Anyone see the irony of the Republicans' compaint that the HCR law will get government into your helthcare decisions?

Organizations that willfully enter into business shall be treated like businesses. Roy Blunt the wording in this amendment is much too vague "any employer", "their beliefs"?

Another RWNJ move to avoid the real issues of the day.

CNR - But then in your world the Catholic institution has wide latitude to decide what they will cover. They could decide suddenly and on a whim that any number of medical procedures and preventative health options are now against their religious convictions. They don't have to substantiate why, because they are a religion and it is a matter of faith. Oops - we no longer have a dental plan - it's against god! Oops - we no longer support vision care - Jesus didn't wear glasses! Oops - we no longer cover childhood illnesses - we'll pray for your son instead!

This bill isn't even written for religious employers - it is written for ANY employer. This could suddenly be the reality at warehouses and restaurants, at offices and factories. If an employer wants to save money all they have to do is find god!

This bill is poorly written. The bill is a reactionary piece of trash. This isn't about religious freedoms, it is about the religious way or the highway. It gives an excuse to employers to deny any coverage for any reason.

Catholic organizations don't get to tell insurance companies what they can and can't cover.

Nobody is making Catholic women take birth control pills. Simply don't take advantage of the free birth control.

@Eric - absolutely correct and that's the dang point. NOBODY is making ANY woman take birth control pills. It IS and ALWAYS MUST BE A WOMAN'S CHOICE!!!

That does not give the gov't jurisdiction to come in and tell the church what to supply in the policy!!!

It is NOT A CHURCH... it is a business that is NOT A PLACE OF WORSHIP.

You do not get to start a business then deny anything you want on religious reasons.

Christian Science does not believe in ANY medial care... do Christian Science business owners get to provide zero health care? Does a religious business owner get to discriminate against women, and not hire them, if it is against their religion? Does an Old Testament follower who believes in the passages of owning slaves get to pay their employees nothing because his religion views them as slaves? Do Muslim extremist owners get to force women to cover their heads because of their religion?

Religious practice and belief is a PERSONAL matter. It is NOT an organizational matter. The right to practice one's religion is a lot like swinging your fist...that right ends in someone else's personal space. By no means does your belief entitle you to place controls, limitations or hardships on anyone else. Employees of religious employers are entitled to the same treatment as those of non-religious employers because trading services for $$ is a secular matter.

@David, you shouldn't have to change jobs to get available birth control. It's not like the employment market is a good place to go to.

Women who don't want to take, or get free birth control shouldn't. That way they are in keeping with their religious beliefs.

I have freedom from religion, so stop forcing your religion on my family.

Yes - and if you don't like the Christian Science health insurance policy - find another job!

Why have any employment laws then?

Want to hire kids? Sure, tell them it's a religious decision.

Want to discriminate against race? Religious decision.

Only want to pay 0.10 cents an hour? Religious decision.

Honor killings? Religious

Stoning? Religious

Owning slaves? Religious

By the way, David. Please check the fabric on the shirt and pants you are wearing. Is all your clothing made of the same fabric? Because I think I am going to be an Old Testament follower, and do you know what that RELIGION lets me do to people that wear clothing made of material from two different fields? Hey... it's my religion, and you support that. So go ahead and let me know what fabrics you are wearing... I am just going to be over here collecting stones.

If it's not okay for parents to withhold medical treatment for their children because of religious convictions, then it isn't okay for an employer to tell me I can't use my insurance or my PAYCHECK for birth control.

Your religious freedom ends when it encroaches on my religious freedom and on my health!

@Cheri, birth control is not abortion.

@ Cheri - exactly - your choice is yours - my choice is mine. I have never met you. I would never DREAM of telling you what you can and cannot do with your body.

Your beliefs are yours. My beliefs are mine. I honor yours. You honor mine. No one is asking of suggesting you pay for a damn thing other than your own life choices. Dang straight you'll not dictate my life choices to me either.

This whole issue shows why the health care business should be separated from one's employment. The only reason that health insurance is provided by employers was to get around the wage freeze during WWII. Employers provided health insurance as a perk to employees and new hires whose wages they could not increase.

There is no rationale that in any way can connect one's job to the insurance one might seek to buy. The connection only ties together two very disparate activities, causing confusion and turmoil with activities working at cross purposes.

Perhaps a compromise would be for employers to provide a voucher for health insurance that the employee could only spend on any insurance company he wished.

There is a simple solution to this whole issue that would allow employers and insurance companies to maintain their beliefs while assuring access to birth control and other medications/medical procedures for women and anyone else that wants them.

It's called single-payer health care.

Religious institutions can control their policies completely when they stop taking tax payer money (like Medicare and Medicaid), stop asking for special civic dispensations (they get the right to build the hospital in a specific spot instead of a competitor), and stop hiring people outside their religion.

If you want to be part of civic life, you have to treat people equally.

The irony of this is that every religion is practiced completely differently depending on whom you talk to: Bishops think differently from nuns who think differently from believers. Who's version of the religion are we supposed to look to?

Wow, at this rate we will all be wearing Burkas if Omaba does not get re-elected. Taliban = Republican

From where I sit, this administration is simply waging war against religion, one hammer blow at a time. Wake up, America. If you care about religious freedom in this country (and any freedom, for that matter), then this is NOT the man you want in the white house.

Bruce,

Really? War on religion? Really?

So telling a BUSINESS that it does not get to change the rules because of their "belief" is a WAR?

You want to know what a WAR is, Bruce? How about a group of "religious" people committing genocide and slaughtering millions of people. How about a group of "religious" people burning women alive, because of a witch rumor. How about a group of "religious" people molesting children for years upon years, while their leaders cover it all up. Religion has been responsible for the greatest evils this world has ever seen... and you think that telling a business that they can not change the rules is a "war"?

It's good to see when Congress actually votes with the will of their constituents. The vast majority of people do support contraceptives covered by all insurance plans as a main component of women's healthcare.

The very few who want to impose restrictions on contraceptive care make a lot of noise and fuss, but that's because they know that's the only way anybody will even pay any attention to them.

Rush Limbaugh is saying today on his show that he'll buy all the aspirin that the women at Georgetown University want to put between their knees so they don't have to bear the cost of birth control. Abstinence has been shown time and time again to have a very short term effect, but nature wins in the end. He's Actually paraphrasing the women as having "so much sex" that they can't bear the costs. Most of those women are probably in monogamous relationships and even if they aren't, quantity is not an issue at all. If women have sex even once every month or so, they should still be using a contraceptive to protect against unwanted pregnancies. If they are having sex with non-monogamous partners, they should also be using protection against STDs. That's good health sense for women and good for everyone else by keeping insurance costs down too.

If they want an abortion or birth control, they should pay for it themselves. I will not pay for them, I believe it is a mortal sin to kill an unborn. I do believe in birth control, but I'm not paying for YOURS.

Oh, the irony. The person who thinks abortion is a mortal sin wants to make them even more necessary. The people who want smaller government want corporations to control their healthcare decisions. Guess what, I don't want to pay for your Viagra. Or your wars. Or your corporate welfare. If we all get to pick and choose I don't think republicans will be happy with the outcome.

Oh, and accidentally voted up 2.25 when I clicked on reply.

Republicans are waging war against women and their choices.

Catholic women simply don't have to take the free birth control.

An organization isn't a church. Most insurance companies have a variety of plans, your premiums still pay in part for other plans.

Republicans want to take women back to the 50's.

Republicans have gone mad... this vote proves it. They won't stop until we live in a full-blown theocracy with theocratic leaders like Santorum and Blunt. The Constitution gives me the right to live free FROM your religion and that right is just as important as your right to force your religious dogma on others.

You do all understand that this has nothing to do with religion, don't you? This is about Big Business getting out of paying for health care for employees. The Repubs couch it in religious terms to fire up their base and get the outcome they desire, but this is completely to get Big Business out of having to provide healthcare.

This is a trick the Rich Repubs use all the time on their base. They use touchstone words that get them blinded and excited and voting against their own self-interest while they take away rights and freedoms to hand over to their corporate masters.

Dems aren't much better but they make a pretense of doing something once and a while for the electorate while siphoning off huge amounts of tax dollars to Big Business.

TO: Bruce who wrote:

"...If you care about religious freedom in this country (and any freedom, for that matter), then this is NOT the man you want in the white house..."

How is YOU and a bunch of other Republican clowns telling ME what I can and cannot do "freedom"?

For some reason, I feel a whole "free-er" when no one is trying to tell me what to do.

Birth control and other prescribed medicines ought to be covered

Obama / Biden 2012

Sex is an elective activity, and your neighbor should not be asked to pay for your sex with their tax dollars, or higher insurance costs.

Then why is viagra covered?

If all the conservatives would take their own advice and adhere to abstinence to resist any temptations, it'd only take a couple generations to thin them out considerably.

Why is there no longer freedom to only give employees that which they have earned-- their wages?

It amazes me how many people are against birth control and abortion because it kills a person (technically an embryo) and doesn't want to pay for it because it is against their belief which comes from what they were taught via religion. However when someone like Bush II lies and creates an unnecessary war that kills over a hundred thousand alive and self sustaining people, including children and pregnant women, there is no objection from those religious people. Spare the embryo and kill the adult mentality.

The absurdity of people choosing which laws they will follow because of their religious beliefs is grounds for many creative religions to off shoot in the future. Perhaps we should anticipate this now with the newest government expansion, the Department of Religious Exemptions Among Deceivers (DREAD).

your neighbor should not be asked to pay for your sex with their tax dollars, or higher insurance costs

Providing BC pills REDUCES health-care costs. But your team doesn't ever let facts get in your way...

While birth control is not free, it costs far less than maternity, delivery and child care. As a result-no one is really "paying for it."

This bill would not deal only with birth control. It would allow far greater opportunities for religions to restrict health care. Jehovias Witnesses oucould not include blood transfusions for employees that print the Watchtower. Religions could limit testing and treatment for STDs if a person is not married.

Who's rights does the constituion protect? It protects the rights of individual citizens. We have the right to practice religion as we wish. It was not designed to give religious organizations the right to do whatever they want. The rights belong to the people-not churches. Priority must be given to people, not churches.

The FACT is that the majority of the people support this. Just as I was against the war in Iraq and the majority of the people supported it-so I had to pay. We don't get a line item veto.

Our elected representatives said that these things are a part of health care. It is my right as an American Worker to have access to these things. That trumps all rights that any chucrh has to restrict my access to them based on their belief.

Bottom line, my rights as an American come above a church's rights as an institution.

When a church goes into business, it stops being a church. I don't even understand why this should be a discussion.

What the Republicans propose is to allow any religious or pseudo-religious organization to impose its religious beliefs on employees, regardless if they are non-believers or believers who do not subscribe to that particular bit of dogma.

I have been through this and know the situation well. My wife used to work for a Catholic-administered, for-profit, hospital. She was/is Catholic, but one of the well over 90% of Catholic women who favor birth control.

My wife had very heavy periods after our first child was born. They would be so heavy that she would become moderately ro severely anemic. Her Ob/Gyn prescribed birth control pills (a very standard treatment.) Even though the hospital's coverage was vanilla Blue Cross Blue Shield and such things were covered, the hospital actually deducted the amount reimbursed for the medication by BCBS from her paycheck, claiming that it was "paid in error." What was actually happening was they they were diverting the payment to themselves instead of "sending it back" as they claimed.

This went on for several years. The hospital also refused to pay for several D&C's on the basis that a woman might use a D&C as a primitive form of birth control or abortion. And finally, they refused to pay for the partial hysterectomy that corrected the problem permanently, claiming that it was a form of birth control. Fortunately for us, I worked for BCBS at the time and we ran the hospital's accounting and billing systems. I just went in and reversed the payment from BCBS from the hospital back to the patient account. But this is a good case study in how five nuns are able to use this sort of thing to interfere in the lives of both non-believers and even believers who do not share that particular flavor of conviction.

