Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Catholic Church vows to take Obama fight to the streets

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 7, 2012, 6:07 p.m. EST by amerman (26)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The Catholic Church is up in arms about the latest directive coming down from the DHHS that forces Catholic institutions, such as schools & hospitals, to provide health insurance that includes birth control and abortion meds like the morning after pill. This has Catholics and several other religious organizations standing up against the administration for an obvious government overreach on religious freedom.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

I'm a catholic orderly in a catholic hospital - and I am divorced - they refuse to give me insurance - ( just a thought )
Can anyone tell me specifically where are the rights of religions enumerated in the constitution?
If my religion tells me to burn a Jew ( like it did in Spain in 1492 ) is that a good thing?
If my religion tells me to teach my children lies about science is that a good thing?
If my religion teaches children to always trust a priest is that a good thing ?

God weeps - virtually all religions preach the same thing - my way is the only way
Do you really belive that is what He wants for us ?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

Nobody forces you to worship. If you don't like the Dogma leave.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

I have the freedom to constitutionally worship what I want
A church has no rights to force its beliefs on me
98% of catholic women have used birth control
they know this issue is BS

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

No body is forcing you to worship at that church.If you like it stay if you do not Leave.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

the constitution is there to protect ME
not protect my church

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

Buddhism teaches none of that.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

Some forms of Buddhism, I believe, can be rather dogmatic. Tibetan Buddhism, for example, suppressed modernization to the extent that it resulted in a medieval society existing up to the 1950s.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

Interesting way to look at it. Not all of us agree with that. And please, what forms of Buddhism are dogmatic?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

Based on its opposition to progress, I would suppose that Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama's sect, was dogmatic. It was an oligarchical system that didn't want to allow its serfs to make progress.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

"Progress "must be judged by a Western Model? Really? Perhaps you need to re think what is progress. Not everyone in the world thinks that the Occidental idea of progress is the way to happiness. After all, look at the shape we are in.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

But we haven't been making much progress lately, our system, like the Tibetan oligarchy has turned progress back in many ways. NASA and other science programs are being de-funded these days.

The Tibetan lamas had their own kind of Wall Street scam also. They did a kind of loan sharking that got their serfs so deep into debt that they could never get out, and, I think, passed the debt on to their children.

If you are not familiar with the abuses of Tibetan Buddhism, check out Friendly Feudalism:

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

by Michael Parenti.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

I am not defending modern Tibetan Buddhism. There are many schools of Buddhism.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

I'm sure there are other schools, and that many of them are probably very fine. Please check out that site though if you are into Buddhism.

I used to be a "Free Tibet" guy, with the bumper sticker and everything until I learned more about it.

[-] 0 points by oakwasenuf (66) 6 years ago

I believe it's the 1st Amendment. It's not just about squatting on private and public property.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 6 years ago

get a job somewhere else.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

It is not really the Catholics ( 99% ) who are up in arms.

It is more like the Corporate Officers of Catholic Business that is up in arms.

This is not about Religious freedom.

It is about Corporate freedom.

[-] 2 points by Budcm (208) 6 years ago

The government is not "forcing" the Catholic Hospitals to do anything. Actually they are acting a lot more nefariously than that. They are threatening to withhold funds they now allocate to them should those hospital refuse to follow the government directives. This is nothing new. The government does this ALL the time. They pass directives the people must follow and then threaten to cut off funds to pay for those directives unless everyone follows their rules, even if there is no connection between one directive or the other.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

if they take money from the government then they should follow the government rules. whats wrong with that? your not talking about catholics here.. your talking about a lot of employees that are not catholic. what about their rights?

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 6 years ago

Those employees take money from the Catholics. You claim the gov't has their rights because the Catholics take money from them. How about the catholic rights if you take money from the Catholics?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

how do you figure that.. in a hospital the money comes from either the patient.. the insurance company .. or the government and sometimes charities. in a university, the money comes from tuition and sports. of which many are not catholic and if they are are still using birth control against thier own religion. as i said before.. if it is such an issue.. catholic hospitals an such are not mandated to offer insurance just do not offer insurance at all if it means that much to them

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Advocates of the status-quo everywhere will applaud this bold Catholic stance! Two cheers for the ultimate reactionaries, or maybe not.

[-] 1 points by TheirLyingPropaganda (54) 6 years ago

It's no sin to have birth control coverage if you don't use it.

Just as it is not arson if you have fire insurance coverage and don't use it.

O Catholic Church, let those without sin cast the first stone !

