Why abortion groups opposed the religious exemption but support the “compromise”
UPDATE 2/14, 9:10p: Add Diana DeGette, co-chair of House Pro-Choice Caucus, to the list of “accommodation” supporters.
UPDATE 2/13, 9:40a: I’ve been keeping track of the pro-abortion groups that have endorsed President Obama’s life-ending drug mandate “accommodation” and wanted to make sure you were up to speed. If we had nothing else, this would be all the evidence needed to know the “accommodation” is nothing but bad. I added another today (click to enlarge)…
UPDATE 2/12, 6p: Add another pro-abortion group to the list of those supporting President Obama’s life-ending drug mandate…
UPDATE 2/10, 3:40p: Add Emily’s List to the pro-abortion groups supporting Obama’s announcement today… a “victory.” Click to enlarge…
2/10, 1:3op: NARAL and Planned Parenthood have joined RH Reality Check to enthusiastically support President Obama’s just announced “accommodation.”
The reason? Whereas before at least churches were exempted from providing insurance coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, now even church insurance policies will have to cover them. As RH Reality states, “Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage.”
Read details here of Obama’s tweaked plan, but note the verbiage in the tweets below. Click to enlarge:
Pregnancy is not an illness, as our HHS Secty repeatedly claims. “FREE”?? whose paying for this free “healthcare”? My money will be paying for the Morning After-”Abortion” Pill!
19 likes
I am not a fan of insurance companies, but down the owners of insurance companies, and their employees have religious liberty as well?
Are insurance companies the only businesses/organizations that shouldn’t enjoy religious liberty?
14 likes
Ignoring surgical abortion and the moral implications for a moment, why should birth control, morning-after pills, and sterilizations, come without co-pays? It raises the overall cost of healthcare for everyone. It makes no sense economically.
17 likes
Big govt just doesn’t understand the first amendment.
12 likes
@ Janet – because they want it that way! it’s to control populations, and to pay back the people the politicians are indebted to.
If they really cared about women’s health and employers’ economic health, the administration would be pushing for natural hormones and natural medical relief so that woman can deal with problems with their periods, fertility and the like. The Paul VI institute in Nebraska is educating medical personnel for just that – and then we get real health for women, no unnatural steroidal substances in women’s bodies or in the environment, and a natural approach to the body and health.
But of course, this is what the administration does not want. self control (bah-humbug!), good and healthy behavior (nah!), helping women and men be responsible (nope!), helping to clean up the environment (No problemo!), having the most natural health instead of increasing cancer due to man-made (poor)imitation hormones (waaaahhh!).
Makes sense to me (sarcasm).
7 likes
\”whose paying for this free “healthcare”?\”
Do you not understand how insurance works? Healtcare is a shared expense between those who enroll on the plan.
\”My money will be paying for the Morning After-”Abortion” Pill!\”
So? My money goes to finance women who shoot out 8 kids and to ME, THAT is offensive – not only is it far more expensive for insurance plans to cover pregnant women, it\’s bad for the planet too. This is really the first time in US history where government policy did NOT somehow subsidize human reproduction.
11 likes
What a hassle dealing with the Obamanites. They may yet again succeed in dividing the Catholics for the upcoming election. Bummer!
6 likes
Tyler: I’m with you. I don’t understand how being able to control how your employees use their compensation is an issue of religious liberty, but being able to decide how you use your own compensation isn’t.
Health insurance is a form of job compensation. (I think that’s ridiculous, but that’s the system we’ve had for decades.) My employer doesn’t get to tell me what I can buy with my salary, and they shouldn’t be able to dictate what health care services I can get with my health insurance.
8 likes
Birth control, abortion and sterilization are really an assault on motherhood. The idea is to make being a mother something to avoid at all costs. (Go back to Magaret Sanger’s writting on “motherhood is bondage” and you will get my drift here) the point is, motherhood is an honorable thing and children are our heritage. More children makes our country stronger and insures another generation to keep our country going. but Ms. Sanger believed that motherhood devalued women. Read her stuff. (Hilter read it and used it as part of his reason to exterminiate Jews)
This push for contraception for all for free is to make sure there are less and less children born to supposedly save the government money. But less children born also reduces the tax base, and devalues the role of motherhood. Birth control does NOT free us. It prevents those who could contribute to our world from being born and it makes sex into a cheap act of recreation no more different than going to the movies. It also means handicapped kids will never be born. (and sadly, if Obamacare stays in place, the government will be able to decide who is “handicapped” and unfit for treatment.) We have one chance, this election, to stop Obamacare and get back on course. I have a favorite but if he doesn’t get the nominiation, I will vote for whoever does. If we do not go out and vote, Obamacare goes into effect and there will be no way to stop it’s effects on the next generation. With fewer children coming into the world to pay taxes and work, our country will become a weak nation.
If insurance is paying for this, then the companies with that insurance are paying for it. This is no more than a word game. Let’s stop playing Obama’s word game and vote him out of office.
27 likes
what happens to self-insured religious institutions? or for that matter, self-insured private institutions whose owners object?
bottom line – it seems obvious this is just another way to push the B/C (i.e. ultimately abortion) agenda
12 likes
” My money goes to finance women who shoot out 8 kids and to ME, THAT is offensive –”
I guess you will be too offended by those kids’ existence to collect your social security and medicare benefits that they will be working to provide you.
Comments like this show the true hate and illiberal thinking of folks who do not respect other people’s choices. That commenter is not a liberal, but a totalitarian.
27 likes
“Birth control, abortion and sterilization are really an assault on motherhood. The idea is to make being a mother something to avoid at all costs.”
Nonsense. I am a mother, and I use birth control. Most mothers use birth control to plan how they will be mothers. Not wanting to have unlimited babies is not the same as not wanting to be a mother at all. (Not that there’s anything wrong with not wanting to be a mother if that’s how one feels.)
You may think I should have eight babies I can’t handle rather than giving lots of time and love and attention to my one daughter, but that’s not my problem. I’ll decide how to be a mother.
8 likes
Those on govt. assistance like food stamps get cell phones and free monthly minutes. FREE….really . No the phone companies are required to supply them and the fees are paid by the paying customers…it is that universally connective fee on your bill. Nothing is free someone has to pay. So it is cost shifting to those paying for their cell phones and we had no say so in the matter.
The same way here….free bc, etc and the cost is absorbed in the premiums. Cost shifting……we are paying for something we don’t like and want.
10 likes
“if Obamacare stays in place, the government will be able to decide who is “handicapped” and unfit for treatment.”
The new healthcare law does nothing to increase the number of providers. All it does is maximize profits for insurance companies. The government forces you to buy their product at their price. It makes no effort will be made to actually get more services to more people, but on paper, they will have insurance. I predict that the insurance companies that benefit from the guaranteed extra income will successfully lobby the government to allow them to deny ever more services. Yeah, you won’t get treatment, but hey you will have insurance, and “free” birth control and abortions!
9 likes
“if Obamacare stays in place, the government will be able to decide who is “handicapped” and unfit for treatment.”
The new healthcare law does nothing to increase the number of providers. All it does is maximize profits for insurance companies. The government forces you to buy their product at their price. It makes no effort to actually get more services to more people, but on paper, they will have insurance. I predict that the insurance companies that benefit from the guaranteed extra income will successfully lobby the government to allow them to deny ever more services. Yeah, you won’t get treatment, but hey you will have insurance, and “free” birth control and abortions!
3 likes
B/C and sterilization are not an assault on motherhood. What is an assault on motherhood is the capricious way that pro-lifers treat it. As if pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing have no more impact on a woman’s or a couple’s life than a trip to the shopping mall. Treating human babies like porcelain collectibles is an assault on motherhood.
That said, there’s really nothing more depressing than the same trite bingoes that women with tons of children have, like the tired “my child will be paying your social security and taking care of you when you’re old” canard. Hardly anyone’s child will be taking care of anyone when they’re old any more than the current posters on this board work to take care of the elderly, and I’m willing to bet that’s virtually none of you, even your own relatives.
I’d be satisfied if your child knows how to read by the time he’s 15 and doesn’t rob me at gunpoint for my purse. You get points for raising children when and ONLY when they really do grow up to be relatively productive members of society. Until then, since I as a childfree person am really the only one paying any taxes, and you get a nice fat check loaded with taxpayer money every April simply because you reproduced, please remember not to bite the hand that feeds you – especially as an elderly person who will be providing your little butt-wipers with a job someday that they should be grateful to have.
13 likes
“My employer doesn’t get to tell me what I can buy with my salary, and they shouldn’t be able to dictate what health care services I can get with my health insurance.”
I want my insurance to pay for my plastic surgery.
7 likes
February 10, 2012 at 3:12 pm
” My money goes to finance women who shoot out 8 kids and to ME, THAT is offensive –”
hippie says:
“I guess you will be too offended by those kids’ existence to collect your social security and medicare benefits that they will be working to provide you.”
Whoa – just how sure are you that “those kids” will be working and paying into the system?
15 likes
“my child will be paying your social security and taking care of you when you’re old” canard. Hardly anyone’s child will be taking care of anyone when they’re old any more than the current posters on this board work to take care of the elderly, and I’m willing to bet that’s virtually none of you, even your own relatives.”
Somebody is totally clueless about how social security and medicare are funded.
7 likes
“My employer doesn’t get to tell me what I can buy with my salary, and they shouldn’t be able to dictate what health care services I can get with my health insurance.”
I absolutely agree that you should be able to use your salary to buy your own health insurance to pay for all the contraception, abortion, and sterilization that your little heart desires.
I disagree that employers should be forced to facilitate evil with their own money.
12 likes
Lynn M – I wish you could see me – I am standing up and clapping
2 likes
“I disagree that employers should be forced to facilitate evil with their own money.”
The insurance premiums that employers pay are their money just as much as the salary they pay me is their money. It ceases to be theirs when they pay it to me (or on behalf of me, as is the case with insurance) as compensation for work I do. Why should they get to control how it’s used?
3 likes
apostate – wow am I glad you are posting today – I just swallowed poison by accident – but I was able to quickly read your posts to induce vomiting – thanks
13 likes
“I want my insurance to pay for my plastic surgery.”
Plastic surgery won’t help you if you’re ugly on the inside.
4 likes
“I just swallowed poison by accident”
Does that happen to you a lot?
6 likes
Would it be a violation of the religious liberty of Jehovah’s Witnesses to say that if they pay for health insurance as part of their employee compensation, that it has to cover blood transfusions? Bottom line, the health care people can get shouldn’t be dependent on the opinions of their employers. Ideally, we’d get away from this whole employer-based system of coverage.
4 likes
Whoa – just how sure are you that “those kids” will be working and paying into the system?
What?
Most people work. And all workers pay payroll taxes that fund ss and medicare. No one is exempt from payroll taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
6 likes
It was never about choice, it was always about force. I hate to make this overtly political, but the entire Left’s agenda is about forcing people into their worldview through the power of government, not persuasion. Unborn children are forced into death after their parents choose to create them. People are forced to support other people’s choices because everyone is “entitled” to whatever they think they should receive. Smaller groups are forced into arrangements because they aren’t in the majority. Unfortunately, you can only force groups of people into things so much before it becomes unsustainable. None of these groups realize if a “theocrat” were elected President he has the power to force all insurance plans not to cover contraception. Of course, perhaps they do and cynically realize that entitlements are like narcotics and they stick around until the addict (all of us) hits rock bottom.
14 likes
Jen – you obviously favor a single payer system – no wonder you don’t understand the principles of freedom upon which our country was founded
3 likes
It’s not their money. It’s part of MY compensation package, just like my salary.
… seriously? I can’t believe I have to explain how this works.
Companies use the money they earn from providing goods and/or services to pay their employees AND to pay for the benefits they give their employees, including insurance premiums, 401k matching, etc. The money a company earns belongs to the company, not the government. With me so far?
That means that Catholic institutions and Catholic employers, by paying the insurance premiums for insurance policies that provide evil, are facilitating evil. It is irrelevant if you disagree with this. It is the teaching of the Church that facilitating evil is just as much a sin as committing an evil act. That is why this mandate is a violation of religious liberty.
8 likes
apostate: “My money goes to finance women who shoot out 8 kids and to ME, THAT is offensive – not only is it far more expensive for insurance plans to cover pregnant women, it\’s bad for the planet too.”
Oh, good grief. More of this nonsense.
12 likes
Actually, MOST people don’t work. Of the entire population of the United States, only those who are old enough to work and are not retired work. Subtract from THAT population those who are unemployed, those who are on welfare, those who are too disabled to work, Stay at home moms, and those who are in prison. This final figure does not add up to “most.” Also subtract from the final figure illegal immigrants who DO work but do not pay into payroll taxes, and those working under the table who also do not pay payroll taxes.
11 likes
Bryan,
I think that the GOP perception of “the principles of freedom upon which our country was founded” are seriously skewed. BTW, did you know that Thomas Jefferson supported a public health care system?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/21/thomas-jefferson-also-supported-government-run-health-care/
JoAnna, then how is it not facilitating evil for them to pay a salary to a person who buys birth control? That’s a serious question, by the way. Maybe they should only employ people who share their beliefs on birth control. Except there are hardly any, so that might be difficult.
5 likes
Jen R, then don’t work for religious organizations that oppose the things you want covered. Prolifers got it right- those on the other side have no respect for the rights and choices of other individuals, faiths and organizations.
12 likes
apostate: “Hardly anyone’s child will be taking care of anyone when they’re old any more than the current posters on this board work to take care of the elderly, and I’m willing to bet that’s virtually none of you, even your own relatives.”
When my grandmother went into the later stages of dementia, rather than shut her up in a facility 15 miles away so we could “get on with our lives,” we all pitched in and took care of her for the rest of her life.
Any other misconceptions you need cleared up today?
14 likes
Little a–did your mom call you a little buttwiper? I’m so sorry for you. Get some help.
8 likes
“Plastic surgery won’t help you if you’re ugly on the inside.”
Sure it will. There are plenty of beautiful people who are ugly on the inside. Consider PP’s Cecile Richards. I think she is beautiful on the outside. Same for lots of evil pro abort women, some of whom have plastic surgery.
Or was that not a real comment and just another lame and stupid fail so typical of pro aborts?
10 likes
Guess who else supports Obama’s “Accomodation”? Sister Carol Keehan and the Catholic Health Association.
1 likes
“Any other misconceptions you need cleared up today?”
Yes, how many retirement homes have you visited lately? My guess is zero because then you’d know just how many elderly reside there who have no family members taking care of them. YOU may have taken care of your grandma, but the vast majority of people here there and everywhere do not.
8 likes
“Little a–did your mom call you a little buttwiper?”
No, my mom never tried to convince childfree people how horrible they were by saying that I was going to grow up to take care them when they were elderly. Only stupid people who put no thought into their reproductive choices say idiotic things like that.
10 likes
“Jen R, then don’t work for religious organizations that oppose the things you want covered.”
My point is that whatever employers’ beliefs are, they don’t have the right to control what their employees do with their own compensation, that they earn. If churches, etc. really want to make sure that none of the money they pay for salary or benefits goes to activities they oppose, they should only hire those who believe as they do.
