tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com — Republicans are doubling down in their assault on President Obama’s birth control requirement, insisting that his accommodation of religious nonprofits does not address religious concerns. By attempting to keep the heat on Obama, the GOP might be diving head-first into a culture war over contraception that social conservatives lost long ago in the minds of the public.
Feb 13, 2012 View in Crawl 4
mortventFeb 13, 2012
They are pissed he managed to sidestep the minefield, by removing the requirement of the church offering it.
So the insurance companies can now offer it, without the church throwing a fit at them for doing so.
It was always about denying the option, not about paying for it. Because they already do pay for it with healthcare insurance premiums (even if they don't offer it under the company plan) if the insurance company offers the service. As well as paying taxes that fund the government's own health care plans (like the ones the republicans enjoy so much while in office..)
I don't see them demanding insurance companies keep their money in a separate pool, nor do I see the republicans giving up the health care plan they have to find a provider that in not supplying birth control options. (and the government sure as hell isn't going to let them off with a tax exemption as individuals for their beliefs.. and shouldn't do it for companies called churches)
auditortuxFeb 13, 2012
Actually, I have a feeling this will end up in court as well unless the insurance companies can show the employer that they are in no way paying for any of the coverage.
All other insurance cost "x" and birth control costs "y". So Obama originally said that everyone had to offer both - x+y. Now he's saying that y will be provided free to employees. But in reality, everyone knows the insurance company is going to bake that cost into x. So now its "f(x)+0" where f(x) is x+y.
I don't really think Obama has sidestepped a minefield... this blow up over one minor point of his HCR... imagine as more and more come out. I think it'll be a disaster for both political parties as this grows - Democrats for creating it, Republicans for not being able to offer anything else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 13, 2012
here is the problem with it hitting the court.
It has always been one pot, meaning they have always been paying for it.
that is the catch in doing it, especially since the birth control option is less costly to the insurance companies than pregnancy costs. So they can actually see a decrease in costs (with a possible cut to premiums, though doubtful it's all about profit with them).
If they had come out and offered it as the law requires now, the church would have demonized them and put them out of business as fast as they could. But now they are in a bind because they can't go after the insurance companies, they have to go after the government.
rthakidnFeb 13, 2012
Your logic misses the fact that many of these institutions (certainly hospitals) self insure their employees. The compromise did nothing for those entities.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
they are caught in the bind then, but such is the price of running a business in any country.
You obey the business laws, not the church laws if you want to operate there
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
Same argument, no extra costs are involved for this coverage.
uselesstriviaFeb 14, 2012
They self-insure, but they still work with an insurance company to process claims and provide a payment framework. The money still ultimately goes in and out of the hands of the insurance companies.
The insurance company will still be responsible for paying for the birth control, and they'll do it gladly, because it ultimately saves them a TON of money. Even if they end up paying for a small percentage of people working for self-insured entities it will be good for them on the whole. There are 4 types of people insurance companies hate covering: Sick people, old people, pregnant women and children. More birth control means fewer pregnant women and children and a higher percentage of healthy adults on their roster.
diggduggjoeFeb 13, 2012
I agree.
I do not like having my insurance premiums pay for abortion, so even if you make a perfect system to keep church money from paying for abortions, I end up paying for them. This moral issue is not just an employer issue; employees are being forced into an insurance plan they may feel is immoral.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TaliscatFeb 13, 2012
actually the problem with that is the plan is an option, but your premiums are still going into one pot.
Besides why should your belief something is wrong deny someone else the right to a legal item?
auditortuxFeb 13, 2012
There is nothing the Catholic institutions can do to prevent them from that legal item. They have just made it clear that they will not spend THEIR money on it.
There was a world before health insurance. I'm coming to think it was actually better, even with all its hazards.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TaliscatFeb 13, 2012
ah but if I work at a business with over 50 people run by a catholic they want to prevent me from being able to get the option for cheaper birth control through the insurance company.
Which is them forcing their beliefs onto me
auditortuxFeb 13, 2012
"want to prevent me from being able to get the option for cheaper birth control through the insurance company."
No, they want to prevent you from using their money to get birth control (therefore making it cheaper for you).
Also, last I checked, there was no mandatory employment - someone at the government did not assign you to work there. If you do not like it, simply accept it and work there, or quit and find another job.
But it just astounds me how we just assume we can force people to do something...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
hey audio, last time I checked there was no law making you run a business.
But there are laws that regulate how you can run one, and what you must do as an employer.
So don't like them, don't run one.
Same logic neh, and I don't want to pay for someone's pregnancy. But I have to if I am paying the insurance premiums. I don't want to pay for some old guy's viagra, but it's paid for but not birth control... from the same insurance company.
What's good for the goose and all that.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
I find "force is easy" if you are the one and only route to heaven. Why do you think it took years for the molestation of so many children, by so many Priests to become public. The church said you would not be admitted to heaven. As they, the church itself was the one and only route ever to heaven. It worked for a time, until parents and survivors made up their minds that HELL was here on earth.
The HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is at it's best with force, sir. Do not kid yourself. Even when they are the true force of evil.
auditortuxFeb 13, 2012
Let me give you a bit of advice, fail;when you declare that someone or something is "evil" - without it being something you getting the other side to agree with - the debate stops.
If we were to say "assuming that X is evil..." is different than stating that one side of this argument is just evil. One ends the discussion. Because what point would there be debating? You think its evil, which is an ultimate bias.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
I don't consider the benefits provided to me by my employer as "their" money. (seriously, you needed caps?) I earn the compensation provided by my employer. That's why it's called compensation and not a gift.
auditortuxFeb 14, 2012
I agree - but who sets your compensation? If your employer called you in tomorrow and said that they are cutting your pay by 10%... what choice do you have other than to accept it or quit?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
@auditortux You are straying quite a bit from your original thesis of institutions only insisting that their money not be spent on contraception. The moment you agreed that it wasn't their money, it's over. The rest is simply a distraction.
This is not a matter of religious liberty. In fact, you have as much tacitly admitted that by going down the road of compensation negotiations and agreeing that it is not the Church's money in the first place, rather than making a 1st Amendment argument.
TheNoizeFeb 14, 2012
Of course you think that world would be better - now that insurance has to follow more common sense rules, your faith and morals are left behind.
So now, you feel like sacrificing all the benefits in order to go back to a world where you feel less "hurt" and "offended" by its secularism and clear-cut fairness for everyone, independently of creed. For our sake, I hope no one listens to you.
If you don't like certain aspects of a country, you can either fight to improve it, or move out of it.
If you don't like progress, you can go live with the amish. No one's holding you back, so don't do it to others.
stealthspcFeb 14, 2012
It's not your money. It's the insurance company's money. You pay to get access to services they offer. If you don't want them, don't pay. Simple.
extremephobiaFeb 14, 2012
Yeah but if you don't want to pay other people's medical costs, then you shouldn't have insurance. It's pretty simple. Either ideologically, everybody should be in the pool or nobody should.
Right now, corporations make a profit off of insurance. This means that if you go to the gym every day, eat healthy, and don't do anything stupid then you are paying a rather large sum of money to protect yourself from accidents while some schmuck is paying the same sum of money for problems they brought on themselves.
And then the companies have to pay for the bureaucracy that is a health insurance company. Basically, we're talking about all the phone operators, investigators, lawyers, etc. that have to be paid before the company profits. And then the CEO's and board members cuts of the profits.
And if the CEO wants a new Yacht... You think premiums don't go up?
Here's the punchline though. If you have insurance and take care of yourself? screwed. If you have insurance and don't take care of yourself? You're an ass living off the former.
And for the people on the far ends who are brave or good enough not to take insurance (it's corrupt after all), you run the risk of not being able to afford the optimal treatment and will have to settle for "just enough to keep you alive."
It already sounds like the government. Majority of people being screwed paying for a minority while a corrupt bureaucracy messes things up? Except the government would come with no profit, less overhead (what lawyers or investigators do you need? and we already pay the people who would run it) and EVERYBODY would be covered. None of this "Pre-existing condition" crap (well no kidding, couldn't afford to fix it!) and less of the higher expense proceedures because the problem was fixed earlier.
And that's not to mention what might happen if the government becomes invested in lowering the costs of medical school to keep costs down in the long run.
letherialFeb 14, 2012
I think you misunderstand democracy with theology.
"There was a world before health insurance. I'm coming to think it was actually better, even with all its hazards."
clearly you need a history lesson...
Fact remains, this is the church enforcing beliefs on everyone else; then when nobody stands for it, the church throws a little fit.
They act as if hypocrisy is new to them, reality check..Catholic, as well as all Christianity, is a religion that has wallowed in hypocrisy since its founding.
diggduggjoeFeb 13, 2012
People have the right to abortion. I support pro-choice, however they do not get the privilege of me paying for their abortions.
Only in liberal-land does having to pay your own way in life mean you are being denied. If it isn't free, I must hate you! WTF?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustFeb 13, 2012
I myself hate the idea of an abortion. I was always very careful the question would never come up.
However, there are a lot of stupid people out there that let the little head think for the big head. The bill for paying for all the other programs to account for these little "accidents" add up to far more than the cost of an abortion.
On a pure cost basis I prefer at least the access to contraception to be available as much as absolutely possible. Abortion I feel a bit guilty about but it still preferable from a pure cost to society basis over not paying for it.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
I am anti war, why are my taxes used for war and weapons? We could single out any thing we have ever paid for with your thinking, sir. And I guarantee you spent far more of my money on war than I could spend in 100 years on abortion.
/////
The fact is, in our society, the majority should rule, under the law. And yes, for abortion too, it is legal.
diggduggjoeFeb 13, 2012
I am anti-war, too. We should stop the wars, but the public cares too little to do anything.
The big difference is the military is a constitutional power of the US federal government. Taking money from me to pay for your abortion is not.
If we really wish to save money, stop welfare too. If couples understood that baby would cost THEM money, they would be far more careful. If they paid for the abortions themselves, they would put no moral imposition upon their neighbors and they will probably not have another.
