Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLetter to the editor:
Contraception a clear policy matter
Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
An interesting battle in the culture war leading up to November’s elections is whether the Catholic Church should be compelled to pay for contraceptive services provided to Catholic and non-Catholic women who are covered under the church’s health care plans for nonreligious activities (for example, hospital workers). This is not a First Amendment issue. It’s a public policy issue.
As a public policy issue, the answer couldn’t be clearer. If contraception is a basic right, then all women covered by employer-provided health care insurance should receive contraceptive services as part of the package. If contraception is not a basic right, then no women should receive contraceptive services as part of their employer-provided health care package. The same public policy logic pertains to medicines for erectile dysfunction and insomnia, and even to operations for nonlife-threatening hernias and breast augmentations. If all these aforementioned conditions and illnesses are not basic rights, then patients should pay for them out of their own pockets.
Our elected officials can huff and puff about what health care activities constitute basic medical rights and which do not. Then the public will decide whether to return these huffing-and-puffing officials to office or replace them at the next election. But a single definition of a basic medical right must apply to all. There cannot be a policy that applies to some women but not to all women. Who the employer happens to be is immaterial. Only the public policy is.
Discussion: 50 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Olivia Culpo, 20, of Rhode Island is crowned 2012 Miss USA at Planet Hollywood
- US Navy hopes stealth ship answers a rising China
- Photos: Derek Hough celebrates 27th birthday at Tabu Ultra Lounge
- Learning about fans of the Electric Daisy Carnival will help Las Vegas court them long-term
- More than 43,000 have voted early in Clark County
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
"But a single definition of a basic medical right must apply to all."
This was big government over-reach pure and simple. Obama forgot that this is not a communist country. You don't dictate to religious institutions to accept a position or offer a service/product which is against their religious beliefs. Obama needs to stop acting like a dictator.
I found religious freedom in the constitution as a basic right
I found the right to life in the constitution as a basic right.
I did not find the day after abortion pill in the constitution as a basic right
Obama has demanded that contrary to their religious faith that all religious organization must pay for abortions, sterilizations, the after sex pill, rubbers and the pill as part of Obamacare.
We all remember the promise that Obama made to get Obamacare passed - and now he has flip flopped
Letter writer is off focus. The issue is that the Gov't is 'forcing' Catholic institutions to provide services that violate the tenets of their beliefs. AND AND if they don't will be fined steeply for failure to do so. Double whammy.
Gov't will, cave. By contrast, the Romney gaffes pale in comparison.
Carmine A. DiFazio
The next step for Obama is population control mandates - like the China one child policy?
If Obama wanted this Democrats like Pelosi should have made it so the federal government paid direct. Why go through insurance companies
There is a larger question here. As a small business owner, my premium for mediocre health coverage was recently raised to $ 577 / mo.
I discovered I could buy the same policy I had from the same company for $ 150 / month less if I was a 'new' customer instead of one that had had my policy for over 2 years.
I said ok, I'll cancel my policy and sign up again as a 'new' customer. I was told I'd have to wait 90 days to do that.
I found another company that quoted me $ 430 / mo for similar coverage, so I cancelled and went with the new company. They then 'rated me up' to $ 496 / mo. due to medication I take for elevated blood pressure and cholesterol (both fully controlled and in normal ranges.
I am not a supporter of the Affordable Health Care Act, in part because I do think it is unconstitutional to force Americans to purchase Health Care insurance. But as important to me is the fact that I don't think the legislation will control costs and if it does, it will do so mostly by restricting services.
To R's and Conservatives I say this: Stop claiming we have a good health care insurnace system. We don't. It is outragously expensive, fraught with administrative waste and terribly non competitive. Do something about that other than trash Obamacare or watch socialized medicine come to America.
To D's I say. The Affordable Health Care act is terrible legislation that will not do what was promised and is probably unconstitutional. Go back to the drawing board and come back with legislation that really does control costs and makes health care insurance more affordable and do not force every single American to buy insurance some Americans simply don't want to pay for.
Michael
Opposition to contraception is more an issue of of Catholic Bishops than it is of members of the Catholic Church. Most American Catholics use or have used contraception regardless of the church teaching. Those that follow the church teaching are under no obligation to use contraception against their will.
Protestant and Jewish institutions are under the same obligation to insure contraception to those that want it.
If I oppose a war on religious grounds, I am not relieved of the obligation to pay taxes that support that war.
If, to some, this seems like the Federal Government imposing its will, it could be equally viewed as Catholic Bishops attempting to impose theirs.
ObamaCrap was shoved down America's throat.
Obama is so ashamed of it that he rarely mentions it in his speeches.
This is ObamaCrap being crammed down the throats of religious workers and trappling on their freedom of religion.
This is exhibit A of why people hate big government power grab on health care.
You have a select few in DC making decisions for everyone and cramming it down everyone's throat.
ObamaCrap has to go!!!!!!!!
ObamaCare lowered my monthly health premium $100 a month for me and my wife. as far as the catholics pissing and moaning over contraception, its about time they left the 19th century and entered the 21st.
Even Tim Kaine, the former DNC chairman, has split with Obama on the forced contraception coverage issue:
"I think the White House made a good decision in including a mandate for contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act insurance policy, but I think they made a bad decision in not allowing a broad enough religious- employer exemption,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-p...