Need I remind anyone that sexual abstinence as practiced by Roman Catholic priests and nuns clearly fits the medical definitions of deviant sexual practice." Using people who place themselves above the madding crowd to censor the morals of others is really evil. Forbidding priests to marry and demanding complete sexual abstenince is a root cause of the sexual misconduct practiced by Roman Catholic religious orders for centuries.

But even more on topic: This is an entirely bogus issue for the right-wingers to jump on. 28 states already have laws that forbid any religious-owned employer to use health insurance as a way of extending its religious practices to its employees. Those 28 states cover about 80% of the US population. Another 12 states have laws that also restrict religious employers, but not to the point of actually forbidding the practice.

There is absolutely nothing that the Obama administration has done that would infringe on anyone's religious freedoms or freedom of choice. If people don't want birth control, there is no requirement that they use it. If they do not want abortions, then they shouldn't have one. If they do not think that women are equal to men then they can hire men only. But they can only prosletize in the context of a church. Do you thnk it would be okay of the Marriot Hotels refused to serve chocolate, coffee, or tea to guests on the basis that it is forbidden by their religion. Or that a scientologist-owned business based its interest rates on e-gram results? Or if a Baptist employer docked employees' pay because they did not go to church on Sunday? All these and more ....

Trying to "rock the 1950's" by getting birth control back on the national agenda has long been a Roman Catholic agenda item. And this kind of out-of-step attitude is why the Roman Catholic church is losing membership daily. Catholic membership declined by 400,000 people in 2008 alone (I can't find more recent numbers) and thousands of parishes have been shut down for lack of "participation" meaning that they are losing money.

Personally I want religion out of my bedroom and I want politicians out of my bed. Apparently the GOP wants small government, so it can fit in the shower with you as they take control of every aspect of your life.

Most of the Founding Fathers were not Christians in the modern sense of the world. Virtually all of them were deists who believed, as did most educated men of the time, in a "clockmaker God" who set things in motion and then withdrew from humanity entirely. They mostly dispised organized religions and the religious bigotry that is always present. And religion was one of the reasons why they hated and feared the idea that this country might slide toward democracy. They had seen democracy in action with Cromwell in England and the French Revolution and even in some of the original colonies. The Founding Fathers tried everything they could to impede democracy in this country. They made all government offices -- President, Vice-President, Cabinet officers, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, Judges, all appointed with only the House of Representatives being directly elected and even that they made the shortest possible term of office. Thomas Jefferson was particularly suspicious of religion and how it might try to wheedle its way into American political life as it had done in Europe. And even with the House, the Founding Fathers had a seedy side. The were made the only directly elected politicians so that 3/5 of a Negro slave could be counted for apportinment. This insured that slavery would remain a protected institution for many decades to come by simply loading the dice by giving slave-owning districts and states more clout in the legislative process.

If you want to read some of what the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject, I would suggest the "Federalist Letters" and the "Anti-Federalist Letters" and "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. All are available for free download.

TO: Willing.Sniper who wrote:

"Sex is an elective activity, and your neighbor should not be asked to pay for your sex with their tax dollars, or higher insurance costs."

But you'll pay for all my other stuff, right? Let's see, I've got a list around here somewhere.

Obama / Biden 2012

they believe it appropriate for ME to pay for them to protect themselves because they can't control keeping their legs together??

ProBusiness,

YOU believe it is appropriate for ME to pay for your worthless kids to get educated? YOU believe it is appropriate for ME to pay for the bus laws, and resulting police monitoring, because YOUR kids are too stupid to look both ways before crossing the street? YOU believe is it appropriate for ME to pay for any of the public costs to protect YOUR kids? Maybe YOU should have kept your legs together instead of making the rest of us suffer the costs of YOUR kids.

See how that works? Every time you complain about "paying" for someone else, there is someone who can complain about "paying" for YOU and your family.

EVERYONE pays for crap they don't like... it's called living in a society. Yes, I know... life is not fair... whaaaaaa, whaaaaa... keep crying. Then grow the f*** up.

Jollyold: perhaps we don't want to pay for your blood pressure pills, or your diabetes medication, or your viagra either...but if you get insurance, we ALL pay. You don't get to pick and choose which parts you want OTHERS excluded from just because you're stuck in a prior century somewhere.

Now on to getting these neanderthals out of office who voted for it.

I'm 29, married and would like children, but I have poly-cystic ovarian syndrome. The best way to treat that is to take birth control if a woman is under 40. It's estimated that 10% of women have this or a similar issue. Taking birth control prevents the cysts that wreak havoc on our hormones which make our lives miserable. The only way I can have children is through fertility treatment (which the majority would also like to be denied and mostly is). The birth control that works best for my situation is about $60/month. There isn't a generic version. Why should I have to pay an additional $60 a month to treat my medical condition when I'm already paying $300/month for the "privilege" to carry insurance just because I'm a woman? How can you honestly make sense of that no matter what your religious affiliation is? I'm not asking "my neighbor" or anyone else to pay for my care. I'm paying my premiums like everyone else, but why do I deserve less coverage and more expensive medical costs than a man?

No one should be fooled as to whether Snowe is a Republican or a Democrat. Too bad she never had the guts to come out of the closet.

Hey I think the government knows best how we should live our lives. They should tell us what to eat, when to eat, when to sleep, when to get up, what to wear, where to work, how much we earn, what benefits we are offered, our retirement plan, what car we should drive, where we can shop, what we can buy, what newspapers we can read, what channels we can watch, what our political affiliation should be, who we should vote for...

After all, there is no denying the great job our government has done running this country. Yeah, they do know what is best for everyone, and we should all embrace their wisdom.

CR S538-539 SA 1520

(b) Respect for Rights of Conscience.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 42 U.S.C. 18022(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

``(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES.--

``(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS.--A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because--

``(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

``(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

``(B) FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.--Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider's religious beliefs or moral convictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services under this title (or any amendment made by this title) or to fulfill any other requirement under this title because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider pursuant to this paragraph.

``(C) NONDISCRIMINATION IN EXERCISING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.--No Exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall discriminate against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of such plan's, sponsor's, provider's, or person's unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services pursuant to this paragraph.

``(D) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be construed to permit a health plan or provider to discriminate in a manner inconsistent with subparagraphs (B) and (D) of paragraph (4).

``(E) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.--The various protections of conscience in this paragraph constitute the protection of individual rights and create a private cause of action for those persons or entities protected. Any person or entity may assert a violation of this paragraph as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.

``(F) REMEDIES.--

``(i) FEDERAL JURISDICTION.--The Federal courts shall have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of this paragraph by granting all forms of legal or equitable relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, costs, and attorney fees.

``(ii) INITIATING PARTY.--An action under this paragraph may be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States, or by any person or entity having standing to complain of a threatened or actual violation of this paragraph, including, but not limited to, any actual or prospective plan sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering a plan, any actual or prospective purchaser or beneficiary of a plan, and any individual or institutional health care provider.

``(iii) INTERIM RELIEF.--Pending final determination of any action under this paragraph, the court may at any time enter such restraining order or prohibitions, or take such other actions, as it deems necessary.

``(G) ADMINISTRATION.--The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this paragraph and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

``(H) ACTUARIAL EQUIVALENCE.--Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the Secretary from issuing regulations or other guidance to ensure that health plans excluding specific items or services under this paragraph shall have an aggregate actuarial value at least equivalent to that of plans at the same level of coverage that do not exclude such items or services.''.

While it references preventive services in the findings, where is it being limited to only preventive services? And where is it being limited to only religiously affiliated organizations? The findings mention preventive services, but neither the purpose or the legislation being proposed includes it other than referring to the use of the words in the findings.

There are some people in the US that believe infant vaccinations cause autism. If the owner of your company believes this then they could request health insurance policies that would not cover infant vaccination due to a moral conviction. All employees would then have to pay out of pocket for any infant vaccinations at the hospital.

I am sure there are many more examples. Beyond that, why wouldn't employers try to eliminate as many things as possibly due to moral convictions, so they can lower the premiums they pay? Less services would result in lower premiums.

I am sure a lot of people will say, but wait there is:

(E) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.--The various protections of conscience in this paragraph constitute the protection of individual rights and create a private cause of action for those persons or entities protected. Any person or entity may assert a violation of this paragraph as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.

I suggest looking into how successful whistleblower are with their assertions of a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding. The courts are dismissing many of the cases without ever hearing them. The courts will do the same thing with cases against employers and insurance providers that refuse to cover a service due to a moral objection.

Our courts system is already overburdened and we expect them to timely process cases involving moral objections in health care policies? Maybe they will get to you in two or three years, but you might be dead by then depending on your circumstance and what your employer or insurance company is refusing to cover.

If all the conservatives would take their own advice and adhere to abstinence to resist any temptations, it'd only take a couple generations to thin them out considerably.

Best statement of the day. Thank you, Mike.

OK, check this out. A completely different perspective. I am a woman, a Master's-level educated woman in fact. I am also Christian, a LIBERAL Christian. I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ and follow them. I believe in the Bible but also recognize that most of what we understand about it is the result of human interpretation. No one can say definitely what every passage in the Bible is meant to teach us or what God's intentions are. Democrats and Republicans didn't exist in the time of Jesus so no one can say that Republicans are the religion of Jesus. It is absurd because political affiliations like those we have today are a human-constructed phenomenon. Anyway, that's a discussion for another thread.

This discussion is not about abortion so those of you going there need to get your facts straight. I do not like abortion and it saddens me that it has to be a choice; however, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO DICTATE TO ANOTHER WOMAN WHAT SHE DOES WITH HER BODY. Also, I know how many unwanted children end up in the foster care system because women were convinced not to abort them. Think I'm off base? Do your research - only about 2% of women with unwanted pregnancies give up their children for adoption. Instead, they keep them, abuse and neglect them, pawn them off on their parents and basically leave the child to feel unwanted. And the solution is NOT to outlaw abortion - that WILL NOT force women to choose adoption. Abortions would simply go underground and a black market would ensue. In that environment, there would be no protections for the health of the mother WHOSE LIFE I FEEL IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD. Why do I value the mother's life as much as the child's? Because I am Christian! But again, a discussion for another thread.

It is NOT acceptable for businesses to infringe upon the rights and choices of women. Period. If you want to be a business, albeit a religion-affiliated business, you will be treated like a business. Don't like it? Go to another country. I find it interesting that so many conservative-minded folk don't support birth control. After all, they certainly don't want to pay higher taxes for education, healthcare or anything else it takes to support all that children that would be born if women don't have access to birth control. And that is the real point here - ACCESS. If employers don't offer birth control under insurance, and women cannot afford to buy it themselves then you reduce access to it. Employers must offer it and employees can choose to use it or not (if their religious beliefs so dictate). Thanks for listening, Peace.

If all the conservatives would take their own advice and adhere to abstinence to resist any temptations, it'd only take a couple generations to thin them out considerably

Hate to burst your self congratulation Mike and R2121 but some conservatives say sex is for procreation only. Others don't like the law for other reasons. None of them say what you said and none of their reasons would limit procreation. In short, in trying to ridicule others you make yourselves look ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous, someone tell Barbara Boxer you don't get diabetes from eating sugar as a kid. She also needs to look up false analogy even though I wonder if she knows what the term means. Again, someone who resisted to the urge to keep quiet to avoid looking like an idiot.

And, oh by the way, Viagra is covered. So, if we are to keep 'our legs crossed', with whom are you going to utilize that erection? Have a nice day.

Men are rapidly going to get well re-acquainted with Rosie DePalma and her five fun sisters. Otherwise, they're going to the emergency room with that erection lasting more than four hours! But, hey, think of how that will help the economy - doctors and hospitals will be in high demand, and sales of vaseline and lotion will go through the roof! Think of it! The ladies can keep the legs crossed, the men can go f*** each other! So, go ahead, pop that little blue pill! But it means the death of men shaking hands - no one will want to anymore, for fear of what had been in that hand just a short time ago.