We bailout businesses and they become reckless. Why do we not see the same occurs with individuals? If you need to be bailed out, then go to your friends and family. If you have no friends and family for you are an assh**e, well you reap what you sow.
Personal responsibility is needed and having to live with your mistakes teaches you to be smarter.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
@u2canfail
"you spent far more of my money on war than I could spend in 100 years on abortion"
You should start printing up bumper stickers!
rthakidnFeb 13, 2012
They are not imposing their belief on you and they are not allowing you to impose your belief on them. They have simply asked NOT to pay for YOUR belief. If they were actually trying to impose their belief, they would fire you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 13, 2012
"They have simply asked NOT to pay for YOUR belief."
Which they are basically unable to do, as all money goes into one big pot that gets spent on ANY cost, of which abortions and contraceptives are a part.
Even if the employee pays for that coverage on their own, the company is still using employer money to pay for it. That's simple accounting.
TheNoizeFeb 14, 2012
Wether you like it or not, that's not anyone's problem but yours. You will pay for the preventive coverage, because it's better to prevent than to pay for a (more expensive) abortion later. Isn't that the whole point of having a health insurance? If you don't like prevention, then pay for your health costs when the time comes. It's not a moral issue, unless you're a jesus freak. And jesus freaks aren't the president's problem, because he honors separation of church and state - as he should. The law is made for normal secular people, not for jesus freaks. Your religion is your problem, not the government's.
hiropendragonFeb 14, 2012
I don't like my taxes going to wars.
That's part of living in a society - we all have to get along.
TheNoizeFeb 14, 2012
"But in reality, everyone knows the insurance company is going to bake that cost into x."
Sure, it's their right to do it! That's capitalism.
What's NOT capitalism is the church getting pissed off because the insurance company covers, by law, something the church doesn't like. It's the most pretty, pathetic and childish reason to complain. And it's against the separation of church and state.
When you buy a product, you don't have to use EVERY single feature it offers. It might have 10 features, but you'll just use 3 and that already makes your money worth. You can complain that the product has too many features and you want something simpler - but it's up to the manufacturer to offer that option.
In the case of insurers, since their decision not to offer coverage for family planning are very negative for the country, and require the taxpayers to spend more money in emergency measures and welfare, instead of cheap prevention and education, the insurance companies now are required to cover that! It's good preventive policy, it saves money, makes for a better educated and more aware society, and honors separation of church and state. It's air tight! Anyone complaining about this is clinging to anti-Obama prejudice.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
Yes, absolutely the GOP is a cornerstone of fighting for the rights of practicing your religion, without intervention. That is why the lined up to fight for an Islamic Center to be built on property the church already owned, remember!
Not exactly, huh?
But they are now lined up to fight with the group that protected child abusers, and aided them by moving the offending Priest to a new group of children. Then helped the child abusers more by negotiating monetary settlements without admission of guilt, so their child molesters can live next door to your children!
FAMILY VALUES? Church vs State? Or is this simply an additional assault on women?
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
Enough with your hatred and bigotry already. It's getting monotonous.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 13, 2012
I can see republicans getting offended at comments like the OP's above. It's a slanted, incendiary oversimplification. And it's cutting in on their action.
mortventFeb 13, 2012
unfortunately as hateful as it is, it is the truth about actions they have taken.
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
Really, citations?
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
Mort never uses citations because he "knows".
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
So, what you're saying stevanoski is that Mort is the lefts version of you.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
lol
mortventFeb 13, 2012
1: link to fox news broadcast on the mosque by no less than a presidential candiate (also see reports on the ground zero site) http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0711/Cain_Americans_should_have_right_to_ban_mosques.html?showall
2: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96801,00.html
Guess who was the mediators. And the church moved them around to avoid the issues.
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
Your links prove nothing and missed my point entirely.
equinox2o12Feb 13, 2012
You never had a point Leo...
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
My point is U2 was talking s**t. Went right over your head didn't equinox?
ikorkyiFeb 13, 2012
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catholic+church+sex+abuse
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+islamic+center
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
What? Are you f**king stupid? Nobody said that there was no sex abuse by members of the Catholic church... and what in the f**k does and islamic center have to do with this? Maybe you can google and take an online reading course because your reading comprehension is really bad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ikorkyiFeb 13, 2012
i don't understand, you asked for citations. i gave you the citations for u2canfails post which mortvent claims was true.
I am threaded correctly, perhaps your confusion is because you're lost?
why are you so angry?
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
You gave no citations. Neither I or U2 said anything about Islamic centers and has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said. Nobody denied that there was child abuse in the Catholic church either. Your post was pointless.
Try to keep up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ikorkyiFeb 13, 2012
you sure?
u2: "Yes, absolutely the GOP is a cornerstone of fighting for the rights of practicing your religion, without intervention. That is why the lined up to fight for an Islamic Center to be built on property the church already owned, remember!
Not exactly, huh?
But they are now lined up to fight with the group that protected child abusers, and aided them by moving the offending Priest to a new group of children. Then helped the child abusers more by negotiating monetary settlements without admission of guilt, so their child molesters can live next door to your children!
