Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obamacare forces Catholic Health Care service to provide contraception

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 6, 2012, 11:27 a.m. EST by tomahawk99 (-26)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There goes the Catholic vote.

272 Comments

272 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Th vast majority of catholics use birth control &
just as a tiny little detail -
the Constitution does not protect religions - it protects people


I think catholic hospitals should refuse to serve divorced people or pedophiles.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

At last check, in spite of their archaic beliefs, the bishops, priests, nuns, and many or the parishioners were all people. The first amendment prohibits any law that impedes the free exercise of religion. Obamacare forces church officials to provide services that violate the tenets of their faith. Certainly sounds like it fits as a violation for those people running catholic hospitals or schools.

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

Funny- I could not find what you said it said in the first amendment.

"The first amendment prohibits any law that impedes the free exercise of religion."

so by your rewrite, if my religion requires the torture of cats at every service, a law banning the torture would be unconstitutional?

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sorry I don't usually bother to cut and paste the exact words. I've clipped it off after the part about religion. Here they are. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The use of the word "impede" to replace "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is my interpretation, you're free to disagree. The Supreme Court will probably have the final say at some point so it doesn't matter what we think anyhow.

The regulation certainly prevents church officials that operate catholic schools, universities, and hospitals from freely exercising their religion, it requires them to provide financial support for something they consider a sin to do and a sin to assist in.

Over the years the supreme Court has made certain limitations on religious freedom acceptable, maybe the best known is regarding polygamy. As I said, my opinion on it or interpretation, isn't all that important, SCOTUS has the final say. The amendment regulates congress and leaves the Court free to interpret. So cats are safe, for now.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

Then if war is immoral, I don't have to pay taxes? Good luck with that. A scientologist corporation believes they should cure themselves so they don't have to provide any insurance? A sudden rise of followers of scientology in corporate America. Being homosexual is a sin, so insurance won't cover AIDS if a gay contracts it through unprotected sex? Masturbation is sinful, so they don't cover eyecare? (couldn't resist that one) The insurance is not a gift from the company, it's part of my pay. It's also something I help pay for at great expense. Can a corporation even have a religion? Can the Indian casinos supply peyote to their employees? And, finally, providing health insurance is not a religious practice. Not really a response to your post, just wanted to get it out of my system.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

It all depends on the tenets of your religion. I think it's the Christian Scientists that are excused from buying health care. There are some laws the Amish are excused from to. Amish don't pay into or sign up for social security and don't serve in the military at all. On the other hand the Mormons were denied polygamy in a SCOTUS decision. That's were these things end up getting decided.

In this case the religion isn't trying to make anyone do anything, it wants the government to be prevented from forcing Catholic employers to buy something they think is morally wrong.

In all the other examples you offer the only thing I can say is give it a try. Open a church that prohibits paying federal tax or promotes the use of some drug or whatever, then go through the legal process. The issue with the Catholics isn't something new, the real surprise is that the Obama administration seems to have been caught by surprise by the reaction of the church.

True about providing insurance not being a typical religious practice, it's been offered for years as it has by many employers, just here they don't want to be forced to cover birth control and abortion.

[-] 2 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Okay, what do you think freedom of religion entails?

I already know what it entails. It allows for anyone to exercise any belief they wish, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other people.

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Actually no.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

What about statutory rape?

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Well that violates the right of an individual and is therefore an illegal practice.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Stop making sense! I'm trying to kiss up to the establishment!

[-] 0 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

Ok but if a teenage girl is taught by her religion that she should be married off to an older man before she could potenially become impure through normal teenager sex and really believes it doesn't that violate her religious freedom?

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Well yes, but it's still an illegal practice because violates the rights of an individual. For example, that's pretty much the FLDS doctrine right? But the Federal government still outlaws it because of how it violates individual's rights.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

It might if the OP was accurate. It is not. The Obama administration is saying that the healthcare plans of employees of Catholic hospitals (not churches) have to cover birth control. The hospital does not have to provide the service, just allow its employees access to it elsewhere.

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I'm not sure at this point where they are in negotiating a way out of this mess. It seems to go well beyond Catholic institutions though. The compromise Obama offered has insurance companies giving it to policy holders for free. The bishops don't want it on their policies at all.

From what I've read the Church is also against forcing any Catholic employer to include it on their policy as well, when that employer has a moral objection. The bishops apparently see themselves as speaking out for all devout Catholic employers on the matter, not just their own institutions.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

I guess the problem I have with this is that it is a type of "prior restraint" sort of. The employee hasn't actually used the insurance for birth control yet at the time they are getting it. Part of the insurance premium is also paid by the employee and as such is a joint purchase. Whose dollars buy what part of the insurance? Can the employer refuse to allow the employee to use their money purchase it? Also, insurance has always been viewed as being in lieu of pay, so what about the money given as salary? Does the employer have a right to control what the employee spends that money on because they have religious objections, e.g. pornography, trips to topless bars? This is about religious freedom - the employees religious freedom. I would think the OWS would not be up for saying that a corporation enjoys an individuals right to religious freedom. Kind of the same thing as campaign contributions by corporations as being a free speech issue.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

This has nothing to do with forcing anyone to live a certain way, it is exactly the reverse. If you as employer, see birth control as immoral then you should not be forced by the state, against your religion, to place it on your policy. They are against all forms of birth control, but don't stop women from using it. Employees may pay a portion of the premium, but the policy is written for the employer.

From the statements I've read on this the church is saying they are against any devout Catholic being forced to pay for services they consider immoral. It isn't just the corporate entities that they are speaking for.

As an example, if you were a small businessperson with 15 or 20 employees and wanted to provide them with health insurance. The church is saying that you should not be forced, against your religious principals, to include abortion and birth control on the policy. They haven't said anything about the women in that business buying a separate rider. They consider it a sin, but that is the decision of the woman. It's the religion based objection of the person buying the policy they are trying to protect.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i think theres a difference between free exercise of and forcing it down peoples throats.. you better be careful here.. cause when some religion you dont like wants to force thier ideas on people this will be precedent.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Many Catholic women use birth control, some have had abortions. The church is against it but all it does to its members is counsel them and forgive them when they confess.

This issue is the reverse of what you fear. The force is coming from the government telling any employer, not just Catholic schools and hospitals, that happens to be a devout Catholic that they must violate their faith and provide what they see as immoral services to employees.

Those employees are free to purchase riders on their policies to cover these things. It's also a simple matter to pay out of pocket, contraceptive services are not at all expensive.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

they may not be expensive for nurses and doctors but for the janitor and the lunchroom lady and the security guards they are expensive. this is an insurance employee issue.. as such i dont agree that religion should be used as a reasoning concerning something that has nothing to do with religion. these are not churches.. they are only church affiliated, religion should not be able to reach beyond the church

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I agree an abortion may be expensive in relative terms for someone making minimum wage. The cost of an abortion is between $300 and $900 depending on when in the pregnancy you have it done and if you need to go to the hospital at all. It isn't likely to be the kind of thing you are having done often though. The pill only runs maybe $15 a month.

You're looking at it in reverse. No one is arguing to deny women the service. The argument is if you happen to be the employer and you are also a devout Catholic. Then you believe paying for and giving these services to your employees is wrong. The church sees itself as protecting the right of those Catholic employers to exercise their religious beliefs.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

the church does not own these facilities.. they are only church affiliated. unlike a church,, where everyone involved is there to listem to the preaching. in these facilities there are many top positions filled by people that have no personal affiliation with the church. and just as the government can force those that religiously believe that they need no healthcare can be forced to accept it.. by the same token the government can force religiously affiliated orginizations to offer this coverage. the government has already set precedent about intervening with religion for health reasons. i see no difference here.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I think the insurance question comes down to who has their name on the policy. If John Smith is a small business owner and he's a devout Catholic with 20 employees. The church feels the government is forcing him to violate his faith if they force him to buy coverage that includes what he believes are immoral procedures and drugs. From the article I read today it's more then the Catholic hospitals and schools, but even there it comes down to the individual or group that has their name on the policy and do they have the right to their religious beliefs?

It's a stretch to say abortion is health care. It's an elective procedure, often you can make a case it's for the woman's mental well being, but in this case the church isn't saying the woman can't have an abortion, they just don't want to pay for an elective procedure they consider sinful. It's a case of go and sin if you have to, but don't make me (the employer) sin too. They've also stated their opinion that pregnancy is not a disease. This makes it very different from a court case deciding a Christian Scientist child be given life saving surgery over his parent's religious objections.

Birth control pills fall into that same category, they don't really do much for the health of the woman, long term use may actually be harmful. Anything is possible but I don't see the bishops as likely to back down, it may be something the Supreme Court has to settle.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Well then you can discuss it with the supreme court they disagree with you (Hosanna-Tabor .case).