Convenient, isn't it? How they distract the masses from their pedophilia with their lying propaganda

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 6 years ago

The country has bigger problem than passy problem

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 6 years ago

I don't think heath insurance companies should cover birth control and abortion medications because neither are condition they are preventions. If I have a headache or acid indigestion from eating pizza to much aspirin and antacids are not covered, I say buy your own!

[-] 1 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 6 years ago

Yeah, see, religions have no rights, no freedom, no constitutional protections. People have those, and they have those in particular with respect to religions. Catholic churches, catholic schools and catholic hospitals, insofar as they are employers, schools and hospitals have to play by the rules of society at large. People have the choice to believe in what the church dictates and teaches, and to act accordingly, for exemple by not using contraception, but the church, as an institution, doesn't get to enforce it's teachings, and if the law of the land is that employers provide health insurance that includes the morning pill, then it has to do so. Catholics, which are people and thus have religious freedom, are free, as ever, to use it or not.

Then again, I hear corporations are people now, so maybe churches too! Come to think of it, that seems like a good way for companies to save a buck. Declare themselves mormon institutions and thus religiously opposed to onerous healthcare.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

Why can't Catholic run hospitals receive an exemption to that law. After all; hundreds of unions, restaurants, organizations have already been exempted from Obamacare.

[-] -1 points by amerman (26) 6 years ago

Only because they are not contributing to his re-election fund. Next he will try to take away people rights of saying "God" in church or praying

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

99% of women have used birth control. 98% of Catholic women have used birth control. Women are 57% of registered voters. Republican's don't believe in science . They must not believe in math either. After they cut off birth control and the women cut off 99% of sex (even with priests and bishops) those old white men may get religion about science.

Remember when Luther had that little dust up about the Pope selling indulgences? Mark 2013 on your calender. It was the year when the Catholic church went chapter seven and liquidated.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

Why would the US government insist that insurance companies cover contraception and abortion? There is no more proof that providing such free will reduce world population, than there is that providing free needles will reduce AIDs. It's just nonsensical.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

You just try the personhood at conception change and watch the number infanticides and murders of children go up. Is that really what you want? You just want them to die later? Virtually all women including 98% of Catholic women use birth control. Is that nonsensical? Haven't you explained it to them? They aren't free, by the way. They are paid for in the premium. The net cost is probably lower, but that isn't the motivation.


[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

Women have been aborting pregnancies since Puritan times; really, it was an issue even then. That's not my question; my question is why insurance companies would be required to cover the cost of contraception and abortion. Does anyone really think that freely available contraception will reduce unwanted pregnancy amongst either Catholics or non-Catholics?

Can we legislate the misbehavior of others; more appropriately, in light of our obvious inability, can rational solution to be found in legislation as a means of easing the pain of that misbehavior?

Or is it simply more honest to say that those possessed of such opinions, coupled with activist desire, to apply some cultural method, are simply lacking in something so basic as "common sense"?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

"Does anyone really think that freely available contraception will reduce unwanted pregnancy amongst either Catholics or non-Catholics?"

This is a serious question?

Abortion rates have dropped drastically since more people are using birth control.

From the Ontario study on American teens:

Recent data show that 77% of the decline in teen pregnancy rates among U.S. teens aged 15 tp 17 years is because teens have increased their use of contraception and 23% of the decline is because teens are having less sex. Among older U.S. teens, 18 to 19 years, this data showed that all the reduction in pregnancy risk was related to increased contraceptive use.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago


Of the three religions capable of achieving mass mind in this world, Christianity is the ONLY one that is truly pluralistic.

I speak here of the Roman Catholic Church in particular: they will accept anyone, equally, of any ethnic background or nationality.

For this reason, they represent the most powerful voting block in the WORLD.

At some point, you must allow Catholics to be Catholic; you must allow Roman Catholicism its church; you must allow them to be discriminating in belief OR they will cease to exist as a Church.

I'm gonna tell you something else: my wife is a pregnant teen counselor; that's what she does. Teen pregnancy is definitely NOT decreasing in America AND it's not those who use Catholic services that are getting pregnant. Things are pretty bad in America, the land of the so-called "free," when a Church is forced to sue the the Fed for its Gestapo-like control of religious belief.

This is America???

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Your wife's stories must be heart rending - but they are anecdotal
check the actual statistics
But I repeat - NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CHURCHES RIGHTS If my Jewish son is born in a Jewish hospital, and I refuse to have him circumcized, can the hospital now provide my wife with medical services? seriously - look at the rule - it is not anti-religion or anti-catholic
it only requires a catholic owned business to abide by employment law.
Is the anti-polygamy law unconstitutional ? Should we let Warren Jeffs - the pedophile - out of jail - because that was his belief ? This is America - for the people - NOT for the churches

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

The reality is that the Mormon church absolutely has a religious mandate and the anti-polygamy laws are DEFINITELY unconstitutional. That's the truth.

