It appears that the very conservative Council of Bishops has rejected the latest contraceptive plan issued by the White House. Are we surprised? I doubt if they will be satisfied. I speculate that if all contraception were forbidden from insurance policies, they might crack a smile.
Meanwhile, our post on this subject has been one of favorite brawl places. In the interest of all sides being aired (and yes, it is killing me to be the least bit egalitarian on this topic), Mika and Joe had an interesting discussion going on Friday. Cardinal Wuerl, the Arch Bishop of Washington is their guest.
The Cardinal seems to have an analogy for everything rather than dealing directly with an issue. The fact that he compares contraception to pornography says it all.
Two concepts, health care as it pertains to women and religion seem to be on a collision course.
Those bishops are really annoying! How dare they assert that the first amendment protects them from paying for insurance coverage that go against their religion?
As employers, don’t they realize that they are part of the vast federal machinery to provide health and welfare services to the proletarariat? Their job is to pay as much and for whatever services are deemed necessary by the great social-services-provider in chief. Because these bishops are employers and therefore are needed to provide services to workers, their first amendment rights are secondary to the rights of the masses.
If they want their first amendment rights back, then they should stop employing workers and just do everything themselves or with volunteers. If not, then they should just shut up and do what they are told by the federal government. In fact, perhaps their free speech rights should be suspended as well, because their failure to cooperate is creating disapproval and could perhaps hinder effective delivery of services to the proletariat.
@Kelly_3406
Why pick on Obama? The Catholic Church has fought and lost in state courts and has either been forced to self-insure or comply with state law. The Church in NY state – where much of the criticism from top Church spokesmen has originated – has been complying for about ten years. Why the brouhaha now? Sounds more political than religious.
@Kelly_3406
HUH? They don’t have to pay. President Obama let them off the hook. Now…do you think an insurance company wants to cover a birth or contraception. Guess which is cheaper?
I suppose now the council of bishops will start whining that their taxes (which they probably don’t pay) are going to dreaded evil contraception.
No one is touching their first amendment rights. Your argument defending the bishops is ludicrous. You are suggesting that they can do anything they want.
What about their employees rights? Why are the employees having to have 6th century religious beliefs of males who really don’t know much of the real world shoved down their throat?
News flash–the Council of Bishops is just another good ole boys club to most of us.
@Censored bybvbl
Haven’t you heard….its ok in NY state. Just no where else. Situational morality? How conveeeeenient.
I used to be respectful. Now I am not. Anyone who wants to drag a bunch of old moss back men kicking and screaming into the 21st century is welcome to do so.
I used to think those militant nuns (and also my former alter boy husband) were disrespectful. Now I agree with them. This is a political debate, not a religious one. Religious debates happen within one’s own flock.
Cardinal Wuerl lived in a 2.5 million dollar mansion for about 2 decades. What does he know of poverty and poor women? I get it, he read a book once. I especially resent him comparing contraception to pornography.
I say if a Jehovahs witness refused to offer blood transfusions and organ transplants that should be perfectly fine.
This debate is moving into the realm of ridiculous. Obama had a fair compromise that was reasonable, but no, the public sector employer wants to be treated special, not buyin it!
This was a fabulous op ed by Rachel Maddow.
It isn’t just centered around this debate, but the whole “personhood” BS that would outlaw many forms of birth control.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-maddow-the-gop-war-on-birth-control/2012/02/10/gIQAbZ734Q_story.html
@Censored bybvbl
I do not know the details about the court cases in NY. Perhaps the bishops view this as an opportunity to correct an injustice that originated in the Empire State. There are two reasons to pick on Obama: 1) His HHS Department extended the mandate nationwide; 2) It is just goo sport.
@Moon-howler
The first amendment applies even to good ole boys clubs.
Great debate, but this is my last post on this topic as I have “stuff” to do today.
this is a great historical accounting of the Catholic Church and birth control, with a smattering of other issues, like saying it was ok to get pleasure out of sex (oy vay!)