FAMILY VALUES? Church vs State? Or is this simply an additional assault on women?"
then mortvert: "unfortunately as hateful as it is, it is the truth about actions they have taken."
then you "really, citations?"
I think you're confused.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
THXS sir. I could have posted links, but this is common knowledge, you could have used links to FAUX, even they did reports on both topics.
unclefireFeb 13, 2012
Seriously? There are quite a few cases where the Church kept abuses quiet and moved priests around. The Church's own study reported 10,000 plus cases. They've been moving abusive priests to special facilities since the 50's.
For you to throw out the "citation" question shows you are either clueless about the issue or trolling. Which is it?
That said, the abuse and this contraception issue are totally separate.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
I sited it, because I do not believe the Bishops have any credibility. They were the ones who decided to move offending Priests to new children. Ungodly actions, in my book.
//////
To me, an exCatholic, today, the HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH proved itself to be no church at all, but a money collecting group, who support the most heinous offense of all: child molestation.
aadyssFeb 14, 2012
Catholic Charities USA has set a bold goal to reduce poverty by 50 percent by 2020. We are called to think and act anew about the poor, who they are, and how to help them. We can't do this without your help!
Please take a moment to learn more about the issues and join our work on behalf of the millions of Americans who are hungry, homeless, in poor health, and working, but barely getting by.
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=897Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
unclefireFeb 14, 2012
Aadyss, what is your point? My issue isn't with laypeople or catholic charities. It is with the leadership of the church. In fact I contribute to the catholic charities every year because they help the working poor.
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
Looks like to me the Catholics recognize the problem and is trying to do something about it.
http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-leaders-internet-against-pedophiles-014109878.html
U2 is talking s**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssFeb 13, 2012
U2 is a very unhappy individual and it shows.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
I am guessing you are one of those who buried my comment on enjoying sex with the love of my life much more, without the worry of pregnancy, when we were young. (Even as a Catholic.)
I do feel bad for you.
aadyssFeb 13, 2012
Never saw that comment. I am not Catholic and I don't care about contraceptives one way or another. I can take them or leave them. I just have a problem with government telling an organization that they don't care about their beliefs for the government belief system trumps all. I lived that life for almost five years in the military. I don't care to return to it.
In my case, the love of my life had to have a radical hysterectomy at the age of 29 after two children.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
The HOLY CHURCH MAKES SURE MORE ABUSE IS ON THE WAY by only agreeing to pay, not admit fault.
http://www.newser.com/story/139558/lawyer-200-sex-abuse-priests-hiding-in-calif.html
ikorkyiFeb 13, 2012
"too little, too late"
the fact they are trying to find pedo's only does not negate the fact they tolerated it and hid it from police and the public within their organization.
you only get instantaneous forgiveness in church, life is much less forgiving.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
Look it was the Church that demanded, "no convictions" to settle cases. They are once again part and party to the "offenders being able to live" next to your children today!
I can not explain my total disgust, here. It is far too great. They used the threat of "eternal Hell" to those, who they themselves, had damaged. Evil things done "in the name of GOD" can be far worse than killing.
aadyssFeb 14, 2012
Want to help? No. I'm not a Catholic. So what?
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/page.aspx?pid=292
usarugulaFeb 13, 2012
Anti-Republican or anti-women: which side are you on?
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
Bogus question.
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
Anti-Democrat or anti-American: which side are you on?
ikorkyiFeb 13, 2012
you are so lame.
Harold: Back off c**kboy, what I said him goes double for you.
J.D.: c**kboy, you just call me c**kboy?
Harold: Yeah, you know I did. You're just stalling cuz you're not quick enough to think of a comeback.
J.D.: You think I'm not quick enough. Guy thinks I'm not quick enough. Well I got news for you. I am quick enough!... c**kboy!
aadyssFeb 13, 2012
So the left's opinion is that the Catholic church is saying that women cannot obtain contraceptives anywhere in the the nation and they, (the Catholic Church) will punish them if they use or obtain contraception elsewhere? Now, that would be an assault on women but that is simply not the case, is it? This is just the hard left's hyperbole in action once again and forever.
Do you people ever get tired of the twisting and stretching of truth. I guess you have practicing that political method for so long you don't even know you are doing it anymore.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
I am not saying that at all. I am saying and with proof, the HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP's are a group that protects sex abusers of children.
As that kind of group, they have 0 credibility on any issue, sir.
Then the GOP somehow forgot to get into the Islamic Center fight on the "side of religion" vs civil law, or government interference. The GOP was calling for NYC to deny building permits to a church.
aadyssFeb 13, 2012
ALL BISHOPS. YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT BECAUSE YOU ATTEND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EVERY WEEK!! sir
And the GOP. OMGosh!! And there has never been a fight about building a CHRISTIAN CHURCH in a certain LOCATION...EVER!!! There has never been zoning laws about how high a Christian CROSS can be at a church. sir
And here have never been attacks on Christians churches...EVER!!! sir I pray that you find peace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
@aadys
Ahh, so it's the old two wrongs (not that you actually cite a single incident) make a right. That's flawless logic. You are to be applauded for your ability to utilize the logic of 3 year old.
aadyssFeb 14, 2012
al3efroman,
So you and others are claiming the Catholic churches are warring against women while many apparently are "tolerating" prostitution, pole dancing and strippers for I see no cries amongst humanists, Pagans or secular groups against women and young minor girl prostitution. I do see the churches helping in that area by housing and caring for minor girls involved in prostitution but a huge silence among the "caring" humanists, Pagans and secular people.