[-] 2 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

that was a church, technically, and that is excluded from the need to provide contraceptive.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I am not religious at all, and have some difficulty with one group dictating what anyone else can do. However, I think the argument here is that the doctors/nurses/practitioners themselves believe it is a sin to participate in a sin. If there are non-Catholic practitioners working in a Catholic hospital who are willing to provide the service, I see no problem. If the Catholic Hospital is receiving government assistance in some way, then I think they should provide all services; perhaps hire a non-Catholic practitioner if they don't have one.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

this isnt about abortion. Man, people need to read. This is about CONTRACEPTIVES! By using contraceptives, women are able to prevent the need for abortions.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I was not actually referring to abortions, but it is good that you pointed this out. Too many people want to go backwards, it seems.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Obama care forces everyone to get private issuance

leaving the money in the hands of private issuance

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

FOR PROFIT private issuance that you are 'required' to buy. Once enacted, prices will soar. Then they'll have us by the short hairs!!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the government has put forward regulations

but why the middle man ?

if health care needs to be regulated, why not just run it ?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Exactly, especially since they already have the Medicare system in place, it wouldn't be that much of a leap to expand coverage for all and save 1/2 trillion in the process. Be careful of those regulations. Most of these bills ( health care, Dodd-Frank, etc) were heavily written by lobbyists. That's why they're so long ............to fit in all of the loopholes. An example might be our current tax code.

Cheers:)

[-] 3 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

Contraception is expensive. That alone makes it a good thing. Catholics need to get it together and realize flowers fly. Contraception stops unwanted pregnancy and in turn may stop the killing of fetuses.

[-] -1 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

Can you cite a real example of where that happens?

Contaception is provided by the Chinese government; they'll even sterilize you against your will, too! They have a staggering rate of abortion of female fetuses and a staggering rate of female infanticide. What they don't have is a constitutional right guaranteeing freedom of Religion.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

I don't follow your logic at all. My logic is very simple to follow. Catholics are nuts. Their crap religion produces courage-less, lieing pedophiles. That is a FACT. The church has no right to tell anyone what to do with the penis or vagina. Catholicism is one of the most antiquated ideas left on the planet. Where you get China from this conversation is neither here nor there. We are talking about the Catholics who know nothing about sex.

[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 2 years ago

Since you know so much more, why don't you open a hospital or university to replace one of the Catholic institutions that is pushing antiquated ideas and failing to care for indigent people?

No one is stopping you. Please start right away. Come up with some place better than Notre Dame, Loyolla & Georgetown. Build an inner city hospital that will care for anyone who shows up.

In the meantime, learn some history. The US was founded by people who came to freely practice their religion. That right is so vital, it is in the First Ammendment. Even if you despise religion of all types, you must realize that when the State takes this fundamental right away, none of the other rights are secure.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

Catholic leaders rape children and lie about it. FACT. Catholics have gone the way of the dodo bird. The churches are closing all the time. The only place left for them to rape are places where the people have nothing. Any educated person sees the hypocrisy which is Catholicism.

[-] 3 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Any religion should not try to prevent people from protecting themselves, or obstructing reasonable health services, because of narrow beliefs they may hold about it...

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

maybe you could be the next pope. you show a great understanding of religion.

[-] 3 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Decisions should be based on reasonable grounds, not obstructing people from protection or services, based on rigid beliefs, which are only implying they care for those people's well-being, when obviously working against helping them to protect themselves...

Maybe if you weren't trying to cause divisiveness in these discussions, you would be able to see clearly...seems your intent is to just be disruptive...

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

i thought being disruptive was an occupy badge of honor. But , seriously the Catholic hospitals provide help to countless needy people, give them a break. We are just talking about contraception here, nothing else, so don't get high and mightly 'obstructing people from protection or services...'

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Yes, the subject of contraception is what we are taking about...and instead of trying using this as a platform to rile up people and complain that they have to try to help people protect themselves, maybe we should try to be constructive instead...

This seems to be just a talking point to rile people up, being unhelpful and trying to block services, is hardly innocent or 'trivial'...

You seem to be happy to use it just bash on the issue without real concern for the people who would be denied services because of this...maybe u should try to instead care about doing the right thing and helping people...

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

who's denied service they don't get it now. The Catholic Church helps more people than you or occupy ever could. And no one is going to cry if they don't get contraception covered. They can get it from PP, its not a hardship. Doing the Right thing is what? doing what you say?

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Using this as political tool shows poor intent...

It is obvious that when you are a medical service you should not advocate to obstruct providing helpful services to those you are supposed to be helping...not sure why u are intentionally trying to be confused about this...

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

whenever one says 'it is obvious', they then proceed to say something that isn't obvious. I'm not confused, neither are you, this a matter of values and opinion.

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Again with the opinion bit, because your argument is weak, and can't argue on merit...

Maybe when providing medical services you should try to help people protect themselves, instead of trying to obstruct this, when claiming u are helping, when you're not...

You should also stop trying to pretend you are trying to help the discussion, when u seem to be just trying to cause divisiveness, because thid is not fundamentally honest...

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Well if it helps you didn't convince me of anything either. Let see what happens to this issue in the real world i.e. will the WH back down? will it go to court? will the congress tell the WH to stop. You'd better get use to compromise as most people don't agree with you.

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Which is why you seem to be trying to cause division here...stir up people based on close-mindedness and a political circus show, instead of trying to have constructive discussion...

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

those are Obama's' words about using this to cause division. are you reading the democratic talking points?

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

ok, i would think that this is constructive, could put a republican into the WH if the dems screw up like this

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

Again with the negative bashing, pretty weak...

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

oh god, you are hopeless. Adios.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

how is what i said negative bashing? it could be to help the dems by advising them to stay out of this mess.

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 2 years ago

People should stand up for what is helpful, and in this case assist people using medical services...not manipulate the discussion and issues to further political maneuvering using negative distortion...

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I read an article just the other day that the majority of American Catholics are fine with being offered free contraception if they ask for it. Who wouldn't be? Maybe the Catholic Church should think twice about acting like the Taliban and imposing it's will on everybody.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Contraception is readily available, no one is talking about banning it. Why don't they go to Plan Parenthood then. Why should the catholic church be forced to pay for it?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

The question is why should the Catholic Church be exempt? If Muslims were complaining about some rule or other you probably wouldn't give a shit. If the Catholic Church wants their tax exempt status, they ought to play by the rules of this country. You have the freedom to practice any hokey religion you like but that doesn't bestow wide powers to those religions. There was a case where a family didn't get medical help for their daughter because their hokey religion believed in faith healing. Well the poor little girl died, but mom and pop weren't given a pass because of their hokey religion. They went to jail!

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

the muslims would just blow us up or cut off our heads on video. that's all.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Exactly why you don't give wide powers to religious fanatics, muslim or otherwise.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Ageed,but, i think muslims are a lot crazier, its been a while since a catholic has flown comercial planes into a building. My point is that this will affect the catholic vote if they see the government telling them what to do as catholics.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

You really like that kool-aid, huh?

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

yeah Sparky, is that all you've got, the kool-aid comment. Estupido.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

The only thing I could add is ........... You're a racist. Archie Bunker type.

Cheers ;)

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

interesting that you didn't call hitgirl a racist for insulting all religions , i just insulted muslim terrorist.

[-] 3 points by Opportunity (19) 2 years ago

Contraceptives prevent abortions, I don't get what the problem is. Catholics should be happy about this.

[-] -2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

There isn't any correlation between increased use of contraceptives and a decrease in abortion rate. Even if there were, the official church position on contraception prohibits its use anyhow. A strict following of church teachings renders contraception and abortion moot for the unmarried anyhow. Not saying it's realistic in today's world, but that is their belief, you don't get to force changes to it without infringing on their religion

[-] 4 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

People use contraception to prevent pregnancy. People get abortions to prevent childbirth. You don't need a specific scientific study to figure out that increased contraception would lower the need for abortions.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The point you're making is a distraction to the main issue. However, over half the women that had abortions were using birth control (54% in a study done in 2002) at the time they got pregnant. You could conclude that more birth control actually leads to more abortions saying a relaxed attitude leads to a false sense of security and both the pill and condoms can and do fail. A study would be nice to clear that up.

Doesn't matter though, in the eyes of the church both the use of contraception and abortion are wrong. The point shouldn't be forcing a religion to pick a lesser sin, hoping it prevents a greater one. The first amendment is clear and the government would seem to be prohibiting the free exercise of their religion.

[-] 5 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

I don't want to get any more in to the argument that you say is a distraction but I disagree with that interpretation of the first amendment in this case. The federal government is not forcing catholics to use contraception. I would be opposed to that. It is to provide it to the employees of the hospital if they want it as according to law. A hospital is not a church.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Obviously the catholic church disagrees with that interpretation. They don't feel the dictates of their religion end at the doors of a church building but carry over into every aspect of their life. Providing employees with the means to sin is something the bishops consider immoral. If abortion is such a serious sin to them I don't see how it could be rationalized that paying for it was somehow permissible.

