left behind with Bush. Now as far as I am concerned if Republican men want to have sex with women than they should sign an oath to go through the procedure and get fixed!

There seems to be a lot of confusion here, so perhaps it would be wise to start with the 'liberal' position on religious freedom: all people should be free to act on their morality, and no person should be forced to live by another's morality. This directly mirrors what our founders put in the constitution: freedom of religion WITHOUT ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

I think the problem we're having here is of our own making, which is that the church has already - unconstitutionally - been established by our government. Our tax dollars go to the church to perform social services (thanks Bush), and into subsidizing religious 'educational' efforts (charter schools), while at the same time their tax-free 'contributions' are used to lobby (bribe) politicians into legislating their morality. Because of this, we the people are directly financing religious discrimination - in this case against women, but also against Muslims, Mormons and homosexuals, just to name three in the public eye right now. And of course, our law books are littered with moral legislation emanating from the church.

This is the difficulty of the current situation: how do we follow the constitution when the religious conservatives in power have long since abandoned it? How can we have religious freedom AND government establishment of religion? Our founders can be no help; their advice has been ignored, and not by liberals. We are just trying to clean up the mess left by those who want to throw away the parts of the constitution they don't like. And it is quite a difficult mess, after all.

Seeing that the catholic charities and the catholic hospitals are insisting what we are to do with our bodies and sex life, it's only right that they start paying their share of taxes...

It's not right, that the catholic church wants to tell everyone how to live and then be tax exempt... Two problems solved there...

This is nothing more than bowing down to the all mighty Catholic Church. This is pure bull@!$%#. It sets an unbelievable precedent.

Do you realize the hundreds and hundreds of regulations the church had to comply with just to open a hospital? Permits and building regulations. Legal requirements. Medical restrictions and requirements. ER specifications. Communications rules and regs, etc., etc., etc.

So you're telling me now that LAWS that "step" on their religious beliefs are to be ignored or otherwise changed?

And the same applies to an Islam run hospital?

And to a church run legal firm? Or a church run building company?

The church has known for decades now that THE prime requirement for entering into the business world is to comply with ALL rules and regs... and if they don't agree with some? Too bad.... deal with it. It's a slippery seperation of Church and state as it is... it just got even slippier.

I am sick and tired of letting the big fat cat church of hypocrisy push this country around like the bully it is.

UnitedStates1776 wrote,

"The President neutered the GOP wedge issue and made it go away.

Now the Catholics are all scratching their head going, But, but, but ...

Obama 1
Wingnuts 0

Taxpayers 0

There, fixed that for you.

Nice try backcountry but no dice. i see you selectively picked the stats on black teens. From the very report you presented let's take another look shall we.

Among states with available data, Arkansas had the highest pregnancy rate among non-Hispanic white teenagers (67 per 1,000). Pregnancy rates among this group were also high in other Southern states: Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia and Mississippi (60–63 per 1,000). Meanwhile, Minnesota had the lowest rate among non-Hispanic white teenagers (29 per 1,000), followed by Wisconsin, North Dakota and Pennsylvania (31–34 per 1,000).

My username says my stance. That said, this was a political move by Obama from the beginning. His order would have been struck down by any court. Instead, it looks as if he is willing to compromise. He's not. I am torn as to whether or not the Catholic Church should make a statement to America about how much it does to help others. I'm not the only one to think this either.

Imagine if every Catholic-run institution shut down, even for just one day. Every Catholic Adoption Agency, Social Service organization (e.g orphanages, soup kitchens, thrift shops, etc) hospitals, universities, news organization, and if every Catholic in the workforce who could do so without getting fired (and I mean those who attend Sunday Mass regularly), America would screech to a halt.

With Obama's bill, he nearly shut down many Catholic organizations that do incredible things for society.

Let's get this guy out of office. He scared me in November of 08. He gives me nightmares now. The sad part is, the Republicans have failed to find a suitable candidate that has a legitimate shot against him. He made a brazen decision to attack religion, and it backfired. If he gets re-elected in November, he'll pull a similar stunt with the USCCB, except this time he won't revoke the decision. America is on a cliff in terms of Freedom of Speech and Religion, and I fear Obama (and a number of other politicians) are about to push us off of it.

I have a hunch a number of people will say that Catholics already use artificial contraception. That's true, and I don't condone their usage. That said, if Catholics started snorting cocaine, should the Church condone that? Exactly.

The Church doesn't change its teachings because secular society changes, its vice versa.

For all those that defend the man who has your right to due process in his hands.

I don't believe Harvard offers a course in usurpation.

This man gave an oath to protect the Constitution? My arse.

I sure can respect a President who sticks by his convictions:

Obama stands firm on his beliefs on contraception - reference above article.

Obama stands firm on SuperPACs - http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/10499393-452/obama-oks-superpac-giving-refunds-donations.html

Obama stands firm on single payer healthcare - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

/sarcasm

@Sally-1456674

Nice try backcountry but no dice. i see you selectively picked the stats on black teens. From the very report you presented let's take another look shall we.

Nice try Sally but no dice. Try again. Try to read again. The stats I posted were NOT for only black teens, so yes, please do take another look.

As for the rest of your post I notice NOW you're only talking about teen pregnancies. What happened to teen abortions? That was your original claim, teen preg and abortions were "all" taking place in red southern states. You throw out one accurate fact to make the rest of your BS seem plausible.

I believe it was Frankln who said "half a truth is often a great lie".

So the religious right is against abortion AND contraception... but they are also against welfare.

So when they flood this country with unwanted children, who exactly is supposed to pay for them? When these unwanted children become adults, and go on welfare, who will be paying for them?

So let me get this straight... you want to actively INCREASE the population on welfare, even though you are against welfare and don't want to pay into it. You want to increase the thing you are against.

Must be that Republican "intelligence" you hear so much about.

@Harry Blank, if you are trying to say graduating magna cum laude with a JD from Harvard Law School is not a very prestigious degree, you are really grasping at straws.

Disagree with the President's policies and whatnot, but recognize he is among the Ivy League elites as far as his education goes. (For what that is worth to you.)

The Church doesn't change its teachings because secular society changes, its vice versa.

Really? This is the attitude that appalls us. When the church knocks on my door and tries to persuade me to follow it's teachings, I say no thanks... and that should be the end of it. But it is not. Instead, the church keeps knocking. It sends brochures. It gets involved in laws and affects my life at the local, county, state, and federal levels. It endorses candidates and affects the very direction of this and other countries. It imposes it's will. It knows no bounds. The end justifies the means. It has lost it's way and has become the very definition of hypocrisy.

Your statement is telling. Put another way, the church does not listen, it tells.

Nice.

semaphore

He may have a great education, the problem is he has no constitutional or ethical right to my right of due process, nor yours.

You know, when I was growing up, people found it embarassing to admit that were receiving welfare, food stamps, or any other kind of assistance, and if they found theirselves in that position, they, as quickly as possible, tried to alieviate that situation. Now, it is almost a badge of honor that you "got over on the government" and have your entire lifestyle paid by the "government." Which actually means, that your lifestyle is paid by me (and millions of others that actually work and pay taxes like me). Back then, helping yourself meant that you took any job (or jobs) to make in meet until which time you could get a better job. Now, helping yourself means helping yourself to whatever you can get from whoever you can get it from (except through an honest days work).

You want to solve many social issues, go to work. There is no work? Then why are so many people coming across the boarder to work in the United States? Doesn't pay enough money to pick lettuce? Of course not, it's lettuce picking, for Christ's sake, not rocket science. But, guess what? We have the illegal immigration issue because we are too good to work out in the field, but not too good to have our hand out.

I guess my point is this...why are we even having this discussion at all? for what reason should I, or anyone else for that matter, be paying for anyone elses health care, right to contraception, abortions, etc. If you want it...pay for it yourself. If you cannot pay for it, either a) don't have sex, or b) (wait for it..this is a phrase from a long time ago, that still applies today) "GET-A-JOB!" Why in the world should I have to pay for it. Am I having sex with you? If I am, then by all means, I should share responsibility, but if I am not, why should I pay for your promiscuity? There is a simple rule of thumb...for you folks that went to public schools, like myself...sex cause 100% of all pregnancies (except for one, according to the Bible).

If you want the government to do something productive, how about improving the environment for businesses in the United States so that people will have jobs and go to work? Amazingly enough, if there were more people paying taxes than there are receiving taxpayer money through welfare programs, then there would be enough money in the treasury to pay of the debt. If more people were working, crime would go down (I know this for a fact, because I have worked my entire adult life, and I am too tired and too busy to go out and deal drugs, burglerize my neighbor's house, rob a bank, etc.).