Oh - and lock up your pets. There was a guy in NY arrested recently for raping a Labrador - yes, a DOG. Women shouldn't have access birth control under insurance, but some men obviously have NO control and will shove it into anything convenient for a cheap thrill, and insurance is supposed to cover their Viagra and Cialis so they can. Hypocrites.

What's that? You don't want to pay for my birth control?

Okay. Have fun dealing with my kids then. They are going to be MONSTERS, too. After all, I AM a slut since I can't keep my married legs closed. My girls will be promiscuous sluts too--a slippery slope that will carry them into a world of drugs and probably various other crimes. And, growing up in a household with two parents who enjoy the lovin, my boys are going to be TERRORS. Probably rapists. Plus, I don't want any of them, so I won't spend a whole lot of time and effort rearing them. But since you want me to have them, I will. I have quite a few good child bearing years left in me, so I'll probably produce a good 15 of them. Hope we don't move to your street--where do you live again?

Bruce-308647

The only thing at issue is whether or not it should be FREE. Geez, if I want to take ibuprofen for my sore muscles (which I do frequently) I go to the pharmacy and buy them.

First of all, tt is not free, Bruce, it is still covered by health insurance that is still part of your benefits package.

Secons of all, you are comparing BC to ibuprofen? It's like comparing aspirin to ACE inhibitors, or beta blockers.

Third of all, if you have kids -do you use your tax deduction? because you are getting free money that is not available to those who do not have kids.

She (Barbara Boxer) said "that under the Blunt amendment if an employer had a moral objection to an employee who smoked, the employer would be able to deny smoking cessation treatment to that employee."

First off, I've never heard of smoking as being a moral issue. Secondly, her statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense: If an employer objected to employees smoking, why would they want to deny them access to a smoking cessation program?

I seriously can't believe that there is any sort of debate over birth control in 2012! Let's see, here is how it works. When I decide to take a job with an employer, they provide a compensation package, that includes, amongst other things, health insurance. They might pay for a portion of the cost or the entire amount. My current company pays a portion, meaning that I pay the rest. Regardless of that, the health insurance they provide is part of my comp package. Meaning that I am paying for it, either directly (through payroll deductions) or indirectly (my employer pays it entirely as part of my compensation). So, I am paying for my own contraception. No one else is paying for me. If you start saying that your insurance premiums are higher because of my contraception, I call BS. I eat well, exercise, don't smoke, and generally try to make healthy lifestyle choices. But my premiums are set at a certain rate because of a general cost associated with other women in my age range. Many of the health problems people suffer with are directly due to their lifestyle choices. I'm betting that paying a little bit toward contraception isn't pumping those premiums up nearly as much as unhealthy eating habbits. What if I was an employer, and I decided that it was against my religion to insure against any health issue resulting from a sedintary, junk food eating life style. Would that be OK? We purchase insurance because there are some known issues we want covered (birth control, annual tests, pregnancy, etc) and some health problems we hope we never have to worry about, but want to be covered for just in case. We won't all need the same treatments for the same healh issues. It isn't fair, but that is life. Just like car or homeowners insurance - I have to continue paying my premium even if, year after year, I don't use it. It might get a bit lower, but it never goes away.

If you and I both work for the same company and we both have the health plan provided by the company and the company pays half and we pay half of the premium. You need blood pressure medication and I don't. Am I paying for your blood pressure medication? What if you need chemotherapy and I don't? Am I paying for your chemotherapy?

What if we are both students at a Catholic University? The University has a student health plan available, but the University does not pay for it, the students pay for their own health plans. What if you have ovarian cysts and need birth control pills to regulate your hormones and control your disease? Am I paying for your pills? Is the University?

Get a grip, people. Would it be so awful if a little bit of your money accidentally went to help someone else? Some of my tax money pays for wars, which are totally against my conscience. So what? Are you going to fight about that?

AP, I pay for that myself! The other question is, if we pay for birth control pills what happens to the cost of social disease's from HIV to critters.

So many comments about not wanting to pay for someone else's choice to have sex! When are these people going to learn that BCPs are very often used to treat medical conditions??? I know a number of celibate women who take BCPs for things like endometriosis so that the disease will not progress to the point where they'll need (more expensive) surgery. Who wants to tell them their medical needs should not be covered? The ignorance is astounding.

Democrats will continue their war against Catholics all the way until the 2012 elections.

Sally you make a good point that you pay for a portion of your health care that is fine.

The issue is for churches that do not want to be forced into giving out something that is against thier beliefs.

like killing someone is agianst my beliefs the government should not be able to force me to kill someone.

Odd, isn't it how none of these measures effect men's health? Perhaps we shouldn't cover prostate exams because that's an unnatural act. Same thing for colonoscopy - putting that long tube into that orifice must be sinful. Naturally Viagara and other "ED" drugs shouldn't be covered. Probably shouldn't cover urinary catheters either - that's seems pretty unnatural to me, putting that tube into that part of the male anatomy. Cardiac catheterization is probably bad too, because that cut they make to expose the femoral artery is awful close to a male's "privates" and we wouldn't want to do that. Seems to me that there is an awful lot of medicine that relates to males that is unnatural and sinful. There must be a Bible passage to cover it.

Now, I admit, my argument is light-hearted and silly. But I don't think it is any more silly than the arguments used to limit women's access to birth control. If you are going to provide health insurance to your employees, then they have earned it and it is their benefit and is not to be tampered with because of some belief - relilgous or otherwise. Maybe if they are lucky they can get women restricted to the bedroom for the purpose of procreation, and the kitchen for the purpose of preparing meals for their men. After that, it shouldn't be much problem to take their vote away, either. You know, maybe we can get them to wear the burqa (sp?) too. It might not be Christian, but it sounds like a good idea.

HN - 1558401 - I do not believe even the Catholic Church would have a problem paying for birth control that treats a medical condition. Being pregnant is not a medical condition though, its a natural part of life.

I agree - the best way out of this whole debate is to get Health Insurance out of the arena of business. If you want health insurance you should be able to purchase an individual/family policy at a reasonable rate. You can then decide whther you want the insurance to cover things like contraceptives or viagra or whatever.

I am ok with not covering contraception if they also do not cover:

pills so old guys can get a hard on

When are these idiot zealots going to get it through their thick skulls, according to the law, life does not begin at conception.

Catholics have confused a war on religion with not always getting everything they want.

Jon Stewart

R2121 this is what they are talking about parents that dont take care of there children let them run amuck with no guidence but I will be damn if I will pay for you birth control unless you pay for my cytoxin.

If your kids end up acting like a fool they will be prosecuted and sent to jail like the rest of the animals.

The issue is for churches that do not want to be forced into giving out something that is against thier beliefs.

So a Christian Scientists that has a business would not have to provide any medical services for any of their employees since it's against their belief. Or Jehovah's Witnesses that does not believe in blood transfusions could deny any service that would require blood to do the operation or help a patient to survive. Is that what the Republicans wanted?

Steve-1962, of course all 15-20 of the children I am forced to have will be prosecuted and sent to jail. I was the first to admit that they will, indeed, be animals.

Of course this won't happen until they have caused irreparable damage to the better members of society--which may very well include the people you hold most dear. But hey, at least you didn't have to pay for my birth control.

Steve - this is actually about an overbroad bill that would have allowed employers to decide that any medical procedure or necessity that they didn't want to pay for was against their religious beliefs and stop paying for them. This isn't about the gov't forcing you to kill anyone, regardless of how you are intreperting it.

Further, it is my opinion that if a church wants to become a public employer (such as running a hospital) then they should have to follow the same rules that other public employer are required to follow. There is not one person arguing that a church should provide contraception to the employees of the CHURCH. Only the outside businesses that the church runs.

It is also my opinion that preventing pregnancy is a far cry from killing an unborn child, but that is not my judgement to make for Catholic women.

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I think we should just outlaw "Sex!" .... It causes soooooo much discontent ..... lol ...

All those that are in favor move to the right of the room ........................

The constitution applies to PEOPLE. Corporations are not people, and churches are not people.

The people elect representatives. These representitives-at the desire of the majority of the people-have said that health insurance companies must pay for contracetpion-along with several other things such as cancer screenings.

Churches do not have the right to say that there employees can not receive benefits which our elected officials state they are to receive through their health insurance.

Whose rights need to take a higher priority-the church or the citizens'? The answer always, always, always must be the citzens'. It is my right as a citizen to get contraception through health care. The church does not have the power to take that right away.

I would have less to say if people fought that contraception should not be covered by health insurance, as to me, the point is giving the church an exemption to the law. However, based on the feelings of the majority of Americans, and the desire to cut health care costs (which providing contraception does) our elected officials have made this the law. Don't like it? Fight it-but don't try to say that the church's rights outweigh the rights of the people. They simply do not.

The conservatives on this forum rant about refusing to pay for someone else.

I am a pacifist, yet I pay for the military. I am not a member of a church, yet I pay for tax exempt status for churches. I don't smoke, but I pay for treatment for smokers and for tobacco subsidies.

That's the way a society works.

We all band together and we all pay for the things it takes to help a society function. It's not a menu, we don't get to pick only those things we want to pay for. We compromise and we all pay taxes to support the group as a whole; military, roads, sewers, clean water.

If you claim to be religious, the concept is even more pronounced. We are our brother's (and sister's) keeper. Care for the sick and the infirm. There is no specification on this.

I don't like everything you do and I'm sure you don't like everything I do. But our survival depends on our compromising and working past the differences while allowing for each other's freedom.

I'm sure there are plenty of conservative men who have sex with women who take birth control. They may not even think to ask the woman beforehand and just trust they won't get pregnant. I've seen where people say one thing and do another often. I'm sure they don't let their beliefs get in the way of their having sex whenever they feel like it. They preach abstinence, but mainly for women. Women have the same rights as men and no one should be telling them what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

By the way I am a male.

uchusky99

I believe the SCOTUS has decided that "corporations" are people ... I think it made a mistake too! .. lol

I am however in favor of not allowing corporations to bred and have childern .... it's Un American ..
and they would definitely overpopulate the country in favor of profits ....

IMJ3

Democrats will continue their war against Catholics all the way until the 2012 elections.

I don't believe that is happening since it's a Republican talking point and I have seen nothing that is really anti-religious but I do know that the Republicans will wage war on the middle class, women's health, and working people until the vote has been counted. Some of the things these fruit cakes that call themselves Republican candidates for president scares the crap out of me. They are so far out in space that even many Republican friends of mine are scared to vote for them.

fielden .. great post! ... most people never really think about how a social contract really all about ...

"It's All About Me" ..... me ...me ...me .meee Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ..

David # 2.65 says, "Being pregnant is not a medical condition though, its a natural part of life."

You better tell the private insurance companies, 'cause they consider being pregnant a very unnatural "pre-existing condition", and will deny coverage if you are (which I assume you never will be)

Indie: I know it is difficult but TRY to stay on topic. The question is whether tax dollars should be spent on a voluntary event. No need to speak harshly about me or my family and bring education into this discussion as if, for some reason, you think it is a relevant analogy. It isn't.

Sex is a voluntary event. If you decide to have sex it is your choice. Then it is your choice to protect yourself. For example, let's say you try hiking one day and you really enjoy it. But you only have a pair of old tennis shoes. You know if you decide to CONTINUE hiking you better get some good hiking boots. If you decide to go hiking without good hiking boots and you hurt your ankle or bruise your toes it is YOUR problem. What are we going to do next? Hear from people who love to go hiking but cannot afford to buy new hiking boots? Then the solution is easy - DON'T GO HIKING!!

So here are people who like sex but don't want to pay to protect themselves so want tax dollars to pay for it. Sorry, but if you are so poor you cannot afford "protection" then the solution is easy - DON'T HAVE SEX!!

And then there is this ILLOGICAL argument that we would be better off paying for protection rather than them getting pregnant and maternity. Did that ACTUALLY make sense to someone when they typed it? What if people start hiking but cannot afford good hiking boots? Are we going to use the logic that if they don't have good boots they will create long-term damage to their ankles and knees so it makes sense for government to buy hiking boots for people?