What is the moral difference between salary and health insurance premiums in this case? That’s a serious question, and I’d love it if someone could explain. Is it just there actually is a way to control what people do with insurance, and there isn’t a way to control what they do with their salary? If there were a special blue money that could only buy things the church approves of, would it be a violation of their rights for employment law to specify that workers have to be paid with regular green money?
3 likes
“Actually, MOST people don’t work. Of the entire population of the United States, only those who are old enough to work and are not retired work. Subtract from THAT population those who are unemployed, those who are on welfare, those who are too disabled to work, Stay at home moms, and those who are in prison. This final figure does not add up to “most.” Also subtract from the final figure illegal immigrants who DO work but do not pay into payroll taxes, and those working under the table who also do not pay payroll taxes.”
…………………
The current labor participation rate is about 60%. That figure includes everyone not institutionalized and between 18 and 65. Those too young to work will eventually work, so that is a moot point. Those retired participated in the labor force at an even higher rate when they were working aged. The unemployed had to be employed in order to be qualified for unemployment. And many illegal aliens often do pay payroll taxes, albeit not using legitimate ss numbers. So, yes most people work sometime in their lives. But you knew that before you made your typical pro abort ignorance revealing comment.
9 likes
The world’s population ‘boom’ is not a result of an increase in birth rates, but rather a decrease in death rates. Today more infants and children are surviving into adulthood, while adults are living longer. Since the earth’s resources are finite, population must stop growing somehow. Fortunately, birth rates are declining, because no one wants to increase death rates. Unfortunately, population momentum (the ‘boom’ of young people who are beginning their child-bearing years), and the agonizing slowness with which birth rates are coming down, means the population is still increasing.
When people have fewer children, they are better able to take care of themselves. And women who have fewer children have less risk of maternal mortality. So, with modern medicine and improved lifestyles, people tend to live even longer – causing quite a dilemma: will humankind reach a point where having children is to be discouraged, even to the point of one child or no children families? What will the world be like with fewer and fewer children and more and more elderly people?
Some people do not realize that the earth’s resources are finite. Or they believe that God or technology will take care of it. They propose a giant pyramid scheme to continue to produce young people who would take care of the old people – leaving the question of who is going to take care of the young people when they get old? Some propose bringing in immigrants to take care of the old people, but who is going to take care of immigrants when they get old?
Many think that families should be large so that the children can take care of the parents in their old age. They who think so overlook the fact that people with fewer children are better off economically and are usually more able to save and invest for their retirement than if they had spent their money on raising more children.
Until our population stabilizes, nature and limited resources will force us to make a choice: do we put our resources and efforts into preserving the lifestyles and longevity of old people – and risk losing the ability to breed, resulting in a possible extinction of humanity or of local cultures, or do we make it easier for young adults to have and raise a child or two, and not concentrate so much of our resources towards older people?
7 likes
Jen R – then how is it not facilitating evil for them to pay a salary to a person who buys birth control?
Because paying someone a salary isn’t material cooperation with evil. Funding insurance meant to provide something intrinsically evil (such as birth control) is. And as has already been pointed out, no one is forcing a woman to work for a Catholic organization. If she wants her sex life subsidized by her employer, she can find one who has no moral objection to facilitating evil via insurance premiums. This is a more thorough explanation: http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2012/02/material-cooperation-and-hhs.html
And did you seriously just suggest that the Catholic Church practice religious discrimination? Isn’t that rather bigoted? Besides, even if the Church could do so, the mandate says that an organization only qualifies for the religious exemption if their employees AND THE PEOPLE THEY SERVE are of that religion. The Obama administration would prefer that every homeless person looking for help at Catholic Charities show their Catholic baptismal certificate before getting help. Thankfully, the Catholic Church prefers to help everyone and does not want to discriminate on the basis of religion, unlike what the Obama administration would prefer we do.
8 likes
So Emily’s list is claiming victory too? Are these groups assuming that all Democrats are in favor of paying for their neighbors’ sterilizations, and abortions too? If they are, they are sadly mistaken. It’s time for pro-life Democrats to consider standing up for the First Amendment like never before. With no conscience protections in force, a government take-over of church-affiliated hospitals is not un-forseeable.
I realize that not all pro-lifers are prayers, but if you are so-inclined, please pray and fast over this issue, like never before. If not inclined to prayer, it’s obvious in this thread that there are plenty of secular reasons to argue against this Obama plan so please call your representatives!
8 likes
Mary Ann, this administration certainly does understand the first amendment; they just hate it. It is my belief, from what Obama has said and done, that he and his collaborators are a type of neo-marxist/athiest idealogs. That’s my definition. Look at what he’s done and said when he “slipped” for example “They cling to thier guns and THIER God. Not God, thier God. he was talking about Christians. The agenda is to strip any influence in the culture from the Church, to make sure any food, clothing heathcare, etc. come from “the Gov’t” so they have power.
4 likes
Wow,
“shoot out 8 kids”
Doesn’t reek at all of anti-woman hatred. Nah.
This issue is really bringing the best out of abortion advocates, isn’t it?
12 likes
S. Gaia,
The birthrate for women whose grandparents were born in the USA is below replacement rate. The only groups with a higher fertility rate are those whose parents, grandparents or themselves were born outside the USA. All of the growth in population in the USA is from immigration. Also, immigrants to the USA quickly become as resource squandering as the rest of us. Singles have the highest per capita carbon foot print using more housing, fuel, etc per capita than any other group. Multigenerational families living together have the lowest. If you want to save the earth, starting with the environment in the USA, you might look at the real causes.
13 likes
Sarah–there’s a place that has those “dicouragements” in place. It’s called China, and it’s a human rights wasteland.
13 likes
Jen R, so you want to feel entitled to compensations of things that go against core religious values of religious groups? Exactly why your stance call for erasing the first amendment.
This is about making religion subservient to the state. Not that different from state churches the founders opposed.
7 likes
Punisher, if you could answer my question about the moral difference between compensation in the form of salary and compensation in the form of health insurance, and why employers should be able to control how I use one but not the other, I’d appreciate it. I’m completely serious about this. I’m willing to talk, but not to just get randomly accused of ridiculous stuff like hating freedom or wanting to erase the first amendment.
2 likes
This issue is really bringing the best out of abortion advocates, isn’t it?
Yup, and it shows how puerile their thinking is.
The more they talk, the more reactionary, ignorant, bigoted and hate filled they reveal themselves to be.
10 likes
Ninek, I want Little a to keep posting here, if only for the entertainment value. Or I could get out some Pschiatric manuals here in the library a little later and figure out where the meds went wrong.
5 likes
I want to clarify the pro-life position for our new abortion devotees on this blog:
We don’t want you to have more children than you conceive. We want you to have as many children as you conceive. Nobody has some ‘minimum’ baby requirement. But you are gullible enough to keep believing in an entire straw man culture that the abortion industry has created for you to keep you lining their pockets.
Women and men can educate themselves about natural family planning, which is free, all natural, and doesn’t treat a woman’s body like an ATM machine for the abortion industry and pharmaceutical companies.
It doesn’t cease to amaze me that a generation of people who won’t microwave plastic and is worried about Monsanto can be so dense about the drugs and instruments they are promoting to be put into women’s bodies to make sure they don’t function in a healthy manner. Can you say DISCONNECT?
17 likes
Janet says: “why should birth control, morning-after pills, and sterilizations, come without co-pays? It raises the overall cost of healthcare for everyone. It makes no sense economically.” However, according to the White House, ”Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception saved employees $97 per year, per employee.” If it’s true that providing contraceptive coverage without co-pays is LESS expensive than NOT doing so, then this policy is not forcing employers to pay for contraceptives. What it is doing is denying them the opportunity to pay more in order to deny employees affordable access to contraceptives. Is denying someone the power to pay to restrict someone else’s freedom an abridgment of their religious liberty? I think not.
3 likes
if you could answer my question about the moral difference between compensation in the form of salary and compensation in the form of health insurance, and why employers should be able to control how I use one but not the other, I’d appreciate it.
Okay, my answer is unrelated to abortion, birth control, etc.
Your salary is reduced by the amount the employer pays for your insurance. In a free market you could reduce your costs and meet your needs by buying only what you need or want, and your employer would have no part in it as he isn’t making the decision. Same for single payer. In single payer, the employer just pays his taxes based on his profits. The electorate vote for the health system and deal directly with the government and its administrative agents. The employer is not involved in any decisions.
2 likes
ninek says:
February 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Wow,
“shoot out 8 kids”
Doesn’t reek at all of anti-woman hatred. Nah.
This issue is really bringing the best out of abortion advocates, isn’t it?
***
It wasn’t “anti-woman.” It happens. The point was that it’s very frequent in our system for some of our paid money to go towards things we wouldn’t necessarily support. Didn’t have anything to do with abortion, anyway.
There are examples of having 8 (or more) kids pretty fast, and voila – we’ve got the whole family being supported by other people’s contributions. Even saying “more than half of people are working and paying in” doesn’t really change things – it takes much more than one family paying taxes to support another family, usually.
From such supported families, it’s rare that they kids grow up and pay into the system to the extent that people do in general.
5 likes
I think it’s interesting that even though a large majority of pro-lifers are pro-contraception, people here are assuming that everyone posting in favor of birth control access is an abortion advocate.
3 likes
”Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services.”
LOL, ya gotta love the WH. How about, keeping women “working” and preventing spending on other health services. Like what health services?
Honestly, who that actually has a job at which they work enough hours to get insurance coverage cannot afford birth control? If you are poor, you can already get it for free.
3 likes
Robert, the average welfare family has two kids and is on assistance an average of two years. You sound like Ronald Reagan talking about welfare queens. The percentage of Americans who have that many kids is far below 1%. Of that, only a small fraction are on welfare. You grossly overstate the impact of such rare cases.
8 likes
Sarah Gaia – please read the following – it will provide some much-needed truth
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
3 likes
hippie, I see what you’re saying, and I really would like to just get employers out of the loop. But what I’m not getting is why paying insurance premiums on behalf of an employee (who then decides to use that insurance to access contraception) makes an employer morally culpable in the employees use of contraception, but paying a salary to an employee (who then decides to use that salary to access contraception) doesn’t. I’m not seeing the difference. It’s not obvious that paying an insurance benefit constitutes approval of or cooperation with any particular action that the employee decides to take with that benefit.
2 likes
Abortion isn’t health care in the view of many of us here.
The first amendment is clear that the government can’t force people and their churches and other religious organizations practice their faith the way the government wants them to.
5 likes
….according to the White House, ”Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services.
Jerry L, My goodness, do you believe every word that comes out of a politician’s mouth?
3 likes
Curious as to why my last comment is in moderation.
0 likes
“people here are assuming that everyone posting in favor of birth control access is an abortion advocate.”
Actually some people here are assuming that those posting in favor of the mandate oppose or don’t care about the first amendment because they think the government can tell religious organizations to fund birth control against the organization’s own teaching.
5 likes
Hippie, only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2011-04-13-more-americans-leave-labor-force.htm
Whether that number has risen since then would have to take into account those who are under-employed. I also note that your fearmongering over the USA fertility rate and the “replacement” of ostensibly white Americans with immigrants is just racism.
As for “shooting out 8 kids” being a hatred for women, the only thing it indicates is that you are not entitled to special respect because you reproduced. Please remember that no one owes you or your DNA replicants reverence.
5 likes
Plus, hippie, I imagine the folks who are screaming about the cost of birth control have a smart phone, beer on Fridays, and like to play the lottery every now and then.
Jen–not everyone here is anti- birth control. Unlike many of my pro-life sisters and brothers here, my husband and I practiced bc and still do (after 3 babies it was HIS turn for a little surgery :)). I wish Dr Nadal would chime in here about now, but there are certain kinds of chemical birth control methods that are abortifacients, which means they do not allow a fertilized egg (Ie, new human being) to implant. Someone smarter than I, please jump in here and correct me if I’m wrong.
I think, though, that you are missing the point about this. It’s not so much about bc as it is a First Ammendment issue. If you are proabort, you want it to be about the bc, but it just isn’t. What Obama has said, effectively, is: Forget about your 2,000 year old teachings and traditions, because they GOT TO GO. You have a year to figure out how you’re going to violate your conscience.
The Gospel of Life is not something that the Church is just going to walk away from. Why should they be expected to? One’s right to have sex without consequence (and we’ve all had it–I’m not being a holier-than-thou!) does not trump an institution’s freedom of religion. And I think if you seriously consider what Obama’s asking, you don’t want to live in a country that he’s trying to reshape.
7 likes
Oh, Little A!! Silly! That’s our whole point: all human life, even you, deserves reverence.
But keep going!!! This is gonna be fun!!
6 likes
hippie, Courtnay, I’d refer you to my comment at 4:55, but I can’t because it’s in moderation. :( I still don’t get why the right to control what employees do with their compensation is a religious freedom anyone has. And nobody has been able to explain why an employee using their insurance benefit for birth control is morally different from an employee using their salary for birth control. The employer isn’t paying for the birth control directly in either case — they’re just providing compensation for work, and the worker is deciding how to use it. Why would the employer be culpable in either case?
4 likes
“My employer doesn’t get to tell me what I can buy with my salary, and they shouldn’t be able to dictate what health care services I can get with my health insurance.”
Jen R all compensation, including benefits, is at the discretion of the employer. The employee does not tell the employer what to pay. The employee can use their compensation however they see fit, but the employer should not be forced to compensate their employee in ways dictated by the government. In addition to violating the religious liberty of the employer this new revised mandate impinges on the owner’s right to run his business as he sees fit – Obama’s thirst for power and control knows no limit.
Employees who don’t want this type of coverage should not be in position to cause insurance companies additional costs. The government is now making all employees responsible for the insurance companies being forced to provide birth control insurance coverage for everyone. This new mandate impacts the religious liberty of employees in a way that you did not see. Obama is trying to use the employees as a scapegoat, as the ones responsible for this increased insurance coverage and cost, for this mandate. They are now trying to divide employees from employers.
1 likes
“Oh, Little A!! Silly! That’s our whole point: all human life, even you, deserves reverence.”
I don’t share that belief and never will.
1 likes
BTW “revering” all human life is idolatry.
2 likes
“The employee does not tell the employer what to pay. The employee can use their compensation however they see fit, but the employer should not be forced to compensate their employee in ways dictated by the government.”
That’s not entirely true, but that’s an issue of employment law. Again, I really would like to get employers out of the loop on health coverage. I’m not defending that aspect of our current system. I’m asking why employers feel that they are morally responsible for what their employees use their health insurance for. (I’m assuming that they feel morally responsible, otherwise it wouldn’t be a matter of their conscience, right?) Their employees are the ones making the decision. Again, if employers could pay salaries in special money that couldn’t be used to buy birth control, is it a violation of their religious freedom not to let them do that?
“Obama’s thirst for power and control knows no limit.”
That’s just plain silly.
5 likes
Jen R: Health insurance is a form of job compensation. (I think that’s ridiculous, but that’s the system we’ve had for decades.) My employer doesn’t get to tell me what I can buy with my salary, and they shouldn’t be able to dictate what health care services I can get with my health insurance.