Anyway, I have ranted enough...except for the fact to point out I AM NOT REPUBLICAN, I am an Independant...and proud of it.

john-737278, that is a much more legitimate concern, which is all I was pointing out to Harry. If you referring to the NDAA, I agree it sucks, but it was collusion by at least two branches of government, not just the President-as-usurper. I was not happy about what the original Patriot Act authorized either. There definitely needs to be a shift back towards the rights of individuals, but at this point I wouldn't expect that from either major party. If there were a socially moderate, fiscally conservative defender of the bill of rights in this year's presidential race, they would get my vote. The nearest candidates for these criteria appears to be Sen. Paul, President Obama, with no third place. And I doubt Ron paul will be on the ballot.

BullwinkleMoose-1083634, tell me one person that's "proud" to be on government assistance. Are these your friends? If ever I found myself caught in that safety net, I would be out ASAP. Anyone I've known in that position felt the same way. Yet I am happy it's there so people don't starve on the streets. You're just making @!$%# up as a straw man to beat down.

guess my point is this...why are we even having this discussion at all? for what reason should I, or anyone else for that matter, be paying for anyone elses health care, right to contraception, abortions, etc. If you want it...pay for it yourself.

Bullwinklemoose,

First, you go on a rant about welfare... THEN you complain about paying for contraception and abortion. Guess what, genius. If you pay for contraception and abortion, then they will NOT have the kid that goes on welfare. See how that works out? It is cheaper to pay for those things, so you DON'T pay for the eventual welfare recipient.

If you cannot pay for it, either a) don't have sex,

The Catholic church has been telling people to "not have sex" for a thousand years. How has that worked out so far? Ya... it DOES NOT WORK. People will have sex, that is REALITY. So you have the option to deal with the reality you live in, or complain the rest of your life about wanting a fairytale land that will NEVER EXIST. We have to deal with reality, not your magic no-sex fairytale.

or b) (wait for it..this is a phrase from a long time ago, that still applies today) "GET-A-JOB!" Why in the world should I have to pay for it.

Currently there are 4 applicants for every 1 job available. Now I know this will require math, so take your time. If every available job if immediately filled, will all 4 applicants be working? No, only 1 will. The other 3 will still not have a job. 1 out of 4 applicants is 25%. That means that right now, there are only jobs available for 25% of the unemployed population.

So, out of ALL the unemployed people, is it possible for them ALL to get a job right now? Remember, 4 applicants for every 1 job.

Take your time. (insert jeopardy music)

Ding... times up. And the answer is: NO - it is NOT possible for EVERY unemployed person to get a job. At best, only 25% of them can fill the available positions.

Now, when you figure out how 4 applicants can ALL get the 1 available job... then you can say "GET A JOB!" Otherwise it is mathematically impossible for them all to do so.

semaphore

I was referring to NDAA and do believe that the Congress is also at fault. In fact, I believe they all broke the law through "abuse of authority" and "perjury of oath". Both high crimes against the American citizens. And said as much in a letter to the SCOTUS asking them to take original jurisdiction in a case of 300 million Americans vs Congress and the President of the US.

@IndieParty

So the religious right is against abortion AND contraception... but they are also against welfare.

So when they flood this country with unwanted children, who exactly is supposed to pay for them

The religious right is ALSO against pre-marital sex which would stop the "flood" of so-called "unwanted" children but hey, don't let those pesky FACTS get in the way of your rant.

The religious right is ALSO against pre-marital sex which would stop the "flood" of so-called "unwanted" children but hey, don't let those pesky FACTS get in the way of your rant.

Backcountry164

When did I EVER deny that fact?

I am fully aware that they are against premarital sex. But because you like FACTS... how about this FACT.

The Catholic church and their religion has pushed "no premarital sex" for over a thousand years. OVER A THOUSAND YEARS!

How successful has that been? A thousand years of pushing this idea... have they stopped it? They have had a THOUSAND YEARS to reach their goal... how close are they?

Come on, Backcountry... let me hear those FACTS you love. Let's go, buddy. Inform us all about how successful their "no-sex before marriage" idea is.

Now you have a choice: (Option 1) You can continue to live in your fairytale land, and spend ANOTHER thousand years telling people not to have sex... and paying for all the unwanted welfare babies that continue to result from your FAILED idea. (Option 2) Or you can live in REALITY, recognize your THOUSAND YEAR FAILURE, and come up with a new way to stop adding to the welfare community.

Your choice, buddy. Fairytale land option 1, or Reality option 2. Which is it?

Sally - those states you listed with the highest teen rates correspond with the least percentages of catholics in those states. The states with the lowest percentage of teen pregnancy is the highest percentage of catholics.

Seems to me instead of pushing birth control recommended by Obama, you should push birth control the way the catholics teach it.

My point is "Why are concentrating on finding ways of taking care of people", instead of "How can we make it easier for people to take care of themselves". And as far as the unwanted pregnancies...how about some self control. If you can't afford to have a child, then don't. If you do, then take care of it yourself. My dad took care of us, and he was by no me rich. He worked his ass off. Why makes you better than him?

I am making up an issue? This is the issue.

Backcountry164 the first pregnant teenager I knew as a child was the preacher's daughter. That's a fact. I guess you skipped the party where IndieParty mentioned the church's attempts prevent premarital sex. It's kind of a losing proposition (although I managed to hold out, and I'm a black sheep, socially liberal type--go figure!).

And why is that we do not have the jobs? Because we let them go overseas. Why did we let them go overseas? Because we had a safety net where there was little need for public outcry. If we did not have the safety nets in place to the extent that we do, the NEED to keep jobs in the United States would be so great that they could not go to the extent that they have. Furthermore, we have the level of unwanted pregnancies we do today, because there is not the stigma it once had, and the safety nets we provide. People would think a little more if they realize that they are on their own if they bring a child into this world, and the irresponsibility of bring a child into the world when you KNOW the likeyhood that they will not receive the care they need because you CANNOT AFFORD a child may cause you to think TWICE.

There are so many people today that think that it is OK to become sexually active before you can even take care of yourself, let alone another human being, it is insane. You can tell it by the way our culture sells sex to our children. It is not a religious issue, it is a moral, and economical issue that will not be solved by supporting the problem through public funding. This is a family issue, that need to be supported by the family. If you cannot step in and teach your children about the responsibilities and costs of bringing a life into this world, then YOU can step in and pay for the children your children bring into the world.

My point is "Why are concentrating on finding ways of taking care of people", instead of "How can we make it easier for people to take care of themselves".

Ensuring affordable access to birth control IS making it easier for people to take care of themselves - for more reasons than just birth control.

Summer-1597193

Good. Pay for it yourself. This is my point exactly. In what way does someone reaching into my pocket, affecting my ability to raise my family, benefit me. If this is sooooo important, why doesn't the drug industry do the responsible and moral decision and make it affordible? Why? Because they have a market to increase their pricing because we subsidize it. If they had to rely upon what they would get at what the market was willing to pay, it would be cheaper, and I would not have to help anyone else pay for it.

And, yes, it is about me (and mine). I have worked steadily for 38 years, and I get to support many that have not worked a day in their life. I am sick and tired of it, but there seems to be more of it coming. ENOUGH!

And why is that we do not have the jobs? Because we let them go overseas.

Oh... look at that. What happened to your "GET A JOB!" rant? Now you are changing your tune and complaining about jobs going overseas. Well if you already knew jobs were going overseas, why did you yell "GET A JOB!" in the first place?

Come on, explain why you said "GET A JOB" when you already knew there were NO JOBS? Let me guess, you were repeating a typical Fox News line instead of thinking for yourself.

There are so many people today that think that it is OK to become sexually active before you can even take care of yourself, let alone another human being, it is insane. You can tell it by the way our culture sells sex to our children. It is not a religious issue, it is a moral, and economical issue that will not be solved by supporting the problem through public funding.

Again... the Catholic church has been pushing "no sex" for a thousand years. A THOUSAND F***ING YEARS. They have FAILED. Nothing has changed. People had premarital sex a thousand years ago, and they still do. YOUR PLAN HAS FAILED. ONE THOUSAND GOD DAMN YEARS OF FAILURE.