I used to think that most people could carry on a rational logic and discussion but I have come to the realization that most people cannot think logically or put together a coherent sentence. In other words, this country is screwed. There is no saving it now when we have supposedly adult individuals repeating such illogical arguments!!

unless the doctor prescribes birth control to treat a legitimate condition,...buy your own dam birth control...pay for your own dam kids education, feed your own dam kids with your dam money...etc etc....or get your brilliant self sterilized.......and of course never is there any discussion about HIV and STI's....news flash,...every single one who is taking birth control to prevent pregnancy and are not using condoms to prevent HIV (few bother with condoms if they are on the pill)....is a retard and shouldn't be allowed to breed anyway....free sterilizations for all you dum a**** now thats something i can get behind.

Let's see how this one flies:

My company and I a morally opposed to paying federal income tax. I am also morally opposed to following the instructions of the police. In fact, I am morally opposed to recognizing the sovereignty of the United States government at all. Of course I get to dirve on its roads and get the benefits of its protection...but I am morally opposed to contributing toward it.

Does that argument fly as well? Conservatives are such a f#%king sham.

ProBusiness

I used to think that most people could carry on a rational logic and discussion

You know, after reading your comment I believe you're right. Your straw man's argument is about as ridiculous as any I've seen here today.

"If you are so poor you cannot afford "protection" then the solution is easy - DON'T HAVE SEX!!" Now why don't you tell that the the women that are raped or have abusive husbands.

As for your argument about hiking boots, I have never heard of anyone asking for hiking boots because they got a foot injury but I have heard of women asking for medication that will prevent an illness like ovarian cancer. Just saying.

Fielden: Your logic (or rather "illogic") doesn't make sense and I'll tell you why. In this country we have what is called in economics "public goods". That simply means there are items that you cannot exclude consumption. The prime example is a lighthouse. The markets cannot supply a lighthouse because some will decide not to pay for it but once built you cannot exclude them from using it.

This is why we have things like a military and it must be funded with tax dollars. If we asked people to contribute only if they felt they "used" it then most would not contribute (it is called "free-rider" in economics). So we MUST force all to help pay for a military because you cannot exlude those who DON'T pay from using the military.

For a grown adult (I am ASSUMING you are a grown adult?) to compare contraception to the military is one of the most illogical comments I have read in this type of post in a long time (and believe me there are MANY ignorant comments made in these columns on a daily basis).

So let me sum up: Contraception is NOT a public good. It CAN be excluded. It is a CONSUMER good. Since it is a consumer good the consumer should decide if buying this item is important to the buyer or not. If you don't want to buy contraception there is an easy solution - DON'T open your legs for every guy with a dimpled chin. It is called "restraint". Just say "no". Have some moral values and a small level of adult responsibility. If you don't want to get pregnant it is very easy - don't have sex.

But if a woman is so loose she will lift her skirt faster than picking up a quarter on a city street then SHE is responsible to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. If you can't afford a pregnancy, and can't afford contraception, then wear pants instead of a skirt and don't be such a tramp as to unbutton your pants without thinking about the consequences.

Larry: Don't be ignorant. We are not talking about rape or abusive husbands. And we are not talking about ovarian cancer. A doctor prescription can take care of that.

We are talking about loose tramps that lift their skirt for a cool breeze. There are programs to help those who are raped or abused or have ovarian cancer You want that help it is already there. Don't mix the issues. This mandate is for ALL women who find it necessary to drop their shorts for a smile and don't want to be responsible for their actions. If you want to be a loose tramp that is certainly your choice but I don't want to PAY for a women being a loose tramp. If she can't afford the protection then keep your pants buttoned. It is rather simple.

Indie: I know it is difficult but TRY to stay on topic. The question is whether tax dollars should be spent on a voluntary event.

You should try to stay on topic yourself. This discussion is about birth control and not about sex. Birth control has legitimate uses besides preventing pregnancy so your analogy is pointless.

Have some moral values and a small level of adult responsibility. If you don't want to get pregnant it is very easy - don't have sex.

Sorry if everyone doesn't conform to the archaic moral values of the church.

ProBusiness, so you think women are tramps but what about the men that have sex with them. You know, the business men from out of town that don't want to pay for their protection. Maybe we should pass a law to make everyone having sex with a woman to pay for these pills. Unless he's a Catholic of course in which case the woman could decide if she wanted to have sex with a hypocritical a-hole. Would that make you happy?

On a side note, why aren't we talking about rape or abusive husbands? They are women too. It's too late to help them after the fact if they have no protection and the anti-abortionist don't want to help them either.

Lib 50: "Guess what, I don't want to pay for your Viagra. Or your wars. Or your corporate welfare. If we all get to pick and choose I don't think republicans will be happy with the outcome."

RIGHT ON SIBLING! (dunno if you're my brother or my sister but you are my kindred spirit--that's for sure!)

uchusky99

The constitution applies to PEOPLE. Corporations are not people,

According to Romney, corporations ARE people...

@ ErinsFire42 and Lib 50

Very good point. I believe we should have a place on the 1040 form to dictate how your tax dollars are to be used. One vote per tax form regardless of the amount of taxes paid.

The question is whether tax dollars should be spent on a voluntary event.

Probusiness

I am so glad you made that point. Should tax dollars be spent on VOLUNTARY events.

If you decide to go hiking without good hiking boots and you hurt your ankle or bruise your toes it is YOUR problem. What are we going to do next? Hear from people who love to go hiking but cannot afford to buy new hiking boots? Then the solution is easy - DON'T GO HIKING!!

EXACTLY... they hurt their ankle from a VOLUNTARY activity. Do we cover the insurance cost? Does the employer cover the insurance cost? If they do not have insurance, does our tax dollars cover the cost? (They do without Obamacare)

Now... I will admit that we would not be required to buy someone shoes... BUT, do we have employers and insurance providers cover medical costs from VOLUNTARY actions?

In your example, he made the LIFESTYLE CHOICE to go hiking, a VOLUNTARY action. Should we cover the medical cost? Should we all pay for that "hurt ankle"? Should we pay for your VOLUNTARY decision to go hiking? Because, as you so eloquently stated, don't go hiking.

So... should insurance cover that?

This malfeasance of a bill is unenforceable, illegal, and unethical.

It's unenforceable because any religion can claim any belief and who's to question their beliefs. So, if any business has any affiliation to any religion... Christianity, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Billy-Bob's Beliefs, you name it... they can deny coverage or otherwise any business law based on what THEY determine rubs them the wrong way? How on earth is that even close to enforceable? It's called a free-for-all.

It's illegal in that it allows businesses with the slightest religious ties to compete unfairly against the ones that don't. It's a slippery slope that is not recoverable.

It is unethical because it's first intent is to deny women contraceptive coverage even if they do not belong to the religious sect denying coverage.

It's purely political. Nothing but the ugliest side of the right wing showing it's true dysfunction to us all. Pathetic.

PROBUSINESS: "But if a woman is so loose she will lift her skirt faster than picking up a quarter on a city street then SHE is responsible to make sure she doesn't get pregnant."

What if she's a married woman and neither she nor her husband wants another child but they love each other and want intimacy? I am from Ireland where the Catholic Church's stand on contraception has been responsible for the destruction of many a married couple's happiness and intimacy.

BTW you may be "probusiness" but what about pro human beings? Have you ever had sex yourself? Because if so, I truly pity your partner!!!

ProBuisness,

While you are answering the question of should we pay for injuries that happen due to VOLUNTARY activities (hiking)... go ahead and tell us your weight.

Obesity is the leading cause of medical costs. More people are considered obese than healthy in America, right now.

Obesity is a lifestyle choice... and don't try to tell me it's not. I have the certifications, education and background to prove it is. I am also at the gym 6 days a week. I am in pristine condition... f***ing pristine. Now I don't believe I should have to pay for the VOLUNTARY lifestyle choice of some fat f*** that is too lazy to get in shape. That is against my beliefs, both religiously (your body is a temple) and personally (health nut). Why should I have to pay the medical costs of someone who is too God Damn lazy to stay in shape? They made the VOLUNTARY decision to lead a gluttonous lifestyle... why is that my problem?

Look at Rush Limbaugh, that fat f*** has the gall to call a college girl a slut, while making all of us pay for his fat, disgusting lifestyle choice.

Did you see the Religious leaders on Hannity complaining about being forced to pay for birth control? Did you see how many of them were fat, disgusting, gluttonous pigs? So they don't want to pay for the "sinful" lifestyle of women, but we have to pay for their "sinful" gluttonous lifestyle?

So tell us, ProBusiness. How much do you weigh? How much does your wife weigh? What about your kids? If your family is not in pristine f***ing condition... and I mean PRISTINE... then you are a hypocrite. So come on, tell us.

PROBUSINESS: "But if a woman is so loose she will lift her skirt faster than picking up a quarter on a city street then SHE is responsible to make sure she doesn't get pregnant."

Besides, PROBIZ: Unless you're the Virgin Mary, I believe it takes a MALE's "input" for any woman to get pregnant, doesn't it?????

Bruce - 308647

I am a 50 yr unemployed man who has strong religious convictions that totally disagrees with you. I have had 2 heart attacks from hereditary sources, in other words they were passed down through my family. Because i'm an unemployed, unmarried male with no children I can not get even state medicare from Arizona until 2014. I can't get a job because of my health and i'm not eligible for disability. No job, no insurance. I owe $200,000 in medical ills and wonder how long i will have a home. But i would rather have Obama as president than all you right wingers who think they know how i should live. I will vote for Obama again in 2012. Last word to you, unless you live MY life, shut up!

The Republic Party (the self righteous religious hipocrites that they are) is quick to preach less government intervention into peoples lives...their lives...but they are sure quick to tell others what to do and how to manage their lives...so long as it benefits them and their wealthy friends selfish interests...go figure.

They constantly go around spouting their crap that 'life begins at conception' and 'life is sacred'...why is it then that they are so quick to send a 'non-privileged' young person off to war to fight and die 'just as their life is truely beginning'...just to protect their obscene 'high society' and selfish interests.

They need to learn to step up and do their own fighting instead of hiding behind those people that they took advantage of to attain that 'high society' and 'self righteous' wall that they love to hide behind. They are quick with the words but are truely 'COWARDS' when it comes to actually doing their own fighting in the trenches. Pay people a fair wage for their labors so they can afford to buy those things that only a wealthy person seems to be able to afford.

Let's see how they fare at the 'Pearly Gates' when God has to judge them for the greed and cowardess they displayed on earth.

Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24)

probusiness, I was only trying to argue that people pay for things that they may not agree with. As have others earrlier in this thread.

You chose to call me ignorant and illogical. Fine. You are entitled to your opinions. Yet you have chosen to deny me mine. You call that equitable?

You chide me for equating contaception with the military, which I did not. I was talking about paying for things you don't agree with. Yet you equate contraception with bliterred feet from hiking.

Further, you assume that birth control is only for women with no morals. Wrong. Again, believe what you want. We're allowing you to do that. Stop legislating for everyone else.

The fact is, if your church decides to start a private business, it has to obey the law. End of story.

The churches don't want birth control because they want their members to make more little church members, and so on and so on. Then once the child is born, instead of helping that child survive, republicans take away food support money, healthcare for children, money for education, housing for children etc. I've never met a chrisitan church member practice what Jesus did. Another thing, birth control pills are used for other medical reasons besides just birth control and I will let the women talk about that! The catholic church is a business, if it wasn't all those men would be wearing rags and giving to the poor instead of driving around in Caddies wearing funny pointed party hats and kissing each others rings! Yeah I was a catholic until I was caught in the confessional in 8th grade with Linda!

Look, Mr. "probuisness", you obviously have a very low opinion of women, are not married and have absolutely no sex life (unless it is with another guy, which is totally OK), so I really can't expect you to understand the whole birth control issue. But let me explain it slowly. I am a 47 year old woman who has been married for 23 years. I have an adult daughter and do not want any more children, but I am still within childbearing age. I also want to have sex with my husband. Therefore, I use contraception. Does that make me a loose woman, as you would put it? If so, then YES I AM and proud of it. I also expect that the health insurance provided to me by my employer as part of my compensation package will pay for it. I am not asking you to pay for it. You have no right or need to be involved in what goes on between my doctor, myself and my husband.