And you cannot force a Catholic hospital or any other Catholic organization to cover the costs of procedures which violate their faith; period; end of discussion. Because anything else is to violate our rights as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I have never seen a Congress so willing to trample the rights of the people, the rights of the state, or to so willingly usurp our law for the benefit of minority "special" interest groups.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

So you are saying that your authority is above the supreme court's authority?
This is not trampling the rights of people. It is stopping one religion from imposing its beliefs on everyone else.

Our country is not based on the religious freedom of CHUCHES.
Our country is based on the religious freedom for PEOPLE.
Aren’t these the same fanatics who insist that their religion’s definition of marriage should be law?

The unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States clearly declared that the religious belief and practice of polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that
"laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

Where were the fanatics when the 28 non-Obama governments passed the state laws?
You may not agree with the supreme court’s decision – but no sane person can say this has nothing to do politics, elections, and the crazy anti-Obama fear of the “other”.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

I'm saying that the Supreme Court decision is in error; it was a political and not a Constitutional decision - the Mormon church has a religious mandate to multiple wives; without such they do not and cannot enter the Fifth Level, and the First Amendment specifically states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It's simply wrong - "unconstitutional" - but it was allowed to proceed, politically, for the sake of the majority, as the perceived to be lesser evil.

Likewise the Supreme Court cannot force the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter, to perform marriages in violation of their belief.

State marriage, or that performed by a magistrate, falls under State rights, challenged perhaps by the 14th. But no matter; it is well established that the American form of marriage was born of a specific religious body politic, a particular sect; and it was unique to the world. It was born of a religious body, is fully grounded in religious belief, was mitigated by the religious beliefs of other later arrivals (the Anglicans and the Catholics); the religious ceremony therefore lies wholly and completely beyond the bounds of the Constitution. They have no authority respecting the public ceremonial declaration of marriage as a religious practice; if you don't believe me, try to pass a Constitutional amendment requiring all churches to marry Gays and see what happens.

Likewise (where have you been, Britain went through a similar thing years ago), the Fed cannot force the Catholic church to pay or provide for emergency contraception or abortion; it's simply ludicrous. And to see our representatives today standing on a podium, stomping their fists in self-righteousness, as in, "I am right and you are wrong," is total bullshit; it's the perfect example, the very epitome, of everything that is wrong with American government today.

These people aren't "better" for favoring freely provided emergency contraception or abortion; how could such practices ever be considered "better"?

Gonna tell you something else: the constitutionality of Roe vs Wade, and morality, are entirely different issues. What Roe vs Wade represents is the absolute limit of our tolerance; this does not make the decision to abort any less repugnant to the majority, it merely makes it acceptable under extenuating circumstances.

You know, the Pope is still fully capable of raising armies; the Knights are alive and well. Enough is enough; this is war.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Ahhh- war mongering - continuing almost 2000 years of catholic tradition

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

Sure, it was death and destruction that spread Roman Catholicism. First it took Europe, then all of South America and Mexico as far north as California. And then the silver that was mined in places such as Bolivia by the Spaniards was shipped to the Philippines where it was traded for silks from China. Roman Catholicism conquered the world, in ways many have not even considered.

But all of this is besides the point...


[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Maybe because either 98 or 99% of their employees want it? If using contraception doesn't reduce or prevent unwanted pregnancies, why would people use them? If they don't reduce or prevent unwanted pregnancies why would Catholic men want to make them less available to women? I think most people believe that contraceptives, in addition to reducing disease and some other problems, actually reduce unwanted pregnancies. Is that silly?

Got any data from the 28 states that already require this, about how badly it is working and how all of those women employees have refused to use contraceptives that are available paid by their insurer? I have heard the 56% of Catholic Bishops use contraceptives. Is that true?

Slavery wasn't very popular with the slaves even in Puritan Massachusetts, according to my family who were there in 1634..

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

Why should the Catholic church be required to freely provide rubbers when it is so obvious that such contraception is counter to their religious mandate?

And what does the Catholic church's beliefs or mandates have to do with slavery in Massachusetts? I'm from MA and I'm going to tell you something, had this country been settled by Catholics with their propensity to defer to authority, this would be a radically different country today. It's all besides the point.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

If Jehovah's Witnesses owned and operated hospitals for the general public, I would say they should be required to provide blood transfusions to their employees and patients who need them.

You didn't answer with regard to the 28 states that have been requiring the same thing for some time. Anybody notice this is an election year?