From a political viewpoint I think the administration made a serious mistake. The whole thing stirs up opposition and doesn't win over any new supporters. All for what? Abortion is an inexpensive procedure that may be used once by a woman. Contraceptives have been generic for years and are very cheep also. It's all pain and no gain for a president heading into a tight election.

[-] 1 points by Opportunity (19) 2 years ago

Is there a link to this study? I highly doubt birth control have that high of a failure rate and I want to be sure you are not mistaking abortions from the LACK of birth control.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

It's not the birth control method as much as it is failure to use it properly. As I said though the contraceptive piece is distraction, the Catholic Church would be opposed to dispensing the pill or condoms and opposed to forcing practicing Catholic employers from doing it also. Here's a link to the original study however.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

You are projecting your values on Catholics. I don't think its fair to force catholic institutions to pay for contraception or morning after pills if it goes against their beliefs. If someone working at one of these institutions doesn't like that they can get a job somewhere else. No one is forcing them to work there.

[-] 7 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nobody's forcing them to take federal money, either. Hospitals work in the public, not religious, sphere. If they wish to go private, and not provide health insurance mandated by law, they should not be given taxpayer money to support their religion. That would be government establishment of religion.

This law has existed in 28 states for many years. It is not new. Lawsuits by the church in these states have always lost.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Okay, let's take away the federal money given to the Catholic Hospitals because they refuse to pay for free contraceptives for their employees (who can get them for about $15.00 - $50.00 per month on their own or go find other employment).

How long will that Catholic Hospital be able to provide free hospital care for those with incomes of 300% of the poverty level without that federal funding? Would the hospital have to drop that to 200% of the poverty level? Or perhaps 100% or maybe just to the poverty level? Where would those folks go for medical treatment that would no longer be available through that charity?

This is not about contraception - this is about the government forcing faith based employers to go against the tenants of their faith.

This is not about forced employment. Anyone who wants an insurance plan that provides free contraceptives has the opportunity to go to another employer or get their own private insurance plan.

The charities are not given federal funds to practice their religion. They are given federal funds to facilitate their providing charitable care.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Charities? Catholic hospitals are the number one profit making hospitals in the country.

But you're right, "The charities are not given federal funds to practice their religion." Exactly. And those moneys should not be used in discriminating against those who don't practice their religion.

"How long will that Catholic Hospital be able to provide free hospital care....." Without federal money to supplement them, they would have to close their doors, completely. They would have to lose all their profits. They are entirely dependent on taxpayer money. And no taxpayer, by law, is required to support discrimination based on religion.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

"How long will that Catholic Hospital be able to provide free hospital care....." Without federal money to supplement them, they would have to close their doors, completely. They would have to lose all their profits. They are entirely dependent on taxpayer money. And no taxpayer, by law, is required to support discrimination based on religion."


Wow. You've just made it clear that you are an advocate of throwing the "baby out with the bathwater". Never mind the folks living at 300% of the poverty level and without health insurance who are served by these hospitals. Just close their doors because they don't believe in providing free access to contraceptives. Nice.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Who advocated they close their doors? Are you nuts? I simply described the reality of the financing. They, not I, would be callous and cruel if they did so, since I would never do so.

And, by the way, several catholic hospitals have been offering contraceptives in their healthcare plans for many years. MOst catholic organizations support the law, Only the bishops don't. This is a manufactured political issue, for the sake of partisan politics alone.

This is a civil issue, not a religious one. Hospitals are not religious organizations. Churches, monasteries, convents, and seminaries are, and they are expressly exempt from this rule. They are free to continue preaching and believing whatever they want, and religious freedom as opposed to religious dictates over employees, is untouched by this law.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

by epa1nter (1986) from Rutherford, NJ 5 days ago

Nobody's forcing them to take federal money, either. Hospitals work in the public, not religious, sphere. If they wish to go private, and not provide health insurance mandated by law, they should not be given taxpayer money to support their religion.

by epa1nter (1986) from Rutherford, NJ 3 hours ago

Without federal money to supplement them, they would have to close their doors, completely. They would have to lose all their profits. They are entirely dependent on taxpayer money.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And where, in either of those two statements do I remotely advocate for those hospital's closure?

Learn to read.

[-] 0 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Sorry, EPA, it's not a matter of taking federal money, and they can't opt out without being fined under Obamacare. Here's a paragraph about it from CNN (not exactly a bastion of right-wing thought): you can read the whole article at http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/battle-escalates-over-obama-rule-for-contraception-coverage-at-catholic-institutions/

"But the dispute - spurred by a late January announcement by the Department of
Health and Human Services that all employers, including Catholic hospitals and schools, will be required to offer free access to FDA-approved contraceptives like the birth control pill and Plan B (the so-called morning-after pill) through health insurance plans - shows no signs of dying down."

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

This is not about religious freedom; it’s about women’s health. Religions have the constitutionally protected right to worship as they choose, to require that their adherents dress in a certain way, or behave in a certain way, or shun birth control (although the idea that American Catholics generally follow that rule is pretty laughable). The government has no business meddling in that. But this is an example of where religious doctrine intrudes into public policy. The First Amendment also protects civic society from domination by any particular religion.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

People choose where the work, EPA. This is not domination, unless people were forced to work at a catholic institution. If I work in a Mormon institution, I won't expect them to pay for my coffee - I'll buy it myself, because I'm not entitled to coffee to the point that I can expect my employer to provide it for me. People have a right to birth control, but it's not an entitlement to the point that they can expect their employer to pay for it. It's that simple. There is NO reason for the government to get involved in this. People are free to pay for contraceptives themselves, or to choose to work where it is provided for them. Your use of the word domination is an overreach, as is the administration's policy.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

People choose where to work? FAR less than you think. And the Church chooses whom it hires. If it chooses non-believers, working in the public arena rather than in a cloister, they cannot deny them something that every other citizen is entitled to under law.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

In what universe is "we choose not to pay for it" the equivalent of denying it? It's not like they'll be fired if they use contraceptives. It isn't forbidden, there will be no scarlet letter attached to their forehead. They are not "denied" contraceptives any more than I am denied vision care if my coverage doesn't include it. Or denied transportation if my benefits package doesn't include a company car. Or denied housing if my company doesn't pay my rent. Geez, the entitlement mindset has bit you real good. They are free to use contraceptives. They just need to pay for it themselves. It's not that complicated, and it's not an infringement of their rights.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

They are denied a benefit that everyone else is entitled to by law.

[-] 2 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Only because for the first time in history, the federal government has decided that all are entitled to a drug that most people consider the equivalent of abortion and the taking of a human life, and those who consider it murder are forced to pay for those who dont. Not all of us consider this progress. If the adminstration doesnt back off from this, it will cost the democrats dearly in november. The backlash of the last week is only the beginning.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

98% of Catholic women in the US have used contraception. That number reflects the general population as well. Your contention that most consider it abortion reveals the tiny, myopic world in which you live.

Nor is it a new issue,a historical "first". 28 States have established the same requirement for years, and it has been upheld in every court.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Your statistic refers to contraception in general, not to the "morning after" pill, which is included by law in the new policy. My wife and I used contraception too, and I don't agree with catholic teaching about it, but I wouldn't expect my employer to take on the costs if they had a moral stand against it. And I especially wouldn't want the government to intervene to back me up, because the next time it might be me who is forced to set aside religious conviction at the whim of whoever is in power at the time.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The law is on the Hawaii model. The insurance companies, not the church, must provide the health benefit.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

And where will the insurance companies get the money from?

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Couldn't respond below because we are out of reply buttons. But the government forcing me to pay for someone else's use of the morning-after pill is even less attractive to me than having them force catholic institutions to pay for it. Sorry, not gonna fly. If people want to end their pregnancy post-conception, they are free in this country to do so. They are not free to force me to subsidize it if I consider it immoral. That is beyond the pale.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The entire public.

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

well look at Harvard and Yale they didn't let the military recruit for years and they took federal funds (a clear violation of the laws) , i didn't see liberals complaining about that. And i don't know that these hospitals are accepting federal funds or if that if part of the agreement.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Apples and oranges. One issue has NOTHING to do with another.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

what do you mean apples and oranges. yale and harvard received federal money but its ok by you that they didn't have to let the military recruiters in. that's a double standard you fool. and by the way if you are going to accuse catholic hospitals for making profits from their hospitals, look at PP, making money from abortions.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

This is a health issue. You idiots claim it is a religious issue. Neither of those have to do with military recruiting. HArvard and Yale did not violate the first amendment. It did not hamper or promote a religion by disallowing the military to market itself on campus.

And Planned Parenthood is non-profit, making no money from the 3% of the services it provides that is abortion. What's more, you are conflating and distorting issues there, too. I never "accused" the church of making a profit. Good for them if they do. I said that if they take government money for performing a public service like running a hospital, they must comply with that government's laws. If they don't wish to abide by the laws, they should not be given the money. That's so simple even a right-winger can understand it.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Again, EPA, this has NOTHING to do with taking government money. The policy announced in January says that ALL employers must provide health care that includes free contraceptive coverage, or pay a fine. ALL employers, regardless of taking federal money or not. That's so simple that this right-winger understands it. You apparently need to hear it several times before it sinks in.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Confused (appropriate handle btw) this is a HEALTH issue about a corporation that employs the PUBLIC. It is NOT about a seminary or nunnery. It is about one of the the biggest hospital corporations in the country.

