Funny how the Catholic Church has no problem using their money to pay and repeatedly relocate the paedophiles in their direct employment, but think all Catholics will go to hell if their health plan covers contraception.
Very well said. What a bunch of hypocrites... wouldn't it be great if the press were to ask the GOP leadership if they have ever used contraception? I can hear it now.. No we in the GOP never use contraception, we put it in but don't ejaculate!.
No, but I think certain laws should not have exceptions. Such as this one. Medical care is medical care. If you don't want it, don't get it - but it should be available to people who do want it.
"contraception in not medical care. It's a choice."
Most doctors would disagree. It is medical care in many cases. It helps with migranes for example.
Furthermore, the ability to plan when children are born is far more important and has way more impact on the individuals and on society than many medical procedures. Flu shots are covered - therefore contraceptives should definitely be covered.
So then you're okay with people letting their children die from easily treatable diseases on the grounds that it's allowed by their religion? Are you okay with allowing me to stone adulterers because I feel it's within my religious rights? What about sacrificing animals is that okay too. At what point does one religion's beliefs being to intersect with another religion (or secularism) to the detriment of someone who is not in said religion. At what point is it okay for the government to step in?
Nowhere is the government saying that Catholics and Catholic organizations can't continue to preach or encourage abstinence or that Catholics are forced to use contraception. But their THIRD PARTY insurance carriers must provide the same standard of care that is provided to other non-religiously affiliated businesses and non-profits. Then if the Catholic church chooses to start excommunicating their own members who receive birth control that's entirely up to them to enforce their religious belief on their own followers.
The reality is that even among Catholics use of contraception is in the high 90's. So the church is attempting to enforce a rule that most Catholics don't even follow, making this whole kerfuffle a giant red herring. People will argue up and down that this is a slippery slope, which is always how people argue when they can't argue the current point, they point to something far flung that's impossible to prove/disprove.
No, the government is legislating a healthcare provider's doctrine. If the church doesn't want to be controlled it shouldn't be a healthcare provider. If a church wants to provide healthcare it must obey the same rules as everyone else.
Someone who works for a place that is owned by a religious organization (a hospital, college, etc..) is now forced to follow a doctrine that most Americans just dont agree with.
Its not that the government is saying you must give out birth control to everyone....the government is simply saying that your religion does not trump individual rights to privacy and it must available.
This will fail in court, precedent is already set for this.
The Government is legislating a law (Obamacare) that is dictating to a church to provide a service that is fundamentally AGAINST their doctrine. What don't you understand. What's next? Sex change operations? The liberals favorite mantra "Separation of Church and State" is a two way road. Pity you can't understand that.
On top of it no one is now forced ti follow a doctrine that they don't agree with. They are not paying for contraceptives. You want to use them go ahead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The church is not the issue, f**k the church. Not everyone believes in the catholic church and just because a individual happen to get a job working for a hospital that a church runs; the individual should not have less access to what everyone else is allowed to have.
The government is not telling the church that they must hand out birth control in there church...they are not telling the church they cannot speak out against birth control; they are simply saying they must provide for there employees the same as everyone else.
If the Catholics dont like it, then dont hire anyone other then Catholics(it still needs to follow the law), but dont force everyone to follow such a stupid retarded doctrine that hardly anybody in America follow.
The real solution to this is a public option...since that was killed by the right , i find this whole ordeal hilarious.
Separation of Church and State is a two street. You and the rest of the liberals have a problem when it goes the other way. They are legislating a law that forces the Church to go against their teachings. Even the lunatic Chris Matthews sees what you and the others refuse to.
"If the Catholics dont like it, then dont hire anyone other then Catholics(it still needs to follow the law), but dont force everyone to follow such a stupid retarded doctrine that hardly anybody in America follow"
If people are unhappy with the coverage that is offered they are free to work for another employer. All the Catholic Church needs to do for the moment is to file for an Obamacare waiver and then when it is not given sue for discriminatory practices.
"the government is simply saying that your religion does not trump individual rights to privacy and it must available."