Hey Jen – this is interesting. I may be wrong on what you meant, but seems to me that very few people can really dictate what their health insurance provides, when it comes from their employer.
My employer is pretty good, since they still pay 80% of the premiums, and they also give us a choice before they adopt a plan – they revise things every few years. Basically, it’s like “with these different options, you will pay this amount, and get these services, deductibles, etc.”
So, we choose one, and then that’s our plan. Once that is set, there’s no “dictating what we get” on the part of us employees, and I think that’s the way it is most places. Many have a set plan, no choices on the part of employees, period – you either take it or leave it, and if you’re working there, you get the services the plan provides for, and that’s it.
3 likes
“That’s more an issue of employment law than of conscience or religious freedom.”
I agree Jen R. That is why I said Obama is now violating more than religious liberty.
1 likes
“I’m not defending that aspect of our current system. I’m asking why employers feel that they are morally responsible for what their employees use their health insurance for. (I’m assuming that they feel morally responsible, otherwise it wouldn’t be a matter of their conscience, right?) Their employees are the ones making the decision. Again, if employers could pay salaries in special money that couldn’t be used to buy birth control, is it a violation of their religious freedom not to let them do that?”
Jen R it is not about the employers “feeling” morally responsible, it is about putting them on the hook to provide coverage, amking them morally responsible! The owners of insurance companies should not be forced to sell/provide insurance plans they may not want to sell/provide even if it is cost neutral, as the Despotocrats say (which I highly doubt is true).
3 likes
Doug: I’d say that there’s a difference between the economic and medical decisions that of necessity go into deciding what a plan will cover for a given premium, and the employer deciding that they won’t allow something to be covered just because they don’t approve of it.
Tyler: well, that’s for the Supreme Court to decide. In general, the goverment is allowed to regulate the employer/employee relationship to a certain extent.
1 likes
Obama….out of the frying pan into the fire.
3 likes
Jen R – please read this article if you’re still confused about cooperation with evil in terms of paying a salary vs paying for insurance coverage, as pertains to Catholic moral teaching: http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2012/02/material-cooperation-and-hhs.html
“I’d say that there’s a difference between the economic and medical decisions that of necessity go into deciding what a plan will cover for a given premium, and the employer deciding that they won’t allow something to be covered just because they don’t approve of it.”
It’s more than “they don’t approve of it.” Catholic teaching is that contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs are intrinsically evil. As in, people who use them may, if the moral conditions for mortal sin are met, go to hell. And in Catholic teaching, it is just as much a sin to facilitate (e.g., pay for) someone else’s choice to do evil as it is to do the evil by oneself.
Whether or not you believe these doctrines is irrelevant. It is enough that we believe them, and enough that our Church teaches them. We have the right to exercise our faith in the public square, as granted by the Constitution, and Obama is trying to take that away.
8 likes
I will read that, JoAnna, thanks.
1 likes
For those of you unclear on the concept: referring to “having 8 children” as “shooting out 8 kids” is offensive. Offensive. Telling a woman she’s “shooting out kids” is offensive. You don’t have permission to be misogynistic just because a family has more than 1.5 kids.
Abortion advocates are by far the hugest hypocrites ever in the known universe.
They are willing to throw religious freedom, the very reason that the United States of America was founded in the first place, under their pepto bus. And since they have been using MY money to pay for abortions by giving Planned Parenthood my tax money, they are also willing to commit taxation without representation. This is as un-American as it gets. I never thought I’d live to see the day when the greatest, free-est nation on the planet is threatened by people who put abortion above ALL ELSE. You would ruin this country to kill babies with my tax money and my employer’s money. China already exists. If you want to live in China, I suggest you go there instead of trying to re-create it here.
You say you hate religion. But you follow a religion. You follow it with a blind, zealous devotion that eclipses all else. Your religion IS abortion. Abortion IS your religion.
11 likes
”With fewer children coming into the world to pay taxes and work, our country will become a weak nation”
Thank you, thank you for underscoring the core belief of the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement. Women are breeders!!!!! Contraception and abortion arguments are all about demographics. And BTW, not all the babies born, in a wonderful world without contraception and abortion, will be contributing taxpayers. Some, particularly those born to older women, will have serious disabilities. Others will be in our criminal justice system. But breed away, gals cuz that’s your destiny.
Way to win the Philly suburbs and the I-4 corridor, lifers. And BTW, despite all your denials about how women really don’t want contraception, the majority of them, including Catholics, do. Fancy that. And I do hope that all those Catholic women,, who are committing “mortal sin” realize the error of their ways and beg forgiveness from their holy father. Meanwhile, the non-Catholic population has been reminded of the medieval, misogynistic dogma of the Catholic Church. And the longer this remains an issue about the evils of contraception, the better it looks for Obama – cuz, believe it or not, women want to be able to control their bodies.
4 likes
”And since they have been using MY money to pay for abortions by giving Planned Parenthood my tax money, they are also willing to commit taxation without representation”
And my tax dollars go to an overextended military. And they go to providing health care for people who eat too much and drink too much. That’s the way it is. But your tax dollars don’t go to abortion despite your saying it is so. And if you continue to use the “fungible argument” about PP, then I can say that my tax dollars that go to Catholic institutions go to defense funds for pedophile priests. Am I right?
2 likes
CC and any other Obamationites,
Why in your mind is it more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not subsidize blood pressure meds for free? ***Expecting ignorance***
9 likes
CC and any other Obamationites,
Why in your mind is it more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not subsidize hypoglycemia meds for free? ***Expecting ignorance***
4 likes
While blood pressure medications are important, birth control is far more important as the ability to space children is vital for a woman’s health and well being. (Right, I know you don’t believe that.)
And “abortifacient pharmaceuticals” – please, spare me your Catholic dogma. The non Catholic community doesn’t believe that Plan B is an abortion drug because they don’t believe that life begins at conception. And they’re backed up by the medical and other faith communities.
Funny, President Kennedy tried to convince Americans that he wouldn’t be controlled by the Vatican which now is trying to run the show. Ironic, don’t ya think?
3 likes
CC and any other Obamationites,
Why in your mind is it more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not subsidize asthma meds for free?
***Expecting ignorance***
3 likes
And BTW, Catholic institutions are, in a number of instances, already paying for birth control (De Paul). Got hypocrisy much?
1 likes
While blood pressure medications are important, birth control is far more important as the ability to space children is vital for a woman’s health and well being. lol . High blood pressure is one of the number one causes of stroke and a scientifically proven killer over time. If you suffered from high blood pressure and you could get your hands on either blood pressure meds or b/c meds which would you get?
8 likes
You say you hate religion. But you follow a religion. You follow it with a blind, zealous devotion that eclipses all else. Your religion IS abortion. Abortion IS your religion.
ninek, you are right. It is more important to them than life itself.
8 likes
Companies use the money they earn from providing goods and/or services to pay their employees AND to pay for the benefits they give their employees, including insurance premiums, 401k matching, etc. The money a company earns belongs to the company, not the government. With me so far?
But money in a 401K, even that contributed by the employer, belongs to the employee and the employee has the right to invest it as s/he sees fit within the options provided. I was not able to establish definitively whether an employer can restrict fund options in its 401K to those that align with its values (such as Shariah-compliant funds only), but the 401K plan must contain a range of appropriate investment options and must be administered in the best interests of the employee, not the employer. Nor can the employer say that an employee cannot designate a domestic partner (rather than a spouse) as the beneficiary of his life insurance, even if the employer finds the relationship sinful. Medical coverage should be no different.
The “birth control is like a bike” analogy that you linked to is flawed because it equates birth control with a “perk” instead of what it actually is–medication. The only reason that it is segregated from other prescription benefits is that religious groups have thus far managed to establish that if they scream loudly enough, they can make a medication a moral issue rather than a medical one. It isn’t. And as has been noted above, a great many Catholic institutions already understand that.
1 likes
cc’s so excited to go the the Temple of Molech tomorrow, she can hardly contain her enthusiasm. Worship on, abortion devotees, worship on.
6 likes
LisaC,
Why do you think Obama’s agenda is to mandate that insurance companies dispense b/c for free when any other number of other meds that actually are ‘necessary’ to people’s health and that would save lives are not free?
6 likes
CC, if women are breeders what are men? At one time it was considered very rude disparage a person’s religion. Your attack on the Catholic Church is not fair. Do you consider your support of PP some form of worship, part of your personal religion?
The Catholic Church is not funded by the government. Even when the money PP receives is restricted for specific non-abortion uses it allows PP to concentrate its other fundraising activities to concentrate on raising funds to perform abortion services. Any unrestricted funds received by PP are now available to fund abortion services as opposed to being used to fund all of their other services as well.
2 likes
CC and any other Obamationites,
Why in your mind is it more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not subsidize Parkinson’s meds for free?
***Expecting ignorance***
3 likes
CC and any other Obamationites,
Why in your mind is it more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not subsidize diabetes meds for free?
***Expecting ignorance***
3 likes
Truthseeker–you raise an excellent point!
Birth control is not lifesaving in the same way that other necessary meds are. Why must it be free and always included in health insurance plans? Why can’t all meds be free?
I need food to live. Why isn’t that free?
9 likes
The Church has been absolutely right on the issue of birth control.
For those who wish to learn why the Church is correct on this issue, an excellent commentary and further resource links can be found here:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-catholic-church-opposes.html
2 likes
Who here wants to advocate something they do not believe in?
For instance I think the entire nation should give to catholic charities out of every pay check.
Who is for that?
I didn’t think so.
So before you applaud the loss of your own liberties, do not be shoving you trash ideas on people who do not share this opinion and should not HAVE TO be a party to paying for such care.
I am a catholic woman and proud of it.
My health care is my business. My religion is MY business.
First Amendment gives this freedom, and someday you will all discover how it truly feels to trade in your freedom for a cost.
6 likes
Apparently I can’t delete a duplicate comment. Sorry.
0 likes
“Truthseeker,” I think that hypertension and asthma medications should be covered by a responsible employer. Are the bishops saying otherwise?
1 likes
truhseeker, birth control also causes strokes.
Nice medication.
3 likes
Hypertension and asthma meds were never under discussion, nor do they violate a 2,000 year old teaching. Further, pregnancy is not a disease, and bc is a lifestyle decision. I don’t ask my to cover my hospital bills when I deliver a child. Why in the world would he or she cover your desire to have consequence-free sex?
4 likes
believe it or not, women want to be able to control their bodies.
How about abstinence? I know a shocker, right?
11 likes
Courtnay, if it were up to Obama he would give everything for free as long as it made his backers happy and he got a kickback. He doesn’t care in the slightest about our constitution, And he will make sure those who do not support him have to pay him for the air that they breathe. He is the epitomy of cronyism. That is what he is all about and during his term he has swindled most of the American people by doling out hundreds and hundreds of billions without ever even passing a budget. It is sick.
4 likes
Hypertension and asthma meds were never under discussion, nor do they violate a 2,000 year old teaching. Further, pregnancy is not a disease, and bc is a lifestyle decision. I don’t ask my to cover my hospital bills when I deliver a child. Why in the world would he or she cover your desire to have consequence-free sex?
Truthseeker was shrieking about hypertension and asthma, and I would say that an employer who does not cover childbirth in its medical plan is totally indifferent to the health of its employees. Are the bishops doing that too now?
And if so, they they should take the opt-out option when the ACA goes into full effect.
0 likes
“Truthseeker,” I think that hypertension and asthma medications should be covered by a responsible employer.
LisaC, some blood pressure meds qualify for coverage but they are NOT available to everyone for free by bureaucratic mandate. Why do you think Obama and Sebellius think it is more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not subsidize blood pressure meds for free?
4 likes
LisaC, have you ever delivered a baby? Some plans are good, others only cover some. But they aren’t free. You have copays for everything, plus deductibles, etc. Why can’t that be free???
Why can’t every med I take (not many, but there are a few I must be on for the rest of my life) be free?
4 likes
“And “abortifacient pharmaceuticals” – please, spare me your Catholic dogma. The non Catholic community doesn’t believe that Plan B is an abortion drug because they don’t believe that life begins at conception.”
huh…. what percentage of the population who claim that life begins as at conception do you suppose are catholic? Can someone explain scientifically to CC why it is fact and not catholic dogma that life begins at conception?
7 likes
LisaC, some blood pressure meds qualify for coverage but they are NOT available to everyone for free by bureaucratic mandate. Why do you think Obama and Sebellius think it is more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not subsidize blood pressure meds for free?
I don’t think that they’re making birth control a non-copay drug because it will increase business to Planned Parenthood, if that’s what you’re saying. Insurance coverage of contraception will mean that a woman can get it at a corner pharmacy instead of going to Planned Parenthood and having to navigate through a shuffling crowd of Kool-aid drinking zombies demanding that she not kill her baby whenever she needs a refill. Many insurance plans require participants to get routine medication through their mail-order system, so women in that kind of system certainly would not be going to PP.
Please learn the difference between “subsidy” and “mandate.”
Some plans are good, others only cover some. But they aren’t free. You have copays for everything, plus deductibles, etc. Why can’t that be free??? Why can’t every med I take (not many, but there are a few I must be on for the rest of my life) be free?
I actually don’t think that it makes sense for birth control to be a non-copay medication while other maintenance medications do require copays. But let’s not pretend that pro-life groups would be screaming any less loudly if there were a copay.
3 likes
Nothing is free. It will cost something to someone one way or another.
In this case, it will cost a baby their life. A life carelessly taken because mommy dearest is being self absorbent. Meantime, the child could be the one who cures Lou Gehrig’s disease or something as equally dreadful.
If you do not want to get pregnant, don’t have sex. There is only one in the history of all of humanity who actually conceived without having sex. And I am not fearful that will happen again.
The side effects to these ‘medications‘ could be life crippling. I do not see this as anything but another atrocity to undermine yet another freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FFVWEQnSM
5 likes
Lisa, pardon me while I come out of my zombie trance here for a second, but this has NOTHING to do with PP. It has EVERYTHING to do with the president who is making up mandates as he goes along, requiring religious groups to go against soemthing that is, as their (I”M gonna say it again!) millennia-old tradition teaches.
Sin and the avoidance of it may not mean much to you. I don’t know. And really, I could care less how much sex you want to have. But the church does, it always has, and that ain’t changing for your boy Obama. They aren’t going to pay for birth control. So go somewhere else and get it. Birth control is not a repsonsibility of the governemnt to make sure someone selse pays for it. Get your own. Or stop having sex. Have you ever watched an episode of Maury???
To what other group of the poplace besides conservative Catholics would he do this??
7 likes
LisaC,
The contraceptive law Obama is declaring as a government subsidized mandate is an attempt to enshrine pro-death cronies like Planned Barrenhood government funding.
5 likes
LisaC,
Obama’s reason for not requiring a copay is that he says pregnancy is an illness so he can qualify contraceptives as preventive medicine. He is freaking nuts.
5 likes
CC: “The non Catholic community doesn’t believe that Plan B is an abortion drug because they don’t believe that life begins at conception.”