So tell me, Backcountry ... how many more thousand years are you going to continue to FAIL? How many centuries of pushing one idea, and FAILING, does it take before you are smart enough to realize that maybe you need to try a different tactic?

People like YOU sit here and complain about other families, and what they teach their kids, and the decisions other people make. Well guess what, genius? YOU CAN NOT CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE. They will NOT change. I guarantee you... GUARANTEED... that people will continue to have sex before marriage.

In fact, lets take it a step further. You seem like a man set in your beliefs, so let's make this interesting. Put your money where your mouth is. $10,000 says that 5 years from now, people still have premarital sex. You, and your "moral" party can continue to tell people not to. $10,000 says that you fail and they still have sex. Come on, big man. Show me how deep your convictions and beliefs go. Show me how much you believe in your "moral" fairytale. Man up. $10k says that you continue to FAIL with your message of abstinence. If in 5 years all non-married people completely stop having sex... I'll admit your belief worked and pay you. BUT, if there are still non-married people having sex, you pay me. Deal?

What do you say, big man? Let's see how much you actually believe in what you say. Let's see how much you believe in your religion and "morals".

I don't hear God complaining. I hear a lot of people playing God complaining.

IndieParty

Backcountry164

When did I EVER deny that fact?

I am fully aware that they are against premarital sex

?? And when did I EVER claim that you denied that fact?

Your BS claim was the religious rights ideology was responsible for, what you call, "unwanted children" but you only mention a portion of their ideology. When taken as a whole your claim is utterly debunked.

How successful has that been? A thousand years of pushing this idea... have they stopped it?

Much, MUCH more successful than their attempt to convince women not to use contraceptives, which some estimates put at 98% have used. What's your point? You look at the little piece of the pie that supports your argument but just ignore anything that doesn't. THAT is the definition of living in a "fairytale land".

My rant is still there. GET A JOB! If there are no jobs, then why do we still have a problem will illegal immigration? Did they come across to starve here instead of there? There are jobs, but not all pay $100,000 a year.

BullwinkleMoose-1083634

I am on your side as far as welfare. But I do agree with free birth control even if it isn't through insurance. I'll explain:

The average middle or upper class family will have I think around 2.4 kids. They will be able to feed them, take care of them, and get them an education.

I don't want to generalize, but the poor end up having 4-6 kids that they have no hope to pay for so they end up on assistance.

If you extrapolate those numbers out, middle class-2.4 and poor-5, over 10 generations, the poor outnumber the middle exponentially.

I think it is actually in the best interest in the long run for the working people to actually promote birth control for the needy, to reduce the numbers that they will be responsible to pay for in the long run.

I don't think the religious right really wants to stop birth control for the poor, more that they don't want to promote birth control for the more wealthy so they are not so outnumbered.

Hey, IndeParty:

Yes the Catholic church has been pushing it for the last 1000 years, and it hasn't worked. Welcome to the modern era. Just 112 years ago, you could use that extra mouth to go out and help with the farm, or, if you were lucky enough (sarcasm intended) you could have that extra mouth starve to death with the rest of the family if you lived in a city. At least, now days, we can artifically prop up this irresponsible behavior and provide the masses bread and circuses and the government will insure that they will take care of us, since they have the means. Oh, right. We will have the means as long as another country will loan us money to pay for the means. I wonder how long they will do that once it becomes apparent that we can longer pay the interest on the loan, nevermind the principle?

IndieParty:

Currently there are 4 applicants for every 1 job available. Now I know this will require math, so take your time. If every available job if immediately filled, will all 4 applicants be working? No, only 1 will. The other 3 will still not have a job. 1 out of 4 applicants is 25%. That means that right now, there are only jobs available for 25% of the unemployed population.

So, out of ALL the unemployed people, is it possible for them ALL to get a job right now? Remember, 4 applicants for every 1 job.

Take your time. (insert jeopardy music)

Ding... times up. And the answer is: NO - it is NOT possible for EVERY unemployed person to get a job. At best, only 25% of them can fill the available positions.

Now, when you figure out how 4 applicants can ALL get the 1 available job... then you can say "GET A JOB!" Otherwise it is mathematically impossible for them all to do so.

Your math and assumptions are bad. First you assume that the jobs market is a zero sum game. Bad assumption. People start new businesses all the time. Second, you assume that 4 applicants for every job means that there are only enough jobs for 25% of the unemployed. Bad assumption because it doesn't take into account how many people apply for more than one job. Using your math, anybody that applies for 4 jobs will get one. In point of fact, every unemployed and able-bodied person could get a job, it just might mean making one. I've counseled hundreds of financially strapped people and shown them how to make money. I have personally helped with micro-loans for dozens of them to open their own business. But you're right in a way. Sheep and lazy people will never have the job they want. Creative and industrious people always will. Funny how that works isn't it? How many unemployed Mark Zuckerburgs do you think there are?

My rant is still there. GET A JOB! If there are no jobs, then why do we still have a problem will illegal immigration?

Gee... I don't know. Maybe it has to do with the fact that their country is a giant war zone with bullets flying across every street. MAYBE they are coming over because... oh, I don't know... they do not want to get caught in the crossfire of drug cartels. Generally people do not like getting shot... I thought this was common sense?

But NOOOOOO... you are right. That would be too logical. Obviously all the studies that PROVE there are not enough jobs for the current population are wrong. And your opinion on illegal immigration, based on no facts and no logic, is correct.

?? And when did I EVER claim that you denied that fact?

Seriously? You just wrote...

The religious right is ALSO against pre-marital sex which would stop the "flood" of so-called "unwanted" children but hey, don't let those pesky FACTS get in the way of your rant.

You see the part where you wrote "Don't let those pesky FACTS get in the way"... stating that I was denying that FACT.

Do you have a mental deficiency? You just wrote the second line 10 minutes ago, and then you completely forget about it.

Good. Pay for it yourself. This is my point exactly. In what way does someone reaching into my pocket, affecting my ability to raise my family, benefit me. If this is sooooo important, why doesn't the drug industry do the responsible and moral decision and make it affordible? Why? Because they have a market to increase their pricing because we subsidize it. If they had to rely upon what they would get at what the market was willing to pay, it would be cheaper, and I would not have to help anyone else pay for it.

And, yes, it is about me (and mine). I have worked steadily for 38 years, and I get to support many that have not worked a day in their life. I am sick and tired of it, but there seems to be more of it coming. ENOUGH!

Well, let's see - this is about requiring insurance provided by an employer to pay for contraception. You DON'T pay for another insured person's birth control anymore than they pay for your antibiotics, blood pressure medications, etc. that you might obtain using your health insurance.

I don't know what the uproar is about......Catholic institutions have been providing birth control insurance coverage for years without a peep of complaints. I worked for a very large Catholic hospital for nearly 15 years in the 70's and 80's and had medication coverage that included birth control pills, and medical coverage for diaphragms, IUD's, vasectomies, and tubal ligations. 90% of the other nurses I worked with were Catholic & used birth control of some sort. The hospital itself did not do tubal ligations unless it was after a second C-section (thus "medically necessary"), but DID facilitate the mother's "day pass" to another local hospital for tubal ligations, and cared for those patients after the procedure. It is only the Catholic bishops that have gotten their nose out of joint over this.

Believe me, if this was an unconstitutional infringement on churches, I'd be the first to speak against it. --Toasty McWrath

Believe you? You'd be the first to speak against an unconstitutional infringement on churches?

No, I don't believe you. I won't believe you. I cannot believe you.

I have already heard too many lies from your keyboard to believe anything coming from your keyboard.

LOL. Why does this smell so much like the devil himself pleading "Just believe me"?

You, atheist, don't even know what truth is. How could you ever speak it?

John-737278

I am not against birth control. And, I am really not against charity. I believe that it stops being charity whenever it is mandated. And supporting these programs, all of them, through public funds when so much is being put upon so few, it is unfair. The Catholic church, for all it's flaws, has been a source of charity since conception. And the choice to support charity through the church has been, essentially, voluntary. What steams me the most is this overwhelming sense that people believe they should be entitled to so much from the government, but I am the government when it comes to funding these programs and providing benefits. And, I am not talking about unemployment, social security, medicare, and medicaid; these are paid for through taxes and employer contributions they may on my behalf because of the benefits they receive through my employment. But, the whole idea that I will be providing health care for everyone, when there are quite a few that will not help, but will benefit, it just gets to me. Especially, when you can see the pattern that got us here in the first place, in retrospect, and, instead of taking steps to correct the problem, we are taking steps to promote more and the same.