Its very simple. This issue is not about contraception. It is about religious freedoms. It is un constitutional for the Presient to dictate to any religion what it must do. If a Catholic woman wants to use these devices, she can go to any planned parenthood office and get one. According to dipstick the Catholic religion must change its teachings. Typical Liberal talking point. They think that if you don't believe what they do then your are stupid. They cram thier ideas down your throat because they think they know best. Well in this case dennis get off your liberal high horse my friend. There are 65 million Catholics in this country, me being one, and although I personally don't have a problem with a woman using contraceptive devices, President is way of base on this one. Hell Biden and Axelrod even advised him not to do it, along with several Democrats in Congress. This type of thinking by President Obama again shows his total disregard for the Constitution.
chuck; im a lapsed catholic who has personnally seen and experienced the hypocrisy of the catholic church. they waste too much time on taking away womens rights than they do protecting the younger flock from predators like their priests.
How to respond to RefNV's completely uninformed first comment?
It was completely within the constitution for such rule making to happen. Organizations who employ the general public must abide by the law, especially when it benefits the public as a whole, as it clearly does here.
Communism is simple name calling when you don't have clue what it is and how this rule making does not fit. This leads me to conclude that you desperately need to learn how to think.
Can you answer the question of how many states already mandate such coverage? Four states do so without bowing to any primitive religious mythology.
The Church has a choice: it can take public money and provide the services required of all who take public money or it can refuse public money and do as it wishes.
Michael Casler; I'm really surprised at you stating, "Do not force every single American to buy insurance some Americans simply don't want to pay for."
Really? So, when these Americans get sick the tax payers have to pay for them? Look at the "red ink" UMC (University Medical Center) is under. People without insurance that UMC is forced to admit, and treat, many of these people never pay for their incurred medical expenses. It makes no sense. We live in a country where having automobile insurance is mandatory, but having medical insurance is not? The high costs of individual medical insurance quotes that you are receiving is due to the fact of the millions of Americans who do not take the personal responsibility and buy / purchase medical insurance. The Las Vegas Sun recently featured a woman on food stamps and unemployment whose life, as the Sun posed, is so difficult, financially. However, she sure did have some primo looking nail work on her fingers, a dashing hairstyle, and a sizable diamond ring on her finger. Probably, if she prioritized her life necessities appropriately, she would not be in the boat she is in now. Michael, maybe the same bit of advice would apply to you?
I'm certainly not for "ObamaCare". However, in your case, as a small business owner, have you ever embraced the idea of applying for group employer rates on medical insurance from joining forces with other small businesses who are members of the local Chamber of Commerce? Although, your business would have to be licensed and bonded. Its none of my business whether or not your business is licensed and bonded. However, there are small business owners who have much lower medical insurance rates than what you are currently paying. Maybe you just need to explore other options that you have not become aware of pertaining to the present.
Now, back to the main article. The dilemma is simple. The boundaries of separation of church and state have clearly been compromised by the Obama administration. The law of the land is not disputable or lawfully superseded by any President. Mr. Obama has no executive privilege to override enactments of binding law.
If we want to continue with an employer based health care system, them ALL employers must follow the same rules.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. This law is not forcing Catholics to use birth control.
The First Amendment also says that no religion shall be respected. All laws deemed in the best interest for the public welfare of the citizenry must be applied equally.
No employer has the right to pick and choose what laws they want to abide by. The same must be said of religious organizations doing business in this country.
I was against the stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We decided as a country to go to war regardless of my protest and others. We still supported our troops and paid our taxes to fund the wars.
Why?
Because we are Americans. This is supposed to be a democracy. When a majority decision was made, we moved as one.
As a society, we know contraception is for the good of women in our society. We as a majority support this.
In my opinion, the Catholic church is lucky to get an exemption at all, because if it was left up to me, they would not get one.
What a mistake Americans made in 2008 when we elected a liberal as President. Gas prices up. Unemployment up. deficit spending up. Debt up. An added entitlement when we can't afford the ones we have. No budget. No long-term plan to reign in debt & deficits. No certainty for consumers to spend and businesses to invest. Now, Obama, through Obamacare, is imposing the model of three very liberal states -- New York, Oregon, and Vermont -- on the entire country forcing a contraceptive policy against the religious beliefs of Catholics. Liberals tried unsuccessfully to ban male circumcision in San Fransisco last year. If they were successful, would that policy eventually become a policy mandated by Obamacare? I can't wait until November when this liberal will finally be voted out of office. The end of error.
The Emperor has no clothes! dipstick revealed! "It saved me & my wife $100 a month," sayeth the Emperor proudly as he struts about in his glorious birthday suit. And that, according to Emperor dipstick is what really counts. The Imperial dipstick saves money as someone else foots the bill and his free ride continues. But enough about that free-loader! In reality, this mandate is neither about women's health nor religious freedom. It's about the expansion of power and control by an out-of-control federal government run by a megalomaniac CEO and his fellow travelers. Let's face it, all these women the megalomaniac is "protecting" are receiving paychecks on a regular basis. The "pill" is an elective choice and "electives" are not covered by health insurance. If they want to take the "pill," these women can afford the 30 or so bucks a month. It's simply not necessary for the megalomanic or any other government drone to mandate it be covered by insurance. I don't think it's even Constitutional. But I hope it opens the eyes of Catholic's to the broader picture as to what the megalomanic is up to and they soundly reject him come November. Not just for Catholic's, but for all freedom loving American citizens!
One thing that I have noticed in present form political history is the fact that Tea/Republicans, ALL OF THEM, seem to think they are in charge of women issues.
And they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to legislate stuff that centers around womens anatomy in the vicinity between the bellybutton and the knees.
I can't speak for them, but I would surmise that women all across the U.S. are thinking this is stupid, they have the choice to do what they want with their bodies, and who are these yay hoos that all act like they know what they're talking about when they demonstrate no one would even trust them to fix a clogged toilet?
If you step back and look at it, why the hell is the issue of birth control coming up? When it was decided upon decades ago?