The Catholic Church is not telling you that if you conscience dictates not to use contraceptives. They are just saying we are not paying for them.
That provision of the law is in direct violation of Separation of Church and State and it will be upheld in the Supreme Court.
First, calling me a 'liberal' shows your not thinking clearly. Just because people dont follow the crazy right, doesn't make them a 'liberal' alot of people take things issue by issue and dont put themselves in a little black box like the right supporters do (like you)
There are TONS of things that religion must support by law, even though the religion teaches otherwise, because the teaching does not help the society as a whole and forces their belief on others. This is one example. The courts have always told religious groups they must follow the law and the law dictates that they must provide the same healthcare as everyone else. (this is a key point, its not like they are the only place that must provide birth control)
What this really comes down to is another stupid attack on the president to avoid dealing with the issues that the right currently has no answer for. They are simply trying to press this issue to win a election, this is not about the constitution and if you believe other wise then i am sorry you are so easily manipulated.
Also, Chris Matthews believes that this is a complicated issue where individual rights and rights of a church butt heads...i know cause i watch him
Most Cathiolics of all [parties support birth control. Don't assume that you are anything but the ignorant, loud mouthed minority. yopu'
ll humiliate yourself a lot less.
As one who was raised Catholic I feel comfortable saying that there are few intelligent Catholics who don't realize that the church is fundamentally flawed. A worldwide organization run by celibate octogenarians has little if any hope of remaining relevant absent some major change to the way they do things. We're talking about an establishment where bishops fought the introduction of a piano as opposed to an organ because it was too "contemporary". Catholics love God in spite of the church, not because of it.
Next time you swing by a Catholic Mass, take a look around. Any family with less than 8 kids is breaking the church's rules on birth control (keep in mind, the pul-and-pray method counts as birth control in the eyes of the church).
So yah, any Catholic who's having sex and isn't perpetually giving birth or siring offspring recognizes that the church is wrong on this one.
Any Catholic capable of applying the principles they (should) believe should have now trouble arriving at the conclusion that contraception is a grave moral wrong.
You don't have to agree with it and this discussion isn't really about the Catholic faith, it's about religious rights in America.
The Bible is not the sole source of religious truth in the Catholic faith. If you really want me to get into the specifics of Catholic sexual teaching I will.
The Church teaches that the sexual act is a conjugal act of creation. It is the highest expression of love and simultaneously communes with God towards the creation of a new eternal soul.
As such there are two fundamental aspects to the sexual act unitive and procreative. The unitive aspect as between a husband and wife and the procreative aspect as between the couple and God.
Contraception destroys both. It destroys the unitive aspect by making the sexual act a pure object of carnal fulfillment and it destroys the procreative aspect by artificially denying the possibility of life, i.e. cutting God out of the picture.
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a natural rhythm method which seeks to preserve these two aspects while allowing the family the ability to constructively decide when to have children. The Church is quite clear that the motivation for family planning ought not be for selfish reasons but for reasons of prudence and right judgment.
All of this is immaterial to the overall issue though which is the trampling of the 1st amendment by an overzealous HHS Secretary and bad legislation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Did you read the official Catholic church position on the child abuse scandal? Blaming the children for their adult Priest behavior? I have, as an ex Catholic, or simply as a parent, plenty of rational reason to besmirch an specific religion: the Catholic Church.
Actually, it is consistent with policy, they have a need for a fresh group of victims. I find it amusing that we still have Catholic parents willingly bringing their children to church. After the official church position on all the abuse was: the child was guilty of being far too seductive for a Priest to be able to resist.
I have no respect left at all for the HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Their "official church position" blame the child, ended any respect I had left, as an ex Catholic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Dioceses have filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying millions in settlements, while the Catholic church overall is one of the wealthiest single entities in the world.
Trivia question, not irrelevent - What is the real reason that priests were forbidden to marry?
Exactly, so they couldn't have children to inherit property.
It's relevent today because if priests were allowed to marry, and have a normal sexual life, there would be far fewer pedophiles in the priesthood, if any.