There is this massive outrage on one organization's belief system on contraception but sexual activities that really demean millions of women..nothing? I know, you and others are not for those things - it's merely that time is short and this contraceptive issue is so far more important then other activities that demean and war against women. I know this must be logical for an adult like yourself.
I never see an article here or amongst humanists , Pagans or the secular world decrying these things. Do these activities actually promote better living for women? Is it really the Catholics that are waging war against women and no one else worth mentioning? Ah, let's turn a blind eye to those things. Maybe they'll just go away or better yet, legalize prostitution because many of our daughters can make a very fine living in that profession. Yes? Why not. After all, it must be one of those God given rights for a man to pay for sex. It's perfectly legal for him to go to places where he can drool all over them thus raising those women's standing in society so why not prostitution? In the days of old the Pagans even had prostitutes (male and female) at their places of worship. There you go...an important precedent
mtownFeb 13, 2012
Leonard I thought you said those kinds of questions are bogus. Change your mind?
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
I never said those kinds of questions were bogus. I said Usarugala's question was bogus.
harleyman77Feb 13, 2012
So you're say that it's only cool to ask ridiculous rhetorical questions as long as it's you, or someone that agrees with you. When others do it, it's bogus.
Must be nice.
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
Can you show many anywhere where I said that?
The far left sure loves putting words in other peoples mouth.
al3efromanFeb 14, 2012
"...putting words in other peoples mouth," says the guy assuming anyone who is on the opposite side of this issue is on the "far left".
hackwrenchFeb 13, 2012
It's more an assault on individuality...the rights of the employer/organization over the rights of the employee/individual.
aadyssFeb 13, 2012
The far left so loves individualism.
rthakidnFeb 13, 2012
And Democrats are such stalwarts for religious freedom.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/08/17/the-mosque-and-the-democrats.html
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
rthakidn?
Obama did way in, he stated their case. For the mosque.
He is not required to mention a specific case, with the grace of a President.
We had a GOP candidate, CAIN, who stated full out the community should have legal rights to reject a specific religion from even building within their jurisdiction. That absolutely violates the Constitution.
rthakidnFeb 14, 2012
So in your world, muslims have religious rights, but christians don't . I get it now.
hackwrenchFeb 13, 2012
They really should reframe the discussion as the religious rights of the employer versus the religious rights of the employee. If the employee is Catholic and believes as the main Catholic church does on contraception, then they won't use the contraception. If not, then what right does the employer have to impose it's religious beliefs on its employees, especially if those employees religious beliefs say that contraception is good.
quisquisFeb 13, 2012
The employer is not imposing it's religious beliefs, they're saying they won't pay for it...
emo110Feb 13, 2012
And why won't they pay for it? Because it's against their religious beliefs; not the employee's beliefs, the employer's beliefs. No, not exactly "imposing" but pretty darn close.
quisquisFeb 13, 2012
If I refuse to give someone money to support their drug habit, is that wrong?
What about if someone wants money to cover up a murder?
You have to remember that these people (the catholic church) respond to contraception with the same moral repulsion that stealing or murder etc... evoke in you or I.
Is it right to force someone to pay for that?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hackwrenchFeb 13, 2012
I won't say it is wrong, but if it's denying them a "drug" benefit that all other employer's provide, then it's imposing yourself on them. Imposing yourself on someone is not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm sorry but "moral repulsion" is apparently outside my emotional range. I feel fear for what might happen if something goes beyond my morals, though, but that's doesn't appear to be the same thing. Stealing an murder usually sadden me, but there are exceptions with stealing, like in the show "Leverage". I have Asperger's syndrome, a form of Autism.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
Is it normally covered, within a policy? Then yes. Drug habit is probably a yes, if prescription drugs prescribed to you.
Murder is not normally covered, sir, by any policy.
Lame argument.
Do you always side with those who are guilty covering up child molestation? Are you aware the molesters were not found guilty as a requirement of these Bishops for settlement with the church? That means those molesters can be your neighbor, and easily prey on your children. Is this who you normally defend, sir?
americanblarneyFeb 14, 2012
Statistically speaking, based on the size of the government, there have almost certainly been a few child molesters who worked there too. So it's really better to just leave that out of the conversation.
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
"If I refuse to give someone money to support their drug habit, is that wrong?
What about if someone wants money to cover up a murder?"
Not a valid argument. Contraception is legal. Murder is not. If it's a legal prescription drug habit covered by the insurance company - then yes, they should pay for it. If it is for an illegal drug habit - then no. Simple.
americanblarneyFeb 14, 2012
Guns are also legal, and in fact specifically protected in our Constitution. That doesn't mean that the rest of society should have to buy me one and pay for my ammo.