You leave it up to Tea/Republicans, women should all be wearing nun outfits and the only birth control they are allowed to participate in is "the aspirin between the knees" method, abstaining from sex FOREVER.
I'm pretty sure a woman, upon her next doctor's visit, don't want to sit in a room talking with her doctor and, visible just over his shoulder are pictures of Representative Boehner (R-OH) and Senator McConnell (R-KY).
Pretty creepy thought, if you ask me.
Anyways, I don't see any effort to trample all over religious rights. I know the Catholic church don't look at it like that.
Ah, but the main issue is that...IT'S POLITICAL. You got creepy "Man On Dog Sex" Santorum all of a sudden sees an opening and jumps in with both feet with his nutball vision of a Victorian era America, that don't take into account any changes AT ALL.
If this weren't the silly season (political elections upcoming), this would be verified to be a total non-issue. And you wouldn't see Tea/Republicans jumping up and down screaming in mock rage.
Nice try, Tea/Republicans. You just showed your true stripes and have proven to the American public how out of touch you are. Especially trying to go back over already trodden ground.
Lastly, why is Speaker Boehner spending massive amounts of time in the House on this issue? When he should be addressing other important issues that America faces right now that are essentially time sensitive and should be addressed SOONEST? Out of touch Tea/Republican policies are now the norm in this useless, proven to do nothing, 112th Congress. They follow the beat of their drum only. It drowns out the howls of protest from their own constituents. We'd be better off if they were still on vacation.
I am appaled with the utter disdain that I see the liberal bashing of religious freedoms.
The disdain that liberals have for religious institutions and religious figures in the hopes of forcing abortion pills on the poor in a misguided attempt to mandate population control is diabolical at best and wrong.
Colin,
How can you live in America and say what you just said?
There are a large number of Americans that believe abortion should be legal (I am one of them). I don't like abortions and wish men and women would take more responsibility so unwanted pregnancies don't happen, but that will probably happen when pigs fly.
There is another large group of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal because it involves taking an innocent life that has no say in the matter. I can sympathize with that view as well.
Right now abortion is legal and alot of people like that and alot of people don't. Both sides will continue to do whatever they can (fair or unfair) to get the law to say what they believe is right and to force people to conform to their view.
That's what this is all about. I don't know where all the stuff you spout comes from.
Michael
"As a public policy issue, the answer couldn't be clearer. If contraception is a basic right, then all women covered by employer-provided health care insurance should receive contraceptive services as part of the package."
Soloway -- you wish it was so clear. Just because something is labeled "basic right" doesn't mean government has the authority to force parties to private contracts into it.
"The Church has a choice: it can take public money and provide the services required of all who take public money or it can refuse public money and do as it wishes."
lericgoodman -- you took the words right off my post. If no public $$ is accepted then public authority is limited. That's basic contract law.
"The law of the land is not disputable or lawfully superseded by any President. Mr. Obama has no executive privilege to override enactments of binding law."
BChap -- your rant about the uninsured aside, good point. But it's hardly just the current White House resident. All government everywhere is ignoring the Rule of Law with absolute impunity and conducting itself as being above the law. It does it because it can. Who's going to stop them? Certainly not this herd.
"One thing that I have noticed in present form political history is the fact that Tea/Republicans, ALL OF THEM, seem to think they are in charge of women issues."
Colin -- you can only wish it was just one political party. In case you haven't noticed all government everywhere is in overdrive making sure we all know it's in charge of all of us on all issues.
"Indifference to personal liberty is but the precursor of the State's hostility to it." -- United States v. Penn, 647 F.2d 876 (9th Circuit, 1980), Judge Kennedy dissenting
My words were twisted around to suit an agenda.
I'm talking about the issue at hand: Birth control and contraception.
All of a sudden, it's twisted around that I'm in favor of abortion and I conduct them in my garage for free.
Gimme a break. I really didn't intend to sound a dog whistle.
And I beg to differ, KillerB. From what I see on the news regarding this recent debacle, the Tea/Republican Party, and ONLY the Tea/Republican Party members, are shoving this out there.
Far as I'm concerned, people want it, go for it. Those that don't and believe it impinges on their freedom, then they aren't required to participate.
It's called voluntary.
BUT NO. The Tea/Republican Party wants their odd ball ideas on EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not.
I just can't believe how much time is being spent on non-issues like this.
One more thing....
All I see is the Federal Government is trying to take a common sense approach to a womens' health issue.
But the Tea/Republicans in power have turned it into nothing but a political issue designed to attack President Obama, Senator Reid, Representative Pelosi, and anyone else they feel they can go after.
A basic right that should be instituted to help with womens' issues has all of a sudden been turned political.
All indications show it rests with this Tea/Republican Party nutball agenda where their only idea they have is to continually confront and cause constant chaos. People are seeing through this stupidity. They are making an issue of something only for their own gains. I say it's not going to work.
I agree with Michael, both parties need to revamp Obama care. I pay my own health ins and it is outrageous, and they will cancel me in a couple months because they are shutting down the "group", it sucks anyway because nobody takes my insurance now. I will be lucky O care will allow me to buy replacement ins ( at the same high cost) because I have some existing condition, mostly because my crappy ins won't fix it. I am glad this is available, but the overall program needs to be better, I do not think the Government should make the church do something that is against their religion, no matter how stupid it is unless it is a real safety health issue.
Frank, I guess Mitt and Barack have some common ground, neither are true natural born citizens, Mitt Romney his father Mexican ( I assume that is why you call him Mexican Mitt) and Barack Obama his father a British subject from Kenya. How come you do not refer to Obama as Kenyan Barack?
More Catholic hypocrisy.