Catholic Catechism 2370 and 2399 come to mind offhand. Although the church does not presume to dictate where people "go" after they die. Only God knows the soul. The Church can only make pronouncements on the inherent good or evil of an action.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Thank you for an honest reply, but while those do apply to contraception, neither one mentions insurance like the OP's asinine comment suggests. And as you mention, while the Church calls it evil, they make no assertion that this would condemn a soul to hell.
If they work for *a* church and not for a diocese, community center, or school then they shouldn't expect it, nor does HHS require it. If they work for a diocese that hires on the open market and doesn't require its employees to practice their religion then yes, that's certainly a reasonable expectation.
PL's comment aside, there's a huge difference between the two. Large diocese offices have multiple entities underneath them and can employ hundreds of people. Case in point, with this nontroversy one of the more vocal diocese is in Maine and oversees multiple schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. That's an awful lot of people who are not members of the church and who are not ordained members of the clergy.
That's what you're all too willing to gloss over: a church can do whatever it wants. A diocese cannot.
So you're saying if I decide I'm going to work for the Catholic Church, I don't have to expect to have some Catholic values involved? That doesn't make sense to me. If I'm going to work for a Muslim charity I expect to not be able to do a lot of things that are offensive to Islam. Don't work for a religious organization if you don't want to play by their rules. Better their rules than the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
@swiftwing88 - but the reverse of what you said is also true for the church - don't hire outside of the faith if you expect those employees to uphold the tenants of the faith.
@Swift: Keep in mind, the term "church" is very ambiguous. So let's define the job in question as being with an organization that is not specifically a church itself, but rather a company that is religiously affiliated. And that position is advertised on the open market by what claims to be an equal opportunity employer. If it was me taking that job, there are certain things I'd do to be courteous - I wouldn't put a Flying Spaghetti Monster sign or a Darwin fish up in my cube for example.
But I wouldn't start practicing that religion just because it's the place where I work. If you go to work for a Muslim charity will you start doing morning prayers facing Mecca before you leave for work?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
As an employer, I would think most expect health insurance to be a benefit for employees, not the employer. In other words, insurance offered should be a standard policy, and not affected by the religion itself.
We have religions that do not believe in health care at all or a set of specific forms of health care. If they have a work opportunity, at a company run by Christian Scientists, is it then OK to offer no health insurance, they do not use health care. Or if an Scientology does their policy for health insurance only cover a "quiet birth", or no psychology, because that is what they practice, as a group?
Isn't rattlesnake handling done by some churches, as a show of faith? I can't wait for this, as your next religious freedom issue.
As an employer, you have an obligation to employees, and it is not to force your belief system on workers.
In some communities, a Catholic Hospital is the only medical
option. Does that mean you simply do not work? We can force all communities to offer a public option! Ah, the taxpayer dollars.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't care what anyone says my insurance should cover, that isn't their business or their choice, that's for me to decide. Ditto for a company. Sadly, the Government sees different so sit back and watch as the cost of your insurance rises as they are forced to provide more coverage than you may want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I think you are unfamiliar with health insurance and how it works in this country. Or do you have an a la carte plan? If so, specify the provider and the plan. Because I think your insurance foes exactly what you're complaining about already - because that's what insurance plans do.
Or are you going to complain about having to carry car insurance when YOU never crash?
Obviously health care isn't like picking pizza toppings and excluding the things you don't want, but it would be wrong to suggest that consumers don't have choices. A quick search of the 98104 zip code below shows 39 different plans, with different co-pays and deductibles and other differences. Also, it sort of begs the question, if there weren't insurance companies that didn't cover it, why do we need a law to mandate that they do?
But how many plans are available to you from your employer? Most companies offer only 1 plan, you get only what it offers.
A health insurance policy is a "benefit"? Is it a benefit if it offers only what the owner's religion accepts? This force by the employer for all employees to accept their religion or leave the job.
I find the concept unacceptable.
In this case the church is simply an employer. An employer with most employees who are not Catholic at all. Health insurance is a benefit for employees. If a Catholic employee wants to exercise their belief, they can choose not to use birth control at all.