[-] 0 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Fine. But you understand that it is not about taking government money, right? That IS what my comment was about, despite your effort to ignore it.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Jesus fucking goddam christ. They are in the PUBLIC SPHERE. They hire and treat Catholics and non-Catholics ALIKE. They are NOT a seminary. They are NOT a convent. Their employees are NOT pastoral. And those employees are entitled to the SAME RIGHTS as EVERYONE in the country. The Church has no right to impose religion on them.

It is hypocritical of the church to take the billions of dollars in taxpayer , public, secular subsidies they do while insisting it has the right to deny the taxpayers who work for them the rights required by law. If they refused the money and THEN protested, they might have abetter case. But they take the money gladly. And it enriches the church enormously to do so.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

You still don't get it, EPA, but if the conversation causes you to explode into vulgarity, it's not worth continuing.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

so the plan parenthood doctors are volunteers? that's great! So Harvard and Yale could take government money and break the law, oh so can San Francisco and all the other sanctuary cities that break the immigration laws. But thats ok because they are leftist policies that you agree with. Looks like even a simpled minded righter winger can outsmart a super smart lefty like you.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Talk about conflating unrelated issues. Gold star for you, Skippy.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

how on earth is allowing military to recruit have anything to do with taking federal money?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

If a university takes federals funds, they must allow the U.S. military to recruit on campus. That's the law.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i just dont know if that is true. i would have to see that one in print

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

You have to broaden your news sources a bit. i'm a conservative but i always listen/read to both the conservative and liberal sides. Here look at this from pbs http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/recruitment_3-06.html

[-] 3 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

For some reason the posters in here are either trolls, or just don't understand what this really means. This is exactly why news should be vetted before it is printed, and why blogging is killing the truth. Any Joe Schmoe can type up a bunch of bull and call it the truth. The church is allowed to keep ecclesiastical positions separate from this ruling. Only non clerical positions are required to offer coverage of contraceptives. This is not about religious freedom, as you are free to not take the contraceptives. In fact, that is what the point of faith is I believe, the ability to act when tested, not the ability to be faithful as long as all the temptations and tests are kept away. So for all you Catholics, look at this as your god testing your will, and seeing if you really are a believer, or if you just follow when there is no temptation.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Nope. You are so full of shit you squeak. Please think over what you just said.

[-] 2 points by leonoraia (2) 2 years ago

wow its really said to see the how hateful most of the people commenting are. having sex or a baby is a not a sickness or a disease so dont act like it is and no-one is forcing you people to have sex if you somehow cant afford contraception (which is ridiculous because of how cheap it is) and dont want a baby then dont have sex! and guess what their is no study out their that shows by using contraception that the public population has less pregnancies because using these contraception actually causes people to have more sex therefore increasing pregnancies especially since so many of those condoms and birth pills are ineffective. And as for abortion wether you think it is murder or not it still causes girls lots of emotional problems throughout their life and actually increases risk of suicide. oh yeah here is another thing contraception actually causes more sexual diseases and many women have gotten injured and even killed from abortions http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/17/abortion-has-caused-300k-breast-cancer-deaths-since-roe/

And the catholic church is not trying to force anyone to stop buying contraception's whether it be condoms or whatever it may be. Catholic church which is made of people and clergy all over the world does not want to be forced to buy something that is against their religion. regardless if a majority of catholics use contraception it is still wrong and against catholic teaching. basically what you people on this site are saying is if a majority of people do something regardless of how bad then it is okay to do and should be legal? its against the law to drink underage yet everyone does it,it is against law to smoke weed again everyone does it, it is against the law to go over the speed limit everyone does it. my point is the goverment is not going to change the law just because a lot of people break it and that is the same with the catholic church or any religion.

If the goverment wants to provide this than should totally avoid religious institutions especially since their are so many nonprofit catholic hospitals and nonprofit catholic schools. without the church so many people would have no healthcare and have no education in the USA so why attack the church and betray the constitution? in what way the country be saved or helped if they force catholics to pay for contraception? so if I own a catholic charity and provide free relief for people of all religions then I must be forced to waste millions upon millions of dollars on contraception's condoms,birth control pills and abortions which is something I am totally against? that money from my charity could go to providing real healthcare such as healing diseases and giving vaccines or healing injuries but now it will go to condoms that money could go to feed hungry dying children but no it will to birth control pills now! no one seems to grasp how this will affect catholics and people in all religions especially in nonprofit hospitals and charities which are ran and owned almost entirely by catholics.

And a big problem people are not noticing is if this gets past whats next? what will they force on the public and on religious institutions after this gets past? when is it okay for the catholic church or any religion to fight? by then it might be too late!

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

well said, thank you. The democrats are trying to make this about the conservatives (the church, the republicans....) taking away one's contraception, which is total garbage no one is trying to take away anything. This is about religious freedom.

[-] 2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

MORE RW BS!

FAKE Righteous Indignation Gets Another Obama End-Run:

Employers Have Had to Provide Birth Control Coverage Since 2000

Did you know that, by federal rule which has been upheld in the courts, employers and insurers have had to provide birth control as part of preventive care for women? And that that's been the case since 2000, throughout the Bush administration? Lost in the firestorm the far-right has started, and that the traditional media can't resist blowing up, is the fact that coverage of prescription contraception is remarkably run-of-the mill and has been controversy-free for over a decade.

Mother Jones reports:

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 ...

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

The only thing that's changed in the mandate is that the coverage be provided a no cost, like all the other preventive care programs covered by the Affordable Care Act. Well, that's the only thing that's changed in terms of the policy. That, and that now 90 percent of employer-based plans offer contraceptive coverage. Oh, and that President Obama's plan allows for an exemption for religious institutions. The EEOC ruling does not, and nary a peep has been raised about that in 12 years.

What's really changed is that this expansion of the rule was done by a Kenyan Muslim socialist president. [Who is also guilty of being Black.]

By Joan McCarter | Sourced from Daily Kos Posted at February 9, 2012, 4:56 pm

So Obama makes an End-Run [Suck on it Liars!]

February 10, 2012 02:00 PM Obama Finesses Furious Catholic Bishops On Contraception Issue

By karoli

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/obama-finesses-furious-catholic-bishops-con

After a two-week firestorm of controversy on the question of religious institutions that are not churches providing contraceptives with no copayment, the Obama administration changed the final rule in several respects. Here they are, in a nutshell:

Institutions which are affiliated with a church such as Catholic hospitals, universities, and the like will not have to include birth control in the health insurance they provide to employees. Employees of those institutions will have access to contraceptives without a copayment because the insurer will cover it with no copayments separately. This means the insurer will reach out to women to offer free contraceptives outside of any relationship with their employer. For religious employers who use insurance companies, this will be the final rule and women will have access to contraceptives without copayments beginning August 1, 2012.

And with that, heads exploded from here to Rome. The video above is an interview Catholic League's Bill Donohue did on Friday's Megyn Kelly show, after the announcement of the change in the rule. You really must listen to him rant on and on, threatening that President Obama "will pay for this," and alleging that it really is a secret plot to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions. And of course, all of his false claims went unchallenged.

But back to the issue at hand. The goal was to make contraceptives available to women without a copayment. This satisfies that goal, because insurers will simply take care of the cost without including contraception coverage in the plan these institutions adopt. It is far less expensive for them to provide full coverage for birth control than it is for them to provide maternity coverage and well baby care for all of those babies that would come into the world as a result of not having any contraceptives available. To that end, the decision was a complete end-run around the bishops' plan to erode support for the ACA by making a big deal out of this rule.

From the President's remarks on Friday:

Today, we've reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services — no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly. Let me repeat: These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services. But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they'll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.

There are, obviously, two strategies in play here. On the legal and moral side, removing religious charities as middleme`n takes away the claim that the government was impinging on religious liberties. Since it seemed nearly impossible for the actual facts to be discussed rationally on news shows, the truth was being buried in a sea of cries over "big government telling churches what to do." For examples, have a look at the MSNBC coverage, where the stories were told every day through the frame of Catholic bishops. From Chris Matthews to Lawrence O'Donnell, there wasn't a lot of accuracy in what they were saying. Rachel Maddow got it right, but also got no credit.

Beyond that, there is also the political calculation. Women's reproductive health is a winning issue for the President despite the cries and whimpers of the Catholic Church, and by removing their objections, all of those far-right Republican candidates are now just flatly against women. Marco Rubio wants all employers to have the right to object so that all women, not just religious ones would be left out in the cold while the old men still get to fill their sexual enhancement prescriptions with minimal copayments. Rick Santorum agrees, as do the Catholic Bishops. Color me unsurprised.