Colin,
I wasn't attacking you. I was trying to point out that issues like this one are connected to the abortion issue and both sides will use just about any excuse or method to get what they want. To me, this is a side issue compared to the economy, jobs and the debt.
As an aside, one big disadvantage of having a Federal Government this big and this powerful is that groups, such as the Pro Life or Right to Choose group will attempt to use the powerful hand of the Federal Government to 'force' an agenda on everyone.
This is why I find it hard to understand that so many Americans want more and more government. I understand we need some government but this much is too much.
Michael
Peter,
I see you're in a similar boat to the one I am in. I pity us both. The present system stinks and the Affordable Health Care Act isn't going to make it better.
Michael
I like your Christ, but I do not like your christians. Your christians are so unlike your Christ.------gandhi
Lot of Christians In Name Only (CINOs) infest this troubled old planet. I have contempt for CINOs, but not for Jesus the Christ and any/all real Christians.
Contraception and the services that go with it are very minor issue because the services are cheap and can be purchased at nearly every medical facility and clinic across the country. A much bigger issue is the skyhigh price we pay for medical care and the implosion of the entire system. Record numbers of doctors and dentists are going bankrupt. 92 million Americans are getting their medical care from Medicare and Medicaid at an enormous cost to taxpayers. Of the 63 trillion in unfunded liabilities going forward over 55 trillion of that is medical care.
There are about 5700 hospitals in the United States. Less than 1000 are still making money. Most of those have to do with plastic surgery and specialty care.
I was involved in the medical field for decades. In the 1980s I helped create some of the first ERISA medical trusts for the Santa Monica Police Department, Beverly Hills Police Department and Torrance Police Department. In the mid-1980s the super composite for family health insurance plan was $89 a month. It's currently approaching $1500 a month. People are paying more for medical care than they're paying for their homes.
The affordable care act is going to allow people to buy insurance in the individual marketplace that never had the opportunity before. It is also going to dramatically expand individual insurance coverage and reduce dependence on the employer. A great deal more needs to be done to control costs.
President and his Admin will back pedal/reverse current stance on the anti-Catholic policies of the HHS law: Forcing Catholic organizations to pay for birth control and abortion drugs. Infringement of religious liberty.
All the rest of the above is just filler for the inevitable. It will be rescinded for Catholic organizations. Do I hear any "nays?"
Carmine A. DiFazio
the above contributor states that he pays an elevated insurance premium due to his controlled high blood pressure. In many states that would be an automatic exclusion under the old law. He wouldn't be able to buy insurance at any price. When I retired to Nevada I had to purchase insurance in the individual market and still do. I had to provide three years worth of medical records prior to approval.
Providing insurance to healthy people and forcing sick people to go bankrupt and then sign up for Medicaid is hardly an efficient way to do things. Two thirds of all bankruptcies have a medical component and the country is looking at over $150 trillion in medical bills over the next few decades. That will take the starch out of people's wallets.
Dipstick posted: I like your Christ, but I do not like your christians. Your christians are so unlike your Christ.------gandhi
Gandhi sure had it nailed.
Christians can't prevent pregnancies, but they can execute living people without a problem.
I have to agree with the premise of the article. We either decide that healthcare is a basic right and enforce that or we go back to the broken system of taxpayers paying for non insured peoples healthcare and pretend that we don't.
There are many things that the government requires of us in laws and regulations as a matter of safety and financial responsibility. Everyone that drives a car is required to have insurance. It is the government compelling you to buy insurance. It is for everyones safety and financial security to do this. So then why is it wrong to compel people to cover their health needs with mandatory insurance coverage? I have been driving for more than 30 years and never had an accident that required insurance to pay out. Yet I have been covered for it the entire time! Does anyone think they will never need medical services ever? You are more likely going to see a Doctor than you are going to get in a car accident every year!
If they do need it just like car insurance they will have coverage and the rest of us will not be on the hook to pay for it! This idea that compelling people to buy insurance has already been played out and proven in the car insurance laws. Its not a big deal! Do the R's that complain about this drive without insurance? Would they want to drive without insurance? Would they like the tax payers to pick up the bill for uninsured motorists like we do in Health care?
Many may say this is a bad comparison because driving is a choice. I say this makes the mandate for health insurance even more correct. If we require insurance for a voluntary act then we should certainly require it for an involuntary act like being alive! Since you can't decide not to be sick then you should be insured for the health needs that we all will require throughout our lives. The insurance just like car insurance, protects not just the insured person but the other people in this country from being financially responsible for that person in the event of a healthcare need! Just like I have payed 30 years of car insurance without an accident some may pay 30 years of health insurance with out needing to make a claim, but when the big claim happens and was unexpected (cancer, pregnancy, etc) the insurance is there to cover you and protect the rest of us from picking up your tab!
Personal responsibility is the cattle call of the R's yet when it comes to mandating it some how it becomes a choice?
Federal government collectivism, all or none, and one-size fits all decision-making is bound to cause upheaval with groups no matter what the subject or issue. For example, 40% of union members vote republican. So is it fair for the unions to use some of the union dues to fund political campaigns for candidates whom the union members may not support? Liberty and choice is a great thing however, the Obama administration has proven time and time again that they and their liberal backers want to strip us of our freedom and liberty.
Listen to Big Government Talking: "The Church has a choice: it can take public money and provide the services required of all who take public money or it can refuse public money and do as it wishes."
Once they take over everything then they will tell you how to talk, walk, sleep, eat, drink and even breathe.
Obama and his lib pals..........dump them.
This issue has sent the extremists on the right scurrying for their anti-depressants...
Who's paying for all THAT???
I'm sure this is a prelude to forced contraception and mandatory 'Morning After' pills (and Abortions, if all else fails) for all non-communists at the new Internment Camps being readied right this moment by Obama's FEMA people...