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/catholic-church-vatican-bishops-birth-control
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/03/396516/santorum-states-should-have-the-right-to-outlaw-birth-control/?mobile=nc
Taliban Santorum?
I would like to know, what countries have outlawed birth control? What countries make birth control a valued health initiative?
@Elena, that would be Taliban Rick. I was thinking of our own local Taliban. Two old geezers thinking they know what is best for women. They do not represent their constituency.
Talilban Santorum is just out of touch. Most people don’t share his beliefs.
Maybe its a good thing it is happening. Its time for the voters to find out what happens when you fall asleep at the switch.
Time for a wake up call to young women who relied on the old girls like me, who remember what it was like in the bad old days, to fight for reproductive rights. The baton has been passed.
Kelly, after the new plan, I cannot see even the slightest reason for the Catholic Church to think it has compromised its belief system.
They have to decide if they are an employer or they aren’t. They have more than gotten their own way.
This entire topic is beginning to simply make me sick.
I still don’t understand this. The Catholic Church or anyone else isn’t taking away a woman’s right to reproductive health away. They simply don’t want pills or anything that won’t lead to a child covered in a plan under their name.
This does not mean that a woman working at Catholic Charities can’t go to her OB/GYN and get a script for the pill and then go down to her local Walgreens and get it filled as long as SHE pays for it.
We’re talking about $15-50 a month for women to take their own reproductive cycle into their own hands — assuming she doesn’t simply find a job that will cover the pills for her.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control-4211.htm
It’s always free to say no or pull out. 🙂
@Marin, Why is equality such a difficult concept for men to understand? Why is poverty even more difficult? The point is that all women will have
First off, if the church isn’t providing the pills, it isn’t under their name. This part was fixed. They need to get over this control thing.
Secondly, $50 a month is a big deal for people who don’t have much money or who have other demands nibbling at their wallets. I can remember a time when I didn’t have a spare $50 floating around. Not everyone is Daddy Warbucks. Thirdly, not everyone is simply able to take ‘the pill.’ Permanent contraception is far more expensive. Not everyone can write their own check for a vasectomy or tubal.
It really is time for the church to quit whining. The more they whine the more obvious it becomes that they simply want control. 28 states already don’t allow exemptions Many colleges and universities already have benefits packages that include contraception. Their moral stance isn’t situational.
There has been enough compromise. Women are entitled to contraception. Case closed. Why is it just men who have such a hard time with this? My guess is that it is because it is always women who are ultimately responsible for reproductive issues. Women understand not having enough money. Women understand that not one size fits all.
Moon: I knew you would bring “size” into it eventually!
Funny how we can make the cost of prevention expensive for the people who can least afford an unwanted pregnancy.
Fox News was all over this case – http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2011/03/24/florida-judge-defends-imposing-sharia-law – where a US Judge allowed Sharia law to be used for an internal (to the Mosque) dispute.
What is being lost in the conversation – is that no one is saying that anyone must take contraception. It is not required to be prescribed. They still have their religious freedom of not offering the benefit to the Church employees – we are talking about large employers who happen to be owned by Catholic organizations. At times the Church wants to say that those organizations are not affiliated (ie, when law suits are filed), but now they want to say what happens at those same organizations. If a Gay man presents himself to the ER with a ruptured Colon due to (imagine) – is the Catholic Church going to say that they do not cover the cost due to sex without the intent to procreate?
@marinm
marin – at that price, you are assuming that the person has prescription coverage for the drug – the over the counter price for a 1 month supply is nearer to $100 a month.
Women are not entitled to contraception, they are entitled to the availability of contraception. It is one thing to make contraception available through tax dollars at public health clinics. It is quite another to require private organizations to provide insurance coverage for it even though it violates their religious beliefs.