On the other side, Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association have both come out in support of this policy. Greg Sargent notes that the only remaining wedge issue is the one Democrats can now use against Republicans, especially after they spent the better part of two weeks screaming about how women shouldn't have access to birth control.

I actually see this as a better way to approach the issue than forcing employers to come to some sort of "compromise" over it, and certainly better for women overall because it takes their employer out of the process entirely. Others have lingering concerns. Digby is concerned that because the bishops, et al won't be satisfied with this (see video above for example), it was a mistake to compromise. But then again, is this a compromise as much as it is an end run around their obstruction? They can fume all day long but that won't mean they're going to get anywhere. If they're out of play on the board, how exactly do they make a difference? Digby quotes Lindsay Beyerstein, who asks this:

If this compromise shuts up the bishops and smooths the way for free birth control, it's worth doing. In the grand scheme of things, it's not very much money. As the employee of secular organizations, I'm okay with subsidizing somebody else's birth control. It's not fair, but unlike the bishops, I'm a pragmatist. The most important thing is getting birth control to people who need it.

But if the bishops won't accept this deal, Obama should stop trying to accommodate them. Respect for religious freedom does not include paying solemn lip service to the contraception cooties.

The bishops don't need to accept this deal. It's done, out of their hands. It wasn't offered as something for them to approve. It was offered as the final cut, and if they want to keep complaining and pulling their puppet-politicians' strings, let them. It just erodes support for them with women and many independents who agree with the idea of providing affordable (free) access to birth control.

I mean, is anyone going to be swayed by Bill Donohue's sputters about this being a secret plot to force the Church to pay for abortions? Really?

[Obama proves once again that smarts trump hysteria. What new subterfuge will righties turn to next?]

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/obama-finesses-furious-catholic-bishops-con

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Obama is backpedaling faster than Lance Armstrong in reverse.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Again !!!!!!!!!

"FREEDOM of RELIGION"

Religion is Church is Worship is Fellowship. It is not Business.

"NOT FREEDOM of BUSINESS"

Insurance is Business it is not Church/Religion.

Health Care is Business it is not Church/Religion.

Separation of Church and State is different from separation of Church and Business. HOW?????

Again this is a Divisive Distraction trying to sow disunity to prevent us from coming together in common cause and put an end to corruption.

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

it is great how the liberals stepped into this mess. It's always best to stay out of gay marriage, abortion or other hot button issues.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is best to recognize a deliberate distraction and then if nothing else note it as such for others to see and consider. This is also education on moving forward and establishing unity.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

well we kind of agree on this. Maybe?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Perhaps.

The thing is you may have some good points, I may have some good points, others may have some good points. Same goes for considered bad points. Perspective difference is gonna happen.

We do not need to conflict over differences of ideology.

We need to recognize and band together in common concerns.

[-] 2 points by TheirLyingPropaganda (54) 2 years ago

If somebody has insurance for something, there is no requirement for the insured to claim that insurance.

Nor is it mandatory to obtain birth control if as a matter of conscience one does not wish to do so.

That would be like saying that if my car is covered by fire insurance, I 'm being forced to torch my car.

[+] -4 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

I just heard that HHS is forcing Muslim Organizations to use anesthesia for their beheading s.

[-] 2 points by Roundtree (37) 2 years ago

A society with birth control options has lower crime. Unwanted children are professional criminals in adulthood: Catholics should be obliged to provide an intelligent option, without sacrificing a traditional one.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

This country has had abortion on demand and birth control for decades now. We have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. You were saying?

[-] 2 points by Roundtree (37) 2 years ago

States that did not offer abortion prior to Roe V Wade had higher rates of crime then those states that did offer. And we still have violent crime, yes, but certainly not nearly as much with a country full of unwanted kids. There's a lot of 'blah, blah' about abortion - but those folks probably don't promote adoption as much as they bash abortion.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Not nearly as much violent crime as when abortion was illegal. Please tell me your proof of that. I think you might be mistaken.

[-] 2 points by Roundtree (37) 2 years ago

Donohue-Levitt hypothesis. Check it out. I'm not denying a crime problem, though.

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

You sound like a racist. The folks who work for these religious knew what they were getting into, they can go work somewhere else. A peacenik wouldn't work for the defense industry.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

to take it one step further, that is their "god" putting them through a test of sorts, and by trying to remove that test, the "faithful" are trying to play god. Thus they are actually against their own creed.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

And I bet you think you wouldn't have owned slaves back in colonial America if you had had the money.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

and freedom of religion. the government can't force a religion to pay for insurance that covers contraception..

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

And that is relevent how?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Give me a break, zen. No one is infringing on their freedom to choose. They can use contraception all they want. But they have to pay for it themselves, because it is just plain wrong for the government to force these institutions to offer (and thus pay higher premiums for) coverage that the institutions thinks is immoral. It forces them to send a mixed message - "we think this is wrong, but if you want to do it, we'll help pay for it.". There is no reason for the government to be involved here, unless you like Big Brother.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Healthcare? Government does it cheaper.

Posted 1 day ago on Feb. 13, 2012, 6:26 a.m. EST by factsrfun (284) This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I was asked to start this thread, this was quick response to a comment didn’t check latest numbers, might be 97 cents vs, 62 cents now or a bit different. I had not really planned to defend this, on this fine morning, but here we go.

The government gets 93 cents out of every dollar taken in out to pay for healthcare, while the private sector gets about 67 cents to the providers, you've made a great case for socialized healthcare. We spend a lot more on healthcare than we welfare so fixing this first is an even better idea.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/healthcare-government-does-it-cheaper/

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

government doesn't do health care cheaper, you pay for it with rationing. The government can only control the health care cost by rationing the services given ;people end up with substandard service or waiting long times for the services.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

rationing does not mean substandard treatment

rationing is used to keep an army on it's feet

Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources, goods, or services.

are we to assume healthcare is scarce ?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

When you go to countries where health care is controlled by the government it is rationed / scarce. When you only have so many hospitals, so many x-ray's, catscans.....you got to ration. that's what they do. When you have wait for surgery that is substandard treatment.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I was gonna go to Tia Juana because when I thought I had pink eye

to get anti-biotic eye drops

In the US, I would have to first pay and visit a doctor

so they could ration me the same medicine

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

If you can't figure out how to get your pink eye taken care of in the U.S., you have other problems besides that.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not without paying lots of private companies no

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

what about a public clinic, or catholic health services.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the public clinic at my college works very well for that at $15 a semesters

but they were closed for Christmas break

[-] 1 points by TheirLyingPropaganda (54) 2 years ago

I remember that the Catholic Church at one time at least, had liability insurance which indemnified their pedophile pursuits.

Now I get it ! The insurance made them do it.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

Even the pope has come out to say condoms should be used to prevent AIDS....it is a sad day when American evangelicals are more conservative than the Pope...Women should have the right to chose what they want to do with their body, all the catholics who don't want to protect themselves from STDs have the right to not use contraception, no one is being forced to use contraception...although maybe some should be slipped into the wine at church so these people who want to supress the rights of women stop reproducing...

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

hey dummy, where did you get American evangelicals, its the Catholic Church complaining about having to pay for contraception. Even your liberal friends don't think this Obamacare push to force Catholic institutions (hospitals, schools) to pay for contraception is a smart idea. The workers can go to Plan Parenthood, or pay for it themselves.

[-] 2 points by WarmItUp (301) 2 years ago

sorry but the few talk shows I listened to had some non-catholic evangelical going on about it...have you tried to buy a box of condoms...$14 in some places...many non-catholic teenage girls go to catholic hospitals because there father makes them....I grew up in a catholic family like this. It is always old white men telling women what to do with their bodies...wanna see the number of abortions drop, cover contraception, people aren't going to stop having sex, quit shoving your religion down my children's throat...A hospital is not a church, yeah maybe we should not treat gay people or maybe when a women speaks out of turn we should take her to the edge of town and have the elders stone her to death....sorry but your sick antiquated bible has no place in dictatiing modern medicine..or cutting off access to womans health

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

"the few talk shows" you listened to? How about using some of your internet time to research what is really going on?

Catholic (and other) Churches are exempt from including free contraceptive coverage on their insurance plans under the Conscience Clause, but the charities (hospitals etc) run by those same churches are not exempt under this new regulation. Since insurance pools peoples premium payments, then everyone purchasing insurance through the Catholic charity's plan would be paying for contraceptives for those who use them. This is seen to violate the same Conscience Clause by a majority of Catholics (and a growing number of other faiths). This is a separate issue from whether or not Catholic (or other faith) women use or believe in the use of contraceptives.

Whether or not the church based charity offers free contraceptives in their insurance plans, the women covered under those plans are not stopped from obtaining contraceptives. No one would be stopping them from going to Planned Parenthood (where the cost of contraceptives are from $15.00 - $50.00 per month depending on what choice they make). At issue is whether or not a faith based employer should be forced by the government to make those contraceptives available as free and part of the insurance benefit package.