Here's the problem for the radical righties...
a majority of Americans, and a majority of Catholics, support the White House policy.
Hey, how 'bout that Future...
"Obama has demanded that contrary to their religious faith that all religious organization must pay for abortions, sterilizations, the after sex pill, rubbers and the pill as part of Obamacare."
Hyperbole, thy name is Future.
"if the bishops genuinely can't stomach contraceptive coverage, their solution is simple: Don't take government money.
Condoms. Or cash.
Their choice."
"The 1968 papal ban on birth control shocked even many bishops (hundreds worldwide railed against it)."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columni...
A book recommendation for today's TeaPublican;
Dale Carnegie
How to Win Friends & Influence People.
Man, they're coming out of the woodwork for this one -- communist, dictator, megalomaniac, obamacrap, population control, diabolical... And of course, there's the inflammatory misinformation Future continues to spout about mandated abortions and abortion pills, which isn't true, but that never gets in the way of his comments.
I agree with Henry Soloway. This is a public policy and civil rights issue. It brings to mind those occasional stories about spare-the-rod fundamentalists who believe it's ok to abuse children for disciplinary purposes. Personally, I cannot understand the dark-ages thinking of religious zealots who would deny reproductive freedom to women, or why any woman would support such oppressive and discriminating attitudes. Maybe keeping women barefoot and pregnant is a free-market ploy to guarantee a steady supply of consumers. Besides being a misogynist, god is one clever capitalist.
I guess big-religion is ok, but big-government is not. It's archaic, and more than a little chauvinistic.
Rock...Obama doesn't do that but the church sure as hell dictates what people can and can't do. Religious doctrine is so strict that even those who practice aren't without sin. When I was growing up I think Catholics were required to eat fish on Fridays. Talk about telling people what to do. Many hate fish!
You can argue the "pros" and "cons" of the HHS law for forcing Catholic organizations under penalty of law and fines to provide at no cost sterilzation, abortion and morning after pills to women, Catholic/non-Catholic, who want/ask. It's a moot issue now. Why?
Politics trumps morality and legality every time and all the time for election year strategy [aka winning/losing potential votes].
White House doesn't want a war with Catholic Bishops and 35 million voting Catholics in a presidential election year. Period. End of story.
Carmine A. DiFazio
@zippert1: No Catholics weren't required to eat fish on Friday. Just not eat meat. And as far as religious beliefs, Catholics aren't anymore strict than several other religions.
By the way nobody is without sin.
@bimerdude; I think that we should all agree that we either follow the Constitution or we don't. This is what the issue is truly about.
"When I was growing up I think Catholics were required to eat fish on Fridays. Talk about telling people what to do. Many hate fish!"
The religious tradition is called "Abstinence," or not eating meat. A fish is the symbol for the practice. And only up through Vatican 2, after which the practice was changed. Catholics can eat meat but must perform some other form of sacrifice on Friday in lieu for doing so.
With Lent, the period of 40 days prior to Easter, abstinence is followed by practicing Catholics for the Fridays of Lent and Ash Wednesay and Good Friday: aka, not eating meat.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Ah, the latest faux controversy: the contraception issue: it's completely manufactured by the right wing. See, something the lackeys on the right don't want you to know?
"In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today--and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally--but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too."
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...
That's right... December of 2000. This was the defacto policy under the Bush administration, yet the right said NOTHING about "religious liberty" when their own party sanctioned forcing Catholic hospitals to offer birth control. Why did it take 12 years for Mittens and the rest of the GOP to read their own policies? Complete and total ignorance?
"a majority of Americans, and a majority of Catholics, support the White House policy."
Huh? Says who?
1st, the majority of Americans considering themselves to be pro-life as oppose to pro-choice.
2nd, there are no polls that say anything about people being for ObamaCrap forcing churhes to spend money on abortions, sterilizations, the after sex pill, rubbers . Can anybody cite one single poll there?
3rd, there are plenty of polls that say the majority are against ObamaCare.
So please.....let's take to the election this ObamaCrap forcing Catholic churches to spend money on abortions, sterilizations, the after sex pill, rubbers.....yes I am game for that.
Yes I am willing to bet where the votes especially Catholic Dems might vote on that. I am willing to bet that a whole heck of them might have voted for Obama and now will not.
Yes let's proceed.
"By the way nobody is without sin."
"Scripture says that even the upright fall seven times -- that is, everyone is weak and imperfect --then helping others and allowing them to help us see the whole truth about ourselves is a great service. In other words [said by Pope Benedict XV1, "we must not remain silent before evil."
Carmine A. DiFazio
I agree with Sgt Rock and point out that polls do not preempt principles. When it comes to fad, go with the flow: polls. When it comes to principles: stand firm regardless of public opinion.
Politics, as the issue has morphed into, supercedes fad and principles [sad but true].
Carmine A. DiFazio
From a purely pragmatic view conservatives should be in favor of anything that helps prevent unwanted pregnancies and the corresponding increase to the welfare rolls and prison population.
"Why did it take 12 years ...for the GOP to read their own policies? Complete and total ignorance?"
The answer to your question is contained in the article you linked and referenced. You missed it. I excerpted for you and posted here.
"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known"and it hasn't been uniformly enforced."
Carmine A. DiFazio
A PS: And of course the HHS law now, unlike the EEOC from Dec 2000, mandates for employers with less than 15 employees too.
Carmine A. DiFazio
There is nothing new about government telling a church what they can and can not do. Ask the Mormons.
U S Military distributed condoms to all troops, including Catholics, as far back as WWII
Latest Poll: Voters Oppose Obamacare's Contraception Mandate 50% to 39%
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rasm...
be patient. the only poll that counts is in november.
Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage...
A majority (55%) of Americans agree that "employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost." Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
There are major religious, generational and political divisions:
Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/...
If the religious or faith-based institutions/organizations want to talk about women's health care issues or any social issues for that matter, let them first remove their tax-exempt status and return all federal monies rec'd from block grants, then come back and knock on the door. You can't have your cake and eat it too.....
Reffy,
Would that be THIS Weekly Standard?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...
You know, for once, I almost have to agree with "DumboDuck" political supporter, "DippyDuck".
He states, "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.------Gandhi" Yes. There are a lot of religious hypocrites out here.
As a representative case, former Democratic President John F. Kennedy fits this mold perfectly. President Kennedy took the virginity of a innocent nineteen year old intern, and allegedly did it in the First Lady's bed!!! President Kennedy then forced the young intern to do drugs. President Kennedy first offered the intern the sex drug amyl nitrate and then forced it on her once she declined. Then, as the outrage continues, President Kennedy had the intern, "perform sex acts on one his friends for his own enjoyment. The intern alleges she performed oral sex on a presidential "special assistant" while he, the President, silently watched."
Good point "DippyDuck"!!! Was not your worshipped Democratic President, a publicly devoted Catholic? And, did President Kennedy use contraceptives? Or, did he force his young intern to use them? Or, did the President follow Catholic opposition and not use contraceptives at all? If contraceptives were used in any form in this illicit sexual affair, who paid for these contraceptives? Interesting question I would say.
Glenn Beck thinks it's all part of the plan to cause an "American Spring" this spring. Catholic leaders are already saying that they will take to the streets to protect their religious freedoms, that's 65 million Catholics, add all the other faiths that are now supporting the Catholics and you have 100 million in the streets, throw in a few hundred thousand Occupies and a few hundred thousand more AFL-CIO thugs, mix in a few million Tea Party members and the stage is set! >>>>>>>> http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2...
With millions in the streets and unrest across the country, Obama will be "forced" to implement marshal law and postpone the elections infinitely! This is exactly what he is trying to do!
Is this all crazy talk? If it is, then ask yourself why else would Obama alienate 65 million Catholics in an election year? Why does he support the occupier? We do know why he supports the unions.
Fighting in the streets is Obama's goal, and he needs it to complete his plans! But, if we all know what his plans are, maybe it can be avoided, fighting in the streets is what he wants, we must not give it to him! LOVE is the answer! Glenn Becks Restoring Love event at the Dallas Cowboy Stadium in Dallas on July 28th that will draw 100,000 plus and MILLIONS will be watching. We MUST all respond to the Obama engineered violence with LOVE, it's the only way forward! >>>>> http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/30/rest...
It's going to be a very interesting year!
glenn who?
I understand breast & penis enhancements at no cost will be the next medical "rights" mandated under Obamacare.
Yes,,,,quote a extreme lib group who conduct their own polls.
Public Religion Research Institute is a total 100% kool-aid organization.
Glenn Beck...
Ha ha ha ha!!!
Yes, it's all 'crazy talk'.
Yes, we wouldn't want to trust 'religious' people on this issue, now would we?
If THEY'RE lying, WHY are we having this discussion?
Instead, we should 'trust' Rasmussen polling.
Riiight!!!
This new Federal rule is a copy of rules already in force in 28 states, including NY, CA, OR and Massachusetts where it is part of RomneyCare. The right wing are lying their faces off here.
It gets better. The NY state regulation was tested up to the US Supreme Court and passed review. There is nothing unConstitutional about it.
We now have one consistent national standard here. Good! Overdue.
CNN just ran a story with a poll that says that 55% of all Americans agree with Obama on the contraceptive issue. Among Catholics, the number is 58% agreeing and only 37% against it.
boftx:
Despite the polls, which are meaningless, the WH WILL renege and grant waivers to the Catholic organizations on the latest controversy. Politics preempts principles in an election year.
Carmine A. DiFazio
In answer to the hysterical posting by "tomfranklin", who listens to Glenn Beck . . . I think it is the Catholic Church that has already angered and alienated its own laity on this and many other issues.
Over 90 percent of Catholic women use birth control and most begin this use as teenagers.
Most Catholics are still disgusted at the Vatican over the child abuse scandals and the continuing denialism and coverups by the prelates.
Most people realize that the Vatican is in no position to preach to the human race on moral issues, until they get their own house into better order.
Look at the baggers defend big religion and a system which grants omnipotence and tax exempt status solely based off 'religious freedom' and separation between church and state. I wonder if these hate monger christians-in-name-only would struggle so hardly to defend the same right to...wait for it...Muslims? Because we all saw how hard these 'christians' fought for the right for Muslims to build a Mosque a few blocks from 9/11.
Ah yes, religious hypocrisy. It's ok if it's MY god. Your god sucks and is an evil dictator. Further MY god deserves liberties bestowed up on it above and beyond any other religion, because MY god is right. And your god is evil.
Here is a very simple premise that even the densest ditto-heads can understand - remove the tax exempt status and quit taking money from the gov't, and then your church can do as they please. As long as you suck off the gov't teat, you abide by their rules. But nooooooooooooo......can't have that now can we cons?
Bagger logic. Fascinating.
No religious group or its affiliates should be forced to offer services that violate its own religious beliefs. Women still would have the freedom to use contraceptives, to seek abortions, and to do whatever else their beliefs permit by going to places like Planned Parenthood.
RingofFire:
you are misinformed. The rule does contain exceptions. But the rule applies to large organizations that include employees of varying faiths and it is based on existing law in 28 states and is a copy of the NY State rule that has already been tested all the way to the US Supreme Court.