Actually they don't have to provide rubbers, they just have to pay the receipts when they come in. It is kind of like a Muslim rebating an expense account with a glass of wine on it or a pork chop dinner.

Here is an idea. Why don't women Catholics just say, "You are wrong about this, like you were about the Sun revolving around the earth and all of us agree, so just quietly drop this issue and move on?"

You do know that slavery was supported by scripture, don't you? And somehow it was finally, and much too late, given up?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Your paragraph 2 sentence 2 is the key IMHO
Just like a poll of Rs showed 70% of Rs believed BHO was a Muslim or did not know. These are the same people who believed Noah got the kangaroos back to Australia.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Facts explain a lot of things. Why wasn't there a "Thou shalt not be willfully ignorant"? Obviously insufficient thought and understanding of human frailties went into the drafting. Or maybe science shouldn't have been "created"?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

None of this makes any sense at all because those responsible enough to have an employer who provides medical insurance are generally responsible enough to avoid the need for emergency contraception and abortion. So what is this if not a political statement, that the needs of the non-Catholic women who desire such benefits from their employer, usurp the beliefs of the Catholic who have little need for them?

It's just another example of the idiocy that is prevalent in society today.

I don't believe that the Jehovah's should be required to violate belief to provide health care in the form of hospitals; do you?

And I fail to see how you can possibly relate slavery to unwanted pregnancy. I'm just not feeling the Gedankensprung here - how did you get from this 'a' to that 'b'?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

If you are going to be in a secular business play by the rules that ALL other like businesses play by.

You can only ignore the questions so long before you lose all credibility.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

Have you ever been in a Catholic hospital? I have and I can tell you right now it's definitely NOT a secular business. I say again (and repeat myself): it's a CATHOLIC hospital.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

I was born in one and I nearly died in one and a lot of them already provide insurance with the contraceptive coverage in it. It is cheap, Without it it is about the same price and the rider to provide it is very expensive. So those who hire non Catholics (probably most of them) provide it with coverage because qualified staff are in short supply and to compete, they must include it.

Again, I refer you to the questions you are afraid to answer.

The one where I was born would close if it could only hire Catholics. Not enough qualified locally. Sometimes religious dogma is trumped by money. Sometimes by truth, Sometimes by the desire to satisfy other objectives, like avoiding having children that you can't support. But that is only about 98% of the Catholics while it is 99% of the those pagans who use it. This issue affects very few, in the final analysis. The affected facilities would rather provide policies with it than provide the extra money to pay for the rider, which is the only practical alternative. Doesn't fit the Obama haters preferred narrative, but you don't always get what you want. But sometimes you get what you need.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

I'm not sure what questions you are referring to here.

If is it NOT an issue, as your posting appears to suggest (and in fact I would agree with this, on multiple fronts) then why was it the Obama administration felt it necessary to legislate?

This is a political statement to satisfy a particular special interest group. And it favors the opinions of this particular group over the Federal constitutional mandate to respect religious belief and practice.

The Obama administration has once again succeeded in creating a divide where none need exist; I have to wonder, would he trample on Muslim belief in the same manner? Worse, this ruling has circumvented the globe; it is being heard in countries that are far more religious, far more Roman Catholic, than we are.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Got any data from the 28 states that already require this, about how badly it is working and how all of those women employees have refused to use contraceptives that are available paid by their insurer? I have heard the 56% of Catholic Bishops use contraceptives. Is that true? You didn't answer with regard to the 28 states that have been requiring the same thing for some time. Anybody notice this is an election year? Why don't women Catholics just say, "You are wrong about this, like you were about the Sun revolving around the earth and all of us agree, so just quietly drop this issue and move on?"

You do know that slavery was supported by scripture, don't you? And somehow it was finally, and much too late, given up?If you are going to be in a secular business play by the rules that ALL other like businesses play by.

You can only ignore the questions so long before you lose all credibility.

Did you make a big stink when the 28 states passed legislation without exemptions? Did you make a stink 10 years ago when Senator Olympia Snow (R) proposed this same policy in legislation which was supported by several other Republicans? Why then is it an issue right now? If the church believed in child labor, which they apparently do in some countries, should they be exempt from child labor laws? It supported slavery right here (and might well again, if it served a similar purpose), and they should be exempt? The Obama administration did not just draft the legislation, it was done some time ago, using language similar to Olympia Snow's.