Um, I don’t believe it’s an abortion drug because the evidence shows that it doesn’t have any effect post-fertilization. Also, you don’t have to be a Catholic to believe that the life of a new human being begins at conception. Evidence again. :)
truthseeker: Classifying contraception as preventive care does not mean that you consider pregnancy an illness. Mothers and children are healthier when women can plan and space their pregnancies than when they can’t. Also, there are some women who have medical conditions that would make pregnancy extremely hazardous for them.
2 likes
Birth control is not a repsonsibility of the governemnt to make sure someone selse pays for it. Get your own. Or stop having sex. Have you ever watched an episode of Maury???
No, I have not. Thank you for your ongoing interest in, advice on, and incorrect assumptions about my sex life, but I neither use nor need birth control. And for the zillionth time, there is a very easy answer for those who believe that twenty-first century health care violates their ancient traditions: opt out. Yes, that may put them at a competitive disadvantage in hiring employees, but the First Amendment does not guarantee government protection against market forces.
1 likes
Oh the usual CC nonsense only Catholics see life begin at conception. Conservative Lutheran denominations like WELS and LCMS also see life begin at conception. So do conservative Presbyterian denominations such as PCA and OPC.
4 likes
LisaC – Catholic organizations would love to opt out; however, ObamaCare does not allow that option. It levies huge fines against organizations that do not provide health insurance – fines that are so cumbersome they will bankrupt the organization.
4 likes
“Even when the money PP receives is restricted for specific non-abortion uses it allows PP to concentrate its other fundraising activities to concentrate on raising funds to perform abortion services.”
Oh? I thought abortion was extremely profitable? “Blood money” and all of that. If that’s the case, PP doesn’t need to use any fundraising activities to perform “abortion services” because abortion already pays for itself… and thus, that external funding is actually being used to subsidize unprofitable ventures like giving out free or inexpensive contraceptives and other health services aimed at low-income people, just like PP has been saying all along.
I’ve been hammering this point home for some time now. You can’t make the claim that Planned Parenthood is using private and public funding to pay for abortions, and then consistent with that, also claim that abortion is a hugely profitable endeavor that is worth billions of dollars. If something is profitable (abortion), it doesn’t need to be subsidized. If something is not profitable (free contraception, breast cancer screenings, etc.) then it does need to be subsidized or it cannot be offered freely or at reduced prices to the disadvantaged people who need it.
3 likes
truthseeker: Classifying contraception as preventive care does not mean that you consider pregnancy an illness.
JenR, Contraception is used to prevent pregnancy and preventive care is used prevent illness….
It came right from president Obama’s own words during his announcement speech yesterday afternoon about the policy “change”.
3 likes
CC: “The non Catholic community doesn’t . . . believe that life begins at conception. And they’re backed up by the medical and other faith communities.”
Whaaaa?
So embryos are dead? How do they grow?
I had thought not even the most rabid pro-abort in Jills Stanek’s neck of the woods had committed themselves so stridently to the wrong test answers in their Bio 101 finals…
As for non-Catholics, whatever on EARTH can you possibly be claiming? I’m not Catholic, but everyone I know in several evangelical/Protestant churches is pro-life — believing that yes, “life” begins at conception. “Human” life (because it’s not bovine, ursine, porcine, etc.).
CC, really. You’re an intelligent person.
“Funny, President Kennedy tried to convince Americans that he wouldn’t be controlled by the Vatican which now is trying to run the show. Ironic, don’t ya think?”
Presuming you’re right, you’re right. A weird locution, so I guess I should explain: the first amendment is an individual right. The bill of rights does not apply to churches per se. It applies to individuals — who freely associate in, yes, churches. The rights of the institution derive from the right of the people.
Too many people seem to think the churches have rights because they have clout.That would be a postmodern/leftist conceit — something believed by those who imagine that human relations reduce to operations of power. Conservatives or those of a more traditional classical liberal philosophy are frequently seem engaging such loonies on their own terms, missing the point.
You do NOT have an enumerated constitutional right to contraception. Whether the state has a compelling interest in providing people with free contraception is a wonderful argument to be had, and I’d love it to be properly aired in precisely those terms: compelling interest. Because only a compelling interest implemented in the least burdensome way could justify any abridgment whatsoever of the INDIVIDUAL first amendment right of each citizen to have his religious convictions and religiously informed life practices left unmolested by the all-powerful state.
CC, conservatives — social conservatives especially but libertarians in a weird but wonderful alliance — reject statist arrogation of control. To imagine the wold howling at the door of our common weal is a Catholic grab at hegemony is preposterous when the only proposed change her is not an increase in Catholic power but one of increased state power to compel religious to fund things they find morally repugnant.
You want the almighty state to be granted legitimacy in controlling citizens lives. Catholics — ET AL. — want to be left alone by such an arrogant state.
Best of luck with this, CC. Only some leftists/statists share your view. Obama’s latest compromise was principally brokered by liberal Catholics and others on his own side of the political fence — not by conservatives.
For my part, I’m just glad to see Jarrett shot down in flames for once. She’s a veritable Ahithophel. Would that we had a thousand Hushais in Washington.
4 likes
LisaC – Catholic organizations would love to opt out; however, ObamaCare does not allow that option. It levies huge fines against organizations that do not provide health insurance – fines that are so cumbersome they will bankrupt the organization.
A company that is currently offering a decent health plan (and I’m not saying they all are) will come out ahead if it drops coverage and pays the fees instead. My employer pays $5000 a year for my nowhere-near-Cadillac health plan, and that’s for a single person. It would save a lot of money by paying the $2000 fine instead, but it would be less attractive to job candidates.
In the link you posted above to a discussion of “material cooperation,” it said ” Material complicity is held to be justified when it is brought about by an action which is in itself either morally good or at any rate indifferent, and when there is a sufficient reason for permitting on the part of another the sin which is a consequence of the action.” Unless one is arguing that the work that Catholic institutions do is not morally good or even indifferent, the argument that they cannot participate in an insurance plan that includes contraception doesn’t really seem to hold water.
1 likes
Hey Catholics
With all due respect…you’ve got Sister Carol (who is close to patients and healthcare) agreeing with this compromise, the Bishops (who aren’t very close to healthcare) not agreeing to this compromise…you’ve got Catholic voters polling in favor of the original deal even before the compromise, and you folks use contraception at about the same rate as the general public.
How about you all get together and figure out where you are on this issue and then give the rest of the country a call back. This crazy train gets old after a while…
2 likes
No, you’re showing no respect. And respect is due. You can’t force people to go against their religious tenets. It doesn’t matter how many of their compatriots do. The government shall make no laws about how a religion is practiced. Forcing the Amish to use solar light panels or Catholics to pay for birth control is WRONG!
5 likes
Hans -
Do you believe citizens in Texas should be able to opt out of their state Taxes if they don’t like the death penalty?
Or if I think a war is unjust, can I skimp on my federal taxes?
1 likes
Hope the Bishops continue to fight this fake concession by Obama. There is good information and articles about this issue by Deacon Dan Gannon on http://www.catholicurrent.com/index.html.
2 likes
Ex-GOP,
You’ve just made an excellent point for eliminating state and federal income taxes. All we can do is protest about how a tiny percentage is spent. A sales tax is a little better as it an appropriation of our money, not a forced contribution.
I know that seems like a distinction without a difference. The purpose of this Republic is to protect it’s population. The less complicated the revenue raising the better.
Fight to change the laws you don’t like or move to a “better” state or country. But don’t acquiesce to a blatant assault on the First Amendment
5 likes
you folks use contraception at about the same rate as the general public. BS Ex-RINO. Not even if you include the CINO’s.
1 likes
Jen R: Doug: I’d say that there’s a difference between the economic and medical decisions that of necessity go into deciding what a plan will cover for a given premium, and the employer deciding that they won’t allow something to be covered just because they don’t approve of it.
Yeah, certainly agreed there. It seemed to be that you were saying we all should get to pick our individual coverages, even if under the same employer plan.
1 likes
Truthseeker: Why in your mind is it more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not subsidize blood pressure meds for free? ***Expecting ignorance***
Now come on, Truthseeker, you know pro-choicers always give you answers teeming with erudition, edification, and propriety. ;) :)
To me, it’s not “more important.” If we are really looking at “the gov’t giving stuff away,” then doesn’t it already do that with blood pressure medication? Medicaid and CHIP covers around 60 million people, eh?
I certainly wouldn’t say, “give them morning after pills but don’t give them stuff for blood pressure.”
Should anybody get anything free from the gov’t? Should we get rid of the mortgage deduction on income taxes? Should we get rid of exemptions for the number of kids one has?
2 likes
Truth -
Here you go – enjoy the reading
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/04/13/index.html
2 likes
Ex-GOP:
Sr. Carol has NO authority to speak for the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Bishops and the Pope have that right. She is NOT following the teachings of the Catholic Church and may have excommunicated herself by her material support of abortificants.
It’s pretty easy to follow the teachings of the real Church.
3 likes
Denise – I just follow the teachings of Christ – that works well enough for me.
Do you think the catholics should excommunicate all the catholics that have used and support contraception?
3 likes
Ex-GOP – if the Catholic Church excommunicated everyone who sinned, the Church would have no members. That’s why excommunication is reserved for very grave sins, such as procuring an abortion.
5 likes
Ex-GOP:
Does the first amendment guarantee that I am entitled to practice my faith unmolested by the state absent compelling interest and least burdensome means of implementing such interest, or not?
C’mon, you’re supposed to represent the “fact-based” community, right? So how about offering some substance on the only genuine civics question here?
4 likes
Denise – I just follow the teachings of Christ – that works well enough for me. Ex-RINO, Woe to Christians who teach contraception is according to Christ’s plan and teaching. Such blasphemy. How does your faith reconcile use of contraception (which you agree acts as an abortificient at times) with the fact that the Holy Spirit is present in the life you are killing?At what point during your saviour’s life as an unborn child was he a living person loved by God and worthy of protection? Was it at conception or implantation or do the ‘teachings of Christ’ tell your faith community that neither Jesus nor any other unborn human life is worthy of protection until after he/she is born? Or is it that you think by ignoring the Holy Spirit and keeping your head in the sand that you can convince yourself contraceptives are a part of Jesus’ teaching.
3 likes
Ex-RINO, the abortion industry link you provided above has already been removed (due to inaccuracy?). Maybe you can find another source for your ‘information’ about catholics.
1 likes
To me, it’s not “more important.” If we are really looking at “the gov’t giving stuff away,” then doesn’t it already do that with blood pressure medication? Medicaid and CHIP covers around 60 million people, eh?
Doug,
My point is that people spend their lives with high blood-pressure which kills them over time and yet they have to pay for these prescriptions. Shouldn’t society be providing free life saving drugs like those I mentioned above before we give drugs that have far less benefit? That is unless you are saying you agree with CC that bc is far more important then blood pressure medicine. Which is it?
1 likes
What we are talking about here is Freedom of Religion as stated in the First Amendment. As a refresher for those of you who may not be familiar, here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
By forcing all employers, hospitals, etc. (this goes for all Americans no matter their beliefs) to pay or endorse something through their insurance that they do not believe in (this doesn’t just apply to Catholics, I’m not really part of any religion but I sure as hell am pro-life and I for certain do not want to pay for any of this) goes against basic American freedoms. This is what our Nation was founded on, and what our current President is completely disregarding.
I see a lot of comments about how this viewpoint on abortion, contraception, birth control, etc., is merely a ‘Catholic’ issue or a religious issue. There is a difference between imposing church doctrines and upholding basic, moral, and ethical truths; standing up for what is right and just. There are many other religions and people of belief/non-belief who oppose abortion, contraception, etc. (Athiests among others for example –http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html) The destruction of life at any stage is morally and ethically evil. If something is morally or ethically evil, as a country we have the right to squash it, which is why we have laws against things like murder, stealing, etc. Murder is wrong and cannot be tolerated. It has been affirmed by many studies that life does in fact begin at the moment of conception: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/467/…
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
Religious freedom and basic moral human rights go hand in hand. Therefore, the destruction of human life (abortion, contraceptive means, etc.) goes against basic human rights, and cannot be permitted in society, which is why there is such an outcry in the pro-life movement to stop this.
Mr. President, don’t force us to go against our conscience, do not step on our freedom of religious beliefs, do not force us to pay for (either by taxes or insurance payments/policies) to pay for something we cannot in good faith or conscience support.
5 likes
Truth -
After clicking on the link, remote the last space that occurs after the URL.
Not removed due to anything.
If you need any help with big words, let me know.
2 likes
Rasqual -
The first amendment doesn’t guarantee you of that – the government is allowed to do all sorts of things over the right of an individual. If you’d like to see it for yourself, don’t pay your taxes this year – send a letter and say that some of your money is going to support the death penalty, or unjust war or military operations. Or say some of your money is going to needle exchange programs that you don’t like.
Then, when your fine is done or your prison sentence is up, look me up and let me know what the government thought about your first amendment rights!
Plus, you are arguing one step further – the compromise says that the plan wouldn’t offer contraception coverage – but that another plan would be offered to those who want it by the same insurance company (but not in the same funding pool) – so you’re really a few steps away from the first amendement grievance.
1 likes
Truth – who has been arguing for the use of contraception here?
Again, you’ve taken a few posts, written an entire narrative, and then attacked that narrative. I think at this point I could write your next response…getting a little predictable.
2 likes
After clicking on the link, remote the last space that occurs after the URL. huh? Am I supposed to spin around in circles and flap my arms like a chicken too? How about providing a link that works? And how about providing an answer to my question about how you reconcile the fact that scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit was present at the point of conception with your stance on contraception; especially since you already admitted that bc can cause fertilized embryo’s to abort.
***Expecting redirection and ignorance***
3 likes
Truth – you can strip naked, climb a tree and bark at the moon for all I care – all I’m saying is when the link posted, it posted with an extra space at the end.
2 likes
And how about providing an answer to my question about how you reconcile the fact that scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit was present at the point of conception with your stance on contraception; especially since you already admitted that bc can cause fertilized embryo’s to abort.
***Expecting redirection and ignorance***
1 likes
Truth – who has been arguing for the use of contraception here?
Obama and Sebellius. That is the topic of this thread no? Are you saying that you agree contraception use is a sin? If so then you just haven’t been clear in your coming out against their contraceptive mandate.
2 likes
Ex-RINO,
The first thing I cam across on that pro-abort link you posted was this:
“ “In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,”
So I guess that means you owe me answer to my question and need to quit dancing around the issue. The premise of your whole link that you provided states that Christian beliefs and contraceptive use is compatible. So I’ll ask a third time.
How do you reconcile the fact that scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit was present at the point of conception with your stance on contraception; especially since you already admitted that bc can cause fertilized embryo’s to abort.
3 likes
***crickets**** Ex-RINO thinks to self – oops- somebody is making me face the truth so I better just skip this thread for now and bury my head in the sand until I can find another one where I can get away with spreading my bs again.
0 likes
Let’s pray that Catholic Bishops reject the revised MANDATE and that they help support and ensure that every American’s religious liberty is protected, no matter what that American does in order to earn a living. The Government should not be imposing its religious values on the rest of the American society.