The decision makes sense.
PS ex Catholic. I do not know one Catholic woman who does not use birth control today, I am guessing no Priest will use the pill either.
IIRC, we wer told that the Administration had no interest in doing this, though. They assured people that they wouldn't stick their nose in religious affairs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
- if some religious leaders had their way, guns and alcohol would not be for sale.
- if some religious leaders had their way, women would not have all the rights they have.
All of these are allowed by the federal government; some of these are even constitutional rights.
Yet these are not cases of the government sticking their nose in religious affairs.
If you're a devout follower of your religion of choice and you're avoiding birth control, alcohol, certain meats, you name it -- then bully for you. But accept the fact that the federal government will not legislate with the purpose of promoting your religious views, or imposing your religious views on others.
Then the federal government should have NO right to tell Catholic Institutions that they must provide something that is against their beliefs. IF you go to work for a Catholic institution, you should accept that they will not contradict their teaching in order to provide you with free birth control. And the government should stay out of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So if I take a job with the local Jewish Community Center, are they allowed to tell me that I can't use my paycheck to buy pork at the grocery store? It's compensation after all, just like my health insurance. And they don't want to "provide" me with free pork.
Not a good comparison. Let's say you work for the local Synagogue. You want them to pay for you to be in the "pork product of the month club." They say, um... no ... if you want pork, you'll need to buy that yourself.
Let me ask you...since abortion is legal...should Catholic organizations be forced to pay for abortions... it's just one step beyond birth control, after all?
Actually your comparison just became invalid. Among the various exceptions that HHS already made, individual organizations that primarily employ members of the faithful and whose primary mission is proselytizing aren't affected. A synagogue that employs mostly Jews can still have their way; that's why I specifically chose a community center as an example.
And yes, health insurance is part of employee compensation. My employer can't tell me what medical procedures I'm allowed to have any more than they can tell me what funds to invest in with my 401k.
As for your question about abortion - not that it's relevant since the issue here is "preventive care", but in my opinion no employer has any business denying its employees a legal medical procedure based on the morality of its senior leadership. Of course, those of us who aren't 80-year-old celibate men understand that easier access to birth control lowers the number of abortions performed. If the Catholic church truly cared about reducing the number of abortions performed around the world they'd have a special bottle of sacramental wine that the single female members of the congregation drink from, and it'd be spiked with Yaz.
One could argue that the gov't forcing people to work on Sunday interferes in religious doctrine. How about collecting taxes that are in opposition to different religious beliefs...such as...I don't know...war? That involves murder, does it not?
You're clueless to act as though it's as simple as you portray it.
Several of the companies I've worked for allow for religious exemptions for working on Sunday or Saturday (whichever religious holiday they might have).
There are exceptions for being in the military, but you consciously and deliberately agree to sign away such rights when you join the military--it's part of the deal.
Ferretman, well if you want to take the exemptions/choice argument...then people choose to be catholic. They choose to believe in these things.
They choose to follow the doctrines. (well, apparently not since around 98% of Catholics us birth control).
As I said, the argument doesn't hold water. The number of exceptions at this point is massive and the law can be applied in other ways, such as an employment requirement, not a religious one, etc.
Really? That' the argument the Digg liberals have used ad nauseam on the threads towards the evangelicals. Keep your morality out of the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You're missing the point. No one has a problem morality in government so far as I know. The problem arises when the moral imperatives of one group trump those of another group via legislation.
As a society, we have some generally agreed upon moral imperatives, such as theft is wrong. We also lump the health and welfare of our citizens in there, which this goes to.
Now, I'm all for you arguing the merits of this separately, in fact I say have at it. But stop trying to act like this is some singular assault on religion. It isn't.
That's a matter of perspective. From a purely medical point of view, no it isn't.
From a religious point of view (some religions, not all), yes it is.
The problem is, this happens all the time and can be argued occurs on a daily basis a thousand ways. But this one has not only been selected as the target, but pronounced to be aimed at religion.