You say you are having trouble having intellegent conversations with people. I think maybe the problem might be with you and not everyone else. Maybe if your argument made even the slightest amount of sense, you could have a discussion with someone. While you are doing nothing but calling names and hurling insults, no one wants try to have a reasonable conversation with you.

I think we've reached a point where women of ALL ages get together and look out for our rights. This can be a teachable moment for younger generations who have taken things for granted. It could be very bad for republicans for a long time.

It seems ProBusiness could not defend the FACT that society is paying the medical expense of HIS lifestyle choice... all while he does not want to pay for the lifestyle choice of someone else. Typical hypocrite.

And like a good conservative, he ran back into his Fox hole.

In as much as the SCOTUS says that corporations are people, they too can have abortions--like aborting jobs from the US and sending them to where they can find slave labor.

Pro Business: If she is "a loose tramp that lifts her skirt for a cool breeze" as you say, and she can't afford birth control she probably can't afford an abortion (or much else), so you will probably end up paying for her WIC, housing, foodstamps etc. for herself AND the multiple children she will have. And we KNOW how much you'd hate that. So it is much cheaper for you to just fork over the cost of Birth Control in the long run anyway.

From Reading these Comments... I See A Whole Lot of Republicans Out of a Career in 2012.

REPUBLICAN SWITCHED PARTIES TO INDEPENDENT AND VOTING A STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET IN 2012.

That is right... Straight... House, Senate and President.

"Someone who may have diabetes, and the employer or the insurer says, 'You know what? That was your problem; you ate too much sugar as a kid. Too bad.'".

Should said insurer also have to pay if aformentioned brat goes on chocolate binge? If you know you have diabetes then are you ensuring you don't exceed the maximum sugar intake? This is typical liberal nonsense. Irresponsible tripe that expects, no demands, exceptions from others without being encumbered by any sense of responsibility.

I have no problem with contraceptives. If you're not ready to have a child, fine. I have a problem with the whiners who want to use contraceptives as a placebo. No contraceptive, other than abstence, is 100% effective all of the time. For the record, the design of sex is to bear children. If you have sex,for the pleasurable aspect, you're taking the risk of becoming pregnant.

The argument that a woman has control of her body is ludicrous. If a woman has so much "control" over her body then why can't she tell herself not to get pregnant? Ovary, you will not receive sperm! The area of control that a woman can excercise is in the decision to either have or not have sex. If you're having sex, you chose not to excercise that control. One goes with the other, hand in hand.

it sounds like the re"pig"lican and "con"servative supporters have a case of the morons. it also sounds like they are brainwashed and very angry. as a mental health professional, I diagnose them as delusional. I, at least, know what I am talking about thanks to my vast education and experience along with not hailing to any political party, which is dangerous to do, and can be even for democrats. However, people like Rush, Mitt, George, Newt, and Rick remind me that the re"pig"lican party is the worst and no one should vote for them. and, from my experience working with the mentally ill, they are so sick inside of themselves that they treat others the way that they feel inside. I'm sorry, people have been corrupted by the manipulative re"pig"licans. It is so enraging that they want everyone else to think like them and do not accept diversity and change. America is and always will be about diversity and change. The re"pig"licans want everyone to be christian and live in this fundamental traditional way which is a virus to this country. The US will always be held back centuries and an eternity as long as re"pig"licans and "con"servatives have any or some power in our political system because all they want you to believe is what they believe, which is a little bit of people need to be rich and everyone else needs to be poor and only a little bit of the people have all the power. That sounds to me like an aristocracy or monarchy.

It makes me sick to think that the re"pig"licans want America to be like a fascist or royal state. All they do is lie, lie, lie, and lie. They do not want what is best for Americans and the country, they want what is best for them. They are so selfish and evil and do not belong in this wonderful country. America is the greatest country in the world and has continued to be violated and destroyed by the greediness and deleterious ways of the re"pig"licans. Again, the US will never positively develop and be at its best and optimal performance until all re"pig"licans and "con"servatives no longer hold positions in any policitcal realm (locally, state, federal, house, senate, and presidency). The country will continue to suffer as long as re"pig"licans exist.

It's very upseting that the re"pig"licans blame everyone else for the country's problems but cannot take any responsibility for themselves and the problems that they cause. Forever, the democratic presidents and congress have been fixing the "con"servatives' misktakes and problems. When things are going right near the end of a democratic presidency and congress and then into the re"pig"lican's tyranny (thanks to the democrats), the re"pig"licans want responsibility for the success even though they did not pass any policies to add to the success. Then, when things go wrong near the end of the re"pig"licans tyranny and at the start of the democratic leadership and administration, they will not take any responsibility for the horrible mistakes that were made and the damage that was done and end up blaming the democrats for their stupid and ignorant policies and decisions. It is scientific fact that the country ends up with depressions and recessions again and again when the re"pig"licans have control as the president and in the house and senate. All they can do is continue to brainwash all of the innocent yet ignorant citizens by promising them with things they cannot deliver on and lie to them. I do not know what is worse, the aweful and evil re"pig"lican and con"servative politicians or the stupid citizens who vote for them. Ultimately, I balme the politicians. You cannot blame the victim for what the offender has done. Yes, re"pig"licans are offenders and should be arrested and be in prison for all of their crimes against the American citizens. They have stolen, lied, and murdered.

if your a woman and your still voteing for a republican .. WHY

ProBusiness--thanks for demonstrating that many people do not know what they are talking about and should not even be engaging in this conversation.

Birth control is not only used by young women who are unmarried or by women engaging in extra-marital affairs--you are confusing young men who are unmarried and using condoms (for protection against STDs) to women.

Birth control is used by virtually all women who are of reproductive age--the only young women not using birth control are those who are trying to get pregnant, or those who don't have the access to birth control (either due to the cost or due to religious belief or due to family situations).

All birth control requires a doctor's prescription--there are no exemptions made by the Catholic church or anyone else for "medically necessary" birth control. All birth control is considered medically necessary because birth after birth after birth will kill a woman. Ovarian cancer is not cured by suddenly getting on birth control--it is prevented by getting on routine birth control.

Unless you think that married couples should refrain from having sex when they do not want to reproduce and that no person who is not married should have sex, then you really do not know what you are talking about. And, if you really think that no one should have sex other than for purposes of reproduction--then say so. Birth control is not only for unmarried young women who want to have promiscuous sex--it is for women who want to control their reproduction--people who state that it is only prove that they are ignorant.

"In the 2010 health care overhaul, Congress gave the secretary of Health and Human Services the power to decide exactly what services must be paid for by most employers and their insurance plans as “essential health benefits.” "

So if a Republican wins the Presidency, then he can appoint a new Secretary who will reverse forcing religious based organizations to provide coverage for abortions that violates their core religious beliefs.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

ROY WILSON-336103

"In the 2010 health care overhaul, Congress gave the secretary of Health and Human Services the power to decide exactly what services must be paid for by most employers and their insurance plans as “essential health benefits.” "

So if a Republican wins the Presidency, then he can appoint a new Secretary who will reverse forcing religious based organizations to provide coverage for abortions that violates their core religious beliefs.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Hmmmmmm-a Republican will not beat President Obama in 2012, so your point is moot, (as usual.) You spout the GOP talking points like an paid poster--week after week. Pretty dumb of Fox News to mention, line by line, the weekly talking points issued by the GOP establishment--and you bark the same ones that the other paid pundits do.

Karl Rove--is that you? Nice timely marketing skills to emphasize in a single bold sentence, within a paragraph, what the agenda of the day is. How are you guys going to sell the southern Evangelical voters on a Mormon? The whole--Jesus having 3 wives and herds of children isn't going to float.

You guys don't even have a horse in the race.

I have, by this time, read many valid pleas both for and against this bill. I fully respect those that differ from my own views concerning this issue. Commonsense tells me that if you are against both birth control AND abortion, you have placed yourself in a moral paradox that is inescapable.

Those unwanted children born by lack of birth control and not aborted due to your wishes have a right to the pursuit of happiness according to the Constitution once they are born. Be they severely handicapped physically, mentally or emotionally, your decision to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child becomes your responsibility.

You may wish to FORCE her to bare her young. You can never force her to care for those unwanted young unless you are willing to parent her children yourself. I find that most of you would flat-out refuse to breast-feed or raise any child not of your making.

Irresponsible parents all over the world are free to deposit these unwanted children on your door-steps. Would you rescue baby Moses, found in the bulrushes, to raise as your own or turn him over to the Egyptian authorities to do with as they wished? What's wrong with you? You know that you would never welcome this estranged baby into your home. Your first action would be to call the authorities.

You are a hypocrite. If you are a teenager that made a bad mistake, if you are are a young victim of rape, if you are a young woman that discovers her pregnancy will kill her, she may choose abortion. You have no right to shame her. You become the aggressor and she remains the victim. Your Christian religion tells you that judgement is God's, not yours. Yet, you sit in judgement on a mighty throne that belongs to God alone.

I can imagine Jesus angrily throwing the money-changers and hypocrites out of the temple once again. Don't be surprised when your pious rear-ends are the first to hit the bricks when He looks in your hearts.

Geez... is it just me or does anyone else think that we should be able to respond directly to EACH post. This is bull@!$%# having to scroll through 100's of posts to respond to one.

Ok..now that that's over. For all the Teabaggers and other non-intellectuals who mistakenly think mandated healthcare is "unconstitutional". Tell that to our FOREFATHERS because THEY were the first ones to MANDATE HEALTHCARE.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/11/the-u-s-passed-mandatory-health-insurance-in-1798-under-founding-father-john-adams/

Many people who oppose the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, also known as ‘Obamacare’, say the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have wanted the Government to make health insurance mandatory for private employees.

This is simply not true. In 1798, under 2nd President and Founding Father John Adams, the United States passed a law requiring mandatory health insurance for any private employees working on Maritime vessels. The bill was called “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”

BOOYAH. YOU LOSE.

The fact that this is being determined by a few politicians who have no real ties or real interest...other that political games is bullsh*t in itself! Freedom is going down the toilet....Religion and politics should not be allowed to comingle...when used in law....IF allowed, there will always be problems between what peoples freedom and others religious beliefs!

Yes, where in the constitution does it say churches shouldn't be taxed?

There's not even any argument when a church is acting as a political entity.

Right, churches are taxed ZERO. Are you saying churches would be included in your version of a flat tax?

Any income that the pastor or church staff receives would be subject to normal taxing like it is now. But I would never advocate a specific tax for businesses, or in this case, churches.

What are you talking about Conservative? "Like it is now?" Are donations to the church taxed? No! Churches don't pay income tax. Beyond that, the donations are deductible to the individual, so that makes that money never taxed to the original donator either.

No property tax on top of that.

"Where in the constitution does it give authority the gov't the authority to levy unequal taxes on specific entities?"

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.*

*Uniform in this context refers to geographical uniformity. The tax must apply everywhere.

Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has also found that, in addition to the power to use taxes to punish disfavored conduct, Congress can also use its power to spend to encourage favored conduct. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Court upheld a federal law which withheld highway funds to states that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21.

So, that's where.

I am willing to see a flat tax on churches as long as it applies to every living person with income.

I won't go for any tax that does not get everybody.

radagast

This is not an application of unequal taxation, nor is it duty, impost or excise. This is a mandate to purchase a particular product from a private entity as the public option is not part of the Health Care Reform act as passed. Also this is an attempt by congress to dictate what may or not be offered by setting minimum and maximum limits to coverage with those in excess of the maximums to be taxed as premium coverage, while those below minimums are not to be sold as stand alone. It is also dictating that business of any size must supply a substantial amount to cover the cost or pay a fine per employee. These among other things are the problems with the current legislation. legislation that I hope in time is found unconstitutional and stricken from law. Health Care insurance, like auto insurance is more properly the province of local (state) governments and their populations to work out.