My 401K took a pounding thanks to programs to help people without the means to get into houses they could not afford thanks to a banking industry that felt their profit margins were not significant enough. I can look forward to living a life under an overpass in a refrigerator box (if I am lucky), eating CHEAP dog food, in my twilight years because I had to work as far past 65 as my employer, or the federal government, will let me before I can take the paltry amount the social security will be able to pay me per month to get real food on the first Wednesday of the month at Kroger/Safeway/Winn Dixie/(Insert your local grocery here) while people gripe about whether or not they can get cheap contraception at the expense of the American taxpayer.

How about fixing the underlying issue...we must get people working. It does not matter where and how, but we are not going to finance any entitlements much longer if we do not have people paying taxes to fund these programs. And, I am not talking about Government jobs (they do not produce revenue for the nation). I am talking about jobs at any level that reduces the amount needed to support people. I am talking about the jobs currently held by people who are sending much of it out of the country. I am talking about jobs that are needed to be re-introduced back into this country that will make the goods that we have made ourselves indebted to foriegn, possibly hostile, nations. I am talking about jobs that take advantage of friendly nations that WANT to give us alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, or that would produce domestic oil.

JimP,

First, that was simple math for the simple people on this board. Obviously companies start up, and die off during the same time period.

If you REALLY want to get into it, you also need to take into consideration the rate at which jobs are replaced by technology. As technology improves, less people are required to perform the same function.

Example: The news paper industry employed thousands upon thousands of people who were responsible for printing, binding, and delivering a newspaper to your doorstep. Everyone from paper mill workers, train employees delivering the giant spools, mechanics working the press, all the way down to the paper boy. NOW... all those jobs are disappearing as a small online team delivers the same news to your computer. Entire newspaper companies have gone belly up and laid off thousands. Those jobs will NEVER return.

That is just one example, you can see the same trend in bookstores, music stores, video rental stores, big box retailers, etc. Remember when there were these people called "travel agents"... thanks to technology they are all gone. Notice how grocery stores are replacing clerks with self-service checkouts... more jobs gone.

So if you REALLY want to talk about the true job situation, you have to look at the attrition of jobs as a result of advanced technology.

Now a common "Republican" answer is that every unemployed person just needs to go out and start their own business. I'm surprised that someone who analyzes basic assumptions would make such a retarded claim. Yes, because everyone has the start-up capital just laying around.

Do you have any idea how many young, moron Republicans I hear say this? First they brag about how they are not going to rely on anyone (even though they live at home with mommy and daddy). Then they say how their plan is to start their own business and make it for themselves. Followed by congratulatory remarks from older Republicans.

I heard one young guy explain how he was going to open his own bar and become an employer. After everyone else told him how great he was at being ambitious, I asked how much money he had saved up to do that. He said $5,000. That's right, this f***-tard thinks that he can open a bar with $5,000. You should have seen his face when I went over the costs of building permits, license fees, inventory costs, property furnishings, insurance and everything else. He shut his dumba$$ mouth real quick after that. I didn't even get into supply and demand, or competitive analysis for the area he was looking at.

So although it is a nice, fairytale idea that everyone can simply start their own business... ride to work on rainbows, and have leprechauns help them out with the start-up money... that is NOT the real world. Not everyone has the capital to start a business, not to mention the knowledge, entrepreneurial spirit, and commitment to stick to it past the first 5 years. On top of that, 80% of new businesses fail. So even if everyone TRIED to start their own business, 80% would be in the same situation they are in now.

So go ahead and pat yourself on the back for those you helped get micro-loans. I'm sure you will get a nice "returning customer" to your counseling business from those that fail. 80% return customer rate... not a bad gig.

The reality is that not everyone can start their own business, and there are currently not enough jobs for our population. But hey, Republicans want to increase the population by banning abortion and contraceptives. Great f***ing idea. Let's bring MORE people into an over-populated world where there are not enough jobs for the current population. F***ing fantastic logic.

BullwinkleMoose-1083634

Like I said, I am with you, I just think it prudent to not have to pay for the next generation of moron.

John-737278

And, unfortunately, when you rant you can come across as a moron, too. I do have to (choke) agree with IndieParty on the point that technology has surplanted a great many number of jobs. Coupled with the fact, that we have allowed many jobs to leave this country, it is difficult. There has got to be a better way than what is being proposed. More of the same, seems to produce more of the same.

IndieParty

SeYou see the part where you wrote "Don't let those pesky FACTS get in the way"... stating that I was denying that FACT.

Ok, first I've got to ask. How often do you fall out of your chair as you sit in front of your computer? You reach sooooo far in your attempts to find something to bitch about I imagine it happens quite frequently.

In the world I live in, what you refer to as "reality", leaving out some of the facts is not the same thing as denying those facts. If I deliberately fail to mention that the sky is blue I'm not denying that it is. Get it?

And one finally bit of BS I'd like to point out, ONLY Catholics are opposed to the use of contraceptives and Catholics compromise about a third of Christians in the US. So bitching about the "religious right" regarding something that only a minority of them are supposed to be doing is just another MASSIVE reach on your part. But I'm sure you'll just ignore that also.

Backcountry164

Catholics have always opposed birth control simply because they want more Catholics.

I do believe, and yes this is an opinion, that this entitlement mentality that has been fostered probably a long time before Johnson's Great Society has finally reached, or is very near, it's breaking point. We are seeing the product of our own destruction in the form of an artifically produced prosperity across the full spectrum of society, be it through social programs, or availability to large amounts of credit, that have allowed us as a nation to live well above our means. We have reached the point that not only have our citizens lived beyond their means, but our government has, also (after all, we are a government of the people). Has this contributed to the problem of excessive people v. available jobs? Will more socialization fix or exacerbate the problem? Is there a fix?

BullwinkleMoose-1083634

If all this pisses you off, then this might too, once you realize that we are all being played. From spreading the wealth around the world, to social programs for the poor, to negative population growth. It was brought home from Rio by Bush 1 and signed by Clinton. You can google any country in the world and Agenda 21 to see how the New World Order is being implemented.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm

Pay particular attention to line 30 on the second one where it states population reduction should be promoted.

Your shoes probably had a higher ethical bindings.

John-

You may have opened up the flood gates for comment with Agenda 21. I am not familiar with Agenda 21, but there is a case for the promotion of control of the population to be made (no matter what China's success rate may imply).

From a purely academic standpoint, population control, to match your country's economic health, availability of resources, and the impact on ecological health of the country makes complete sense. Ignoring the basic instinct to procreate and you have an ideal situation. We don't live in that world, but they may have a point that IndieParty did bring up earlier. We are straining the natural resources of this planet, and live on the brink of serious repercussions from natural and man made disasters that affect the spread of dangerous viruses, or seriously impact our ability to produce food for the existing population. Couple this with the advances in medical technology that allow longer lives, a lower infant mortality rate, and the artifical economic environment that has been produced, and discussed in previous posts, and we may be facing the Bibles Armageddon.

I am not big on conspiracy theories (I still think Oswald shot JFK, and if Ruby would have know how mush he would cloud and interfere with the issue, he would not have shot Oswald), and despite Nixon (although lately I am starting to feel naive about this one), I believe, that, overall, the people in government do still believe that they do government service to promote the well being of the country, and not for self-gratification or monitary gain.

I served my country for 10 years of my youth, and with the availability of the internet, I do tend to spout off more than I propbably would if otherwise. I do believe that we, as a nation, are going the wrong way. AND, I am not in 100% agreement with the opposition either. But, that is what is nice about not running for office, AND having an opinion. It only matters to me, and the few that will respond during the life of the thread that I express it.

Actually, I have read most of the UN Agenda 21. Most of it is logical for survival of mankind. The problem I have with it is that I think most would agree if they just asked. But instead, they are implementing it without most peoples knowledge, and I think that is un-American.

John-

I have had that un-American feeling for quite a while. Notably, when a Democratic Congress, and a Democratic President run roughshod over the Rupublican minority over health care. And, I will admit that is their perogative, BUT, they do forget that these Republicans do represent a great many of their fellow Americans. And, although the Democrats represent a majority in the House and Senate, there are many Americans that neither party represents. Therefore, in the court of public opinion, their casual dismissal of the Republican's concerns, and the relative speed that this wide reaching bill was passed along party lines, injured my sense of fair play.