This may shock you, but most people see it as a simple bit of common sense. It reduces the need for abortions, it assists in women's health.
I'm still waiting to hear from Christian Scientists on how prescription drug benefits infringe on their religious beliefs since they don't believe in using medicine.
On an employer, of people who are not that faith, The Catholics employed there are not mandated to use birth control at all. The Church in this case, is trying to mandate it's doctrine to all.
They are free to seek employment from another employer who offers that coverage in their benefits package. They took the job knowing full well what the health plan offers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25, How does forcing the views of the state on Church doctrine. Deal with things like polygamy. Because that would be totally awesome... I want 8 wives one for each night of the week and 2 on Sundays.
What about other religious doctrine like the Sikh. Their religious doctrine requires baptized members to carry a kirpan, a small sword, under their clothing. So we should we allow them to carry their weapons on board private commercial aircraft and in schools? Because of we can't force the views of the state on Church doctrine right?
Now pc25 You are clearly and utterly against Government interfering in religious doctrine right.
Then you must have been just fine and dandy with Mosque Plan Near 9/11 World Trade Center Site right?
We a nation have the freedom of religion right? I guess the folks wanting to build that mosque clearly had the moral and religious right to build that commercial location correct?
Oh I'm also thinking of becoming a Rastafarian... yea and tomorrow I think I'll head down to the neighborhood playground and smoke a huge blunt and a few bags pot in front of the kids.”</sarcasm>”
You can't have it both ways. Either religious doctrine falls under federal law or it doesn't...private institution or not.
If it doesn't matter I'm planning on becoming a Mormon plus a Rastafarian. That way I can get stoned all day and screw like a drunken monkey all night... With the total blessing of god... Boy I love this country. As for condoms... who cares. Bareback feels a lot better. ”</sarcasm>”
you are the people that want it both ways. You want religious institutions out of your personal lives, however in this case, you want the State to impose it's will church doctrine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Comments like this are why smart people are mean to you Ouzel. Next time you disagree with something posted on Novenator's blog remind me to quote it with an "FTA" in front of it and act like you're a moron because that didn't settle it.
And it pisses people like me off because on some level you know I'm right and that PC's comment was asinine, it's just that you're suspending that thought because he's a conservative. Either you're doing it subconsciously because you're a hack or you're doing it deliberately just to be a pain in the arse. Either one is a character flaw on your part and makes you the sort of person I try very hard to avoid in life.
hey retard, wtf don't you understand, if it gets to court it will be declared unconstitutional. It's a 2 way street, and the libs don't like it when it goes the other way. BTW did you see he's backing off on that provision of the laws today. Only idiots like you and the rest devour the crap sandwiches that Obama serves you like it's a gourmet meal. He knows he overstepped his bounds.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You have no business calling anyone retarded, ever. I've met paraplegics with closed head injuries that are smarter than you.
The Obama administration may very well make a calculated backpedal - it won't be the first time he's done it. One thing he's had to figure out is that sometimes you just can't deal with stupid people in large groups. And in this case they're the people dumb enough not to be able to distinguish between an actual church and a religious hierarchy, who just get all pissed off because the pederast behind the pulpit told them to get pissed off.
Hey idiot, Obama is in way over his head and he knows it. Another massive government intrusion into a private institution. A gross over calculation on his part and he is in damage control now.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Oh pc25 you are one of those... my religion is the only real religion people.
Yea I do want religion out of my personal life. Personally, I don't care what religion somebody practices AT HOME. Do what you want to yourself and yourself only. When its taken out and into the public and commercial level it impacts more than just the people who are for that religion.
Like most liberals we don't care what people believe, we don't care what you preach... we don't care what color you are, what race, gender or sexual orientation. Everybody is equal in gods eyes.
When groups and organization gets exclusionary, predatory, monopolistic or just treat them differently that's when liberal get upset
Because of the conservative perspective It only took how many decades to except gays in the military.. like a lesbian can shoot a gun or something.
If you are catholic you are not supposed to get divorced... but the do. when you are catholic you are not supposed to have children or sex out of wedlock...but it happens a lot.