2 likes
“Mr. President, don’t force us to go against our conscience, do not step on our freedom of religious beliefs, do not force us to pay for (either by taxes or insurance payments/policies) to pay for something we cannot in good faith or conscience support.”
…and yet nobody here has been able to demonstrate why Catholics/evangelicals should be exceptional in this regard. No other religiously-affiliated employer is whining about subsidizing healthcare that might counter their beliefs. Nick Kristof aptly refers to the Christian Science Monitor, which–although Christian Scientists eschew modern medical care–still provides comprehensive health insurance for its employees.
This should be a put up or shut up deal. In the realm of healthcare, it would be unreasonable to accommodate all purchasers’ oft-conflicting moral objections, especially since health insurance is a package deal. If you feel uncomfortable selling a product, then don’t sell it. Simple.
2 likes
Megan, the problem with this mandate is that it penalizes those who would decline to participate so it is not quite that simple. The solution would be NOT to mandate people to provide services that violate their conscience or pay a penalty (you do realize the penalty would be used to provide the objectionable service to others don’t you). And to make it easy you gauge services that will be objeted to by asking yourself; is this service designed to prevent or kill life? Sorry, that is not health care period.
2 likes
Women on BC experience breakaway ovulation and the birth control hardens the uterus and keeps embryos from implanting. The pregnancy percentages they give on bc packaging are LIES. Women are getting pregnant on bc and the life is getting aborted by the bc. If they included that in their statistics it would be closer to 1% effective then it is to the 97% effectiveness on the packaging. Women on bc get pregnant every year but the embryo gets aborted by the bc.
1 likes
Megan says: “and yet nobody here has been able to demonstrate why Catholics/evangelicals should be exceptional in this regard.”
Um, their not. Free exercise of religion is for everyone.
1 likes
truth -
I’ve begun a response – but I need you to answer a couple of questions first before I’ll respond (since you said BS to my previous post).
According to the Guttmacher study, what percentage of sexually active women have used contraception before. What percentage is it for sexually active Catholic women? What is the difference between those two numbers?
2 likes
Ex-RINO; You need to find a less biased source for bc info. A source other than guttamacher; you are aware that their stated mission is to spread contraception usage aren’t you? They are the same ones who put out all that false pregnancy information about bc that I am referring to above. The pamphlets won’t tell you about break-away ovulation…why? They are a marketing arm of the abortion/bc industry and their numbers are meaningless.
2 likes
It was a survey truth, not an opinion column – if you’d like to make a point on their selection criteria, or present a different survey with different results, feel free.
2 likes
I just polled three catholic women of child-bearing age and none of them uses contraceptives.
3 likes
Truth – you just need 7,353 more, publish the paper, and then you’re good to go. :-)
Also, did you verify they’ve had sex in the last month? These must have been interesting conversations…
2 likes
This should be a put up or shut up deal.
No, but having sex with people you are not willing to have children should be.
4 likes
Ex-RINO said “Also, did you verify they’ve had sex in the last month?”
It sounds to me like somebody is trying to skew the pool of survey participants GREATLY. What do you suppose would happen to the survey results if they had done a real sampling that included all catholic women of child bearing age in the survey? Guttemacher and the entire abortion industry are scum that leave a stench wherever they go. People like you who spread their lies and the stench around to gullible people.
2 likes
What do you feel is fundamentally different about a catholic woman who has had sex within 30 and what that hasn’t?
2 likes
They are less likely to use bc. That is why your survey’s percentages are so misleading. Are you ever going to answer my questions to you?
How do you reconcile the fact that scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit was present at the point of conception with your stance on contraception; especially since you already admitted that bc can cause fertilized embryo’s to abort.
1 likes
So you feel that a catholic that doesn’t have sex is less likely to use contraception than a non-catholic that doesn’t have sex? Interesting.
And why would you give catholics that have sex a free pass?
Nope – not until you answer my questions. Very clearly laid it out.
2 likes
Denise/JoAnna -
Notre Dame, Catholic Health Association and Catholics Charities USA all support the compromise.
Do you they should all be excommunicated as well?
2 likes
Ex-RINO….
You and your survey would have people believe that abortificient pharmaceuticals are compatible with Jesus’ teaching. You are bold and blatant in your avoiding answering the questions that show your hypocrisy. But you ain’t fooling Jesus and I call you out for blaspheming His holy Name.
2 likes
I am not truth and you know it.
I said at the beginning of this whole conversation “you folks use contraception at the same rate as the general public”
You said BS.
I gave you a survey of over 7500 general public people and their contraceptive use.
I’d like you to either apologize for stating BS, or find some evidence to the contrary.
In no way, shape or form have I argued anything related to the morality of contraception. Again, you are making up a narrative and arguing against something that doesn’t exist. That might make you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, but it’s lying, and it isn’t helpful.
2 likes
Notre Dame, Catholic Health Association and Catholics Charities USA all support the compromise.
I used to think you were lost and confused but with the amount of lies you are spreading you are losing my respect by the minute. You can lie today but your lies will be seen for what they are. And sooner than you think. For starters Notre Dame is self insured so the so-called Obama contraceptive fix wouldn;t even be relevant to their position. And stop maligning Catholic Charities. I know I said this once already but you are really full of bs today.
1 likes
Truth dodger - feel free to email John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame and let him know that his position and opinion does not matter.
2 likes
I said at the beginning of this whole conversation “you folks use contraception at the same rate as the general public” You said BS. And I still say bs. No person of good judgement would look to the survey by an organization whose stated mission is to promote contraceptive use as a source for unbiased information. I gave you examples of their lies and why they are not worthy of trust. I don’t need a survey to disprove the lies of the abortion industry. You can avoid answering my questions about you and your survey that blasphemes Christians and religious people of all faiths but you won’t be able to hide from God.
1 likes
feel free to email John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame and let him know that his position and opinion does not matter.
And archbishop Timothy Dolan called it a step in the right direction…but then they got a chance to look at it and saw that it din’t even address their concerns.
0 likes
Truth dodger – I gave you the opportunity to poke holes in the study or find an alternate study. You either didn’t choose to do it, or couldn’t find anything substantially different.
If you think they manipulated data, that is one thing. If you think that they posed misleading questions, that is another thing you can point out. Simply stating that you didn’t like the agenda (if there was one), and therefore don’t like the results – that doesn’t cut it logically.
2 likes
Truth dodger –
In answer to your irrelevant statement regarding Timothy Dolan…he doesn’t fall in either of the three groups that I mentioned, correct?
2 likes
If you think they manipulated data, that is one thing. If you only survey sexually active women you are going to get inflated percentages who use contraception. Even with their skewed pool their phonied percentage was only 68%. If the same survey was done and the pool was all catholic women of child bearing age the percentages woould be cut by over 50%. That doesn’t just ‘poke holes’ in the survey it blows it up. It doesn’t take another survey to prove how useless and biased the guttemacher one was.
0 likes
You were saying about Notre Dame:
http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/02/10/statement-by-religious-scholars-on-contraceptive-coverage-policy-change/
0 likes
In no way, shape or form have I argued anything related to the morality of contraception. No, you just post surveys that state contraception is compatibile with Christianity. It may seem like a leap to you but Christians find that offensive and you know why….you are just afraid to admit that scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit is present at the point of conception; so contraception, which is known to cause embryos to abort, is incompatible with Christianity. Admit it. The truth will set you free.
1 likes
It appears Notre Dame’s law professor’s and a lot of other religious call Obama’s fix ”a cheap accounting trick”
2 likes
First of all, truthseeker, employers are merely re-allocating employees’ resources to coordinate the provision of a group insurance plan. The only thing they’re actually providing is HR manpower. And as another poster aptly said, without employer-based insurance, employees would just use their (increased) wages to purchase their own plans that cover birth control. Same/same: still the “facilitation” of evil.
Second, the First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” of religion, not a market share. Catholic employers are free to observe their faith as they see fit, and they’re also free to disband profit-generating institutions if they hate the idea of their employees accessing preventive healthcare.
3 likes
truth dodger -
Four points to respond to:
1) First off, adding in non-sexually active women on both sides (catholic vs non-catholic) does nothing for us. We’re talking about a comparison – remember, I said that catholics were using contraception at the same rate essentially as non-catholics. Doesn’t matter if it is 8%, 40%, or 100% – we’re talking about a comparison. The numbers are 69% to 68% – almost identical. So your “BS” was wrong.
2) Notre Dame then has multiple people with multiple opinions.
3) The researcher can derive whatever they want from the statistis. The study was simply shown to prove my point. if you can find where I write that I agree with the analysis of the researcher, well, feel free to post that. This judgmental, condescending approach you have is everything people don’t like in hypocritical catholics.
4) Notre Dame’s law professor can state whatever he wants – he has that right. Lots of public opinion survey’s as well – those people have that right. Seems to all point back to my first point in which I suggested that catholics get in a room and figure out where the stand on this.
2 likes
Megan,
It is wrong for our government to mandate the type of compensation employers provide to their employees. IMO they should not be forced to provide health insurance at all. Employees can choose where they work and some might rather work for $20/hr cash then $10/hr with benefits. The government shouldn’t be sticking their nose in it at all. Instead Obamacare is not only mandating insurance coverage but they are micromanaging what benefits are covered on the mandated insurance.
2 likes
Seems to all point back to my first point in which I suggested that catholics get in a room and figure out where the stand on this. What the hell are you waiting for. Catholicism is not a democracy where we parishoners get together in a room and vote. The Magesterium does that for us and it is already decided and cannot and will not be changed. It is written in our catechism for anybody to read. That is what you seem to be unable to grasp.
1 likes
“While blood pressure medications are important, birth control is far more important as the ability to space children is vital for a woman’s health and well being. (Right, I know you don’t believe that.) ”
This is not about believing something. It is about not understanding distributions. only a tiny fraction of women have a health condition that makes pregnancy dangerous. In general birth control pills increase health risks of cancer and heart disease in healthy women.
So, by conflating the two groups of women, you erroneously come up with the idea that all women benefit when really only a few derive actual health benefits. If you aren’t one of the women with the health conditions that preclude a safe pregnancy, you unnecessarily increase your health risks.
Also, anyone who is gainfully employed and unwilling to fork over the few dollars necessary for birth control to avoid a life threatening condition has a screw loose. Again peolple on welfare can already get free contraceptives.
4 likes
Ex-RINO, Everything guttemacher puts out is BS and when you use them as a reference your are spreading the manure.
2 likes
“We’re talking about a comparison – remember, I said that catholics were using contraception at the same rate essentially as non-catholics. Doesn’t matter if it is 8%, 40%, or 100% – we’re talking about a comparison. The numbers are 69% to 68% – almost identical.”
Mass attending Catholics?
or somebody whose parents are catholic but they never go to church?
See, this is the problem with not really trying to get an accurate picture of what you are measuring. Maybe you would get the exact same number. Obviously we can’t know. But as it stands it isn’t very helpful
2 likes
Truthseeker, we weren’t talking about the mandate itself, but rather, the claim that the mandate is a violation of religious freedom. In terms of practicality, though, it makes sense to do away with employer-based insurance altogether.
Hippie: Avoiding an unwanted pregnancy can have untold mental health benefits. Stress indirectly increases a woman’s risk of cancer.
2 likes
Truthseeker, we weren’t talking about the mandate itself, but rather, the claim that the mandate is a violation of religious freedom. In terms of practicality, though, it makes sense to do away with employer-based insurance altogether. Megan, the violation of religious freedom comes from the mandate micromanaging the services employers are required to offer. If the mandate wasn’t in place then there would be no violation of religious liberty. In this case the religious freedom confrontation is an extension of the mandate by requiring church based organizations violate their conscience and their teaching by forcing them to provide pharmaceutical abortificients as part of the benefits they give to their employees. If you were a church-goer then you would understand why the church as an institution cannot violate their own teachings without losing their ability to shepherd the faithful.
1 likes
Believing the mandate is a gross overreach of the federal government is one thing; crying religious persecution is mere hyperbole. Organizations that oppose the mandate can solve the problem by disbanding their revue-generating ventures, or re-incorporating as entirely volunteer-staffed institutions. Nobody is mandating that individual Catholics start handing out condoms on the street.
2 likes
The mandate is a gross overreach. The micromanaging of the mandate by requiring pharmaceutical abortificients be offered universally as part of compensation for employment is a clear violation of religious liberty and to the conscience of the catholic church.
2 likes
I know this is off the main topic, but as a non-Catholic I’m curious. truthseeker says “scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit is present at the point of conception”. I have two questions: 1) Since the basics of the biology of human reproduction weren’t discovered until the 19th century, the authors of scripture had no concept of the event we now understand as conception. Sperm cells and egg cells were unknown. There were no words to describe what we mean by “the point of conception.” So how could scripture refer to it? 2) Isn’t the Holy Spirit, according to your religion, present at all times and places? Why should its presence “at the point of conception” make any difference?
1 likes
Avoiding an unwanted pregnancy can have untold mental health benefits.
The problem with this is that it is hypothetical.
Women who have children have better mental health than those who don’t. Does that correlation prove motherhood causes better mental health? Well, no, not absolutely, but it certainly is not an argument in favor of avoiding motherhood. So the only part of what you said that is true is the “untold” part. Without correlative data nor proof that avoiding motherhood is beneficial, we are definitely in “untold” territory. Cancer risks are higher for women who have fewer children and have them later or never. Cancer risks are lower for women who have more children and have them when they are younger. So the data for good health correlate to more kids sooner. Whatever stress may contribute to risk is definitely “untold” by the data.
2 likes
JerryL,
I think the concept of conception has been around since long before the 19th century and I doubt the meaning has changed much over time. You are correct in your thinking about the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us that God is not only present at lifes conception but an active player in the life giving process as the author of life itself.
1 likes
Truth dodger-
– if it is already decided, why all the disagreement, and why do the majority of people break this rule?
– On Guttemacher – I gave you the option a couple of times to find your own data and post it. You didn’t either take up that chance, or find any information that helped your cause
2 likes
Hippie -
…except that you didn’t look at the report, as it does break down information regarding how often people go to services…
2 likes
Truthseeker: Do you think the 1st amendment is in place to protect money-making enterprises? No mandate is stopping the Catholic administrators at my local parochial school from practicing their religion, in private or as a collective. But there isn’t a protection in place allowing them to run a business without federal oversight or interference. If they don’t like the mandate, they can opt out of running the business, penalty-free.
Hippie: Funny, I have different stats, like this 2005 study from the Journal of Health & Social Behavior, which found that parenthood is not associated with enhanced emotional well-being: http://www.sociology.fsu.edu/people/simon/simon_clarifying.pdf. Also, I’d rather have a child out of a genuine willingness to reproduce, not to reduce my risk for getting cancer. And I assume most of the thousands upon thousands of women taking birth control in the US have made similar cost-benefit analyses. Why do you think women are so stupid and incapable of making their own health-related decisions?