Yes, it is for a special interest, women, who are already getting them in 28 states plus all of the other cases in 22 states in which hospitals, universities and other church owned, but not operating as a church, facilities, where virtually all of the employees want and about 15% of which need them for medical reasons other than contraception. So The church is providing insurance with this provision where they are required to and in many other instances where they don't have to and are objecting to a policy that they have generally accepted or have voluntarily chosen and in the face of this evidence and a few crocodile tears (in institutions who receive large amounts of federal money) we are supposed to break a policy of many years standing that ALL employers must meet the same standards and requirements in businesses whose purpose is not primarily the practice of religion?

Maybe you should go work on the pedophilia issue and when you really get it fixed let me know. When I forget what the church has done and, no doubt, is still doing here and around the globe, and on't expect me to forget anytime soon, then, and only then. we can talk about your poor sensitivity to doing something so repugnant to you, like paying an insurance premium.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

Christianity was born into a world of slavery; it was one of those first steps in a long and lengthy process of reform to the benefit of the poor.

The Roman Catholic Church has historically supported many facets of life to include the arts, science, medicine, etc. It's mission remains the same today as it ever was - to spread the Word, and thereby own the World; it does this [today] through aid to the poor and needy.

The issue within the Church has not been pedophilia but pederasty; need I say more?

The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to tell any of these 50 states anything in regards to religious practice, and telling the Catholic Church that they must finance medical procedures that it cannot and will not condone, at best, is simply wrong; but it goes far beyond that - these are States rights issues.

In reference to slavery specifically, you need to either "get over it" OR you need to accurately educate yourself on some level beyond the mere superficial. The Bible does not "support" slavery, nor does it "condone" slavery; it merely "incorporates" slavery because it was the economic way of the world.

One last word here: this structural shell of marriage, family, the care of children... the extended family and, by extension, society and societal governance has the desire for sexuality at its core. All religion must incorporate the "rules" of our sexuality if this structure is to be maintained to the evolutionary benefit of our species. And government, by extension, must represent our beliefs or its reign as authority will be usurped by some other more palpable form.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Why should a Jewish hospital be required to provide services to a newborn Jewish boy who is not circumcised ? AGAIN- the constitution does not protect religions - it protects people.

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 6 years ago

Some seem upset that I put this up here but to me it sure seems like more Gov control over us

[-] 1 points by oneAdam12 (-7) from Queens, NY 6 years ago

more Obama agenda...If he gets 4 more years the USA is really going to hell.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Of course, you could agree with me, that the government and everyone else should get out of the medical insurance business - that in America - on average - delivers inferior care.
American life expectancy ranks #36 in the world - tied with Cuba.
Of course, if YOU can afford $5000 a month the best insurance or to pay $200,000 for the best knee replacement, you will do better. Japan and Switzerland - at the top - offer public funded medical CARE - not public funded insurance. You are with me on improving American healh CARE, I hope.


[-] 1 points by rrazputin (18) 6 years ago

80% of catholics in america use birth control.

[-] 2 points by mako (42) 6 years ago

and they can pay for it themselves then. It's inconsistent with the teachings.

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 6 years ago

Whether they do or not, I do not really care but this is one more example how the Gov is infirtrating into our lives

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Divide and conquer. The Romans perfected the method.



[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

The Catholic Church (and Fox Lies) should concentrate on their little boy molestation problem. Contraception and abortion are legal services and law of the land. Molestation of little boys is NOT!!

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!


[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

It wasn't an overreach. Thanks though.

[-] 0 points by amerman (26) 6 years ago

over-reach under President Barack Obama often are dismissed by liberals as unwarranted. Thus this is no surprise with your comment

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Fact: this is regarding insurance NOT theology as you would have it.

[-] -1 points by amerman (26) 6 years ago

This is lousy Obama care that the majority of society does not want, being shoved down our throats

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

And has nothing whatsoever to do with overreach on religious freedom.

[-] -1 points by amerman (26) 6 years ago

What is obama going to do next? take prayer out of services too???

[-] -1 points by Loserville (-13) 6 years ago

Funny thing too, using insurance doesn't make birth control free, it just changes how you pay for it. You can buy birth control or you can buy insurance that buys your birth control. Liberal dopes think this is a magic act that makes things free. It doesn't.

And given that it changes nothing, makes nothing cheaper and makes nothing free, Obama should stop attacking religion and leave them alone.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

If this is true, it's just more evidence to me that Obama has been instructed to throw the election, so that the 1% can crush all resistance. We can exert sway over the Democrats. We can exert no influence at all over the Republicans.

[-] 0 points by Loserville (-13) 6 years ago

No, it's just more religious bigotry of the the Left and a play to people dumb enough to think that making an insurance company pay for something makes it free.

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 6 years ago

He is our daddy. He knows what is best for all. Fuck liberty. Your post is common sense, tough for a lib to grasp.