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
That is the whole point of Insurance. A bunch of people pay into one big pot, and then when you need it... you get it. Kinda like a savings account. Kinda like being in a Community that actually helps each other out (leaving aside the glaring point that Insurance companies are a "for profit" business)
If you really wanted - start a co-op for guns and ammo. Pay into a big pool, with a bunch of other people, and then let them insist that you can't have the ammo that actually fits your gun....
americanblarneyFeb 14, 2012
My employer won't pay for a Ferrari for me, but employees at many Wall Street banks have them. Why don't they have to justify that to me? Simple - employers offer you terms of employment - you can take them or leave them, no one forces you to work there.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
Birth control is now standard in most policies, as it saves the insurer cash. It is not an extra cost.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
it is cheaper for a lifetime supply of birth control than it is for one pregnancy (and cheaper than an old man's viagra per year which is also covered already)
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
I put it this way, Mass is required for Catholics, so is confession, just like no use of birth control, now can the church as an employer with nonCatholic employees require these?
But then I consider this group of BISHOPs as the group that supported child molestation, by their own conduct. I have no respect left.
rthakidnFeb 13, 2012
In turn, what right does the employee have imposing her belief on her employer. The employer only asks NOT to be involved with the practice, whether by paying for it or providing it. And if you don't mind me asking, what ever happened to this being a "personal decision"? If this is a personal decision, why should anyone else have to pay for it. By requiring insurers to cover this, the result can only be one of two things: these institutions will not be able to find insurers that will contract with them (why would they? Also, most religious institutions, at least hospitals, self insure their employees) or the insurers will spread the cost of coverage over ALL policies. Again, forcing everyone to pay for something THEY may not believe in. The USCCB did not support the "compromise" for these reasons. Furthermore, it should be noted, the compromise included a waiver (Obama sure likes waivers) that would be good beginning 8/1/12 and ending 8/1/13. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but those dates seem to smack of "just get me past the election" politics.
P.S. why should they reframe the discussion? Aren't EVERYONE'S religious freedoms important?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
sad to tell ya, but as pointed out before. The costs of one pregnancy are greater than a lifetime of birth control to them.
And as someone else pointed out if the insurance companies had moved ahead and offered the coverage the church would have taken them apart. but now they are following the law and might just be able to reduce costs!
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
They will have the right once Contraception is illegal - till then.......
ikorkyiFeb 13, 2012
"obama corners republicans on contraception"
does this really say "republicans agree with obama," or "republicans accept compromise" or "common ground" on this one issue?
IS IT REALLY SO BAD THAT HE NEEDS TO "CORNER" THEM WITH A "GOOD" OPTION!?!?!
americanblarneyFeb 14, 2012
Thank you for proving that both political parties rely on slow-witted partisans. No one is forcing employees to become Catholic, and no one is stopping them from purchasing contraceptives on their own. The Church merely does not wish to do anything that would be construed of as an endorsement of a practice it is morally opposed to (which paying for contraceptives might seem).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
I completely agree, hackwrench. The choice of medications should be between you and your Doctor - and not involve either the Church Or the Government.
The issue lies when the employer makes that decision regardless of the needs of the patient, rather than a qualified medical professional.
Contraception is not only used to prevent pregnancy, there are a whole host of conditions that require a medication for hormonal stability.
For the "they just don't have a right to force others to pay for it" arguments- they don't really have to provide health insurance at all, but if they Require their employees to pay even part of the premiums then they should leave the choice of medications to those who are better informed.
etubruteFeb 13, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZijLQGH1v0
That is all
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
Who give's a rats ass what a comedian's opinion is?
dauntless1Feb 13, 2012
That comedians opinion is worth no less than your own. Same as everyone else.
srastewartFeb 13, 2012
George Carlin was truly one of the greats. I miss him. He was one of the few that were not afraid to call people out on their bulls**t.
dirtyfriesFeb 13, 2012
They're just upset because if they don't get rid of contraception, they can't make arguments about abortions. And if they can't do that, then who can make arguments about welfare babies?
And if there aren't spare kids laying around, who will be sent to the meat grinder for more wars for oil?
hackwrenchFeb 13, 2012
I don't see what eliminating contraception has to do with the prefertilized/postfertilized egg line distiction which is the issue with regards to abortion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
al3efromanFeb 13, 2012
Contraception leads to less abortion, which, I suspect, everyone is for.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
If you check out ProLife sites your assumption proves to be incorrect. They have no opinion on birth control at all. They do not support any prevention methods, until there is a fetus.
To me, that makes them just: anti women's rights.
unclefireFeb 13, 2012
Except for the Catholic church.
hackwrenchFeb 13, 2012
But he said that if they don't get rid of contraception, they can't make arguments about abortions, which is beside/outside/immaterial to the point you made.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 13, 2012
"The Overton window is a theory proposed by Joseph P. Overton, that states that there is a certain limit (or "window") to topics covered in acceptable public debate, but that that window can be pulled one direction or another by views that are more extreme than are normally accepted."