Obama cannot wave a magic wand and force contraception to be free. The insurance companies do not provide things for free, so in all likelihood they will increase other fees/charges and these services will still be subsidized by the church. Obama clearly knows this, but must be hoping that no one will notice his duplicity. This is not a compromise at all.
You are so biased in favor of women’s issues that you are willing to step on someone else’s first amendment freedom of religion rights in order to get your way.
IF there is health care for everyone, then all women are entitled to contraception. I don’t care about the co pay business.
Kelly, your argument loses steam because the church is no longer required to pay for anyone’s contraception. No organization owned by the church is required to pay. The insurance companies will provide for it because it is cheaper than maternity costs–lots cheaper.
No one has explained to me yet how it isn’t a violation of religious beliefs in 28 states and in some Univerisities who willingly provide contraception in the employment benefits package. It sounds to me like selective morality.
I guess Obama’s wand is stronger than anyone else’s wand.
Let’s step back for just a second…First war is declared on Planned Parenthood whose primary job really was to supply contraception. Very little of what it does really involves abortion. It is mainly about birth control. Then war is declared on Tltle X funding. Now the Church is having a hissy fit over contraception. Good inductive reasoning would lead me to believe that there is movement in this country to make contraception unavailable. Now who or what organization just might be behind this initiative? Hmmmmmmm……
I am not biased in favor of all women’s issues. I am very much for most reproductive rights for both men and women. I believe the way to avoid abortion (most pro-choice people want to make abortion rare and unnecessary, despite what morons might tell you.) is to prevent unwanted, unintended pregnancy.
My street cred on this subject comes from the fact that I am old enough to know what it was like before Griswold and before Roe v Wade. The one thing I am determined to do, as long as I draw breath, is to fight the powers of darkness that try to take us back. I don’t want churches or governments telling any of us that we cannot use contraception. Why is this important to someone like me? I have a daughter, daughter in law and granddaughters. That’s enough for me.
I also know that when women do not have control of their own reproduction, they really are not free and the doors of opportunity slam shut in their face. Perhaps some of you young men need to hop on the magic time carpet and go back in time a couple of decades just for a little history lesson. H
Circa 1960, 1970: High school girls had to drop out if they were pregnant. There was no homebound instruction. They just didn’t get an education. In Prince William County, married pregnant teachers had to quit their job before their 4th month of prenancy.
I don’t want to hear for one minute “that was then.’ “then” becomes closer and closer once you remove the safeguards.
Yes, i am pretty biased about not having those conditions return. As for me stepping on some bogus religious rights? I have stepped on no one’s rights. The religious rights whine is just a bunch of bullshit and it was all along. No one’s religion is ‘not buying birth control.’ If paying for something you don’t approve of is a religious right then mine have been violated for the entire Iraq war.
When people are forced to use contraception without their consent, I will buy the religious rights bull. Until then, it is disengenuous and I will start calling it exactly what it is. BS.
@Kelly
Marinm,
You may be interested in this article regarding affordability of BC and poor women.It is critical to speak from facts and not just your personal opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/kristof-beyond-pelvic-politics.html?_r=1
“A 2009 study looked at sexually active American women of modest means, ages 18 to 34, whose economic circumstances had deteriorated. Three-quarters said that they could not afford a baby then. Yet 30 percent had put off a gynecological or family-planning visit to save money. More horrifying, of those using the pill, one-quarter said that they economized by not taking it every day. (My data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization on issues of sexual health.) “
Kelly, No one is forcing anyone to buy BC if they don’t want it. If you are an employer than you take on certain responsiblities for your employees, PERIOD. Obama put forth a more than reasonable compromise and the Bishops are demonstrating they could care less about meeting the needs of their NON Catholic employees. THAT is pushing your faith on someones else Kelly.
Kelly,
FYI, it is cheaper to provide contraception than it is to cover birth!
@Moon-howler
“Women are entitled to contraception. Case closed.”
Women and men are entitled to anything they can purchase through the sweat of their own brow. If they want BC – they pay for it. Case closed.