2 likes
– if it is already decided, why all the disagreement, and why do the majority of people break this rule? Even the guttemacher report that only surveyed the portion of catholics that were most likely to use bc only came back at 68%. You use twisted polls to spread lies but if they had polled all catholicsa you would see a clear majority stand with the church and her teachings. There is no disagreement among catholics as to the teaching. Why do you assume to speak for catholics when all you have as evidence is a twisted survey from the abortion industry. Get a life.
3 likes
Megan, are you saying that you believe the government mandating emploters supply pharmaceutical abortificients is part of what should be normal government oversight of a business. And that your compromise solution to protect peoples conscience and religious liberty is that people can stop doing business if they don’t want to supply pharmaceutical abortificients? What if the government mandated only allowing coverage for up to two children per family? Would you consider that to be reasonable governmental oversight too? Is there anything that you believe the government should not be able to mandate as a part of running any business in the US?
1 likes
Truthseeker, you were right about 20 comments ago.
Obama is hoping that lots of organizations (and communities, etc) will divide themselves over the lure of “free” contraception. I never cease to be amazed by the denseness of our usual abortion advocates on this blog. They can’t even string together 2 + 2 = 4 without arguing with themselves. Contraception can never be free, just like shoplifting isn’t really free; it just raises the prices of everything for everyone. It’s just shoplifting, abortion devotees.
3 likes
…except that you didn’t look at the report, as it does break down information regarding how often people go to services… Am I reading those numbers right Ex-RINO? Of the catholics surveyed 70% were not likely to attend mass at all. Of those catholics in this poll who did attend mass less than 10% were ‘likely’ to attend mass weekly.
2 likes
guttemacher polls are twisted bs, They are pro-aborts. They are spawn from the father of lies. They carry the stench of death.
1 likes
How much does it raise the prices by, ninek? Tell me. How much more does it cost to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to subsidize an unwanted birth?
2 likes
“Stress indirectly increases a woman’s risk of cancer.” Megan, you also need to know that Birth control is a group one carcinogen which means it causes CANCER!..a known medical fact that the doctors avoid telling us with grave seriousness…they allude to it as if it is no big deal..but, an article on a speech by a surgeon points out that birth control causes cancer…so I say, more children makes it easier to avoid it..
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/surgeon-birth-control-pill-a-molotov-cocktail-for-breast-cancer/ We act as if being a mother is a bad thing…it’s not and I”m getting sick and tired of the mainstream society telling women they shouldn’t get pregnant like getting pregnant is a disease. Children are our heritage and they bring good things to our world..a joy and a fresh perspective to life not to mention the creativity to solve the problems that we created. This whole attitude of having less children is an assault on motherhood. Why can’t we have as many children as we want without having to explain why. Children are a blessing and let’s stop treating them as if they are a curse!
0 likes
truth dodger -
That is a FABULOUS idea – I mean, sure, if you included the 85 year old catholic women, the numbers look much better. Or the 9 year olds. In fact, if I were doing a survey, or something like male drivers and accidents, I would include a lot of four year olds to make my comparison numbers look better.
Let me guess truth – you were an art history major in college…not much studying of survey research! :-)
2 likes
Ex-GOP – do you know what excommunication is and what its purpose is supposed to be? The tenor of your questions makes me think that you don’t…
Also, here’s an excellent analysis of why that 98% statistic is so flawed.
And here’s one I wrote.
0 likes
A few of you are debating the cost end of things – for what it is worth: from the American Medical Association - http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html
Can typically be added for free as the costs are made up in other health care savings. Benefits listed by this writer for the AMA:
– Correct use dramatically reduces risk of unintended pregnancies
– Casual link between pregnancies that are too close together and negative birth outcomes
– Unintended pregnancies linked to delay of initiation of prenatal care and reduced breastfeeding – which influences health outcomes
The link I posted cites the studies if you’d like to look and explore.
2 likes
Joanna – not Catholic – so you can explain to me why the sister should be ex-communicated, but not the other catholic groups who have come out in support.
I don’t find the 98% stat interesting at all – I find the 68% of those within the last month. I agree that the 98% can include the past numbers. I think the comparison numbers are much more telling.
2 likes
Well, I’ve shot out SEVEN children so far… one more and I can make apostate’s head explode!!!
And let’s see, I’m not on welfare, I pay a TON in social security and medicaid… it’s one of the biggest deductions on my check each week. I’m a Certified Pediatric Nurse specialist… (Oh, no, I actually take care of children AFTER they’re born…. so much for THAT pro-abort canard.)
My husband is a SAHD, because we actually enjoy taking care of our children and want to ensure they become productive members of society (and I’ve even published books on the subject of how to teach your children to be positive, productive members of society!) Prior to this, however, he worked for 20 years starting at age 16 and contributed a large amount towards the social security and medicare funds.
My oldest has volunteered at organizations helping with projects for not only the elderly but also the visually impaired. She is now a CNA, caring for those in nursing homes (they adore her gentle nature) and is in nursing school. My next oldest mows the lawns and shovels the snow for all of the elderly members of our church. All of the younger ones pitch in as they can and know that they are EXPECTED to do that. See, this is what you don’t get. In a large family, everyone MUST pitch in. Therefore we have a built in safeguard against the tendency of a loving mother to do things FOR her children…. an understandable tendency but one that if indulged in too often can create adults who think everyone owes them simply for their mere existence (think the Occupy movement.)
Oh, and I nursed my mother in law for the last 8 months of her life after she had a stroke and had to have 100% total care at home. I also took care of my grandmother until she died (although her needs were fewer, she was very healthy and died of simple old age at 98.)
As a nurse, I am aware of those large families that are neglectful and otherwise irresponsible. I am also a member of groups of large family mothers nationwide and can attest to literally THOUSANDS of large family moms that I interact with on a regular basis who are raising their children the way I raise mine.
And honestly, if all of the “intelligent, responsible” people limit their family size, in a few generations we will be completely outnumbered by those who DO think they ought to live off of the system. If anything, responsible, capable, intelligent families should have MORE children, not fewer.
6 likes
Lynn M. says:
February 13, 2012 at 2:31 am
“Stress indirectly increases a woman’s risk of cancer.” Megan, you also need to know that Birth control is a group one carcinogen which means it causes CANCER!..a known medical fact that the doctors avoid telling us with grave seriousness…they allude to it as if it is no big deal..but, an article on a speech by a surgeon points out that birth control causes cancer…so I say, more children makes it easier to avoid it..
Had to add to this. Did you know that for every child a woman births she lowers her risk of not only breast, but also uterine, ovarian and cervical cancer? In addition, for every month of her life that a mother breastfeeds her child, she further lowers her risks of breast and ovarian cancer. (In addition, breastfeeding, while it doesn’t work for everyone and it only works if your child is receiving NO supplements of food and formula, can help to delay the return of fertility, causing a natural spacing of children in the majority of cases. My own children are almost all between 2-1/2 and 3-1/2 years apart in age and I don’t use birth control.)
Also, by reducing the number of menses a woman has in her lifetime, pregnancy helps to reduce the overall estrogen output of the menstrual cycle over the course of her lifetime which has multiple positive effects on everything from cancer to osteoporosis to heart disease.
2 likes
apostate: “Hardly anyone’s child will be taking care of anyone when they’re old any more than the current posters on this board work to take care of the elderly, and I’m willing to bet that’s virtually none of you, even your own relatives.”
I have personally visited andhelped care for my paternal grandmother, who had a terminal brain tumor. Caring for her inspired me to become a CNA (Certified Nursing Assisant). I have worked in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and currently in home health as a caregiver. I have seen everything ranging from families visiting on a regular basis, on a semi-regular basis, at holidays, to not at all. Also, in home health I have seen families dedicating their time and resources to providing the long-term care for their disabled loved ones. You just can’t stereotype individuals and families because everyone’s situation is different, nor could you possibly read into the minds of everyone here and know whether they visit or care for their elderly friends, parents, or grandparents in the nursing home. However, I recognize your comment for what it is, an ad hominem attack on our character and a straw man. Just keep tilting at windmills and swinging that wooden sword at the straw men, apostate.
3 likes
If all types of birth control can be considered women’s health care, then wouldn’t food and water also be considered health care?
Afterall, we don’t need birth control to live, but we need food. So, where is my free, no copay, no deductible beef tenderloin?
8 likes
Those “religious” faiths that support contraceptive use and abortion should still be against this revised MANDATE. Freedom, and the principle of fairness, should obligate these faiths to respect the rights of other faiths. They should not seek to have the state impose their faith, their beliefs, on the rest of the community. If these faiths support contraception and abortion coverage for their employees they should buy it for their employees, but they should not mandate that people of other faiths must do the same.
Obama has tried to pin the success of his mandate on the fact he will only force insurance companies to follow his mandate. This is the way evil operates. He is saying effectively: “Look, we are not that bad, we are not that much of a bully, we only want insurance companies to pay for contraceptions, we only want to deny the religious liberty of insurance companies. And by the way, who really likes insurance companies anyway! {Wink. Wink. Big Toothy Smile}”
Don’t be charmed into accepting evil America.
1 likes
Also, if you look at the demographics of the Church in the United States, you will find a higher average age, which means many women who are active, practicing Catholics are too old to be using birth control anymore. It’s more evidence that the Screwtapes are just spinning their wheels to nowhere.
Making wishful-thinking statements with no real facts to back it up is typical abortion devotee behavior. Screwtapes, please use “vast majority” too because it’s so durn specific and statistical, LOL!!! Here, I’ll give you an example: “The vast majority of rabid abortion advocates can’t do math…”
3 likes
Obama and his administration thought enough people hated, or had a low enough opinion of, the Catholic Church that his Mandate would pass. He now thinks people have a low enough opinion of insurance companies that the American People will allow him and his far-left comrades (PP, Naral,et al) to trample on the First Amendment rights of insurance companies and allow him to institute his revised MANDATE.
Talk about trying to use the people’s emotion to obatin their favor! How low can Obama and his comrades go?
3 likes
Why all this talk about the % of Catholics that use contraceptives? How/why is it relevant? Catholics also lie, cheat, steal, murder, have abortions, commit adultery, fornicate, skip Mass, etc. None of that changes the teachings of the Church. The Church is charged with protecting and teaching the revealed truth, despite the failings of it’s members.
Can someone explain to me how a law that is objectively against the teachings of the Church is somehow justified because of the sins of the Church members?
5 likes
Ex-GOP –
The reason Sr. McBride excommunicated herself was that she had committed an excommunicable offense (facilitating an abortion). Using or advocating for contraception is not an excommunicable offense.
What do you think is the purpose of excommunication?
1 likes
Ex-GOP: “The first amendment doesn’t guarantee you of that – the government is allowed to do all sorts of things over the right of an individual.”
Let’s go with that for a moment.
So would you blithely assert that whenever yet another prerogative is asserted by the government over against my freedoms, that I should only naturally roll over and pee each time that happens because, after all, they already do it?
“Hey, Simone, they’re already sterilizing Gypsies. Why would you reserve some right to avoid that yourself?”
What kind of sense are you trying to make?
3 likes
Stop abortion.. wil Sebelius be fired?
0 likes
“How much does it raise the prices by, ninek? Tell me. How much more does it cost to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to subsidize an unwanted birth?”
It doesn’t cost a dime if the mother arranges adoption ahead of time and the new family pays for her pre-natal care and the baby’s delivery. Many families have already filled out applications, been interviewed, screened, had their credit checked and their finances pored over, and still people like Megan kill them faster than anyone can adopt.
It’s merely shoplifting, Megan, and you know it. You know we’re in the right and that’s what keeps you coming here, kicking against the goad. Nice of you not to care about cardiovascular disease and diabetes, both cause a high number of deaths each year.
You don’t know what the phrase “ELECTIVE” means. Abortion and birth control aren’t basic health care. They are unnecessary and ELECTIVE, like hair plugs and pectoral implants. I hope YOU live to see the day abortion is illegal again, Megan. I personally hope YOU live to see it. Stay healthy and don’t play on railroad tracks, please.
Tell me, abortion devotees, if I ovulate, does that mean my ovaries have malfunctioned???
If a man produces sperm, does that mean there’s something very wrong with his reproductive organs?
If a baby is a disease, what does that make ALL OF YOU???? Big hairy grown up diseases? Really?
1 likes
Lrning – my only point on the numbers is I find it hypocritical for the church to say “here are the rules you non-catholic employees need to follow even though it is pretty clear that catholics are pretty disputed about them”.
2 likes
JoAnna – I am not Catholic (father is a minister – I go to a non-denominational Christian church). Anything regarding excommunication, you’ll have to explain. I know a few basics, but it is not something I’m too concerned about.
2 likes
Rasqual – certainly not – I’m just saying that religious objection is not a trump card in society that a person can play at any point they choose. The government has, for a long time, mandated certain things that go against somebody’s beliefs. In this case, they have an exception for churches – the question is, is Notre Dame enough of a church? Or a catholic hospital? The question is simply where to draw the line.
2 likes
Ex-RINO,
How do you suppose you will avoid answering to the Author of Life for the time you spend on this site supporting the pro-death cause and blasphemy of Christianity? Your contraceptive mentalitity is an affront to our Lord. Who do you serve when you mock those who believe the union of a man and women is a sacred gift from God?
0 likes
Truth – how will any of us answer how we spend our time? Surely you know that we are all rotten, filled with sin, and must rely on Jesus for any hope of salvation. All I can do is love the Lord with all my heart.
There is no mocking here – only good, searching conversation. If you believe that folks should just blindly accept everything that comes there way in life and not question, wrestle, and debate topics – then you and I have a fundamental difference in how we interact with the world.
Truth – I actually believe you are a good person, and mean well. I believe in a centered approach to Christianity…that there are core things that are fundamental to belief, but that there is freedom in Christ to debate issue and wrestle with issues outside of that core. Freedom to agree to disagree, and to prod and learn using the Bible as a guide.
Christ is my Lord and my guide – no outside book or ruleset is more important to me – and Christ is who I follow.
2 likes
Ex-GOP says:
Lrning – my only point on the numbers is I find it hypocritical for the church to say “here are the rules you non-catholic employees need to follow even though it is pretty clear that catholics are pretty disputed about them”.
Again, I don’t understand that. How is it hypocritical for the Church to teach the same truth to Catholics as to non-Catholics? To hold Catholics and non-Catholics to the same expectations? No one has ever denied that we all have free will and can decide to follow the teachings or not. How do the sins of the Church members negate the teaching of the Church?
Thou shalt not kill. Catholics kill. The Church is hypocritical when it says that killing is sin?
Thou shalt not commit adultery. Catholics commit adultery. The Church is hypocritical when it says that adultery is sin?
Thou shalt not steal. Catholics steal. The Church is hypocritical when it says that stealing is sin?
That makes no sense. Clearly the Catholic Church teaches that contraception and sterilization are sins. Whether Catholics commit those sins or not has no bearing on the teaching of the Church.
1 likes
Lrning – all those situations you said are all illegal. Plus, they are all fairly rare. You’d certainly agree that if a majority of catholics did kill, it would be hard to say that not killing is a core conviction. Let me try a new one…it won’t stick completely, but I think it is closer.
Let’s say my pastor says going to California to Disney World is immoral, so he doesn’t want anybody in his church going to Disney World. Now, going to Disney World is certainly legal, and outside the teachings of my church, Disney World is pretty much okay.