It's all about choices... if you don't want to use birth control then buy it. If you don't want an abortion that's fine if you believe that way. But you can't tell somebody else can't do themselves.
We dictate to one organization that they can't discriminate while allowing the other one can just based on religion.
If that would be the case honor killings could be justified under its religious doctrine where its extremely criminal for the rest of the population.
You are comparing a Catholic business not providing birth control to "honor killing"?
Tell me you are not.
"I don't care what religion somebody practices AT HOME. Do what you want to yourself and yourself only. When its taken out and into the public and commercial level it impacts more than just the people who are for that religion."
So when someone says, "God bless you" after you sneeze, you take serious offense?
Oh pc25 you are one of those... my religion is the only real religion people.
Show me where I said that. I don't care what religion one follows. That's a personal decision. At the same time I do not want Big Brother legislating a law that tells ANY church that I may or may not belong to that they have to modify their church doctrine to conform to a law that the government LEGISLATED. You want religion out of your life fine, however by the same token the Government should enforce laws such as this that are in direct violation to that church's teaching. That is a very DANGEROUS precedent and Obama just shot himself in the foot over this one.
FTA
the birth-control rule abridges the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom."
Now come on. Would you let a liberal get away with such a blatantly obstinate comment? It's offensive to me and it should be offensive to you too. PC's a troll of the worst sort and my civility with him has been far more of a kindness than he deserves.
(sigh) So first off Ouzel, I'll agree. Publiclurker's comments in this sub are inane at best. And no, I'm not treehugger. I've never maintained more than one digg account at one time, and every account I've ever had employs nomenclature that makes it pretty clear who I am.
Having said that - PC25's comment presented an opinion in the article as if it was fact, striking a tone of incredulity that anyone would question a clearly controversial opinion rendered in the article when it's presented with the letters "FTA" in front of it. If a liberal did that you'd call them out for it in a heartbeat. And yes, such a blatant suspension of logic is offensive to me. And it would offend you if it were posed by a liberal.
Ouzel7... You are comparing a Catholic business not providing birth control to "honor killing"?
Hell yea I am...
I'm saying throughout history horrible and unspeakable things have done in the all in the name of religion.
Even now, honor killings are still taking place, Female genital mutilation is still being practiced,
Child marriage is still being allowed. It wasn't that long ago that children in America where being married off really young. It wasn't that long ago polygamy was an excepted practice in the name of religion.
I agree, in this case they are simply an employer, and health insurance is supposed to be a benefit to employees. Any Catholic employee can simple not take the pill. They easily, if inclined can follow church mandates.
but that's not what they want. they want to force as many people down to their level as they can. One only need to look at how their kin the Taliban operated in Afghanistan. It's only the continuous work of everyone else that keeps the American version of these idiots in check.
Interesting that those who are complaining about requirements for health care to cover birth control are the same people who would deny women the rights to privacy and their own health care.
That is precisely what Constitutional scholars are saying.
The catholic church is an employer and as such must comply with the same rules as every other employer.
This has nothing to do with religion.
Exactly, insurance is an employee BENEFIT. The Government should no more be dictating the nature of that benefit than they should be defining what your compensation must be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
“The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it’s always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.”
Argue the merits of this all you want. Fact is, Obama stepped in it when he didn't have to and even several Democrats are backing away from this policy which seems like an attack on religion.
The idea that it's bad for health insurances to have a minimum standard of service, because it contradicts someone's faith, is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in 2012 yet.
I appeal to religious people to be reasonable and let the president take welcomed birth control measures that will benefit the country's society, education and economy. You have no right to bring your faith to the table. It's a political measure with important, positive national health implications. Belong to as many religious cults as you want, but please stop interfering with your own society's progress!
You think its progress that a group of bureaucrats decides what insurance YOU pay for must cover, regardless of what coverage is appropriate for your life? My 88 year old grandma doesn't need contraceptive coverage. Forcing her to pay higher rates for the lifestyle choices of people that do isn't progress, its collectivism.