“First off, if the church isn’t providing the pills, it isn’t under their name.”
You’re right. If the pills aren’t covered and women buy them using their own money then I’d agree with you here.
“Secondly, $50 a month is a big deal for people who don’t have much money or who have other demands nibbling at their wallets.”
Sex can be expensive. Not having any is free if cost is a concern.
“The more they whine the more obvious it becomes that they simply want control.”
I think that’s what this is really about. You don’t want the church to have “control” you’d rather it be govt. You have no issue with govt jackbooted thugs trampling on the Pope to get what you see is “right”.
“Women understand that not one size fits all.”
I don’t care who you are – that was funny.
@Pat Herve
In a past relationship I was in my gf went to PP for her OB/GYN needs and got BC for $15/month. She didn’t have health insurance.
@Elena
I hear you on the math. I understand what you’re trying to say – that the people that can least afford to have a child should not be put in a position where they have to have a child. But, your making two large assumptions.
1. Personal responsibility of the woman in choosing a partner and engaging in an act that could lead to them becoming pregnant
2. That somehow the responsibility of the employer is higher than that of the individual.
I don’t agree.
I think what’s being confused here is the idea that women can have access to birth control. Even amongst the faithful on this blog I don’t think I’ve seen anyone take a position that women can’t have BC. What people have an issue with is a church, company or organization being required to obtain that coverage for it’s employees.
That is not acceptable.
Women’s access to BC is not being stoped, halted or otherwise blocked. The access continues to exist. Who pays for it is what’s for debate and I side with having families pay out of pocket for that level of coverage if their employer does not wish to cover those services.
@marin
Its an important thing to remember actually.
Actually the point in saying that is that you men apparently don’t realize that not everyone can just take the pill. Not everyone lives near a Planned Parenthood. Not everyone has access to health clinics. Some people can’t even get off work to go to these places even if they are close.
Has it ever crossed your suburban minds what people who live in the country do? In small towns very little is private and the free access places don’t locate there. All your simple answers really don’t address most women.
Saying sex is expensive is irrelevant. It is the human condition and to suggest if it costs money don’t do it doesn’t desrve a response. Maybe that directive should only be for men. Women rarely have to pay for it but the penalty should not be unwanted pregnancy.
I would rather pay for someone’s contraception than for them to have to have an abortion. Abortion is never an easy choice and I have never had anyone tell me it was easy.
Marinm,
You and I simply live in divergent worlds. It is a human right to control your reproduction. It should not be left to class warfare that some people can have sex and others may not.
Contraception is a health issue marinm and your judgment along with the Catholic Church as no place in the modern world.
Your premise is that everyone has access, but I just posted a comprehensive article on a recent non partisan study that clearly demonstrates that women MOST in need don’t have regular access.
The same argument was made about health care, why should govt. get involved, anyone can buy it, its a free market. Having tried to obtain private healthcare after my MS diagnosis, it was simply cost prohibitive. So, yes, technically I could have bought it, were I a wealthy woman, but realisticly, it was not possible.
If this discussion were about treating erectile disfunction, I expect those expensive little blue pills would be free. Perhaps they are already.
As the old saying goes, if men could get pregnant, contraception and abortion would be sacrements.
ED pills encourage birth not birth control. 😉
Maybe what we’re seeing is the rightwing’s solution to joblessness….keep all the damn women pregnant and at home and all the talented (cough, cough) men who had to compete with them in the job market and lost out will suddenly be employed. Yeah. That makes as much sense as trying to limit birth control and women’s reproductive rights in the 21st. century. Sometimes I’m embarrassed for this country.
@Censored bybvbl
I’m with you in being Pro-Life. I’m with you in being Pro-Birth Control. Where I differ from you (and not because I’m a right wing nut job) is I will not step on the neck of the Pope to accomplish your version of intolerance to religion.
As Kelly has mentioned before there is a choice here. One of preserving the ideal of seperation of Church and State or not.