This issue with the insurance coverage, implimented bliantly around a hostile Congress just reinforces that opinion. I agree that it is a pain in the rear to have to deal with a body that in all appearences opposes your agenda on every turn, but that is why there are built in checks and balances in the Constitution, and that our officials are elected for set periods of time. Just chucking the Constitution is not the answer to serve the people, despite your opinion of the necessity. You fight your battles where you can, compromise where you must, and if the idea is what the people want, then re-introduce it after the opposition is voted out.

I agree, we are losing freedoms by the day, and there doesn't seem to be any thing we can do other than vent. Congress and the President should be impeached for NDAA, but who is going to do it?

So it would appear that the health care law effectively createsthe American Catholic church as a separate entity with President Obama as the American Pope who can dictate all church policy. Maybe the healthcare law makes President Obama the leader of ann churches and religious institutions in America. Is this constitutional? I hope that all of this will be explained when the President goes over the health care bill "line by line" with my congressman on CSPAN as promised by the President. Does anyone know when the broadcasts are to begin?

The far left wing of this country will lose this issue.

Mr. Obama is the President of the far left wing. He is also the president of the rest of us but he loves the far left. He will lose.

Can you clarify your definition of "far left"? Thanks.

It is a real shame that the power hungry idiologs are still so hung up on loosing power. People, this is about our women and THEIR bodies. It is also amazing how people argue out of both sides of their mouths... This should not be a political issue!!!!!

Amazing that the Conservatives, the Republicans and some Democrats are refusing to acknowledge the existence of American females and their rights. Who the F' gives the polticians, the Church to determine how our women do with their own body. 98% of the Catholic women use some form of contraception. So why the F' do you want to legislate what must be done!!!!

Legislation should be hands off, allowing the Americans make up their own mind.... Govt should stay out of legislating my Mom, wife and daughter's bodies.

John-

That is why we have revolution built into the Constitution. Four years for Congressmen and Presidents, and six years for Senators. And Justices do not have term limits so that they do their single task of interpreting the other two branches of government decisions for Constitutionality without the pressure of Presidental, Congressional, or public opinion. People who believe that this process does not fit the times may wish to examine their motives. While this system is inheritantly slow, which is in contrast to our fast paced, instant gratification society, I believe that the purpose was not expediency, but a deliberateness to insure that bad ideas are not rushed through, which does not favor any party or candidate in manipulating the system for short term political gain. A case in point that happens next month will be Obamacare. Although passed through both the House and Senate, and signed by the President, it will get the Constitutional litmus test next month, even though it was passed nearly two years ago. Is this process too slow? It all depends on your perspective. If you support it, probably yes, if otherwise, probably no. But, the point being, if it does not pass the Constitutionality test, it is illegal, not matter who is in support. Which means that it would, in one way or another, infringe on someones rights guaranteed under the law of the land, and depite its popularity, or lack thereof, it should not be allowed to stand. You may disagree, if you support the bill, but you may not, in the future, when a different bill is passed that you oppose.

BullwinkleMoose-1083634

The problem with the process taking so long is how many Americans can be harmed in the meantime, especially with indefinite detention. I sent a letter to the SCOTUS asking them to take "original jurisdiction" which is within their charter. That way, a case can go directly to them, and should if they see immanent harm.

Flippity Flop, Flippity Flop,

It's cool for Obama but not for Mitt,

Flippity Flop, Flippity Flop,

Obama can do it but we'll jump on Mitt!

Seriously.... Can't ANYBODY here be OBJECTIVE?????

This effects more than the Catholic Church.....just goes to show how much you folks know. There is an insurance company that caters to Baptists, 16,000 of them and they are just as upset as the Catholics. I'm sure the list is longer than this. The bottom line remains the same. Obama is out of line with his mandate and his so called compromise. He does not have the authority to do this.

@ b-8 Do you realize the largest employer after the US govt. is small business? And 68% of those are small S or C corps, whose officers pay income tax on their corporation on THEIR PERSONAL TAX RETURNS?!? So yes, it is very real that a corp should be considered a person. You are anti-business....bet that makes it hard for you to get a job.....

@ Elizabeth - Your situation really doesn't relate to the current article. I'm sorry that happened to you, but it simply doesn't relate. I know a woman who had to take birth control due to hormone problems and never was covered by her insurance. It wasn't that expensive and she paid for them, plain and simple. It is not an attack on women, it is a woman taking care of her own needs. It is not the govt., or everyone else who is purchasing insurance from a company to pay for your birth control. By the way, I don't think Viagra should offered for free either. It is no more everyone elses responsibility to make sure a man can get a woody than to have free birth control. Sex is not a right, it is a responsibility, YOUR responsibility, not the govt.'s or everyone one who pays for insurance.

Birth Control is not just about handing out some pills - It also includes Abortions.

To tell the Catholic Church that they must provide coverage for abortions, which violates their core doctrines, is wrong.

Don't be fooled by Obama's nonsensical statement 'Religious affiliated groups will not have to pay for it, the insurance company will pay for it'. Those groups have to pay the insurance company to cover it, so they still have to 'pay for it', which means that they have to provide the funds to support abortions, which violates their religious beliefs.

That's just common sense.

Interestingly, the Obama Administration just this week lost another religion/government case in the Supreme Court, which has been largely ignored by his adoring media.

Obama's Justice Department tried to force a Lutheran church school to rehire a school teacher under the ADA law, claiming that the teachers duties were 'largely secular' and not religious in nature.

The Supreme Court ruled against the Obama Administration - UNANIMOUSLY. Even the far-left Liberal Justices that Obama put on the Supreme Court ruled against him.

I suspect the Supreme Court will also rule against Obama for trying to force the Catholic Church to provide funding for abortions against their core beliefs.

This whole issue is a perfect example of the Obama Administration trying to use Obamacare to force people to do what he wants.

You know who could fix this?

Ron Paul!

Dudes been saying the same shista for 50 years, and he's always turned out to be right.

But hey, he's crazy, right? So, no need to pay attention to him, right?

JH Anybody who thinks the far left approves of President Obama is out of touch with reality. The far left wing of the Democratic party is a far greater critic of the president than any chubby rich radio announcer could ever hope to be.

wireman-1399628

JH Anybody who thinks the far left approves of President Obama is out of touch with reality. The far left wing of the Democratic party is a far greater critic of the president than any chubby rich radio announcer could ever hope to be.

And yet they'll turn out in droves to vote for him. How's that for being "out of touch with reality"? You guys do realize you can challenge him in the primaries right? Being the President doesn't automatically make him the democratic nominee.

Interesting open letter to Obama. The link is below;

Unacceptable
Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things. This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services. It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy. It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick. Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Signed: John Garvey President, The Catholic University of America Mary Ann Glendon Learned Hand Professor of Law, Harvard University Robert P. George McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University O. Carter Snead Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Yuval Levin Hertog Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Link to letter;

http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/02/10/statement-by-religious-scholars-on-contraceptive-coverage-policy-change/

Ok, I'll try one more time: the problem is not that Obama wants to violate religious freedom, it's that this country has already violated religious freedom by establishing religion. The taxpayers fund religion with subsidies and tax breaks while they lobby to codify their religion into law. This has real consequences: ask a Muslim who wants to build on his own land, ask a Mormon who wants to marry more than one person, ask a homosexual couple who want to marry, etc.

You all get that the Catholic church doesn't want to fund something they have a moral problem with, but you have to understand the other side: if nothing changes, then I am funding religious discrimination - in this case against women - and that is something that I have a moral problem with.

If we had not violated the establishment clause, we could all have religious freedom. Since that is not the case, either I have religious freedom, OR my Catholic neighbor has it - not both. Are you starting to understand yet, or are you stuck in some world where the unemployed and the irresponsible are somehow the cause...?...of something...

I agree with A Lil Common Sense. If the Catholic affiliated organization wants to pay a higher price for insurance they should have every right to do so. However to argue that every other client of the insurance company should pay more the Catholic churches employee's lack of family planning seems a little counter intuitive.

I have yet to see an offended insurance company complain that they have to pay extra to cover birth control. In my opinion the ball is in the insurance company's court at this point. Not the Catholic church.

Takingmiddle..., I take it that you are not Catholic, and that provers that you have no idea. Keep out of our religion! If you don't like it, don't join! We are what we are, and we don't want to changed for a bunch of left wing liberal nut jobs! What next? Catholic Concentration camps? Catholic Democrats are now seeing what they voted for, and now they are vowing to not to back Obama! Last election, 54% catholics voted for Obama, now none of them will vote for him again! STOP THE LIBERALS RELIGION DESTRUCTION! Vote Obama out!