No one who is against this new Obama regulation is arguing that women should not have access to contraceptives, the issue is whether the government has the right to force a faith based employer to provide something for free that is not in line with their doctrine. Further, if a woman wants insurance to cover contraception for free, then she doesn't have to work for that faith based employer does she?

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

very well explained, Unfortunately, many folks on this blog only hear what they want to hear.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2531) 2 years ago

If a man open's his legs he should be prepared for the fact that a woman might use contraception or end the pregnancy - guess he should learn how to keep his legs closed or else be ready to bare the consequences

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I think my first memory was at three but I don't remember

[-] 1 points by metoo (18) 2 years ago

I am Catholic, and I agree with the decision to fund oral contraceptives. I have also worked for an organization that was affiliated with the church. A few years ago, when my daughter developed a condition that required she take hormone supplements, the doctor suggested that she take birth control pills, as this was a cheap alternative. My insurance through the church would not cover the cost of the medication because they were birth control pills, and it did not matter that the drug would be taken for a medical condition rather than for contraceptives. When I was a teenager I also had the same hormonal imbalance, but my parents had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and the cost of the medications were covered without any problems. My point is this. I think that the church should not be allowed to make medical decisions period, and if a women needs to take birth control pills for what ever reason that a medical doctor sees fit, the church should not have a say in making health decisions at all!!!

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

if you oppose then don't work for a church affiliated organization. pro choice works both ways.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

true.. if the catholics oppose this law.. they can stop offering insurance

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

I wonder if all you liberals would want Muslim run hospitals to be forced to go against their religious beliefs. Even if they did they wouldn't have the balls to say it.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

What the ripe **** are you babbling about? Did YOU do those drawings?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

These are hospitals and colleges and this is not a church or a mosque.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

And that has to do with my question how?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Your statement is not relevant. That would be the point.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

I disagree. A hospital run by a Christian or Muslim organization is still part of that systems religious beliefs. My original statement is very relevant.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No. This is insurance. It has no bearing on theology.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Exactly right again GF.

Truth = Church is Church, Health Care is Health Care, Insurance is Insurance.

Or Church is Religion and the other two are not. Can't deal with that? Don't go into the business.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep. This has become a larger issue than what it should be. I think that there are other states that already have this rule and there was no rage factor. In fact, I think Romney added that when he was in Massachusetts.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is divisive and a distraction. Let us get the mind of the people off of how they are being systematically raped. Divert attention now.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Very much so. If there is any opportunity to present that religion is under attack they will do so.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It shakes-up the community. It takes away the good that is being done. It throws mud and starts fights. Anything to keep good people from uniting in common cause.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Well, this is a ploy that has been used over and over again. A church opens up a business receives funding at the federal, state and local level but does not want to comply with the same regulations that the exact same secular institution does.......but wants the money. So, they then try to make the argument that the government is trying to control religion.

They made the same argument for regulations in child care in the state of Indiana. http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1101691216650-484/Requirements_comparedtoSB56-HB1226.pdf

Even those that worked for the child care facilities were asking for these changes because they were constantly faced with one individual to 20 children. It does start fights and is divisive but can and should be addressed as this is most often a follow the money deal.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Geez, can we get away from this "accepting government money" argument, please? This has NOTHING to do with accepting government money. The new policy applies to ALL employers, as CNN made clear. CNN, people! Not Fox. CNN. Crimny, can we at least be informed before we start typing?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

No, we cannot get away from it. Grow up. There was an actual conversation taking place and a comparison to the arguments made. I know recognizing an actual conversation taking place is difficult for you.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep follow the damn money. That is why much ocean shipping is done under a foreign flag.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

LOL. Yep. :D

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Another laugh ( and perhaps a smile? ) Thank you. I am truly blessed.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Too true.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Are you serious? Your god obama is forcing religions that have strictures against birth control for theological reasons to distribute said birth control. That is not just an insurance problem.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

No one is ordering the church to "distribute" birth control. That is a blatant falsehood. Their insurance is required to cover birth control, something that apparently 64% of Catholic women use. And to allow access to is not the same as forcing. Stop being reactionary and read the actual details. The Church still gets to do what it wants as far as its ecclesiastical positions. Just not their general staff, who are not all Catholics, and it would be religious discrimination to only hire Catholics, so therefore the company is required to provide coverage, as any other company would be required to.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

It has nothing to do with who they hire. And yes it is forcing them by law to distribute it. They do not believe in birth control. Period. They are being forced to provide it to anyone that wants it. Period. The general staff being all catholic or not has nothing to do with it. The hospital is supported and run by the church. That is what counts.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

the hospital status is religious, to avoid taxes. Not all staff are religious, nor should they get to make it that way. Read sometime, you might learn something. And be required to offer, and forced to give are completely different

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

The staff working at a religious hospital are not forced to adhere to the particular doctrine of that religion. They can choose not to work there. And be required to offer and forced to offer? Please explain the difference. Are you saying that if a religious organization refuses to change their doctrine to accommodate some secular "slaughter the babies" garbage they should stop operating hospitals? Personally I think they should but that isn't the point.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

contraceptives save the need to "slaughter the babies". You undermine your own argument

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am dead serious. This is insurance. I do not have a god Obama.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

So you believe in government control of religious institutions?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Wrong.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Never mind. I was wrong when I thought you could have an intelligent conversation.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I had no great expectations from you either.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

only if they operate without any public government assistance.. and you know they do not.. if they want government money they have to follow the government rules.. end of story

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

there is a jobs bill to employ construction workers

we should build public hospitals like public libraries

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

public hospitals how are we going to pay for them, we are broke. public libraries, not high on the priority list now.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

taxes

bring the troops home

stop supporting the military industrial complex

stop paying out to private issuance

government research and ownership of prescription drug research

make medical degrees more accessible

offer government health care employment to veterans

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

if you think that government can do such a wonderful job try the health care system in Cuba.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

have you? or did you just regurgitate a Republicant sound bite?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I had pink eye the other day or perhaps just a bad allergic reaction

and I could not get antibiotic eye drops without a hospital visit and prescription

which would take all day and about $150

I had plans to go to Tia Juanna to get the eye drops over the counter

but then I got better on my own

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You’d think radical anti-choicers would embrace increased access to pregnancy prevention.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

its the Catholic Church, that is their belief, they don't support contraception or abortions. It's call pro choice for a reason, the catholic church has a right to choose also.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Not all of their employees are Catholic. Providing FULL health insurance for women does force any female employee, not one, to take contraception. It only gives them a choice.

What's more, the mandate to include coverage is on insurance companies, not the church or any other employer.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Of course not all of their employees are catholic but they work for the church; the church has the choice , not to provide contraception or insurance that does, the employee can work somewhere else if he/she doesn't agree. The courts will work this work out probably siding with the Church.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The church has no obligation to hire non Catholics. If they do, they must comply with the law to provide ALL health care to all their employees Catholic or non-Catholic. Doing otherwise is discrimination based on religious beliefs, the very thing the constitution prohibits.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

That's rubbish, the supreme court has already supported this in the The Hosanna-Tabor case

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You're right. Obama only supported the decision. That does not change anything: in fact, it supports what I wrote. There is no violation of the first amendment in the HHS requirement. And it supports the 14th amendment of equal protection.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

We will see what the court decides. Separation of church and state works both ways.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 2 years ago

oft quoted, but never supported. Apparently, there is no separation of church and state, just a clause to not endorse a single religion. The church, like any business, is required to follow all employment codes, just as any other employer, except in ecclesiastical positions, which are excluded from the mandate to cover contraception anyway.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Thank you for your opinion, we will see what the courts say. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/05/sotu.01.html

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

We will indeed. And it does indeed.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

If they are so anti-women they belong in the Republican party.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Spoken like a true robot.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Chugwunka: Great answer I'm sure it must mean something, what I don't know.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Is not anti-women, it is against their Catholic beliefs. Its about the separation of church and state, nothing to do with republican versus democrat You are talking about millions of voters. And the catholic health care services services very large number of people.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

as the other guy said.. it does not force any catholics to use contraceptive. just because something is covered by your insurance it does not force you to use that paticular medical choice. how is it wrong?

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

It forces the catholic institution to pay for something that it believes to be wrong, and to send a mixed message - "the church we represent believes this is wrong, as do we. But if you choose to do it anyway, we will make it easier for you by paying for it." it's not as if they are firing people for using contraception. They are simply saying, " if you do this, you'll have to pay for it yourself." why does this require government intervention?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

that would only be true if the catholic church has its own private insurance..company..that only catholics are allowed to participate in. if it is using blue cross or other public insurance companies then they are not paying for that one particular medical choice. any more than they are paying for any other covered choice and im sure if you checked.. the insurance they have now will pay for vasectomy and tubal ligation most insurances pay for these but do not pay for birthcontrol. i think this is what the law is trying to address. i figure the catholics have no idea what is covered under thier insurance at this moment. and if the insurance they have now will pay for those birthcontrol methods they should be required to pay for the much less expensive non permanent types also

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Of course they pay for it. An employer pays for part, usually most, of the premiums for the employees. The more services offered, the more expensive the insurance. Companies save money all the time by cutting back on insurance coverage. My company did that this past year. Do you think all that medical care is free?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

this law was passed in 2003.. have you ever heard of this? why no outcry to the world at that time? it is just political.. and anti women.. besides.. why should non catholic employees be denied an important coverage because of a religion..