If “pro-women’s reproductive health” groups feel this strongly about it being a “right” then I would say spend less money on ads promoting how great the administration is doing and give away free birth control pils. No one is stopping them from doing so.
I have not stepped on the neck of the Pope nor am I intolerant to religion. When churches stop lobbying the government to enact their version of religion as policy then perhaps I, and people like me, will stop fighting back. Your Pope would put his foot on my neck in a New York second.
I could care less if your Pope tells every one of his flock not to use birth control. He will not tell me and I will fight any attempts at any church trying to get their policy enacted through codification.
ON second thought, what is it I do that makes you think I am intolerant of religion?
step on the neck of the pope? WTF? No Marinm, no one is stepping on the pope but the catholic church is doing a damn good job on the stepping on the necks of their employees who don’t happen to believe in their religeous tenents.
Obama brokered a fair compromise and yet the Bishops are more concerned about the appearence of capitulation then they are the freedom of religion of other faiths!
To claim that Moon is intolerant because she believes that the Catholic Church should not be able to dictate the behavior of adults who do NOT believe what they believe is not intolerant. What a circle jerk. We are accused of being intolerant because we speak out against intolerance? Sounds like a no win discussion. It’s like saying I am a hater because I call out the disgusting behavior of people who call Latino’s parasites!
@Elena, Maybe that is where the problem stems from. Marin seems to think we should all live by the laws of his church and that the laws of his church should somehow be incorporated with the laws of the United States. If any of us object then we are intolerant. Now I get it.
@marinm
So far courts have ruled against the Church. Too many of its functions are too public (open to anyone). Hospitals and colleges are hard to view as “church” or “religion”. They may be supported financially by the Church, but they aren’t religious in nature. I think most courts have said “self insure” to the “church” related functions and obey state and federal law when you step outside your domain.
The whining about how insurance premiums might rise if insurers have to dispense contraceptives without charge is political in nature. Insurance premiums always subsidize those who are the neediest (in terms of health). I might get a break for my life style choices when I purchase life insurance but I’ve always been part of the larger pool when it comes to health insurance – no discounts for not smoking or not drinking to excess or for walking several miles daily.
If churches want to preserve the separation of church and state, they have to uphold their end of the deal and stay out of politics. In their sanctuaries they should encourage their flocks to follow whatever moral or ethical cautionary tales their faith embraces. Then it should be up to the followers to leave and apply those lessons to their lives. When the Church owns health care facilities or institutes of higher learning, they’re out of their realm and should bow to State authority.
@Moon-howler
“Marin seems to think we should all live my the laws of his church and that the laws of his church should somehow be incorporated with the laws of the United States.”
You are in error. I could care less if you live according to any faith. That’s your choice.
“When churches stop lobbying the government to enact their version of religion as policy then perhaps I, and people like me, will stop fighting back. ”
Churches and religious orgs have a 1A right to speak and lobby the govt for redress. By saying that they must accept this ‘compromise’ and not speak out against it and that if they continue to speak out against it that they should then lose their tax advantaged status is a threat of force. It to me is no different than silencing the pope or crushing his throat — it achieves the same goal.
“To claim that Moon is intolerant because she believes that the Catholic Church should not be able to dictate the behavior of adults who do NOT believe what they believe is not intolerant.”
I actually didn’t call out Moon. I called out Censored but I think based on the posts here and in the previous thread that there is a bias against those of faith on the blog.
“Obama brokered a fair compromise and yet…”
Who attended this compromise? Who lobbied for and against? Where did these groups meet? By ‘fair’ compromise you mean one done entirely within the administration without outside input. OK..
“We are accused of being intolerant because we speak out against intolerance?”
My apologies. If you can point me to where y’all have advocated for the 1A rights of these churches/temples/mosques with regard to the topic of birth control I will then wholeheartedly apologize.
“…is doing a damn good job on the stepping on the necks of their employees who don’t happen to believe in their religeous tenents.”