The administration simply widened it to apply equally to all 50 states.
Sensible, overdue and not worth fussing about.
Within Obamacare, Obama created the definition of religious institutions with liberal criteria which now forces these institutions to offer services & products its beliefs oppose. Catholics and those who believe in religious freedom will be opposed to this government over-reach via Obamacare regulatory fiat.
This contraception issue, and Obama's edict to include Churches to buy into it, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The subject of abortion is also a requirement that the Catholic faith requires a Catholic believer to observe; it is, indeed, a mandate from the Vatican -- and surely, God.
I present three LAWS concerning ABORTION, which Obama (a self-avowed Christian), and Members of Congress (which include Catholics, Protestants, and Jews) have ignored - even before the time "Roe vs. Wade" was decided.
The 1st LAW deals with "Freedom of Religion," as stated in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 2nd LAW concerns EXCOMMUNICATION as written in "Catholic Cannon Law" in 1398, - and reaffirmed by the Vatican in 1988. The 3rd LAW is in the Bible where God says in the Ten Commandments: "Thou Shall Not Kill." (Whether one believes in God or not - doesn't change that the laws exist for people of faith.)
1. U.S. LAW on FREEDOM OF RELIGION - The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that: "The Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"." PERIOD! This covers anybody's religion.
2. ABORTION - FUNDING or AIDING an abortion, and the act itself -- violates Catholic Cannon Law 1398 (as reaffirmed by the Vatican in 1988), which states: "a person incurs AUTOMATIC excommunication as the penalty for abortion..." - for which The Pope can issue NO dispensation. In other words, a violator is excluded from Salvation.
3. In the BIBLE, God says in The Ten Commandments: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." This is NOT A SUGGESTION. And the people of all three faiths mentioned herein believe in what God has written. THAT - consists of a majority of Americans, and major portion of the world.
For those who choose to ignore God's Laws - the impact of such resistance comes at their own risk. BUT, in any case, the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CANNOT MAKE ANY LAW THAT WOULD VIOLATE ANY OF THESE THREE LAWS.
I do not believe that any American would not want our GOVERNMENT to invalidate ANY Church doctrine - which is President Obama's INTENTION. He TOLD the Catholic Church: "either "it's my way or the highway" (paraphrased).
For our 320 million American citizens - the majority of whom believe in a God - I would believe that they would NOT WANT the President or the Congress to be able to write a law or policy that rejects any part of the 3 laws cited above.
Yet, I am sure there are those who would suggest, or seek, a "REASONABLE" compromise. HOWEVER, if you allow the government to overturn the import and thrust of age-old Laws that are still in operation, WHAT would you CONSENT to ALLOW the President or Congress - TO DO NEXT?
We are a "Nation of Laws." Dictating ANY Church's Doctrine is not one of them, AND - an Obama propsal to MANAGE CHURCH PRACTICES was just REJECTED by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9 to 0 vote.
Just think what benefits to the common man/woman/child could be accomplished---indeed, what gains to all humankind would accrue---if only religious dogma were replaced with logical thought.
This argument is about business not religion. It's offering health services to people (who may not be christians) who work for cathiloc organizations not the church.
If the cathiloc church wants to wage a cultural war and be taken seriously, shouldn't they clean up the sexual deviants and rapists working as priests instead of protecting them?
And the Republican party continues its downward spiral in the name of social conservatism.
"By the way, liberals, when did birth control become a part of "health care"?
Shirley, you jest!
You just can't do it, can ya, Joe?
You're incapable of relying on 'facts', and ALWAYS end up resorting to the 'bully' bit...
ALWAYS.
You are a small man, lil' Joe.
The left in this country are so out of touch with reality. Yes this is an afront to a religious belief. But more important why do you accept politicians buying votes at my tax dollar expense. First of all birth control is not a health issue, its a choice, abortion is a choice. How you can say obama has the right to buy votes from women by passing laws or regulations? This is exactly what this man has done. Did they include viagra for free since sex is very healthy? Why not? Did they include penis enlargement for free or sex changes for free? Why not? You and i both know the answer. Women are a large voting block and this man is so arrogant he wants to say, see women what i do for you, now vote for me. Next it will be something free for the blacks, hispanics, asians, whites, homosexuals and each group until he thinks he has enough votes to keep his throne.
"Tell me, gmag, when did becoming pregnant become a health hazard?
Maybe I missed that one......"
I continue to be amazed!
Gogo could try this google search: "mortality rate of pregnant women" but it's two lonely neurons would explode...with complete brain death following.
gogo - "Tell me, gmag, when did becoming pregnant become a health hazard?"
Margaret Sanger saved womens lives through the use of birth control.
If Catholics want an exemption from this policy,
I say let them have it.
Thank God I'm not Catholic.
rich8049......
You right-wingers already lost.
The majority of men and women are on
President Obama's side.
You're living in the dark ages.
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
VernosB shows his utter lack of knowledge as to what Margaret Sanger was really all about. She was for the eradication of the "mud people." In case you are unaware, VernosB, that meant, in her day & age, Negroes. She was an avowed racist and wanted to kill as many Negroes as possible and by aborting their babies, she was accomplishing that goal. That's the history of Planned Parenthood and the emphasis should be on the "hood!" They're still killing an uncountable number of black kids! Sanger must be so proud as she burns in Hell!
Looks like the Catholic Church put their money where their mouth is. Let's see what happens now and how long it will be for the gov't to do the right thing.
"EWTN Taking Obama Administration to Court:
Say Health Care Ruling Provides Only 2 Choices, Both Unacceptable
IRONDALE, Alabama, FEB. 9, 2012. The EWTN Global Catholic Network filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other government agencies, seeking to stop the imposition of a mandate that will force Catholic institutions to pay for contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs in employee health care plans.