Just like the hypocritical libs. They all scream separation of church and state until it's something they want the state to impose on religions. Do you libs ever listen to the contradictions that come out of your pie holes? You are really sad and pathetic.

How would requiring the Catholic Church to provide coverage for birth control violate separation of church and state or violate First Amendment? The way I see it, they only have to provide coverage for it. Nobody is requiring use and the individual is still free to not use birth control.

Burn the witches! God supports slavery! Woman must stay in the home! Races must not mix! Gays will go to hell!

Yes, these are some of the teachings we've heard from religions. Can you imagine if we allowed them to employ people or give medical care based on these?

archangel: and just what do you think we've got under "good luck with that" care?? Everyone loses their freedom when health care is a crap shoot--or a visit to the emergency room that all of those paying for insurance have to pay for. There is no free ride. SOMEONE has to pay and it's nonsense to talk about returning to millions and millions without any health care at all. It's about TIME the US joined the rest of the developed world with this modest health care bill.

Zathrose: Those who DEMAND everyone follow their religious doctrine are the hypocrites. Don't want to use birth control? THen don't. You don't get to take it away from others just because you want to live in the 19th century and label that "religious" freedom.

DaNoid

Better still, make birth control coverage an optional rider payed for specifically by the employee. Then everyone is happy. The Church is not paying for coverage that goes against it's own Cannon and the employee has the right to choose to take the coverage. The same could be done for abortions, it would protect the rights of religious organizations and churches yet enable those who wish the coverage to have it. Sound vaguely familiar? That is the way things were before HCR.

archangel, read the thread. I was responding to a question about where in the Constitution it says that the government has the authority to tax.

As for this terrible bill that was rightly defeated - it is not specific to religious groups!!!!!!

ANY employer could have decided to end ALL insurance coverage for their employees by simply saying it was against their morals. We ALL were under threat of losing insurance under this bill. This bill is hiding behind religion in order to prevent citizens from being covered at work. This bill was simply a way to give employers a pass on providing health insurance. It was a dangerous piece of legislation and everyone who voted for it deserves to have the bill wrung around their necks in November.

This bill is further proof that the GOP is anti-labor, anti-women, anti-family, anti-American worker, and pro-money all the way.

A church is a religious entity. A hospital is not a religious entity. For legal and economic purposes an entity is determined by what it does, not by who runs it.

No non-profit organization pays income tax. Religious organizations are by definition non-profit organizations. If you want to start taxing non-profit organizations, take your best shot. Let's start with Planned Parenthood.

Better still, make birth control coverage an optional rider payed for specifically by the employee. Then everyone is happy.

Great idea, pool all people who want birth-control into one insurance pool. Make them pay individually for the BC rider plan. Everyone else in the other pool.

That way, those that are electing BC coverage will pay less since BC reduces health care costs overall.

talkingtoyou55

My convictions don't allow me to support war so I will not be paying any taxes as they may go towards war.

How do you like that thinking?

Same thing buddy.

Sorry buddy you would be wrong and you would go to prison for income tax evasion. The SCOTUS has already decided this issue

Just like the hypocritical libs. They all scream separation of church and state until it's something they want the state to impose on religions. Do you libs ever listen to the contradictions that come out of your pie holes? You are really sad and pathetic.

Zathrose - you sound just like the hypocritical right wingers. They all scream about too much gov't in our lives, until it's something they want to impose on our personal rights. Do you right wingers ever listen to the contridictions that come out of your pie holes? You are really sad and pathetic!!!

No...they don't.

@ AP-1414066 & Sally LU

Get off your soap box. It's you libs that are trying to insert liberal government into everyones lives. You can't name one congressman or senator that is trying to take away a woman's right to birth control not withstanding Pelosi and the rest of her political whores she is parading around for the cameras.

Any women over the age of 6 can get all the free condoms and low cost birth control pills they want from the government, Planned Parenthood, and Walmart. Your whining is just political theater and an attempt to get a government mandated purchasing requirement through the backdoor in order to set a precedent.

We are already paying for birth control meds with the money we pay for our insurance. If you want to take that coverage away then take away viagra as a covered med. Nobody needs viagra to live, so I guess the limp guys will just have to stay limp.

Zathrose

@ AP-1414066 & Sally LU

Get off your soap box. It's you libs that are trying to insert liberal government into everyones lives. You can't name one congressman or senator that is trying to take away a woman's right to birth control not withstanding Pelosi and the rest of her political whores she is parading around for the cameras.

Actually Zathrose you need to check that line at the door. The original plan of the Dems was not to have any mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act. Everyone would have been covered under a public option. It was at the insistence of the Republicans that their big lobbyist constituents, the Insurance industry get a cut in order to support passage of the plan. Result, the mandate to insure 40-50 Million uninsureds for big $$$$$$$$$$. So you need to ask the Republicans why they were so hot on interfering in the lives of US citizens. Now the Repubs say that if the mandate falls in the SCOTUS the rest must fall too. Well of course. Unless the rest falls, the insurance industry is then strapped with the worst of the Act, and none of the big benefits. $$$$$$$$$$$$. Real dilemma for the conservative SCOTUS that has recently decided big for big business.

Zathrose - and you right wingers are trying to impose your conservative gov't into everyone's lives. But that's OK, is it? You are the worst of all, because you just don't see the freedoms you are trying to take away from us. Take a good look at yourself and ask yourself why it is OK for you to insert your religious beliefs into gov't, our homes and our bedrooms, but it isn't OK for us to insist that your religious views are kept out of gov't and our lives. If a church want to also run a business, they must conform to the same rules that any business has to follow. Simple as that.

You people really don't get it, do you. The government can now ram down the throats of any organization, any religion, any group mandates for what health care is provided. This does not mean equal access for everyone, for everything....it means that everyone can get birth control-bully! The bigger issue here is that they can force everyone in this nation to conform to their viewpoint on whether birth control is something elective (meaning the freedom of choice that everyone is rattling on about) or whether it is a requirement imparted on everyone. A mandate is paid for by everyone, and a mandate should reflect a clear majority of the ideas and viewpoints out there, but in this case, based upon the article, it looks as if it was a close call and could have gone the other way with only one or two people changing their alliance....If you believe that the government truly is reflecting the will of the people-then it looks pretty evenly divided. Freedom of choice has just been taken from you, whether you realize it or not. With a legislative action, we have a new law, and that law does require people to do something that violates their religious or moral code of ethics. You have put these groups into a Catch 22. If they hire only persons of their same religious beliefs, you can get them on discrimination, and if they hire those of other faiths, they now must pay for those people to behave in ways that are contrary to everything taught by that group. Why doesn't the person who is hired, who is not of that faith base, but understands the convictions of that faith base not have to compromise to a certain degree in their expectations. How can fairness be a one way street?

And by the way, the clergy does pay taxes, as do the lay and administrative people affiliated with churches-they all pay income taxes like the rest of us. They get to fill out the tax forms and get tax statements......Certain clergy are not permitted to own any sort of property in their own right, not even cars...nothing other than their personal clothing and toiletries-they don't have property to tax, because they utilized property that belongs to another and do not own it themselves.

Get off your soap box. It's you libs that are trying to insert liberal government into everyones lives. You can't name one congressman or senator that is trying to take away a woman's right to birth control not withstanding Pelosi and the rest of her political whores she is parading around for the cameras.

Rick Santorum believes that states should be free to ban health control if they want.

Would you like some ketchup with that crow?

Sue - so by allowing my insurance, that I pay for to continue to provide me with birth control that I want, my freedom of choice has been taken from me? Hmmm...I'm not sure if you understand what "freedom of choice" really means.

I went to foxnews.com looking for this same article. I looked high and low and finally found something on it. Not easy to find especially since the title was so wacko.

Here is the title of the article on Foxnews about the vote in the Senate on the Blunt bill.

(Senate Dems stop 'conscience exemption' to Obama birth control coverage policy)

Unbelievable!!! lol

The Truth is the Blunt bill would allow any employer for their own religious or moral beliefs could deny anything in their Health insurance plan. Anything. I am surprised that only contraception is only being talked about. You could have an employer that thinks Aids is immoral and could deny coverage for aids for example. An employer could deny men Viagra, and surgery for sterilization. Yes and contraception could be denied for woman. This bill essentially lets all employers decide YOUR healthcare plan and coverage and the power to deny any type of coverage for their moral beliefs!!!! This is a fact!!! Really is that what Americans want, even most republicans, really?

I know many don't understand what the ramifications are with the Blunt bill, as it was made to sound like it was only about contraception and that is plain wrong. The far right GOP are extreme and we all must not forget in November.

This is extremism !!!! and does not represent the vast majority of Americans.

PDug,

You have to look through the political BS about freedom of religion and see the bill for what it is. It is trying to water down health care so that people will go buy their own insurance outside of their employer. This isn't possible for most Americans. My employer covers me as an individual and I must purchase insurance for my family. It costs me $14,000 per year. My mortgage + property taxes cost me less per year and I took it out 4 years ago. If I had to cover myself, the cost would be around $20,000 per year, more than a third of my pre-tax income.

Time to think about the separation of church and state that the founding fathers put in place. I personally believe that a person's right to be treated fairly and equally outweighs a religion's right to force anything they want onto individuals who may not even subscribe to their faith. The exemption was both badly written and grossly unfair. A religion should be free to instruct its members to behave in any way the religion desires, which each individual may choose to accept or reject. A religion should NOT be free to require those who are not even members to behave or be served as the religion believes.

Another "slippery slope" I can see is I have a few gay freinds who work as nurses. Most hospitals are church run. If things like this pass whats to stop them from denying any coverage for anything because they don't approve of his lifestlye?

Christian Science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#Healing

I can only hope that most voters understand just how unacceptable all this is and vote accordingly. We need jobs. We need infrastructure upgrades. We need a functional education system. We need vocational training. I want to see our politicians spend their time working on getting the economy back on track not what kind of medication my employer thinks I should have access to. Some of these politicians who want to legislate reproductive issues can't even bring themselves to say "trans-vaginal." They call it "trans-v."

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

--Antonin Scalia, Employment Division v. Smith

the amish are already exempt from the healthcare mandate!

Moheeheeko - nothing. The Blunt Amendment, had it passed (defeated 51-48, too close) would allow ANY employer to disallow ANY health service based on religious objection or "moral conviction." So no AIDS/HIV testing, no venereal disease tests, no vaccinations, no cancer screening, no diabetes or cholesterol testing (also lifestyle, you know), chest X-rays for smokers etc. Get it on your own dime - IF you can find a doctor who has no religious or moral compunction about family planning, preventive care, etc. and IF you can afford it. End result: HIGHER medical expenditures, more and sicker patients with diseases and disorders that could otherwise have been easily - and cheaply - treated.

SmBusinessOwner

That is the biggest problem with a national mandate of any kind. Someone is losing their freedom to disagree, and their freedom of choice. If the mandate said the all employers must offer Health insurance coverage to their employees that would be one thing, but this mandate goes farther by making employers help provide for the coverage and then dictating what that coverage contains. Those provisions are where freedom dies and dictatorship begins. Another problem is with individuals, not covered through an employer. The law states that you must purchase or you will be levied a surcharge. As there is no public insurance option other than Medicaid, if a person is not enrolled, you will still have those unable or unwilling to pay using emergency rooms at tax payer expense and if they cannot afford coverage, what makes anyone think they'll be able to pay the surcharge? The law is clearly and completely flawed in these aspects and should not have been passed.

Right now Europe is finding out that the good life of social safety nets is one that can break a country in the long term. We should have taken a lesson from the problems with social security and Medicaid. Government is not the best solution to these problems, it is society itself. Look at where the lion share of the European debt stems from and it shouldn't take long to understand that socialism in any form is inherently unstable. It is our nature to have someone looking out for us, but government is not who it should be.