Source: http://en.envirowiki.info/Overton_window
The GOP lives by this. Unfortunately, their constituents are starting to actually want the extremes.
barackalypseFeb 13, 2012
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest people having abortions probably aren't using contraception and its probably not because their insurance isn't paying for it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
Rape is not planned? How quaint.
barackalypseFeb 13, 2012
And what percentage of abortions are rape related or do you know you're making an argument on the margin here?
Lets see the reported reason for abortion, shall we?
* 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
* 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
* 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
* 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
* 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
* 7.9% Want no (more) children
* 3.3% Risk to fetal health
* 2.8% Risk to maternal health
* 2.1% Other
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
I don't see rape listed, so unless you want to suggest its accounted for in the "has relationship problem" number, I'm going to say its part of the 2.1% other category. Which makes sense given how few rapes actually occur (88,100 forcible ones in 2009) and how even fewer pregnancies will result from that.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0306.pdfComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rickthebrickFeb 13, 2012
Why are we concerned about the opinion of a bunch of old men who would lose their position if they ever dared to question the pope? The catholic church is slowly dying anyway. They can not find enough priest as most are over 55 today and it will only get worse in the future. They would rather let their dogma which have no foundation in the bible destroy their church. Unless a future pope allows married and/or women priest and stops this insanity about contraceptives the church has a very limited future.
laurahoustonFeb 13, 2012
Republicans quit trying to take over the church leadership
aadyssFeb 13, 2012
Why don't you just say that Republicanism is in itself a religion. If you are going to stretch the truth why not go all the way? You might even try to convince yourself that it is a Pagan religion who believes in many Gods. The God of Wealth (we all know that wealth is very bad), the God of Corporations, the God of individual rights, the God of religious freedom and such.
You need to improve your hyperbole skills.You are throwing to small an amount of corn to this litter of piglets. Get them fired up! You also might try poverty theology.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
californicatorFeb 13, 2012
The GOP cornered themselves... as usual.
freeformjazzFeb 13, 2012
Got em right where he wants him.
josephsshoreFeb 14, 2012
Please tell me what part of the Constitution gives the executive branch the authority to require a company to give away a product for free
reverantFeb 14, 2012
Obama wastes his time on meaningless BS, trying to force things down people's throats. How about actually leading something Obama and doing something about the economy?
What a clueless president.
stealthspcFeb 14, 2012
I don't really give a s**t what Republicans think anymore. They're f**king crazy and have insane views of the world justified by their stupid religions. They say abortion is bad and don't want to offer a solution. People have sex. Get the f**k over it. Not everyone thinks the way you do and you are certainly not entitled to tell people what to do.
americanblarneyFeb 14, 2012
Let's look at it this way - Guns are legal, just like contraceptives and in fact, they are specifically protected in the Bill of Rights (no such mention for contraceptives or health insurance). Just because they are legal, that doesn't mean that the rest of society has to buy me one and pay for my ammo.
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
If you really wanted - start a co-op for guns and ammo. Pay into a big pool, with a bunch of other people, and then let them insist that you can't have the ammo that actually fits your gun....
americanblarneyFeb 15, 2012
That's not really an valid comparison - it's not that some people are paying without receiving any benefits - everyone is getting the benefits they are paying for in the case of insurance, it's just that no one is paying in for contraceptives so no one receives them.
talkingptsmemoFeb 13, 2012
Obama's bait and switch?
knm3Feb 14, 2012
GOP logic: We're going to STOP your right to prevent unwanted pregnacies and then when you do get pregnant, we're NOT allowing you to abort. And when you need help to care of the child, we'll say NO and when your child grows and commits a horrible crime, we'll KILL him or her.
This is from a group of people who say they favor individual rights and freedoms.
revenantrisingFeb 14, 2012
Fine. If they don't want to pay for it because of a moral obligation then don't make them. But they sure as hell better not expect me or anyone else to subsidize their s**tty churches with my tax dollars.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
free free free ...... we do provide best advertisement of your property of free in the internent. visit our site for more info http://www.delhiproperty.org
rixar13Feb 14, 2012
"Republicans are doubling down in their assault on President Obama’s birth control requirement,"
This is their Jobs platform??? rolling eyes'Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigFeb 13, 2012
This is campaign politics. You'll find many politicians who don't care either way so long as it makes them popular around election time. That's why most politicians try to hedge and make vague statements, to prolong the amount of time they need to figure out what the 'correct' opinion on an issue is in order to gain political power. That or they just measure the barometer and make excuses when they flip on a position.
But as an individual, there's more to it than the republican vs democrat false dichotomy. There's freedom of choice on principle vs busybody meddling and forced wealth redistribution. This whole issue falls into the latter and should be rejected. The political elite has no business trying to buy votes under the guise of providing health care. The position of the author of this article however is that lesser evils are not evil and that methods do not matter if the theoretical outcome is a good one.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ghengiskhan1Feb 13, 2012
a good outcome as defined by them, of course.