Now, the people in my church really, at the end of the day, are okay with Disney World – so we all go. As families, on our own. Lots of Disney World time. Some don’t…but the majority do.
Now my pastor is saying that employees of the church charity, including the janitor and nursery workers, who really go to a different church – none of them can go to Disney World on their vacation time. Pastor is saying that the vacation time is essentially paid for by the extension of the church, so they can’t go (even if they see their vacation time as their benefit). He doesn’t want to pay for it.
Is not going to Disney World a core belief of this church if the majority of church goers vacation there? Maybe – but it is a much tougher sell, don’t you think?
2 likes
Christ is my Lord and my guide – no outside book or ruleset is more important to me – and Christ is who I follow.
And when I tell you that God the Father of Jesus Christ; the Creator of Life and Holy Spirit is present at conception it is to try and shine light on your path and help you follow Christ more closely. I am not trying to show you any rules. I am trying to relate to you the truth about Jesus Christ as it is written in the scriptures.
3 likes
The insurance companies are not going to complain about this First Amendment infringement because the insurance companies were heavily consulted with by the Obama administration when the Obama administration designed the Affordable Care Act. If religious liberty is going to be protected it is going to be upto good willed religious people. The “CLARIFICATION” of the how the original mandate is going to be implemented is revealing the apathy of the American public. This is not an “ACCOMODATION” but a “CLARIFICATION.”
1 likes
Now my pastor is saying that employees of the church charity, including the janitor and nursery workers, who really go to a different church – none of them can go to Disney World on their vacation time.
Either that was a really terrible analogy or you really don’t see how important God’s gift of life is within his plan for mankind and how important it is as a tenet of faith to those who choose to carry out His mission here on earth.
0 likes
Tyler. There should be absolutely no surprise to anyone here. Obama has never been anything but a 100% Planned Parenthood crony throughout his entire political career in Illinois. Now this is the abortion industry’s shot at enshrining their presence into our health care system. Obama doesn’t give a rats ass about religious conscience. He was willing to openly throw Jesus Christ under the bus in order to try and enshrine the culture of death into our health care when he thought that was the only way. But his bottom line is to get Planned Parenthood a foot in our health care system. I say F him. The second wave is coming this November and it is going to be a tsunami.
1 likes
I am not Catholic, however I choose to work for Catholic hospitals as much as possible BECAUSE I agree with them about issues such as abortion and contraception. I would not work labor and delivery in ANY non-Catholic hospital (I mostly do pediatrics, but have worked L&D as well.)
If you go to work for a Catholic organization, frankly, you should expect to not have such things covered under your insurance. The Catholic church’s stance on these issues is neither knew nor unknown. If you want insurance that covers such things, work for organizations that offer them.
NOW… I do think there should be some upfront information given about what the benefits package your employer offers does and does not offer. Then people can make an informed choice as to whether they wish to work there or not.
3 likes
Tyler -
Insurance companies aren’g going to complain about a first amendement issue because they aren’t religious by nature. They are primarily for profit, and deal with mandates such as this all of the time.
1 likes
Elisabeth -
True…but one note on that. The nations largest Catholic college – DePaul, covers birth control. Archdiocese of NY provides it. Marquette University provides it – and some large Catholic hospital systems do as well.
Up from information though is important – I do agree with that.
1 likes
Obama made it no secret that when he became president that he would work to make abortion “essential health care”. He could care less how many Americans are killed in the womb. HE LOVES abortion and Planned Parenthood and every bill he tried to pass or executive order he made is to the end of helping PP get money and stay alive. As more clinics close and word gets out about what abortion is, PP is in a panic! Obama is their Superman and he is willing to bankrupt America’s economy to keep PP alive.
He also hates Catholics…Any voter who does not like what he says and does better vote against him. and not third party b/c that will only help him win. If you are a Democrat who is prolife, you better be willing to vote Republican to get him out! If Obamacare passes, there will be no changing this mess..and it will only get worse! Obama is here to peacefully destroy America from within. Even black pastors say he doesn’t talk to them…he does not care about anyone else but himself and PP..his favorite lobby group! (oh and Warren Buffet and the rich who help support his campaign!)
3 likes
Ex-GOP says: Lrning – all those situations you said are all illegal. Plus, they are all fairly rare.
Abortion (killing) is legal. Catholics account for 28% of abortions, or 920 per day. Not illegal. Not rare.
Adultery is not illegal. I have no idea how many Catholics have affairs, but my guess is it’s not “rare”.
Is not going to Disney World a core belief of this church if the majority of church goers vacation there? Maybe – but it is a much tougher sell, don’t you think?
Again, whether the church goers follow the teaching or not does not negate the teaching. If this teaching is as long-standing and as well-documented as the teachings of the Catholic Church against contraception and sterilization, I’d say it’s not a hard sell at all. Someone would have to be a fool to argue that contraception and sterilization are not against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
1 likes
EGV, Lrning has already addressed this wonderfully, but I’ll add this:
So long as you maintain a stance of moral relativism (i.e. there is no objective standard of good vs. evil, but it’s only a matter of consensus and legal imposition), I think you will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to understand Christianity at all (much less the Catholic Church). Honestly: if the “lines” defining good and evil are merely human opinion writ large (and enforced by some sort of legal system, military force, etc.), then how can you hold to Christianity, save perhaps as a private fancy (such as one’s temporary taste for a given song, movie, etc.)? How can anyone ever strive for the good, if the very definition of “good” changes with each regime change, opinion poll, Hollywood initiative, or what-have-you? Christianity itself rejects any such mean caricature; Christianity is (by Christ’s own words) meant for those who commit to it with their lives… not for dilettantes.
Christianity teaches that God is real, good is real, evil is “real” (in the sense that it’s a phenomenon we experience–evil is really a privation of a good which should be present), Heaven is real (not simply a saccharine fantasy meant to drug the masses), Hell is real (not simply a false horror story conjured up to scare children into obeying their parents, etc.), and our moral choices will definitely decide our eternal fate.
Honestly: one thing I find exasperating beyond measure (partly because I did so, myself, for too many years, and seeing it in others is painful) is the tendency for many “Christians” to live as if the truths of the Faith were not true, or mere opinions, or (even more inexplicably) only true “part-time”. When someone who is a Christian starts (when discussing morality and trying to appeal to a moral guide) appealing to the civil laws of a nation which tries its best to ABSTRACT from God and Christianity when MAKING those laws, I can only shake my head in sorrow. It’s insane, and it’s wrong, and it’s wasting precious time. It’s placing an automobile on a lift, raising it to the point where its tires are off the ground, and then trying to get quickly to a destination by pushing the accelerator even more firmly, and causing the wheels to spin and “free-wheel” ever more quickly.
Summary: the Catholic Church points to moral laws which are absolute, and which were given Her by God. All sincere Christians do the same. If you are confused about the difference between the laws of God and the laws of man, I’d strongly suggest that you get the difference quite clear in your head, first, before you try to wrap your head around such concepts as damnation (the eternal punishment for rejecting the God Who gave those laws as our guide) and excommunication (the medicinal disconnection of a grave sinner from the Body of Christ, in the hopes that the person will repent and return to life).
3 likes
“To me, it’s not “more important.” If we are really looking at “the gov’t giving stuff away,” then doesn’t it already do that with blood pressure medication? Medicaid and CHIP covers around 60 million people, eh?”
Doug, My point is that people spend their lives with high blood-pressure which kills them over time and yet they have to pay for these prescriptions. Shouldn’t society be providing free life saving drugs like those I mentioned above before we give drugs that have far less benefit? That is unless you are saying you agree with CC that bc is far more important then blood pressure medicine. Which is it?
Truthseeker, yeah – again, I wouldn’t say “give out BC” before we give out stuff for blood pressure.
2 likes
I worked for 30 plus years. I paid for oral contraception for the two years that I used it. My husband paid for condoms. I now pay co-pays for blood pressure meds. I don’t understand why oral contraception is more important than bp meds.
I don’t understand why employees cannot pay directly for contraception and leave their employer out of it.
Based on the government’s logic, insurance shouldpay for condoms since they are intended to prevent STDs.
Why does the Obama administraTion hate children so much? Why are they trying so hard to induce women to prevent them. Very sad.
3 likes
Lrning -
I’m not doubting at all that contraception is against the teachings of the Catholic church. I am doubting that catholic hospitals and catholic universities, which employ many non-Christians, are an extension of the church. I’m also doubting that the compromise, which many catholic organizations have signed off on, is just a “shell game”. Insurance companies have the right to offer people plans with contraception in them, and if it comes from two different insurance groups (divisions within insurance) – I don’t see the huge issue. Now, I’ll fully admit I haven’t read the entire paper put up by Notre Dame legal or anything…maybe there’s something I’m missing. Regardless, I support the exemption for churches 100%. I am not convinced that the line that I would draw (in regards to who is a church and who isn’t) is the same line you would draw.
1 likes
Paladin
You’ve completely misread something. Please see my last post. I’m not arguing for the morality of contraception (doing my own research on that now). What I am arguing is in regards to where the line is drawn, and how much control organizations (that aren’t churches) have over employees that don’t belong to that denomination or religion. I personally see health care more like sick days – the right of an employee, not owned by the employer.
You are trying to paint something that doesn’t exist (and I apologize if I put off that impression). I’m not saying that since it is legal it is good. I’m not saying Catholics should just legalize contraception and ignore church teachings. I understand God’s laws vs laws of man . I am simply saying that I don’t believe the church down the street from me is the same as DePaul University. I am also saying that I am nervous about giving too much power to employer’s in regards to employee healthcare.
That clear?
1 likes
I am doubting that catholic hospitals and catholic universities, which employ many non-Christians, are an extension of the church.
What I am arguing is in regards to where the line is drawn, and how much control organizations (that aren’t churches) have over employees that don’t belong to that denomination or religion.
What it seems you are not grasping is that individuals, not just churches, have the right to free exercise of religion. A Catholic employer, whether part of an apostolate of the Church or as an individual, has the right to offer their employees benefits that do not conflict with their religion.
I personally see health care more like sick days – the right of an employee, not owned by the employer.
Well, that opinion doesn’t mesh well with reality. Employers select the insurance company and the healthcare plans that they will offer employees. They usually subsidize those plans as well, so the employee is not paying the full premium. And in some cases (self-insured) the employer actually is the insurance provider.
1 likes
Lrning -
Yes – individuals do have rights, but they only extend so far – for instance, individuals pay taxes whether or not they object (religiously or otherwise) to how that money is spent.
On point two – the government also subsidizes the plans through tax breaks, and the employee typically pays into the plan. I personally don’t think that the employer gets the only say when the cost is spread multiple ways, and the employee is the one using it as an employee benefit.
1 likes
Ex-RINO,
You are doubting catholic organizations are an extension of the church. Hmmm…catholic organizations an exension of the catholic church….
And you keep on repeating yourself a ‘rationalization’ that anything the government forces people to do that violates a constitutional right or a right of conscience is ok at this point because we those same libertys and conscience rights are already being violated by what the government use of our taxes….and so we should just bend over and take it. Again; your reasoning for the government being allowed to violate individual liberty/conscience is that they already do it with our tax money????
And you stretch that to mean employers should be frced to hire insurance companies that provide bc. Good grief. Have you lost your backbone entirely?
I really was hoping you would come up with some creative mind-bending and answer the question I posed to you on this thread a few days ago. Are you ready to give it a shot yet?
1 likes
Why in your mind is it more important for our government to subsidize the abortificient pharmaceuticals and make them free but not force employers to purchase emplotees insurance policies that provide blood pressure meds for free?
1 likes
Ex-GOP – I realize you are non-Catholic. I’d still like to know what you think excommunication is.
Also, the ability to wage war and levy taxes are powers specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. The ability to levy mandatory contraception coverage is not. By all means, feel free to lobby your representatives for a Constitutional amendment to abolish the former, but realize that the latter is actually a violation of the first amendment.
3 likes
Ex-GOP, of course our individual freedoms can be restricted when the government has a compelling reason. That’s why you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded building and avoid responsibility for the consequences based on “free speech”.
You do realize that there are already restrictions in place on how the government can spend our tax dollars based on conscience rights? (Hyde amendment, etc.)
So make your case Ex-GOP. What is the compelling reason that organizational and individual religious liberty should be trampled for contraception and sterilization?
2 likes
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
Paladin, you’ve completely misread something.
That’s always possible; we’ll see.
Please see my last post. I’m not arguing for the morality of contraception (doing my own research on that now).
Nor did I claim that you were.
What I am arguing is in regards to where the line is drawn, and how much control organizations (that aren’t churches) have over employees that don’t belong to that denomination or religion.
And I say again: you’re missing the fundamental point, even in this issue. If it were merely the case that a non-Catholic worker at a Catholic hospital quietly purchased and used contraceptives with his own money on his own time, do you honestly think that there would exist this level of outrage? Surely you see the difference between that, and the current situation? The current situation is FORCING CATHOLICS TO PAY (financially) FOR A MORAL EVIL. You (unless I’ve misunderstood you), at least at the moment, view contraception as such a non-issue that you see no problem with having it mandatorily included in a health-insurance package. You seemingly believe that anyone receiving a health-insurance package should partake of anything which the government currently deems to be “health services”–including contraception (and perhaps even abortion, euthanasia, and the like). Therein is your error.
I personally see health care more like sick days – the right of an employee, not owned by the employer.
Er… I’m afraid even “sick days” are not so libertarian as all that. Try to call in sick, while posting your vacation frolicking (during those days) on Facebook, and see if there are any repercussions about gaining those sick days under false pretenses (i.e. lying).
You are trying to paint something that doesn’t exist (and I apologize if I put off that impression). I’m not saying that since it is legal it is good.
Well… on what basis do you say that “health care” (which is a sloppy euphemism for “health insurance”) is an unrestricted right of an employee, even in cases where the employee forces (by government mandate) the employing institution to pay for products which it considers morally evil? Why not leave such things off the plan (and allow the person to buy them out-of-pocket), and avoid a de facto suppression of religious freedom?
I’m not saying Catholics should just legalize contraception and ignore church teachings.
“Catholics” are not in a position to legalise anything, I’d add; they and the government are not synonymous.
I understand God’s laws vs laws of man. I am simply saying that I don’t believe the church down the street from me is the same as DePaul University.
Er… but what if (as is actually the case) the laws of God are not restricted to the interiors of explicit places of worship? What if the Law of God demands that evil be avoided EVERYWHERE, and not simply during worship services? Do you see my point?
I am also saying that I am nervous about giving too much power to employer’s in regards to employee healthcare.
Hm. That’s a bit like saying “I’m nervous about giving too much power to a consumer in what he/she is allowed to buy, or how to worship.” Do you seriously believe that, once incorporation papers are signed, any organisation is forbidden to hold to any moral standards at all?
3 likes
That great Catholic, Stephen Colbert, defended the Catholic Church last night on his show: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/408347/february-14-2012/contraception-crusade
0 likes
truth – I addressed earlier that I don’t believe folks should just “bend over” on this one. I am suggesting though that I don’t believe religious liberty is simply a trump card that can be played at any time if the government has compelling reason to do something. Again, the government executes prisoners, which is against a lot of people’s religious beliefs. It takes tax money to do that. Try not paying your taxes!