Archangel: Germany is "inherently unstable"???.Allowing women birth control access is "socialism"???? Maybe on your planet.

archangel(?) You think very highly of yourself don't you? No one is losing their "freedom to disagree", what's wrong with you? An angel should know better hahaha. If anything is lost or almost lost it's the separation of church and state. Keep your religious convictions to yourself just do not try to force them on the rest of America.

PS Calling yourself and angel does not make you one....

BinNH,

The founding fathers did not put a separation of church and state into the Constitution. The first amendment protects every person's right to freely exercise their religion without government interference, and prevents the government for passing laws that would favor one religion over another.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You claim "a person's right to be treated fairly and equally outweighs a religion's right to force anything they want onto individuals who may not even subscribe to their faith" but the people who are being "forced" to do something here are the religious employers. In the case of the Catholic Church, you are asking the bishop of the local diocese to set aside his personal moral beliefs, demonstrated by a lifetime of service to the Catholic Church.

Both sides have a right to be treated with dignity and respect. When one person's rights based on religious/moral grounds are at odds with another person's rights based on religious/moral grounds, it seems to me the first amendment says the government can not intervene. Government action would be limiting the free exercise of one religion to the benefit and promotion of the other.

Make the disputed drugs available for free at government clinics or through a government program. This allows free access by the individual who wishes to use them and doesn't force an employer who objects to providing the drugs to provide them.

Germany is the only European Union country of any size that is not battling with debt problems. Italy, Greece, France, Britain are all battling with mounting debt to some degree or another. Some are better off than others true, but watch the financial pages and you'll see this is a world problem. The Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden are extremely small countries with small populations where the burdens are not as great. The US by size and population dwarfs these countries and makes implementing social programs vastly more expensive. Look at the costs associated with their health care as a percentage of revenue collected, if it were not for the fact that the rest of their governmental cost is so small they would be drowning in debt as well.

Is it better to have the religion of your employer ( not necessarily your own ) in with you and your doctor than it is to have the freely elected government of all Americans setting national health care standards?

The exemption was both badly written and grossly unfair.

No it wasn't. It was written exactly the way the Republican senators told their corporate masters they would write it. It was written to allow any business to exempt any employee from health care coverage for any reason whatsoever as long as they were willing to say it was for moral grounds.

the Republican senators said the word "religion" and the word "abortion" so their constituency would ignore what the bill was really meant to do. And damned if they didn't nearly get it through the Senate. Pretty close vote for something that should have appalled anyone who read it that had a gram of morality or conscience.

This bill had nothing to do with religion. It just had to do with money.

archangel,

The health care mandate is to provide the option, not force people to use it. Freedom of choice is still afforded to each individual regardless of what church beliefs are.

Actually, what Americans think of as "socialism" (e.g. universal health care) was NOT the prime cause of the European sovereign debt crisis - google "European sovereign debt crisis" for yourself, I won't take bandwidth here.

Small excerpt, re Greece:

In the early mid 2000s, Greece's economy was one of the fastest growing in the eurozone and the government took advantage of it by running a large structural deficit, partly due to high defense spending amid historic enmity to Turkey. As the world economy cooled in the late 2000s, Greece was hit especially hard because its main industries—shipping and tourism—were especially sensitive to changes in the business cycle. As a result, the country's debt began to increase rapidly.

Add to this the same financial shenanigans that nearly threw the US back to the 1930s and you have the main reasons why parts of Europe are in recovery mode today. Places like most of Scandinavia, particularly that bastion of "socialist" policies, Sweden, are going great guns. In fact, the austerity measures that have been imposed on Greece, Spain and adopted by others such as Britain, are having a negative effect on their economies; they are slipping BACK into recession and, frankly, near-depression. When you cut jobs, there are fewer people with money to spend on the economy, fewer to purchase goods and services, fewer purchases lead to more layoffs, higher spending on unemployment and assistance programs, fewer tax dollars taken in - because there aren't enough people earning enough to tax. Less available tax money means the government has to borrow more just to pay the interest on existing debt and keep their citizens from starving in the streets. See how this works? On the other hand if the government hires people to fix bridges, repair roads, upgrade schools, insulate existing homes - people with an income SPEND money at the grocery store and in department stores and buying small appliances and linens and gifts and school supplies and electronics, all of which leads to more jobs as buyers deplete inventories and manufacturers needs to make more.

HumanBeing

By forcing the Catholic Church, or any other Religious employer to provide and pay for coverage against their Cannon, they are not only limiting their right to disagree, but they are losing their right to practice their religion. Sm Business owner mentioned the religious sect that does not believe in health care at all, so what? How do they rejecting health care affect those not affiliated with the sect? It is their freedom to worship as they choose and the only limitations to that is if the worship involves some other criminal activity. If a member of that sect wishes to go to a hospital when sick, that is their choice, if they wish to have health insurance than they should be able to buy it, but the religious entity itself should not be made to pay for it. In the case of birth control, provide an available rider for the individual to purchase, payed for by their own dollars and the problem becomes moot. If HCR is to have a chance to work, the coverage mandated must take into account EVERYONE"S RIGHTS! Controversial matters like abortion coverage, birth control, should be handled as an individual choice not one forced on everyone. If an employer is mandated to provide a policy that covers birth control and or abortions, the portion of the premium I pay goes to support 2 items that through my faith I believe are wrong. That should not be because it is infringing on my right to freedom of religion. I am not saying that no one should use birth control, nor am I saying that anyone who receives and abortion is a murder, those are choices the each individual should be free to and must make for themselves. If government tells you, you must do something, that is not necessarily detrimental to your fellow citizens welfare, that is dictatorship. Of course that is just my opinion and I hate to see the erosion of freedoms that literally hundreds of thousands have died to win and protect for over two centuries.

By forcing the Catholic Church, or any other Religious employer to provide and pay for coverage against their Cannon, they are not only limiting their right to disagree, but they are losing their right to practice their religion.

Commercial activity is not religious. Your religious choices on BC are unrelated to your insurance offerings for other people who are working for you. Period. The business owner is still free to practice their religion however they wish.

Floretta

Add to this the same financial shenanigans that nearly threw the US back to the 1930s and you have the main reasons why parts of Europe are in recovery mode today

The same financial shenanigans, as you put it was a form of socialism. By government interfering in the lending and housing markets to encourage growth, they helped create a bubble which nearly took down our entire economy. If it were not for the government later stepping in with Bailouts to help mitigate the damage the fall would not have stopped in 2009 but would have continued farther. The Banks and Auto companies would have been the tip of the iceberg. There are literally thousands of companies that support those two industries alone and thousands more that support them. Government's purpose is not to be all and do all. Government's purpose is to be our unified voice to the world for negotiations among nations, provide for our defense, and to regulate tourism and immigration. Our government has been morphing ever so slowly left of its intended purposes, and with each step left, things become more volatile and the falls much harder to get up from. The far right is no better, somewhere in the middle is where our founding fathers intended us to be and that is where we should strive to be. The American family is dying in our search for true equality and the race to obtain what many feel is their just do. We are becoming a greedy, selfish and dependent society because we feel that we are owed an existence rather than we must earn our existence. HCR and like social programs are all consequences of this change. We are fast becoming a society of have and have nots, not because of some scheme or social class warfare, but because of a change in spirit and attitude creating a more selfish society. Someone in another post said that I think much of myself, they are very spot on. I am not rich, nor will I ever have the money to match a Bill Gates, nor the Kennedys. I earn my living with my hands and my mind, providing a good life for my family. My wife helps with this and together we are content. We do not feel as if we are owed anything, and do not wish to receive aid from the government even though we may have needed it at times. We have each other and our children, that is enough, and all else is replaceable.

The business owner is still free to practice their religion however they wish.

Not if the business owner's religion opposes helping people do things against the teachings of the business owner's religion.

The employee may be free to practice their religion, but by forcing the business owner to provide to the employee something the business owner's religion prohibits you have denied the business owner the right to freely exercise religion.

EngEsq

So what is the matter with providing an individually purchased rider that is not part of mandated coverage? If it is not mandated, the cost should be less for the employer and remain nearly the same to the individual, should it not? In this way, there is no argument over birth control or abortion being covered on religious or moral grounds in respect to HCR. If you read through the posts, you'll see that I am not just arguing, but also offering an acceptable solution. HCR is flawed, that is a fact. There will be many more cases that this becomes apparent. Compromises are the only way to make the thing work, and will probably improve the law if care is taken while doing them.

Ellis

Freedom of choice goes out the window when you are forced to pay for something you do not want or may never use. Provide it as an optional rider that an individual can purchase, it could then even be required to offered as an option and the mess goes away. The differences I admit may seem small but then that is the way of law. Change one line or perhaps even a word and the whole meaning and intent changes.

GreenTimer

That is my whole point against a mandated set of coverage. You should make the choice, not your employer and certainly not your government! Maybe if they put together a reasonable set of base coverage, then allow individual purchase through the employers plan, much like optional family, dental, or vision coverage is handled currently, things like birth control and abortion would not be such a hot issue anymore.

archangel, whether you realize it or not, one pays for many things one may not want or may not ever use.

I don't like war, but I pay for the military. I pay for roads and sewers and emergency care whether I use them or not. It's the way a society works.

If you truly do not want any government aid, that is your right. But don't expect the rest of us to support that, or you. Stop using our roads, our clean water, our electricity. Stop being protected by our police and firefighters.

archangel 3:16,

You say, "Maybe if they put together a reasonable set of base coverage". There's no "if" to it because it has already been done in the form of the Affordable Care Act.

I fully concur with the philosophy of being against mandated coverage, except how do we handle the uninsured? It is my strong belief that there would be far more uninsured if insurance was not mandated than if it were. Young and vigorous folks just beginning adult life will find it very easy to skip spending money on insurance that they probably will not need for many years.

Do you think that it makes us a stronger civilization by allowing the unfit and the uninsured to suffer and/or die? I have a feeling that being uninsured comes pretty easy to people who are fit, and less easily to those less fit. Which results in weeding out the healthy rather than the unhealthy, but that is all speculation.

How does it further the national interest to let those uninsured folks with cancer, diabetes, accident injuries and strokes fend for themselves? We are not a nation of small independent villages who take care of their own at the village level. Our independent village is the nation, and a village takes care of its own if it is to survive.

Taking care of its own means mandating reasonable health insurance for ALL, otherwise the village casts aside its uninsured (or treats them free in Emergency Room - the most expensive care for results achieved on the planet).

I personally think health care and insurance is a very private matter. I also personally believe that the nation cannot survive unless we're all in this health insurance thing together.

Thanks for your ideas and your commentary.

I just love the smoke being blown that this is "all about women". No, it's NOT. It's about a Constitutional right for the free practice of religious beliefs. No one is stopping anyone from getting or using birth control. What have women been doing up until now??? Didn't seem to be an issue at all, UNTIL Obama and his big government stuck their noses into a right guaranteed by the Constitution. What would you think it if he decided to MANDATE that a Kosher Deli buy and supply ham or other pork products to whomever walked into their deli? How about he MANDATE that Muslims are not to practice their beliefs and traditions during Ramadan or because Muslim periodic prayer times disrupts businesses? If you don't want a baby, whether married or single, no one is stopping you from getting whatever you need to prevent that. Enough with this "it's a women's issue". No, it's NOT. It IS a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. How does birth control come under "health care"? Pregnancy is not a disease, and it's easily prevented....and, again, no one is stopping you and the Catholic Church is NOT shoving their beliefs down anyone's throat. More like Obama is shoving something down the Church's throat. You want it, YOU pay for it. Women can go into any clinic and get FREE birth control, even the Government will GIVE you what you need for birth control, so go for it...they give it to other countries, why not their own. I'm sure Planned Parenthood will also give free birth control devices and meds. And we're ALL paying for all those services, Reps , Dems. Catholic, Christians, Jew, athiests....whatever. So why make the Catholics pay for it in THEIR OWN organizations on top of it.

C'mon ladies, don't fall for the baloney that it's ALL about YOU, and they're counting on us to get "typically hysterical and/or hormonal like women do.." That's what they're counting on.