[-] 2 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

You use the language of entitlement. Why should I be denied important vision or dental coverage? Why am I denied the use of a company car? Why am I denied six weeks of paid vacation? The more important question is, why is the government mandating what benefits a company must provide, over their ethical objections. And where will it stop?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i see.. the problem is.. it is the insurance companies that are being mandated.. not the catholics. the catholics can choose to not offer insurance can they not? or at the least to not offer prescription coverage or is there a law mandating employers to offer insurance im not aware of?

[-] 2 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Uhhh... Yeah, gesto, for now there is exactly that law, at least until the supreme court strikes it down. Obamacare mandates that employers provide insurance or be fined. And the insurance they provide must include contraceptive coverage. They've been given a year to adjust to the new law. That is what the administration calls "compromise." Others call it coercion.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

After posting the message above, I went to get this paragraph from CNNs coverage of the issue:

"But the dispute - spurred by a late January announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that all employers, including Catholic hospitals and schools, will be required to offer free access to FDA-approved contraceptives like the birth control pill and Plan B (the so-called morning-after pill) through health insurance plans - shows no signs of dying down"

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 2 years ago

its wasteful spending and kind of idiotic to make a group of people pay for something they don't use

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

how does having coverage under an insurance plan make you pay for something you dont use? heart transplants are covered and you dont use those unless you want to. you dont use anything covered under insurance unless you choose to how is that forcing you mental health is covered,, chiropractic is covered.. you just dont use that unless you choose to do so..

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

You are really confused, gesto. The more services offered under an insurance policy, the more it costs in premiums, and the costs are divided between the employer and the employee. This mandates that contraceptive care is a kind of inalienable right of all insured people. Will the government decide that all insurance must include vision care, or dental, or acupuncture, or colon cleansings, or ...? And what gives government the right to dictate that, especially when it's a matter of freedom of conscience?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you do know that it is already a law in new york and many other states that all insurance companies must cover birthcontrol.. it didnt seem to bother the catholic church in new york.. its just political tool cant you see that

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

[-] 2 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

So your reasoning is that too much state government intervention in some states justifies too much federal government intervention in all 50 states? Sorry, I don't follow the reasoning. Overreach is overreach. And the issue is no more anti-woman than lack of acupuncture coverage is anti - Asian. Catholic institutions should be allowed to have their ethics inform their choices of insurance coverage. Period.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

it isnt ethics it is religion its just as important as coverage for a broken leg. if it ok for the government to force religious parents that believe god will cure them to get healthcare for kids it is just as ok for the government to force all religions to practice common sense. i think it is a good law because i find it discriminatory that almost all insurance, most likely including the insurance the catholics have, covers vasectomies and tubal ligation but not birthcontrol.. insurance companies should be mandated to cover this . i dont really understand why they object when they have so many employees that are not catholic. should religion be used as a reason for anything that affects the non religious? is that any different than the government intervening?

[-] 2 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

You see it as discriminatory because you have an entitlement mindset, that people have this right that others who disagree with it should be forced to pay for. Remember, these institutions are not forbidding people from using birth control, and they aren't threatening to fire them if they use it. They are saying "if you choose to use it, you will need to pay for it yourself. We won't pay for what we think is wrong." If the government decided that abortion is a right, will these institutions be forced to help pay for that, subsidizing what they think is murder? This is a scary road, that the administration is already backing away from, and I think will be forced by public opinion to back away further in an election year. It's an offensive, stupid policy being enforced at a bad time.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

it forces the Catholic Church to offer and pay for contraception, including the morning after pill. It doesn't matter what the heath care beneficiaries do with their health care choices its the fact that the church is forced to offer and pay for it. How would you feel if Gay organizations were forced to pay to educate their employees on the wonders of being straight?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

as long as they also were forced to educate them on the fact that gay is an abnormality and an abomination then why not? all sides of a issue should be taught if it is taught at all. and it does not force them to offer it.. they do not have to mention it out loud no catholic would even know it was covered until they went to the doctor and requested it. just like any other health issue.. you do not know wht is coverd and what is not. and you do know that it is already a law in new york and many other states that all insurance companies must cover birthcontrol.. it didnt seem to bother the catholic church in new york.. its just political tool cant you see that

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

[-] -1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@tomahawk99: Catholic Dogma is anti-women.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Are you an athiest? Do you like muslims? christianity brought on western civilization, so you should be thankful.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@tomahawk99: What about Catholic Dogma being ant-women.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

I don't know what you are talking about. Define Catholic Dogma and why you think its antiwomen. Why don't you go after Muslims if you so concerned about religion and women's rights

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Tomahawk99:

The Roman Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women, as expressed in the current canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that: "Only a baptized man (in Latin, vir) validly receives sacred ordination."[1] Insofar as priestly and episcopal ordination are concerned, the Church teaches that this requirement is a matter of divine law, and thus doctrinal.

Christianity emerged from patriarchal societies that placed men in positions of authority in marriage, society and government. From the time of the early church, women were not ordained to the priesthood .

Primary texts in the New Testament which are understood to support male headship include 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:12 and Ephesians 5:22ff:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Tim 2:11-12) .

God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.

Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that God gives men and women different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men are intended by God to be teachers and leaders in the Church, the family, and society. Women should not have any kind of teaching role over adult men. Women should not have any kind of leadership role over adult men.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

well if you don't like the church you or any women is free to leave it. Try that will Islam. Why does the left love Islam??

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@tomahawk99: I'm good without Gods.

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

Should update you post to the insurance companies providing at no cost to the Bishops. And the Catholic Hospital group accepting this solution.

People seeking solutions find solutions, people seeking confrontation ignore solutions.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

Sorry i don't understand your post. Maybe that second cup of coffee would help you out.:?

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

Didn't look like you included the mixed reaction from various groups to the changed policy. Bottoms up!

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Obama caved this morning and there will be an "exception". The darker question is why would he antagonize literally millions of people who actually vote during an election year? Is it true that he is just stupid?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

he let Kathleen Sebelius override his other advisors who told him not to do this.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Good! Contraception and abortion are legal laws of the land we call America. But discrimination is illegal, all women are allowed these services in America, thank god!! As is raping little boys and running red lights illegal!! Got a problem with the laws of the land, move!!

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

You are so stupid, read what Obamacare is forcing the religious institutions to do, has nothing to do with banning contraception or abortions. You are an embarrassment to Occupy.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You probably misread my reply. I'm with this guy:

"""""" [-] 4 points by bensdad (1036) 3 days ago

The vast majority of catholics use birth control & just as a tiny little detail - the Constitution does not protect religions - it protects people

I think catholic hospitals should refuse to serve divorced people or pedophiles.

""""""""""""""" And I think their tax exemption should be revoked. It's all about human rights. Religion is the biggest scam on people that there is.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

good for you, it still doesn't cover the issue. The government is forcing a religion and church to do something that is against there basic beliefs . These people can get contraceptions at Plan Parenthood they don't need to get it from their health care insurgence. That's what most people do.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Health insurance providers that provide medications have been mandated to include contraceptives since 2000. Bush thought it was fine. Go fuck Bush!

You keep using this exaggerated rhetoric "gov forcing religion and church..." like it's a winning atrocity. It's not! Fuck your damn religion! This is a country of laws!! Not religion! It should be restricted like porn, because it's much much more indecent. Keep it to your lemming, duped self.

And shut the fuck up while legal medications are provided by healthcare providers, whatever their God Damn religion is. You want theocracy, go somewhere else!! What is wrong with you NUTS!!!!???? You're as bad as the radical fundamentalist Muslims!!

[+] -4 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

i'm not even a catholic and don't attend church ,but unlike you i know my American History, America was founded on religious freedoms. There is a separation of government and religion and government can't force certain things on religious groups. Is that too hard for your little brain to comprehend. Bush never federally mandated contraception to religious institutions this is something new with Obamacare. I don't think that you need to worry about paying for contraception anyway, your stupidity is a free contraception.

[-] 3 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

No, it's in the Constitution, all religious groups must STFU and be glad they can be here. But keep it covered up.

Health insurance providers that provide medications have been mandated to include contraceptives since 2000. Bush thought it was fine. Go fuck Bush!

You keep using this exaggerated rhetoric "gov forcing religion and church..." like it's a winning atrocity. It's not! Fuck your damn religion! This is a country of laws!! Not religion! It should be restricted like porn, because it's much much more indecent. Keep it to your lemming, duped self.