I take it that you are not Catholic, and that provers that you have no idea. Keep out of our religion! If you don't like it, don't join!

There is an easy way down this path. I am only involved here because in your quest to seek your own religious freedom you are stomping on mine.

The compromise is overly fair to the Catholic institutions. They get out of paying for birth control. The women employed by the Catholic institutions do not have to use birth control. I as another insurance policy holder get to "pay" for their birth control. I am not upset because I know I get a discount on the premium not a cost if a women with a policy at the same issuance company chooses to use birth control and plan for a pregnancy.

Since I am not complaining, and it is my "money" funding it, then I want to understand why the Catholic church bishops are not happy with the arrangement. Feel free to have female Catholic clergy come out and explain how I as non Catholic funding a Catholic employee's choice to use birth control is a violation of a Catholic institution's right not to fund it. If an insurance company feels this is to much of a burden then I understand since they are also footing the bill.

The only answer I find as to why the Catholic church does not approve of the agreement is that the Catholic church wants to impose their moral believe that birth control is bad on me.

Freedom of religion goes 2 ways in this country.

Freedom of religion goes 2 ways in this country.

No it doesn't. It should, but for now, only the religions established by our government (which means christian, be it catholic or protestant) have religious freedom. That's the way they want it, and since they have the money and the connections, that's the way it is.

Actually I check the SCOTUS has upheld religions other that Christianity. I have found court rulings that upheld the rights of Iam, Christian Science, and Jehovah witnesses.

takingmiddleground "I have yet to see an offended insurance company complain that they have to pay extra to cover birth control."

They have no problem paying for birth control - as long as their customer gives them extra money for it. Any increase in costs (+ a profit) will simply be added to the price the customer pays (in this case, the Catholic Church).

Therein lies the problem - The Catholic Church objects to paying for abortions that run counter to their religious beliefs. Forcing a church to fund things that are absolutely counter to their core beliefs violates the separation of Church and State provisions of the Constitution.

I suspect that the vast majority of 'Constitutional Scholars' will agree with the church on this issue, as will the Supreme Court.

Obama was foolish to issue this 'commandment' before the election, because it highlights the issue of an overbearing government taking away the rights of people and their religious freedoms and forcing them to conform to the government's dictates on moral standards.

takingmiddleground

There is an easy way down this path. I am only involved here because in your quest to seek your own religious freedom you are stomping on mine.

The compromise is overly fair to the Catholic institutions. They get out of paying for birth control.

Your argument fails to take one thing into consideration. There should be no need for a so-called "compromise" with Catholic institutions because the Federal government has no friggin business telling ANYONE what to do regarding health insurance. Stay the hell out of it altogether. Problem solved.

Democrats:

Do you honestly believe Obama will not take a freedom from you, next, if his eyeball falls on it?

Do not work for a religious based organization / institution if you want your birth control payed, or pay with Obama's (in his mind) choice of one of your freedoms, next.

Or close your eyes, and deny the truth of who is front and center to Obama, and how much the term 'control others' means to him, IMO.

ROY WILSON-336103

They have no problem paying for birth control - as long as their customer gives them extra money for it. Any increase in costs (+ a profit) will simply be added to the price the customer pays (in this case, the Catholic Church).

Until you have an insurance company file a lawsuit stating showing statistics then all I have to go on is that it is hundreds of thousands for birth control and it is 10s of thousands to millions for a single pregnancy. I also have to add that into my own experience of loosing a niece and nephew in a miscarriage as a result of untreated endometriosis due to religious bias against Obgyn and birth control. If you want a plan that pays out for more pregnancies, more miscarriages, more pregnancy complications, increases fertility costs and does not have birth control, feel free to get your own and pay the higher cost. If the insurance company thinks it is more cost effective to include birth control which when used reduces the number of pregnancies, miscarriages, complications, and infertility, then pay for the plan that is less cost. I think it is penny wise and pound foolish personally but this is the United States. If the Catholic church wants to pay more money be my guest. Just don't expect the insurance company a tack on sure charge on service that costs the insurance company less money.

Backcountry164

Your argument fails to take one thing into consideration. There should be no need for a so-called "compromise" with Catholic institutions because the Federal government has no friggin business telling ANYONE what to do regarding health insurance.

Exactly. This is what what I already explained to my congress representative back before the health insurance was passed. He is not longer in congress since me and several others did not vote for him. However when I see a jump in the polls for Rick Santorum being backed by a group who claims injustice because the federal government is trying to force its views one them, then I begin to wonder about sincerity.

This is what Rick Santorum has said in the past about Libertarians:

they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone...

If you want someone who will not get involved in cultural issues then vote for them. If not, you are just saying I want my culture to stomp all over yours.

It’s a woman’s choice. You can take it or leave it, but this time it will be free. So anybody that complained about contributing to welfare mothers and the amount of dollars they get paid per kid can now say there is a way to lower welfare dollars this country puts out. Their no excuse for welfare mothers to continue having children when they can’t afford them when free contraceptive is available.

Strmz,

bless your little bleeding heart. You have NO idea what you are talking about. This is not about a womans body, that is merely the scapegoat you libs use to drive your liberal agenda. This has EVERYTHING to do with FORCING religious organizations to conform TO YOUR beliefs. Please learn before posting.

Roan,

Excuse me! Since I have no idea, please tell me what liberal agenda is so I can learn.

spend spend spend

Ok, Buck Naked Sr

Backcountry The truth about President Obama really bothers you, doesn't it? If you Repubs ever get a candidate with the moral integrity of our president, he will win the presidential election quite handily. A moral honest Repub? Have not seen one in 50 years.

Ok Roan, Since can't answer,

I was born, raised catholic, went to catholic school for 8 years. What you are spewing is pure hogwash. Nobody is forcing anything on anybody. Do you get that? Now if you are so dead set on your religion you would be better off going to a psychiatrist then using religion as a crutch to give you a reason to exist. If you don't like our President then just say so. Weak people have a way of twisting the truth. If you are catholic, then GET OUT.

strmz,

Again, this is NOT a Catholic issue. It is deeper than that. It is a gross overreach of government into the rights of religious organizations (such as Catholic charities and hospitals). It has nothing to do with NOT liking the president, it has everything to do with this president lying during the healthcare debate. Remember the Sestak 7, 7 Democrats who were against Obamacare for this very reason. He a backroom shady deal, he promised them that contracepetive/abortion issues would not be affected at all with Obamacare, thus finally gaining their votes. Now, he flipflops, and completely breaks his promise. Lots of Democrat members are against it too. Joe Biden, a Catholic, said they would "attempt at working something out." Tim Kaine, former Democratic Gov of Va and current Senate candidate and one time vice-pres candidate is against it. Ex Presidential candidate Democrat John Kerry is against it. Heck, even uber liberal Chris Matthews from right here on MSNBC said this mandate was "frightening." Yikes, and those are all Democrats, there are many more Democrat Senators and Congressmen that were against it as well, but Obama had to have his way.

You seem to be confused, as well. Do you not know what MANDATE means??? To mandate is TO FORCE. As in...THE GOVERNMENT FORCING religious institutions to provide contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs to their employees, even if offering such things is against their religious doctrine. So much for twisting the truth, don't get mad at me because you dont understand the issues. Again, as I said in my initial post, it is clear you don't even understand the issue...

Ok, I get it. Your against contraceptives and abortion. That's your right. I believe it's a win win for women. Don't get me started on flip flops and the frequency of them I've researched on presidential candidates.

Now you are making things up. I never said I was against contraceptives and abortion, did you not read where I plainly stated this is NOT about contraceptives and abortion? I went on to say that this is DEEPER than that...this is about the gross overreach of governmental power. Did you miss ALL of that in my post??? Sheesh. It's about the First Amendment and what it protects. Maybe you should read it sometime instead of just being a mouthpiece for your party...

As for flipflopping, yeah, I've researched this one too. No president has flipflopped more in just 3 years on MAJOR issues and broken campaign promises than Obama. Heck, he had two major flipflops just this week. 1) The healthcare mandating employers cover contraceptives/abortions after promising that if his healthcare bill was passed, none of that would be affected (liar). 2) He excoriated and lambasted republicans for the past two years for taking SuperPac money in their campaigns and saying he would never use SuperPac money, to now, this week, announcing that he has changed his mind and the Democrat Party is now to start forming a SuperPac and raking in money from anonymous donors, after already knowing that he will raise 1billion dollars to buy the election. Sad. Two HUGE promises broken just this week. If your research is objective, which I'm sure it's not, you will find that Obama takes the cake in broken promises in only 3 years of being president. Happy day!