Those "bureaucrats" are making laws for you (that barely affect the profitable business of health insurance - and I should know, I work in health technology), so that YOU can have better health standards, and so that YOU and YOUR FAMILY can enjoy having the freedom and choice to get contraception and gynecology/urology assistance as a precaution, and in case of emergency. You're not paying "higher rates", it's a needed standard when you live in a modern society.
How is this a BAD THING? Are you people completely INSANE? Did religious evangelism really exterminate the last remains of brain activity in your heads??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Let me ask you a question about your auto insurance:
Does it re-reimburse you for monthly car washes to protect your car from salt damage? Does it pay for oil changes every 3,000 miles? No, it provides protection against major unexpected costs associated to damage to your vehicle due to accident.
So, if thats how you auto insurance works, and your home owners insurance, why would you expect your health insurance to pay for non-necessary lifestyle expenses like contraception? We've co-opted what insurance is supposed to be and inserted another layer of bureaucracy between us and our doctors and in cases like this it adds zero value, it only increases costs.
Perhaps you can explain to me the problem with people purchasing their own contraception if they want to use it. Its not like its somehow free, everyone with insurance ends up having that cost paid in their premiums, so ultimately all you're doing is forcing everyone to subsidize the cost for those that use it.
"Perhaps you can explain to me the problem with people purchasing their own contraception if they want to use it."
The problem is, often, they won't, even when they should have. This leads to social problems in a much larger scale, more abortions, more teen pregnancy.
Fighting against this kind of measures decreases awareness about contraception, by making it a taboo (which is exactly what the church is trying to do, because they believe in multiplication and evangelization today, just like they always did). And you're falling for their bulls**t.
Contraception is a "non-necessary lifestyle expense"?
I'm done here. Your absolute trailer-trash ignorance is making my stomach sick.
Many health insurance plans have offered coverage for preventive care long before the health care overhaul was passed, and they did so because it works. There's a very different dollar amount associated with the treatment of medical conditions that can go unchecked and develop into something much worse. Mandating preventive care is not something new that the government dreamed up, it was produced by the private sector.
With respect to contraception in particular, those of us with women in the house know that it's not uncommon to treat other conditions such as heavy acne, severe menstrual cramps and heavy periods with oral contraceptives.
As for your whining about how you don't want to pay for someone's birth control - if you're opposed to abortion then you should be the biggest fan of birth control on the planet. And even if you remove abortion from the equation, it's cheaper for you to pay for birth control than it is for pre- and postnatal care.
The only argument you have here is that you don't like people having sex without facing some kind of consequences for it, and the rest of us really don't care.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
This has nothing to do with politics other than for Obama. This has to do with church rights, and if the government can tell the church what they can do then the church can tell the government what they can do with it.
Separation of church and state should cover it all.
yeah...i dont want it. there are entire regions in canda w/o access to a lifeflight chopper. if that is due to hhs i'll say no thanks. i realize i might never need it but i would rather have an not need than need and not have.
The better question is why I, as a man, am being forced to buy insurance that covers
lifestyle choices that I don't need (I have no need of contraception or maternity coverage).
Obama: "I passed a law that raises healthcare standards and will, over time, reduce teen pregnancy and abortions in America!"
Christian Right: "But... if abortions are reduced, then what will we blame the liberals for??? WHY ISN'T THE PRESIDENT ASKING THE CHURCH'S PERMISSION BEFORE MAKING A DECISION??? BLASPHEMY! You will hear from our lawyers!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Before Catholics take on modern inventions like birth control. They should go on a rampage to stop all their parishioners from masturbating. I don't know why people are shamed into giving them money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So if my religion only believes in prayer healing, can I hire people and promise health care as part of their compensation, then when someone gets sick tell them the only thing I'll cover is prayer?
If so I think I just stumbled onto my early retirement plan.
That would be called "offering no health insurance benefits"... at least the Catholics offer health insurance benefits ... they just don't offer free birth control as it is and HAS ALWAYS BEEN against their church teaching.
Make no mistake. This is something new that the Administration is doing after we were all assured that no.."Obamacare wouldn't force religious organizations to do anything against their beliefs."