And shut the fuck up while legal medications are provided by healthcare providers, whatever their God Damn religion is. You want theocracy, go somewhere else!!

What is wrong with you NUTS!!!!????

You're as bad as the radical fundamentalist Muslims!!

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

[-] -3 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

you repeat yourself. Oh i didn't see that you are from portland, . Sorry i didn't realize that, i'll be nice. Yes you are correct Jiffy! You are soo smart, good boy.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Well, once again our smart (how refreshing) President did an end-run around your crazy hysterical asses.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

of course, we are so embarrassed now! Jiffy you are soo smart, good boy!

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

FAKE Righteous Indignation Gets Another Obama End-Run:

Employers Have Had to Provide Birth Control Coverage Since 2000

Did you know that, by federal rule which has been upheld in the courts, employers and insurers have had to provide birth control as part of preventive care for women? And that that's been the case since 2000, throughout the Bush administration? Lost in the firestorm the far-right has started, and that the traditional media can't resist blowing up, is the fact that coverage of prescription contraception is remarkably run-of-the mill and has been controversy-free for over a decade.

Mother Jones reports:

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 ...

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

The only thing that's changed in the mandate is that the coverage be provided a no cost, like all the other preventive care programs covered by the Affordable Care Act. Well, that's the only thing that's changed in terms of the policy. That, and that now 90 percent of employer-based plans offer contraceptive coverage. Oh, and that President Obama's plan allows for an exemption for religious institutions. The EEOC ruling does not, and nary a peep has been raised about that in 12 years.

What's really changed is that this expansion of the rule was done by a Kenyan Muslim socialist president. [Who is also guilty of being Black.]

By Joan McCarter | Sourced from Daily Kos Posted at February 9, 2012, 4:56 pm

So Obama makes an End-Run [Suck on it Liars!]

February 10, 2012 02:00 PM Obama Finesses Furious Catholic Bishops On Contraception Issue

By karoli

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/obama-finesses-furious-catholic-bishops-con

After a two-week firestorm of controversy on the question of religious institutions that are not churches providing contraceptives with no copayment, the Obama administration changed the final rule in several respects. Here they are, in a nutshell:

Institutions which are affiliated with a church such as Catholic hospitals, universities, and the like will not have to include birth control in the health insurance they provide to employees. Employees of those institutions will have access to contraceptives without a copayment because the insurer will cover it with no copayments separately. This means the insurer will reach out to women to offer free contraceptives outside of any relationship with their employer. For religious employers who use insurance companies, this will be the final rule and women will have access to contraceptives without copayments beginning August 1, 2012.

And with that, heads exploded from here to Rome. The video above is an interview Catholic League's Bill Donohue did on Friday's Megyn Kelly show, after the announcement of the change in the rule. You really must listen to him rant on and on, threatening that President Obama "will pay for this," and alleging that it really is a secret plot to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions. And of course, all of his false claims went unchallenged.

But back to the issue at hand. The goal was to make contraceptives available to women without a copayment. This satisfies that goal, because insurers will simply take care of the cost without including contraception coverage in the plan these institutions adopt. It is far less expensive for them to provide full coverage for birth control than it is for them to provide maternity coverage and well baby care for all of those babies that would come into the world as a result of not having any contraceptives available. To that end, the decision was a complete end-run around the bishops' plan to erode support for the ACA by making a big deal out of this rule.

From the President's remarks on Friday:

Today, we've reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services — no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly. Let me repeat: These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services. But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they'll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.

There are, obviously, two strategies in play here. On the legal and moral side, removing religious charities as middleme`n takes away the claim that the government was impinging on religious liberties. Since it seemed nearly impossible for the actual facts to be discussed rationally on news shows, the truth was being buried in a sea of cries over "big government telling churches what to do." For examples, have a look at the MSNBC coverage, where the stories were told every day through the frame of Catholic bishops. From Chris Matthews to Lawrence O'Donnell, there wasn't a lot of accuracy in what they were saying. Rachel Maddow got it right, but also got no credit.

Beyond that, there is also the political calculation. Women's reproductive health is a winning issue for the President despite the cries and whimpers of the Catholic Church, and by removing their objections, all of those far-right Republican candidates are now just flatly against women. Marco Rubio wants all employers to have the right to object so that all women, not just religious ones would be left out in the cold while the old men still get to fill their sexual enhancement prescriptions with minimal copayments. Rick Santorum agrees, as do the Catholic Bishops. Color me unsurprised.

On the other side, Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association have both come out in support of this policy. Greg Sargent notes that the only remaining wedge issue is the one Democrats can now use against Republicans, especially after they spent the better part of two weeks screaming about how women shouldn't have access to birth control.

I actually see this as a better way to approach the issue than forcing employers to come to some sort of "compromise" over it, and certainly better for women overall because it takes their employer out of the process entirely. Others have lingering concerns. Digby is concerned that because the bishops, et al won't be satisfied with this (see video above for example), it was a mistake to compromise. But then again, is this a compromise as much as it is an end run around their obstruction? They can fume all day long but that won't mean they're going to get anywhere. If they're out of play on the board, how exactly do they make a difference? Digby quotes Lindsay Beyerstein, who asks this:

If this compromise shuts up the bishops and smooths the way for free birth control, it's worth doing. In the grand scheme of things, it's not very much money. As the employee of secular organizations, I'm okay with subsidizing somebody else's birth control. It's not fair, but unlike the bishops, I'm a pragmatist. The most important thing is getting birth control to people who need it.

But if the bishops won't accept this deal, Obama should stop trying to accommodate them. Respect for religious freedom does not include paying solemn lip service to the contraception cooties.

The bishops don't need to accept this deal. It's done, out of their hands. It wasn't offered as something for them to approve. It was offered as the final cut, and if they want to keep complaining and pulling their puppet-politicians' strings, let them. It just erodes support for them with women and many independents who agree with the idea of providing affordable (free) access to birth control.

I mean, is anyone going to be swayed by Bill Donohue's sputters about this being a secret plot to force the Church to pay for abortions? Really?

[Obama proves once again that smarts trump hysteria. What new subterfuge will righties turn to next?]

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/obama-finesses-furious-catholic-bishops-con

[-] -1 points by neonknight (-21) 2 years ago

Obama doesn't have the right to tell the Catholic Church anything.

Obama is a fucking POS Dictator and he's acting like Chairman MAObama rather than a US President.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

If non Catholics want contraception then they can go get it from a non catholic hospital. It's no more complicated than that.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Hospitals don't dispense birth control, nor do they prescribe. It's a non issue from that point of view.

The issue is that the religious hospitals do provide insurance for the people who work there, many who are not of that particular subset of faith. The healthcare law requires that all employers offer as part of the insurance package, birth control services. The employees are allowed to accept or not accept that particular clause.

Jeez, seems like no one has ever purchased or read a health insurance contract.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

You make good points. Perhaps people that would work for a religious organization but do not believe in that religion should re consider working there.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I haven't bothered to check the percentages of religious vs nonreligious working on hospitals, yet I have little trouble in perceiving that the religious hospital would be grossly understaffed if such were to occur.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

If there beliefs mattered they would cope.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I wasn't thinking of the staff, but rather the patients. who would be the ones to suffer lack of adequate care.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Not providing contraception is not a "lack of adequate care".

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Excuse me but you shifted the discussion to staff relocating to other work places and I pointed out that there would be a strong likelihood of understaffing which would result in less than adequate patient care.

I'm not lost, maybe you are?

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Excuse me but I think that staffing problems might be a little out of our topic. There are a lot of Catholics in this country (think Hispanics ) that can work in those hospitals. Are you so sure of a "strong likelihood of understaffing"?

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Even orderlies are trained, and they get the nasty jobs.

The staffing issue would be in line with the discussion, as more than one person has mentioned the option of current staff relocating if they did not like the insurance package.

It shouldn't be that big an issue, after all, it's only a small portion of an insurance package and the insured do have the option to not include it in their policy.

Just read the clauses.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Forcing religious institutions to go against core beliefs is a big issue. I fail to understand what you seculars don't understand about that. Is it because you don't agree with their beliefs?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Because faith should not always triumph over logic.

[-] -1 points by Marleyfowat (6) 2 years ago

Buy your own damn bc pills. Who the hell died and made big ears king?

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

LOL, pills aren't the only option, but it appears men (boys) can't be consistently responsible...

[-] 0 points by Marleyfowat (6) 2 years ago

Yeah that no shit. Girls are the same damn way. Animal instincts right?

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Species survival, so BC is a logical choice, no need for spur of the moment...

[-] -1 points by Marleyfowat (6) 2 years ago

Spread of disease will kill off the weak in our species. VD that is.

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Yippy skippy!!! Free love!!! Make love not war!!! If you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with!!! Fuck time for freeeeeeeee!!!!!!

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

One can only hope, but most Catholics vote left anyway.

[Removed]