Sure – you can post the question again – I’m not going to wade through the 250+ comments to find it – just a bit lazy – sorry!
0 likes
Truth –
I’ve not said a thing in regards to blood pressure – so your question is a bit out of left field.
0 likes
Lrning
First off, I don’t think the religious rights of a church should be “trampled”. I’ve said that I think the line could be reasonably drawn between churches and health systems/universities – many of which have had contraception coverage for years.
In regards to benefits – I’m going to point you to a column from the AMA – I started to list the reasons, and I don’t want to end up simply retyping everything they say (better and with backing research).
http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/02/pfor1-1202.html
0 likes
JoAnna -
Two things –
I’ve fully admitted not being Catholic – but my guess is excommunication is rooted in Matthew 18 – if somebody is sinning, talk to them – then talk to them with witnesses – then have nothing to do with them.
On the power’s of congress – heck, back in the day, congress said that farmers couldn’t grow wheat only for their own consumption – there’s a lot of power within congress. The Supremes will sort out the mandate before long.
0 likes
Paladin
On your points:
– So let me ask you this. Blue Cross has policies with contraception coverage. If a catholic facility got their coverage through blue cross, even if contraception was not covered in their specific policy, would you feel that this is a bad thing?
– Maybe sick days wasn’t as good of an example as vacation days. Regardless – your next paragraph says that you’d be fine with the employee getting the coverage on the side. So in the compromise, my understanding is the employee would get it on the side from the same insurance group….it would simply be free because birth control ends up saying money for an insurance company. Am I misunderstanding you or misunderstanding the compromise?
– I do see your point on avoiding evil everywhere…but could we ever spend a single dollar in society? If we bought goods from China, we’re supporting all sorts of abuses on human rights. If we spent money at a company that covers contraception in plans, are we not indirectly funding contraception? If we are to avoid all evil, and you consider contraception coverage, even indirectly through funds in a company as an evil – I don’t see how you buy anything in society?
0 likes
So, since I’m in a mostly civil conversation where I feel only a few people are probably still reading…help me out here.
The more research I’m doing, the more doubt there is that contraception positively causes abortions. I find a lot of “it might, but we’re really not sure” – which, I agree, could cause a person to lean to the side of caution.
For instance though – from the LIfe Training Institute Blog – “ anyone who believes they know absolutely that OCs cause endometrial changes that result in “chemical abortions” is simply wrong.”
Is there an certain amount of leaning to the side of caution, or are catholics simply against birth control, so as one of the bullet points in the thesis, they say it might cause an abortion?
Again – I’m not looking to get torn up here – I’ve actually enjoyed this conversation because it has slipped down to a few people that I respect and can debate honestly with. If you want to attack me for this question, feel free – I’ll unsubscribe and move on.
0 likes
Ex-RINO,
Do you remember posting this yesterday?
Notre Dame, Catholic Health Association and Catholics Charities USA all support the compromise.
And then I replied:
Ex-RINO, I used to think you were lost and confused but with the amount of lies you are spreading you are losing my respect by the minute. You can lie today but your lies will be seen for what they are. And sooner than you think. For starters Notre Dame is self insured so the so-called Obama contraceptive fix wouldn;t even be relevant to their position. And stop maligning Catholic Charities. I know I said this once already but you are really full of bs today.
And then you said:
Truth dodger – feel free to email John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame and let him know that his position and opinion does not matter.
And then I gave you the link to an official Notre Dame response calling the compromise “a cheap accounting trick”
And now here is another link to Catholic Charities renouncing Obama’s compromise:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/15/catholic-charity-group-denies-endorsement-contraceptive-coverage-policy/
You seemed to take it personally when I said you were full of BS yesterday and told you ”You can lie today but your lies will be seen for what they are. And sooner than you think.”
But when something stinks as bad as your posts bs seems like an appropraite name for it.
0 likes
So Truth- yesterday, on the 14th, I should have known what was reported today – that one of the organizations being reported as being supportive wasn’t really supportive.
Are you kidding me?
There were a number of articles yesterday, the 14th, that said that Catholic Charities was a supporter. To blame somebody for not knowing what is going to happen in the future is simply classless.
0 likes
Maybe you should quit regurgitating the Obama talking points and start getting your information from a more fair and balanced source like Fox News.
0 likes
Not quite, Ex-GOP. The concept expressed in Matthew 18 is more like “anathema” instead of excommunication.
Excommunication is a medicinal penalty. It’s meant to bring the sinner to repentance, in the hope that it will make him/her realize the gravity of his/her sins. This is a good, accessible explanation.
That being said, do you think excommunication would do anything, or would those Catholics who contracept just shrug their shoulders and say, “eh, who cares, just a bunch of old celibate white men doddering on about something else”?
Where does the Constitution say that people can’t solely eat the wheat they grow?
0 likes
Joanna -
So close…do I get partial credit?
I can’t speculate on what those who would be excommunicated would do. If they felt they were right and not sinning, my guess is they would go to a different church.
Constitution doesn’t say anything about wheat – but Wickard vs Filburn is a fundamental case that folks are talking about in regards to the individual mandate (and thus this debate as well) – where the supremes allowed for the government to regulate economic activity through the constitution’s commerce clause.
0 likes
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
So let me ask you this. Blue Cross has policies with contraception coverage. If a catholic facility got their coverage through blue cross, even if contraception was not covered in their specific policy, would you feel that this is a bad thing?
(*sigh*) You do have a habit of conflating multiple details, when giving your examples/comments, friend… and this makes a straight-forward “yes or no” answer rather difficult. If I may parse out a few of the details:
1) I regard the fact that “Blue Cross covers contraception” *at all* to be a “bad” thing, in general; there is no way that I could ever describe it as an unqualified “good” (or “not bad”), and it would only have the possibility of being truly and purely “good” if Blue Cross (and every other provider) dumped such coverage, altogether. That being said…
2) Those who thrash out the difficult cases of morality are required to distinguish between different types of cooperation in an objective moral evil (proximate vs. remote, intentional vs. unintentional, direct consequence vs. indirect consequence, etc.). If one of your many uses of the word “bad” includes the idea of the Catholic decision-makers (for the facility in question) being morally CULPABLE, then to that I’d say “no”, unless other details surfaced; all other things being equal, it is not morally wrong to partake of a service whose evil effects and potentials (e.g. presenting a temptation for any Catholic employee to file a claim for contraceptives) have been neutralised. Mind you, it would have been far better for the facility to purchase insurance from a less tainted source in the first place, if feasible… but that is not always an option.
3) Beyond this, you’d have to be much more specific about the details/dynamics which (in your mind) would be potentially “a bad thing”, and why you think so.
Maybe sick days wasn’t as good of an example as vacation days.
Perhaps. But I’ll re-phrase what I said to Jerry M., on another thread: there is no moral or legal obligation on the part of any facility/employer to supply either [paid] sick days or [paid] vacation days; an employer may well offer them in order to be competitive, but there is no obligation to offer them in the first place. This means, among other things, that these things are not a “right”; one could not, for example, expect to sue a company which doesn’t offer vacation days, on the basis that they did not raise your salary commensurately with the standard “2 weeks of vacation time” which is usually offered… nor could you do similarly with sick days. These are a “perk”, not a matter of justice. (Once an employer signs a contract AGREEING to offer them, THEN it would be a matter of justice to deny them; but not beforehand.) I see no coherent way to argue that health insurance, or sick days, or vacation days are in any way “rights” which can be demanded or required, especially at the cost of violating the religious convictions of the employer.
Regardless – your next paragraph says that you’d be fine with the employee getting the coverage on the side.
(*deep sigh*)
Perhaps this was unintentional on your part, dear fellow, but: would you be so kind as to avoid such sweeping, broad-brush (to the point of flat falsehood) statements such as “you’d be fine with [x]”, solely on the basis that I don’t necessarily think it’d be a mortal sin to enact it in some circumstances?
Would I be “fine” with any person, whatsoever, getting contraceptive coverage? Absolutely not… and I trust you now know enough about me to deduce the reason for that. Nowhere did I say anything of the sort; I said, in essence, that a conscience exemption for the employer would still allow that LEGAL OPTION for those employees who could not be dissuaded from being hell-bent on contraception.
So in the compromise, my understanding is the employee would get it on the side from the same insurance group…
(*wry look*) And it would be paid by the insurance group, out of the goodness of the group leaders’ hearts, I suppose? The Obama Administration’s propensity for thinking that material items (I can’t bear to call them “goods”) and services will somehow grow on trees, or that credit/spending can be extended without end, boggles the mind. Surely you know that the insurance group will “pay” for the contraceptives through the monies it receives from the employers? The so-called “compromise” is not only ineffectual in its advertised purpose: it is insane.
it would simply be free because birth control ends up saying money for an insurance company. Am I misunderstanding you or misunderstanding the compromise?
You’ve certainly misunderstood some of my points; and to the extent that I understand the ill-named “compromise” (“smoke and mirrors” would be a far better label), you’ve misunderstood some aspects of that, as well. The idea that “birth control will save money” is as wild and unsubstantiated (and in utter defiance of common sense) an idea as I’ve seen in many a year; my greatest amazement is that otherwise intelligent people seem to think it makes sense!
I do see your point on avoiding evil everywhere…but could we ever spend a single dollar in society?
See above; we are only responsible for our choices, not for all the evils in the world. We are forbidden to will (i.e. freely choose and intend) any evil, whatsoever; for more information on which circumstances allow for us to choose actions which have UNINTENDED evil consequences, you might examine something known as “the principle of double-effect”.
If we bought goods from China, we’re supporting all sorts of abuses on human rights.
Indirectly, yes. It is certainly a morally licit option to boycott Chinese products… though it is not mandatory, at least partially because an utter boycott of Chinese goods would also have evil effects (i.e. the Chinese leaders, if experiencing a financial short-fall, would be sure to let the worst effects fall upon the poor and abused slave-laborers in the country, instead of themselves and their military; the leaders and armies would still be well-fed, while millions of common people and political prisoners would be starved, executed to “cut costs”, etc.; this has been proven true in North Korea, for example).
If we spent money at a company that covers contraception in plans, are we not indirectly funding contraception?
Yes, indirectly… and that is undeniably an evil state of affairs. But again: do research the “principle of double-effect” to see examples of cases where such indirect “support” is allowable (note: NOT “okay”, NOT “good”, and NOT “having no problem with it”), so long as the evil effect is unintended, and so long as several other (rather strict) conditions are met.
If we are to avoid all evil, and you consider contraception coverage, even indirectly through funds in a company as an evil – I don’t see how you buy anything in society?
Again, see above; we cannot avoid all evil, but we can avoid all conscious/intentional and/or willfully heedless participation in it. My wife and I do, in fact, avoid all shopping in stores which contain non-pro-life pharmacies (including Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc.), ever since it became mandatory in Wisconsin for pharmacies to stock “Plan B”; and it is sometimes a hardship, yes… but not impossible. I do not suggest that this is mandatory for everyone; I suggest only that it is a morally good option (which does our small part to reduce support for the evils you mention), and we (my wife and I) discerned that God wanted us to do so.
2 likes
(??) That’s odd… my previous (long) comment is in moderation, but without hyperlinks! Pardon the delay while it surfaces, EGV…
0 likes
Lrning: What is the compelling reason that organizational and individual religious liberty should be trampled for contraception and sterilization?
ExGOP: First off, I don’t think the religious rights of a church should be “trampled”. I’ve said that I think the line could be reasonably drawn between churches and health systems/universities – many of which have had contraception coverage for years.
Do you see the disconnect? Organizational (not churches) and individual religious liberties are trampled by this mandate. For what compelling reason?
Not sure if you’ve seen this article yet:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223003824714664.html
1 likes
Lrning – interesting article. I wonder where though, in that, the line is drawn? If we can say that an insurance plan can’t offer people contraception because somebody in another plan (under the same company) doesn’t want to indirectly support contraception – then couldn’t we extend that out to all sorts of other areas in life? At what point is it okay? Let’s say Blue Cross offers employees of catholic facilities an extra policy for $1 a month – and it is not from the same insurance pool, is that legally acceptable to you?
Also – thoughts from my 2/15, 9:35pm post? Was hoping to get some response from you or Paladin on it – as I respect your opinions very much.
0 likes
Paladin -
First off, the “sigh” and “deep sigh” was a nice touch. I almost felt like I was in the room with you, feeling that you were bugged with the questions you were answering. I loved it – sort of like an ‘LOL’ for the intellectually elite.
On your points:
1) I’ll be more specific then. If Blue Cross was the choice of coverage by your employer, and the plan didn’t offer contraception or abortion – but other plans under the Blue Cross umbrella does, do you feel that a Catholic should refuse the plan?
2) On sick days/vacation – while it isn’t a mandate that employers offer things like vacation days, there are laws that govern those things when they are offered – for instance, a good chunk of states mandate that if a person leaves a job, they get paid out unused vacation – so the individual does have some rights in the game. Employee based healthcare is slowly becoming a thing of the past…so this debate will probably be irrelevant down the road.
3) I know you are skeptical that the contraception coverage could be offered free of charge – but I don’t think your understanding of how it would be done is really necessary here – the question is, if the insurance company offers contraception coverage for whatever price they want (even free), and it is outside the pool of the money of the coverage offered through the actual plan, do you feel that legally, this is acceptable to a catholic. If not, do you feel a catholic should opt out of any plan from any insurance carrier that offers contraception at all (through any of their plans)?
4) I do enjoy your last four paragraphs – would only contend that the best option for a Catholic seems to be as uneducated as possible – as you could quickly work your way into a situation where you couldn’t buy from anyone. Many employers offer abortion coverage in insurance plans, many more offer contraceptions. Paying taxes in Texas supports the DP (well, in a lot of states).
I do get it – you don’t think people should use contraception in general. I’m skeptical of the evil of contraception. It appears that the majority of even catholics are skeptical of the evils of contraception…but I get that we can’t throw YOU aside simply because not everyone that is catholics falls in line. I do think though that at some point, your rights to be morally offended bump up against the rights of somebody who doesn’t morally have an issue with it. I think it was good that the policy was announced in plenty of time to work out these issues and continue to redraw the line.
0 likes
Ex: “ then couldn’t we extend that out to all sorts of other areas in life?”
Isn’t that the point of a Constitution? To specify which liberties are normative, whose implications extend furthest and are unabridged by other things not even penumbrally emanating from any Constitutional basis whatsoever?
What’s the problem with “extending that out?” If there’s a problem, then the Constitution would need amending and there’s a process for that. It’s Constitutional to amend the Constitution. It’s not Constitutional — and hence, an arrogation of authority by the government or anyone else — to disregard the Constitution on account of hand-wringing about the implications of Constitutionally protected rights/freedoms.
In this entire discussion, I’m incredulous at how pro-choicers who feel secure in their penumbral emanation are doubtful about whether others have any just expectation of feeling secure in their explicit enumeration.
0 likes