I find the whole concept falls down to us controlling the federal government and slowing down it's intrusion into all that we have and are. Should women have control of their bodies, yes. And sometimes that control (or lack thereof leads to being pregnant), at this point it is not a point a right to control ones body, you did the act, now you just do not want to deal with the consequences.

As for Planned Parenthood, I want them shut down, all funding stopped. This is personal. I fell at work and had a employer I found out had no Workman's comp., I broke my back, and because of it had huge medical bills. I sold my house, emptied my 401K's and maxed out my credit, in the end when it ran out I went to planed parenthood to seek help and all they gave me was the places that performed abortions. I ended up taking my son until his fourth birthday and told them to dispose of him because that was the advise I got from them (I stopped after that because I did not want to have him know and traumatize him). Their response was if I would have stopped it when I was given advice he would have never came about to be. The government needs to make up it's mind because a women can be charged with child cruelty for taking drugs while pregnant, and then the day she gets out of jail go and abort the child she abused. If taking drugs is abuse, what is killing it? How is this, are you telling me just because he had no voice he had no rights, if this is the case then why don't we euthanize all the elderly that have Alzheimer's or dementia, they have no voice either. This whole group sickens me. And this is not even coming from a religious point.

And Ladies do not start yelling, I know for a fact that you can go to any free clinic and get free birth control, and the men condoms. This has never been a matter of choice, this has only come down to not taking responsibilities for ones actions. Sorry, but if you are going to play, one day you will have to pay. To get out of it is like a criminal asking for a do over, life does not work out this way. And we are so concerned about animals rights, why don't we take half the energy and put this into the rights of the unborn.

This president, his ideology has to go. The government has slowly been taking our rights away in the name of national defense. Please, will someone show me in the constitution where it states in time of national emergency that we cease to have our constitutional protection. Or is it that Obama and his camp lied on their oath and really never intended to uphold the constitution. Why not, he has lied about just about everything else. Voting for him once was a mistake, if I or anyone does it twice then you are willing to let out rights go down the toilet. And while I am at it, what the h@ll are we doing with czars, I thought we lived in America not Russia?

Dont expect an answer, the libs usually run off when confronted with objectivity and fact. Either that or they simply insult...let's see which ploy they resort to now...

Crickets chirping???= Victory music.

Indie, I just had to giggle at this

The Catholic church has been telling people to "not have sex" for a thousand years. How has that worked out so far? Ya... it DOES NOT WORK. People will have sex, that is REALITY. So you have the option to deal with the reality you live in, or complain the rest of your life about wanting a fairytale land that will NEVER EXIST. We have to deal with reality, not your magic no-sex fairytale.

The Catholic church has been telling "unmarried" people "not to have sex". BUT what did work is that they actually TRIED not to sleep around. Now people have no qualms about it. There are some bad consequences to being loose whether you admit it or not, and consequently there were less broken families, out of wedlock conceptions and broken hearts from being "used."

Tbenton: I am sorry, I don't believe you....

Roanoke: What is your pont? President Obama changed his position (strategy) on the SuperPac. I think the Progressive already been blasting him on that. On the other hand, he is not an idiot. No one is going to sit there and take punches simply because he personally do not agree with the interpertation. GOP and their Superpacs spent over 22Million in Florida PRIMARY on television ads. To put is into perspective, in 2008 the total GOP television spending was 10.6 Million NATIONALLY!!!!! Just in Florida, GOP and its Superpacs showed how they plan to buy their votes. I am glad the Democratic candidate is not sitting down and taking all this BS.

Are you seriously trying t blow smoke out of your other end thinking that the opponents will simply lay down so that election will be bought???? The riches and powered will not give up their 15% tax rate so easily. If they have to pay 500 million in political contributions, it is still better than paying Billions in taxes...

We don't answer because you don't get it.... Wasting energy is kinda like dropping a bom, it is a one way solution...

I must be missing something in the whole controversy.

Are these democrats saying that women are being FORCED to accept jobs at faith based organizations?

Are they saying women are too stupid to know that when they freely accept a job at a Catholic organization that it IS A Catholic organization?

Surely at some during the hiring process and reading of the employee handbook it is revealed……….

No one is being denied anything.

thturd

Tbenton: I am sorry, I don't believe you....

Typical liberal, present the facts and they always go back to shutting down their minds. Maybe if you would open your mind you would truly see how screwed up Planned Parenthood is, and if you like I would be more then happy anytime to take you to the clinic and have them explain to you why they did what they did. But then they turned out to be just as ignorant.

Typical liberal

... Yes, when your back is up against the wall and your all messed up with Kornball facts, the first thing to do is yell "Typical liberal" .

strmz,

All I deal with are facts not the nonsense any of the press is presenting us. I research before I reach a conclusion, not listen to a talking heads; do you? I take a person at their word and expect them to honor what they promised, yet we have a president that has done none, how can I trust him, he is just another Chicago politician. You liberals walk around with blinders, I have travelled the world and seen the reality of what is out there, and it is not the beautiful thing you seem to see through rose colored glasses, it is ugly, people with not regard for rights, life, or even simple humanity. So before you start accusing watch who you point fingers at or you will find as many have I will bury you with facts, not provided by nothing but independent think tanks and government papers. Dig, and I promise you will not like what you see unless you truly want socialism to come this wonderful country your for-fathers and mine sacrificed limb and life to uplift and protect.

And while you are at it, use that brain that the good Lord gave you and find any facts that have put my back against the wall, or is it that I am a threat because I because I actually do the research.

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
Thomas Jefferson

"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
Abraham Lincoln

Infertility, I'm sorry to say, is a very different situation. Offering contraception to women--especially poor, young, or at-risk communities--gives women a better chance at education, jobs, independence, etc. They are not tied to outdated patriarchal expectations and can elevate themselves, and have a child if and when THEY choose. Infertility does not carry the same societal weight. As someone who did the gamut of fertility drugs and procedures, infertility should not be covered by health care because its neither a life-or-death situation nor is it a danger to women's health. There is nothing "wrong" with you if you are pregnant OR can't become pregnant, but it should not be part of health care.

There is nothing "wrong" with you if you are infertile. Did you ever consider that God made that choice?

What's "wrong" is anyone who thinks this country needs or can afford to pay for expensive infertility treatments in a grossly-over populated world. This should NOT be paid for by insurance.

Maybe the push is because we as a country and planet are already grossly overpopulated.

If we're going to have to pay for contraception for the non-productive members of society, why don't we also pay for the cigarettes after? Why not the wine before? You think this will be "free" and no one will notice the additional premium cost simply because the upcharge is buried deep within the premium? Nothing is free and everything provided in any sort of plan costs somebody down the road. Contraception is a good thing but not a medical necessity ... so PAY FOR IT YOUR OWN DAMN SELF if it applies to you. However in the case of the ignorant and worthless among us who suck from society instead of contribute, perhaps we should do whatever we can to insure they don't procreate more with these same traits in their bloodline.

Enough already, Obama and the rest of you libs! Deal with the important issues facing america and forget about these bull-@!$%# issues you're so concerned with.

STexan:

Would you rather pay for birth control or the kids they produce without it?

What do you think is cheaper? Because one of the two is going to happen.

Obama is dealing with the issue of today, it's the right preoccupied with telling women they can't have their birth control paid for that is the issue here.

The party of life, denies birth control or sex education, then denies benefits or help for those that have babies they can't afford.

Religious organizations can't tell insurance companies what to cover.

Contraceptives are already available at low or no cost to anyone who wants them via Planned Parenthood. The people who breed multiple unwanted children are simply too lazy or careless to be bothered to obtain them. Do you really think that a mandate to provide them will actually cause them to use them?

Women who are responsible enough to use contraceptives will obtain contraceptives. This is another example of the state trying to replace responsibility with a law.

No one is being denied contraceptives. All you have to do is go buy them, or if you can't afford them, go to Planned Parenthood.

The money saved from contraception being provided and making it easier to get stops more unintended pregnancies especially from the poor and teens and youth.

Why does the right continue to obsess about what a woman does with their body.

Most women appreciate not paying $600 a year for birth control.

Eric, you are exactly right.

The Catholic Church has no business making health care decisions for American women. It is a religious institution. It is not a medical research facility.