I think I should be able to carry a firearm whenever and wherever I please. My employer disagrees with that policy. Under your line of thinking I should get the govt to FORCE my employer to bend to my wishes even though going into the job I knew that I wouldn’t agree with everything in my employment contract.
“So far courts have ruled against the Church.”
Can you cite these as I’d like to research.
“Hospitals and colleges are hard to view as “church” or “religion”.
I can see how the cross on the sign and classes on religion and rules about having sex in the dorms can get confusing for people…
“They may be supported financially by the Church, but they aren’t religious in nature.”
And if you remove the church funding what happens……….?
“If churches want to preserve the separation of church and state, they have to uphold their end of the deal and stay out of politics.”
A church, a union or a company all have the 1A right to speak out against a govt action. They (the church) are not looking to ban birth control just they’re being required to provide it as a matter of secular employment.
“When the Church owns health care facilities or institutes of higher learning, they’re out of their realm and should bow to State authority.”
The last part speaks volumes.
Render unto Caesar and all, Marin.
At what point do we say that the church or any church is involving itself in politics? At what point do we demand they lose their tax free status?
I think that when we look to the not too distant past and see the over-reaching clergy in some churches threatening to withhold communion from politicians who are pro-choice, we have a problem. At what point do ones A1 rights start becoming lobbying?
Churches may tell their own parrishoners anything they want. That is their job. No one has to belong to a church. However, when I start feeling that any church/synagogue/mosque/temple is trying to dictate how policy shall be for a governing body, then I have a real problem with that institution.
Actually, I think the stepping on the neck of the pope was directed at me. Religious figures may stick their neck at me by invitation only. That is the best way to insure neck safety. I am not intolerant of religions. I am intolerant of religions creeping outside their parameters and getting into places where they don’t belong. They all seem to want to do that.
@Censored bybvbl
I frankly was unaware that this issue had come up in State courts and the Church lost. So I appreciate that you brought this up in the discussion.
One thing that you should be aware of is that RCC universities, hospitals and charities receive substantial funding from rank-and-file parishioners. If this mandate is allowed to stand, I will cut off my financial support to them. I will not give them a dime. If other people respond in a similar way, I would not be surprised if these organizations decide in the near future to re-structure, change ownership or otherwise cut back on services.
So some of these women (and men) that you are so supposedly so concerned about receiving free BC may well be out on their asses looking for a new job. And this is just a microcosm of the entire economy. As the costs and mandates of Obamacare become more clear, China and India will likely experience a boom in new jobs from the US as companies seek less expensive, less regulated labor overseas.
works both ways Kelly, I imagine there will be more people who are appalled that the Church, having been removed of the the insurance mandate, still insists on preventing women from obtaining affordable health care. This argument isn’t about sex Kelly, its about healthcare equality.
Marinm,
This just in, I don’t appreciate people of other faiths continuously shoving their faith down my throat. I don’t believe in diety of Jesus Christ or the tenents of Catholic Church. I don’t shove my Judism down your throat or anyone elses. I just expect to be treated, along with the multitude of others in this country, to a modicum of tolerance that they can’t push their beliefs on me.
I don’t expect you to not eat pork, I don’t expect you to say the Mizvot everytime you eat, I don’t expect you to change anything about the way you live your life, so DON’T demand that I change my life to fit YOUR religious narrative. Where is YOUR tolerance for my belief system?
The Catholic Church is making a huge error in not be willing to acknowledge that people in their employment may not believe the same tenents as they do. Most modern industrialized countries, having moved into the 21st century, are no longer having their archaic debates.
Kelly,
Where are you getting your facts regarding healthcare? Not from the GAO or CBO. Do you know what happens if we don’t do something about rising health care costs? Why does this country spend so much on healthcare while other countries spend less and have better outcomes?
What is your solution to the health care crisis?
@Kelly_3406
The Feds can always decide not to give any more grants to Catholic hospitals as well. If you take from the Feds, you play by their rules.