Excellent post btw.
usarugulaFeb 13, 2012
First paragraph: well-said
Second paragraph: off the rails. "forced wealth redistribution"? You live in society and as a group we mutually pay for things, sometimes they are things you don't want, sometimes they are things I don't want, but the end-goal is the betterment of the whole, not the will of the individual. If you want to be an individual, rack up on weapons and squat in the forest of an undeveloped country and fend for yourself.
quisquisFeb 13, 2012
There is a middle ground where the government pays for very few things in order to allow as much freedom as possible for it's citizens.
That's what we want, and it's not crazy.
leonard2Feb 13, 2012
I always did suspect that you are a bloody f**king pinko.
KapsiotFeb 13, 2012
Has Obama Cornered Republicans On Contraception? - Uh, no. He just lost the catholic and hispanic vote. Nice move, obama!
grannysrightFeb 13, 2012
Why is it suddenly so important to provide birth control by the church? There are other companies that don't pay for birth control. So why the church? Could it be so that conservatives ignore the other crap this dumb ass President is doing right now?
This man is a walking advertisement for a Communist government and you people want to vote for this moron. Give me a break.
Get rid of Obama in November.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
Ummm... You Do know that the cold war is over .... right?
grannysrightFeb 14, 2012
Shows how young you are and totally ignorant of foreign affairs. If you think the people living in the Communist countries of this world are all happy campers you better look again. When you have to force your people to stay living under your rule, then it isn't a good thing. Or maybe it is for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
"When you have to force your people to stay living under your rule, then it isn't a good thing." - it apparently is good for the church, they've been doing it a very long time. And just being someone's employer is giving them the foothold to "force your people to stay living under your rule"
And yes, you are right, that is exactly one of issues here.
grannysrightFeb 14, 2012
ummm where is the church forcing anyone to live under their rule?????? Are we talking about Christianity or Islam? Are we talking 2012 or 1220??????
Nobody in this country anyways is forced to stay in the Church of a normal Christian church anyways. I wouldn't know about your cults. I do know that if you want to leave or change churches in this country, nobody is stopping you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
Anybody that tells you that they control what happens to your immortal soul - and you believe them (doesn't matter which religion), has you under their rule. And apparently that applies to 2012 as well as 1220 when a single version of morality can trump everyone else's.
Again, yes - that is one of the issues we're arguing against. Thank you for pointing out that this type of behavior is so very archaic.
grannysrightFeb 14, 2012
Anyways this has nothing to do with the church of any country. This has to do with a President who has taken his position too far. He has no right to tell any company, business, or group what to do with their insurance. If you don't like the benifits then get a job somewhere else.
gotapointFeb 14, 2012
Umm, yes the Church has everything to do about this as they are the ones that demanded the compromise, with a group of right wingers getting on the bandwagon and yelling about "religious tolerances".
The bottom line is this.
The choice of medications should be between you and your Doctor - and not involve either the Church Or the Government, or any "company, business, or group"
The issue lies when the employer (or church) makes that decision regardless of the needs of the patient, rather than a qualified medical professional.
"If you don't like the benefits then get a job somewhere else" - I am glad you have all sorts of options for work, especially these days - not everyone does however.
But seriously, small employers and church ministries don't really have to provide health insurance at all, but if they Require their employees to pay even part of the premiums then they should leave the choice of medications to those who are better informed.
barackalypseFeb 13, 2012
Yes, a a brilliant strategy, violate the 14th Amendment and grant exemptions to just some groups and give every entity that doesn't get an exemption a reason to sue and get even more provisions of his health care law struck down. The Supreme Court needs to step in and decide this thing once and for all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
the 14th doesn't say anything about business laws..
barackalypseFeb 13, 2012
Actually, it does... However you have an easier way of discounting my statement, the 14th Amendment only applies to the States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhoodComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
A corporation can not have a religion. It is a business entity
It has no human rights, and it can not vote either. It is not entirely treated as a person.
A corporate entity can not refuse or force religious preferences on employees.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2012
The Catholic Church can easily stop being an employer. Or employ only Catholics, interesting.
lordharvestFeb 13, 2012
actually no on the employ only Catholics.
There are laws against excluding people form employment based on religion, gender, and color
But anywhere you want to run a business you obey the business laws.
goatheardFeb 13, 2012
President Obama wants to by my condoms with taxpayer money? How cool. Do we have to use them first then turn them in for a refund or what?
BartMFeb 13, 2012
Trashing the First Amendment is OK with the libs because their pill addiction is more important than the Constitution.
TaliscatFeb 13, 2012
actually rush is on the conservative side..
americanblarneyFeb 14, 2012
This is a simple matter of religious freedom, nothing more, nothing less. There's a reason the Church operates not-for-profit hospitals and not banks - they are part of the Catholic mission to minister to the sick. In this country, the first amendment protects religious groups from being forced to violate their conscience. The Amish do not have to pay into social security, are exempt from Obamacare, and don't even have to vaccinate their children because their religious rights are protected absolutely. The fact that they sell some of the most delicious pies and nicest furniture around does not forfeit this right, and neither does the Church's choice to provide care for the sick and dying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chassupFeb 13, 2012
That which unites all Catholics is far greater than that which divides us. Obama thinks he can destroy something he doesn't understand. Or he thinks he's god.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.