Aggie,

If the church is going to take taxpayer money, they invite interference by government. This is one type of interference.

But it goes further than that. This bill allowed any moral exemption to health care, not just religious. My employer could deny coverage for the birth of my child because they are morally opposed to me taking time off of work to be there. After all, as a male I'm not having the baby, there's no need for me to be there!

Very good point James. Let the religious employers rely on the exchange, pay employees a stipend for HC, and that's it. Done. HCR actually solves this problem.

JR- My brother and I recently had the same argument with the same conclusion...health insurance is another form of compensation just like wages if the employer doesn't provide insurance let them then raise your salary and let the employee decide.

This is just another sham perpetuated by the party of NO.

I do and you don't want to know what it costs a month.

You mean like the non elected panels that are going to decide what if any healthcare anyone is going to be able to get? How about we get government out of all these issues they have no business in. If you want condoms or birth control pills to avoid conception that is not a medical necessity it is protection from an unwanted outcome to a voluntary act. Buy your own damn birth control if you want to engage in recreational sex!

This ongoing hoo-ha is just plain nuts. So here's my suggestion: single payer universal health coverage, e.g. Medicare for all. No employer has to make any decision re health care, no premiums to pay, no fights with the insurers. De-couple health care from employment, period. No boss to decide what will or will not be covered. Everybody gets what they need - and just think, nobody has to stay with a job they hate JUST FOR THE HEALTH BENEFITS! Free to say KMA and go elsewhere.

Floretta, yeah no premiums, it's all free!!! Except for the out of sight taxes like the ones that are killing the British and Canadian systems that everyone says work so well! Nothing our Government has decided to "administer" has ever been practical or functional within a short period of time. Regan said it best, " if the Government took over the Sahara desert within six months there would be a shortage of sand".

I continually see posts mentioning " free birth control " , just how is it free ?

Also , libs are constantly screaming they want the conservatives out of their bedrooms except , they want us to pay for those activities !

Can you say HYPOCRICY ?

But we could do this if we had a single payer system. Then no ones religious or moral concerns would be an issue. But NOOOO, we don't want to do that because then we'd be SOCIALISTS!!!!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!!

There are two major problems with allowing people to purchase their own health insurance.

1. Private plans almost never cover pre-existing conditions (as it is now).

2. Most people are not knowledgeable enough to know what they need to purchase. Most people would simply pick a plan that is marketed well and priced attractively.

Tallman: it isn't "FREE"...it's insurance. I pay for it because I work...perhaps you don't?? Either way, you sure as heck aren't whining about your "free" viagra being included, but women shut off from birth control gets you rallying your wing nut flag?? There's a reason you're not winning on this one and it's because of a little thing called common sense.

Willy, why don't you move to England where they do have the single payer system. If you get sick you just might die before you get treatment if you get it at all. Not the kind of system I want to rely on to provide the best care possible as soon as needed!

rainman1.......well THAT explains it...........did you even watch the movie? Honestly.......try doing some research on what the British have before you make blanket statements like that, or does your religion prevent you from research?

Single payer = government decision making as to what's covered and what isn't. If the government and employers were out of the healthcare business entirely, the insurance would be better & cheaper as would actual medical care.

You lefty's love government....that is, other peoples money. With that, you can be endlessly "generous" and forever self-righteous. All phony.

James Reynolds, an excellent point: "There is no room for non-medical people determining what medical treatments are available to people."

Specific health insurance coverage should be de-coupled from employment. Insurance companies can then offer individuals incentivized policies that promote healthy lifestyles, and let those who don't want to participate in good health pay the piper.

talkingtoyou - that sounds great on paper. But there is an enormous difference in the cost and level of benefits between what you can get with group insurance through your employer, and what you can get on your own as an individual. Even if your employer increased your salary by the amount they would pay toward your health insurance, there is no way you'd be able to purchase a comparable plan on your own.

And there are a wealth of irresponsible people who would take the option to keep the money and take their chances. So again we are back to the insured paying for the uninsured. Of course corporate america doesn't care about this because they still have their perks.

it's amazing to the me the things the Repubs try to ram down our throats so Big Business can get out of paying it's fair share. It isn't enough that none of them pay taxes and our tax dollars subsidize them now they want not to provide a living wage or any health care.

We are on the road to becoming a third world country all at the hands of the conservatives and their bogus claims. When did they get so corrupt? When did they become the tool of business?

Effectively we have a house of commons(the people) and a house of Lords(the corporations) and they are fractured along party lines. Don't know what's going to happen to this country if people don't get a clue that their government is trying to kill them off for the profit of big business.

and that goes for both parties.

Everyone is so geeked about the Hunger Games. Maybe people should try to focus on the message in that simple YA tale because we are living it.

rainman1 - I have family in Canada and England. England is having difficulties BECAUSE OF IMPOSED AUSTERITY MEASURES making the financial shenanigans that screwed up here even worse over there. Same thing happened here in 1937 when Roosevelt tried gearing back on New Deal spending - the US slipped back into the depression it had barely climbed out of to recession. Canada's conservative party, the Tories, are doing the same, unnecessarily really except for reasons of ideology as Canada has much stronger banking and other financial regulations than here which largely protected them from out mess.

That said, none of them have had ANY complaints about their health insurance. They like it. My sister lived in Toronto for 15 years, had 5 kids there - and LOVED the coverage and ease of use. She had a hard time adjusting when they moved here. My late in-laws lived out in God's country, miles from a major medical center but got great care at their little 12-bed hospital/clinic, including my mother-in-law's abdominal aortic aneurysm and father-in-laws's heart/stroke issues. As we lived over 1000 miles away we worried, but they were fine. They even had American doctors who moved to Canada from the US to practice. So - are there those not happy with their insurance? Yes - everywhere in the world. Human nature.

At Rainman and all that think birthcontrol is all about SEX: I have been put on THE PILL (which was paid partially by my healthcare and I paid a co-pay on) not for BIRTH CONTROL, but for the control of a disease called Poly-Cystic Ovaries. It was a low cost method that has been found to help control the issue. I've also been put on Glucophage (which is used to control diabetes). Unfortunately- the pill was not good for me and when they went in to take out one destroyed ovary- they implanted a Mirena IUD- which has helped to control the cysts and kept me from losing my other ovary. I've had these issues btw- since PRIOR to sexual activity....

SO- in looking at this Blunt exemption- I fear for my very own health...not because I'm a slut or easy and I'm also not the only WOMAN who has these issues and has been treated by a trained, educated, M.D....but because people like Blunt, who don't know ME and my situation, and certainly aren't medically educated, might be able to direct my BOSS to tell me how to care for my health based on their 'morals' via my insurance, which by the way- I also pay for out of each of my paychecks and thru co-pays....

Something about that just doesn't seem quite right...

The crazed and confused sure come out in numbers on these boards. While I agree that this bill was completely useless due to the vague guidelines it set, I also think both sides are nuts. The Dems think that no religious organization should be allowed to decide what should be covered based on religious ideas are the same ones who say that these organizations can't discriminate who they hire. The RWNJ's think that the employee should always be beholden to the employer. The problem with all of them is that there is no compromise. I know how hard it is for these people to agree on anything but come on. It has nothing to do with individual rights. It has everything to do with money. The Dems know the drug companies will support them and the Repubs know that the religious organizations will support them. Neither cares what their constituents really think. Each side will get their media puppets to spin the case for their side. Apparently it's working. Both sides posting on this board have completely fallen for their individual party lines. Know why the greatest generation was called that? Because they weren't stupid like we are. I grew up with grandparents who never voted a party line. They voted for the politician that actually stood for what they believed in and if he didn't fulfill those promises, he was one and done. Today, we just keep electing idiots over and over again. Quick, how many are voting against someone instead of for the person they believe would do the best job? If you think you voted for the best person for the job, you are the problem.

Women, it is time to get RUSH (the sexual predator and womanizing deviate) off the airwaves for his comments today. Call for his licence to be pulled permanently. Boycott him and those who support him. Advertisers, stations and anyone else who allows him on the air until he is off the air forever.

I will take that challenge! One of my local radio stations airs his garbage! I am going to rally some of my friends to call that radio station and tell them that they have lost our support! I am going on FB to post it as well! That poor excuse for a man, no, human being, has been for too long able to spread his filthy lies, racist comments, degradation of women, etc.

Obama/Biden 2012 YES WE WILL!

Obfuscation. I love that word. Seems like the only time I see it (or can use it myself) is when Republicans are trying to conflate some professed "freedom" with an actual removal of freedom from someone else.

Sex is an elective activity, and your neighbor should not be asked to pay for your sex with their tax dollars, or higher insurance costs.

GOP Obfuscation and conflagration

Willing Sniper

What about Viagra? Do you have the same views on it?

You can worship but only if it conforms to the Federal Governments views on how you should worship.

Willing Sniper: "Sex is an elective activity, and your neighbor should not be asked to pay for your sex with their tax dollars, or higher insurance costs."

Then why do I have to pay for men's erectile dysfunction treatment, viagra, etc?

Why do I have pay for wars I don't want? Corporate welfare? Your uninsured emergency medical treatment?

Why?

I now love that word, too! I love watching Cspan, contrary to an assumption some right nut(he only has one haha) telling me yesterday in his rant that I obviously only read/watch MSNBC. Now, if he reads this he will probably try and tell me that Cspan is operated/owned by them, too. But, I digress......the Repubs are great at causing an uproar and outrage within so that they can put the fear into their "flock". I have read a few posts on here about people(Dems) who have been discussing with their republican friends what the Repubs are trying to do to this country and many Repubs are afraid to even vote for Romney or Santorum. You are not REQUIRED to vote your party in the general election. Don't feel like you are betraying your party, because they betrayed you a number of years ago! Vote Obama!

@ Erin: Word. You poor guys that can't get your sails up, how about we take away your access to those magical blue pills some of you pop like mints? Put the shoe on the other foot. Not so good, huh?

AlaskaGirl,

And as we all know, birth control pills can be used as a generic hormone treatment. Whether it is for ovarian cysts, acne, endometriosis, etc. Viagra has one purpose and one purpose only: sex.

Actually federal EEOC law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The federally protected classes are:age, disability, genetic information, national origin, race/color, pregnancy, religion, sex.

Lisa

You are absolutely right on! It's another way for the Republicans, backed by wealthy employers, to take away another benefit from employees, even though the employees pay into this benefit more and more each year. I'm extremely disappointed in the three Democrat senators who voted yes for this amendment - they are just trying to get re-elected and it shows they have no beliefs of their own they will stand on.

We, Dems and Independents, must band together and get the word out and take action against the Republicans' political tyranny. We must take to the election booth in November and let them know that we mean business! We have to do whatever each of us can do to help get our president back in for another four years. Otherwise, we will ALL be so totally screwed.

Obama/Biden 2012 YES WE WILL!

Helluva fundraising tool for the DNC. How'd you like to be a Republican "moderate" running for office now? You can't even with the Catholic WOMEN.

Seriously, I'm appalled it wasn't defeated by 90 to 9.

Yeah, agreed! I think a few of our peeps may have to answer for that one come November as I think I read that the Dems that voted for, come up for re-election this November.

Dave Broom, so true and am amazed that it was an amendment to a transportation bill.

Yeah, they want to transport us all to hell!

It was not settled in the 60s , abortion rights were !

Well Said! Thank You!

Takes the issue of birth control/personhood all to a new meaning. Down children, heart deformity children, etc born at birth with these problems will all be pre-existing and probably will not be covered under the Health Care that the TP/Republicans want.

Everyone should rethink what is being passed. At the rate it is going, insurance will still be receiving their premiums, they just won't cover anything.

Given that the church-going population is heading the way of the dodo, the party is pretty much signing their own death sentence by pandering to the extremists in such a public way.

There are only two options: modernize, or become obsolete. So far they have been choosing the later, just like most christian denominations.

You don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

The guy directly above me that is. The other guy is full of ___too though.