“I don’t expect you to not eat pork, I don’t expect you to say the Mizvot everytime you eat, I don’t expect you to change anything about the way you live your life, so DON’T demand that I change my life to fit YOUR religious narrative. Where is YOUR tolerance for my belief system?”
I have not nor do I have a religious narrative. I support your ability to buy whatever birth control you want and use it in any means that you want. I simply ask that you not put a gun to my head to have me pay for it.
“The Catholic Church is making a huge error in not be willing to acknowledge that people in their employment may not believe the same tenents as they do.”
Belief or faith is not required under the terms of their secular employment but adhearance to company policy and the benefits package is. If they want a different benefits package seek a different employer.
@marinm
Thus far it appears that they don’t have to seek another employer. The church has to abide by state law when it comes to benefit packages at hospitals, universities, etc. The church is free to self-insure in some instances but it’s not free to say “my way or the highway”. We’ll see if this heads to the Supreme Court and if those Catholics on the Court recuse themselves.
Marinm,
I would be quite wary of saying what you are willing to pay for and what you are not willing to pay for. I imagine that each individual has their own personal list depending on where they are in their life cycle and personal relgious belief system. Wait til Jehovahs Witness don’t want to pay for blood transfusion. What would you say then?
@Elena
A jehovah’s witness refusing to pay for a blood transfusion or accepting it? Cause there is a difference. And, I think focring blood on a person that refuses it and is competant to make that declaration is an assault.
But, its not for me to tell a JW what I think about blood transfusions. That’s their belief and their belief doesn’t impact my life.
@Censored bybvbl
You understand that many states have loopholes large enough you can drive a truck through.. So, can you please cite a case where the Catholics or any other church has been driven back in state court on this issue?
What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, …and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” are we having a problem with on this blog?
The hurdle is on the GOVERNMENT not on the church.
Hey Marimn, its all about freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion right? Exactly right, they can believe what they believe as long as they don’t FORCE you to follow their faith.
Birth control is health care, its that simple!
the Catholic Church is now out of the loop and YET they still protest. Freedom of religion does not mean you get to opt out of government health standards Marimn. No one is forcing catholics to buy birthcontrol.
The mission of these RCC organizations is to deliver quality services to the poor or public at large. It seems likely that the result of all this will be reduced funding for them either due to fewer federal grants or lower contributions from parishioners. Either way, government meddling will have resulted in lost jobs and lost services that were previously delivered very effectively.
@marinm
Here’s an article from Buffalo’s paper about how NY state and the Church have dealt with the issue of mandated contraceptive coverage.
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article727121.ece
@Kelly_3406
Those services will be lost only because of a rigid paternal hierchy’s decision. Most Catholic women has used birth control at one time or another. Most of us don’t want to be the old woman who lived in a shoe…
How about a little equality here? If contraception is going to be free, can we men get reimbursed for the cost of dinners, movies, flowers and all the other prerequisite rituals we engage in just to finagle a little recreational sex out of our ladies? That’s fair, right?
@Cato the Elder
But then there’s the cost of make-up, stockings, stilettos, perfume, etc.
don’t forget waxing 😉 That should include pain and suffering monetary inclusion in the overall dating cost!
Refusing to inlcude that coverage in their employee health benefit package is a total infringment on the freedrom FROM others religion marinm@marinm
@Cato the Elder
Its a rather callow way to look at what to many is a serious problem. You have obviously never walked in another’s moccassins.
It really isn’t about getting laid. That’s the reason women should be making the decisions and men should really just STFU.
No sexually mature female should have to ask anyone else’s permission to use contraception.
@Elena
Agreed. At some point, we have to agree that people follow their own conscience and they might have to have money pay for something they wouldn’t do themselves.
@Moon-howler
Are you saying I should be fitted for a shirt? http://tinyurl.com/76e48lx
Maybe for your wife or girlfriend. 😈