EWTN is the first Catholic organization to file suit since the final HHS rules were published by the Obama administration on Jan. 20.
"We had no other option but to take this to the courts," said EWTN President and CEO Michael P. Warsaw in a statement. "Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is being forced by the government to make a choice: either we provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and violate our conscience or offer our employees and their families no health insurance coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable."
The lawsuit was filed on EWTN's behalf by Mark Rienzi, Kyle Duncan and Erik Kniffin from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
"We are taking this action to defend not only ourselves but also to protect other institutions -- Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and secular -- from having this mandate imposed upon them," Warsaw continued. "The government is forcing EWTN, first, to inform its employees about how to get contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs, a concept known as forced speech. To make the matter worse, the government then will force EWTN to use its donors' funds to pay for these same morally objectionable procedures or to pay for the huge fines it will levy against us if we fail to provide health care insurance. There is no question that this mandate violates our First Amendment rights. This is a moment when EWTN, as a Catholic organization, has to step up and say that enough is enough. Our hope is that our lawsuit does just that."
The Becket Fund previously filed similar lawsuits on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a small Catholic liberal arts college in Belmont, North Carolina, and Colorado Christian University, an interdenominational Christian liberal arts university near Denver. Both suits were filed prior to the HHS rules being finalized in January."
Carmine A. DiFazio
A PS to my post above:
EWTN is the Eternal Word Television Network. It is a Catholic TV network founded over 25 years ago by Mother Angelica, a Catholic nun, and managed and run by the Franciscan Order of Catholic monks/priests.
It's a wonderful channel, on cable, and viewed by all persons not just those who are Catholic.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"You right-wingers already lost.
The majority of men and women are on
President Obama's side."
Eastwood is a Republican AND Catholic.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Not sure if anyone sees this, but I'll point it out.
All indications show this issue happened about two and a half weeks ago.
Back then, no controversy came from it.
But suddenly, the Tea/Republican Party realized something. They tested the political winds and decided to go to this social conservative issue for political gain.
They realized they have lost the high ground regarding foreign policy to President Obama and his recent successes around the world. And this absolutely enfuriates them to no end. Because they believe to their souls it was sacred territory for them. At least ever since 1972.
They also have realized the Tea/Republican Party efforts to ensure the economy remains tanked in hopes they will reap benefits from it in the November 2012 elections is not going to work neither. Because President Obama did an end around to their despicable efforts by taking it straight to the American people. All of his efforts show he wants America to succeed, while the other side of the aisle only wants failure...so they can move in.
This issue is all that's left. So they decided to hit it. AND HIT IT HARD. Their right wing hate machine at Fox News is going full blast right now trying to spin this, not to mention that racist bastard Rush Limbaugh is offering his help too. And this is a perfect thing to throw out there at the mindless and meaningless CPAC Conference.
The Tea/Republican politicians in power are going absolutely bonkers about a non-issue.
But, in light of the above, they don't realize this further reduces the neo-conservative mess that the Tea/Republican Party is composed of nowadays to the likelihood they will self-destruct. The American people don't see this insanity they are throwing out there. And I guarantee they have just rendered a large voting block of people to nothingness to vote ever again for them. The women. They see what is going on. And I'm pretty sure they don't like a bunch of creepy Tea/Republicans mandating what they should do with their bodies, and while they are doing it, they use religion to do it. This makes them now despicable.
The Tea/Republicans don't see it though. All they see is blind hatred. All they want is continual confrontation and constant chaos.
You ask me, I see only desperation.
But after they have lost the message, this is all they got anymore.
Well it seems now that President Obama will today at 9:15AM Pacific time will announce that he is back peddling on this issue. Smart move Mr. President.
I applaud the President for making an accomodation regarding this issue.
I still think the whole thing is a non-issue that was more overblown for Tea/Republican Party political purposes though. In the whole process they perhaps have worked against themselves by completely throwing away the American women vote. Oh well. To them, it's just another group of people to demonize and marginalize. If they ain't rich, they don't matter. Another day in the topsy turvy world of the bastardized form of nutball conservatism they've morphed into. Anyways, the main thing President Obama accomplished is he fixed a controversy and also yanked the rug from out under the ultra-conservatives and their newest made up crisis issue where they continually pound out he's not one of us, he never will be, hate him, hate him, he's Godless, he's not a Christian, he's a Kenyan colonialist Muslim, he's a socialist commie who hates his mommie, HATE HIM!. Good luck with that bull puckey. Didn't work before and STILL won't work now.
Now the Tea/Republican candidates for the Presidency can resume going back to slapping each other silly in their continual fight to get further and further and further and further to the right of each other all the time.
"I applaud the President for making an accomodation regarding this issue."
Smart political move is all. No applause needed. Evene his own people told him it was a BIG mistake.
I used condoms. Am I going to hell?
And don't call me Shirley.
Notice our great spiritual leaders are hitting the warpath to bring children into the world that will not be fed, clothed or educated properly.
The reason for this is quite a bit different then 'reverence' to god. If one religion can outnumber the others, it can walk over the top of them and maintain control. Under those conditions, people who aren't a member of the 'correct' religion may soon find themselves outcasts, then without houses and food.
The only way a religion can force it's dogma on everyone is to gain a majority, hence bring as many children into the world as possible and hope that a large number of them will mature and fight for the Church. This is not reverence to any Spirit but rather, a reverence to the religion thought.
This is a characteristic of all religions, except for those unique examples that operate out of Drive-In Movie lots in California. This is the only variety of religion where a person can go to Church in their pajamas, drink their orange juice during the service and not become an outcast. Glory Hallelujah!