For decades, pedophile priests preyed on American children with the aid of their bishops. Now they want to force their control on the bodies of American women.

When will people wake up and see this organization for what it is? When will they tire of the power and control the Catholic Church has exercised and abused for centuries?

It is so not politically correct in this country to label any so-called religion for what it is.

There should be no sacred cows in a country that was founded on the bedrock principle of the separation of church and state.

Contraceptives are already available at low or no cost to anyone who wants them via Planned Parenthood. The people who breed multiple unwanted children are simply too lazy or careless to be bothered to obtain them. Do you really think that a mandate to provide them will actually cause them to use them?

Women who are responsible enough to use contraceptives will obtain contraceptives. This is another example of the state trying to replace responsibility with a law.

No one is being denied contraceptives. All you have to do is go buy them, or if you can't afford them, go to Planned Parenthood.

Well, there are a couple of problems with your post. 1st) Free and reduced cost birth control, even at Planned Parenthood, is based on the person's income. As a result, access to free/reduced contraception isn't as easy as you make it sound. The best way to make sure that contraception is available to those that want to use it, is to make it readily accessible through their health care insurance.

2nd) The point of this mandate isn't to require individuals to take contraception. It's to ensure that those that want to take contraception have affordable access to contraception.

Keep in mind - birth control is about much more than simply preventing pregnancies. There are medical conditions that are treated with hormonal birth control. Also, with low estrogen birth control pills (which most are anymore), there is a reduction in risk of developing certain types of cancer: there is a 50% reduction in risk of getting endometrial cancer (the most common gynecological cancer in women); there is an 80% reduction in risk of developing ovarian cancer in women who have taken the pill for 10 years (and a 40% reduction in those that have taken the pill less than 10 years).

Also, research has shown that frequent pregnancies are not only not healthy for the mother, but are also not healthy for subsequent children. This further drives up the need for and expense of health care (for both the women and children).

So buy your own birth control. Condoms are cheap and my generic birth control bill runs me roughly $9.00 a month. Are you saying that an employed person can't rustle up $9.00 a month if the issue is important to them? Really? bet they can afford cell phone, cable etc.

Also, this is about free/no deductible birth control. But if you or your child gets cancer you still have the deductible. Seriously?

Getting birth control requires a prescription - which requires a doctor visit. You can't just walk into a pharmacy and ask for it.

That means that women who need birth control have to pay for both the doctor visit and the prescription. That's not cheap.

I think it's obvious that health coverage should include birth control and that Catholic businesses that employ and serve non-Catholics should not be exempt. The alternative is to say that they can force all non-Catholic employees to abide by Catholic doctrine.

I also think it's obvious that Obama knows something the right wing doesn't - the word COMPROMISE.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

The Mormon Church has asked for an exemption to polygamy laws, citing religious freedoms and government overreach.

Jessica,

Offering contraception to women--especially poor, young, or at-risk communities--gives women a better chance at education, jobs, independence, etc.

How does contraception make getting a job easier? I am not going down that road, YOU said it.

Women should have the same access to birth control as men, and it should be readily available to them. And given the cost to everyone who pays taxes for unwanted children in the world, I have no problem with the government picking that up. It, however, doesn't have to be done through a religious hospital. What does need to happen, is it has to be available through non-religious institutions to everyone. It is only a problem enforcing these rules on a religious hospital if you can't just go the same distance to a non religious hospital.

And there's the problem. We decided, in our society, that having a religious hospital nearby means there's no need for a non-religious one, whoops, until someone needs something that the religious hospital won't give them.

Set up a medical clinic for things a religious hospital decides not to do based on a neanderthalic book. And yeah, the government should do that. Where to get the money?

Stop giving churches and religous hospitals tax breaks for following mythological books! Seriously.

A mountain was made out of a mole hill because people can't read or really listen well. No one is forced to use birth control. If you want it, it's there, if you don't, don't use it. Pretty simple.

At least, since people are being stupid, Obama is willing to work with them so everybody feels OK about this issue unlike the Republicans who would just ram it and do ram their crap down our throats. Just like their Union busting and everything else they do whether anybody likes it or not. It's OK if they decide what's best for everybody.If this is all they have to bitch about, they don't have their attention on the real issues and problems of this country.

Thye almighty King Obama has decreed that he will allow you to have your constitutional rights for the moment.

But he knows you silly white people are still clinging to your guns and religion.

Do not tempt the great lord Obama to take away your puny paper Constitution.

You may resume groveling for your freedoms.

This non-issue has been created entirely by the far-right Teapublicans as an attempt to get votes because they have nothing else. It won't work, but you can expect more of these social non-issues to be created between now and November. You know, "desperate times call for desperate means"...

Ryan - this is about women's freedom to have the same health benefits no matter where they work. They are 51% of the US population.

You're wanting to take away their rights and give the power to 270 Catholic bishops instead.

Somehow, I fail to feel the winds of freedom blowing here.

To "Wake up Now"

"How does contraception make getting a job easier? I am not going down that road, YOU said it."

Try going to a job interview 8 months pregnant and toting a kid on your hip and see how many times you get a call back.

UnRealAmerican,

You libs REALLY need to get your facts straight. "Plan B One-Step and Next Choice are available from drugstores and health centers without a prescription for women and men 17 and older. If you are interested in getting emergency contraception and are 17 or older, you can either get it directly from a Planned Parenthood health center or from your local drugstore." OUCH, eh???

WOW, you guys really need to read and learn about an issue before posting your false info!!

Beento - not in every state. Maybe you need to check your facts before you get so righteously indignant.

And those are EMERGENCY contraceptives - not something that can safely be taken on a regular basis, and not useful at all for the many medical conditions for which doctors prescribe estrogen-based contraceptive pills - like endometriosis, severe PMS, acne, etc. etc.

Or maybe you need to visit a few more states.

If Obama caves, and it seems he will, it is only because he perceives he'll lose votes. Besides, this legislation is unconstitutional anyway. Does this free contraceptive legislation cover vasectomies? I think not, which is why it's unconstitutional in denying equal treatment under the law.

Obama, imposing socialism one step at a time.

There are two arguments that I have often considered bizarre;

1) The argument that the Church would not be required to take the pill. No where has this been even indicated. What the Church has said is that they don't want to pay your personal choice. I'm sorry but the real choice was rather the fact that you had sex in the first place. The Church is not forcing its ideology on you but rather you are forcing your ideology on them.

2) While I realize that the first one won't be considered bizarre by some but the argument of population growth does. I have never met anyone who have seriously suggested that they take birth control to reduce the excess population. Maybe there are some out there but generally that is not what is first on their mind. Just a moment honey I need to take this because there are too many people in India.

These old men in dresses (the Catholic Bishops) are grasping at straws to see that society views Catholicism as a vibrant organization and not one that is drowning and in its last throes under the weight of its own grievous actions. They are desperate not to lose their control over women. Catholics practice birth control, and they will get it any way they can.

Caving in is what is now likely to cost him the election. He should have stuck to his plan. It was right for America, regardless of what religion thinks. This now shows weakness and will likely end him. Sad that the religious right has won.

They claim President Obama wants to turn us into a European country, but can't see that they want to turn us into a Christian version of a Middle-Eastern country.

This effectively means that insurance companies will pay for the contraception coverage directly.

What a deal !!

That means your Insurance coverage is going to GO UP to pay for this.

ANOTHER fiasco with the Universal Mandated Health Care Reform back room deal. I wonder how many folks who DON'T NEED THIS are going to get a WAVIER on their health insurance premiums.

What a deal !!

UnReal,

again, get it straight, this entire debate is about contraception (condoms/pill) and "abortion-inducing" drugs, i.e. the morning after pill. It is not about "acne, other medical conditions, or PMS." It is about FORCING a business that YOU WILLINGLY CHOOSE to work for to change their policies to adhere to YOU, even if it goes against their religious beliefs, when YOU KNEW their policies BEFORE taking the job. You dont like what they offer in insurance, DONT ACCEPT THE JOB!! Or get an insurance rider for cheap, which SEVERAL FEMALE DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS HAVE PROPOSED.

He isn't caving in army, he is transferring the cost to the insurance carrier. That's all. Doesn't change anything for the woman. If the Catholic Church isn't happy with that then they are just a bunch of liars who only want a spotlight on their masogynistic ideas to subordinate women.

I think insurance carriers are cool with the cost also because it still saves them money on costly prenatal care, births and cyst removal, etc. etc.