You sound awful dismissive of my fictional religion. So how do we decide which religion gets to impose its rules and which ones don't? And while we're at it why should we stop at birth control? The HPV vaccine is only appropriate when a woman becomes sexually active. Should the church refuse to cover vaccination for unmarried women in the office, as the church doesn't believe in premarital sex? For that matter shouldn't all reproductive health treatment be denied to unmarried employees? And what about divorce? The only way the Catholic church recognizes a divorce is if the marriage gets annulled - a procedure that by the way makes Washington bureaucracy look simple by comparison. So if I take a job working for my local diocese, get divorced, and then remarry... can my employer refuse to cover my new wife until I properly get my previous marriage annulled?
For a group of people who were awful pissed off about the spectre of the government controlling their health care, the right seems to be just fine with the church controlling it.
As for the perceived bait-and-switch: the Obama administration isn't the group that classified birth control as preventive care. That would be the Institute of Medicine. Perhaps the Catholic church should take it up with them since they apparently know more about the medical field.
For every rule the Catholic church has there's a perfectly valid question of whether or not they should be able to enforce that rule on their employees the same way they want to enforce this one. And lemme tell ya, those bitches have an awful lot of rules.
The idea that it's bad for health insurances to have a minimum standard of service, because it contradicts someone's faith, is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in 2012 yet.
I appeal to religious people to be reasonable and let the president take welcomed birth control measures that will benefit the country's society, education and economy. You have no right to bring your faith to the table. It's a political measure with important, positive national health implications. Belong to as many religious cults as you want, but please stop interfering with your own society's progress!
It's not a minimum standard of service at all. It's basically asking the Church to participate in a business it conceives as a grave moral wrong. This is about the rights of Americans versus the mandate of the government. I'm constantly surprised at how the usually libertarian Diggers come down on this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
How are they "asking the church to"?? This is healthcare law, it has nothing to do with church. They didn't ask the church's opinion on this, and they're not welcome to give it, because ...IT'S THE CHURCH!!! And church isn't supposed to open their mouth when it comes to politics. AT ALL. EVER. It's called "separation of church and state", and it exists for a very good reason - to avoid repeating the same mistakes of the dark ages.
This is about the right of Americans (and any developed country) to health standards VS the church, getting up everyone's asses, as usual.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Another trumped up non issue by the GOP. I can't believe congress is wasting all this time on this non issue... This is exactly like the Debt Crisis, sure we had the issue of a debt problem but then the GOP made it a national crisis out of it, they took us to the brink and caused the US to have its credit rating dropped. What good did it do? nothing!
Now we have a Birth control issue.... Are you freaking kidding me.
We have really major problems that need to be solved and the GOP is having a conniption fit about the pill. What a bunch of political pukes.
The GOP kicked and screamed for years, decades...about gays in the military... really??? A lesbian can't shoot a gun or something. A Gay guy can't wage war? Stupid!
Then we had congress wrapped up in steroids in baseball... WTF! Tell me why I could care about that.
Then we had the healthcare problem... The us had a chance to finally fix healthcare so everybody that wanted it could have it for free. But no, there were Death Panels, Kill grandma, and Government takeover of your healthcare.
So it got watered down to something that isn't worth a s**t... something that most people will find is ineffective at giving people free access to healthcare.
Thanks GOP for taking that away.
nutsofactoFeb 8, 2012
Funny how the Catholic Church has no problem using their money to pay and repeatedly relocate the paedophiles in their direct employment, but think all Catholics will go to hell if their health plan covers contraception.
SPATIALGUYFeb 8, 2012
Very well said. What a bunch of hypocrites... wouldn't it be great if the press were to ask the GOP leadership if they have ever used contraception? I can hear it now.. No we in the GOP never use contraception, we put it in but don't ejaculate!.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
What does this story have to do with the GOP? All GOPers are not Catholic.
I'll bet there are a lot of Catholic Democrats.
This is going to hurt Obama among Catholic Democrats because they were lied to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
It is now the Government legislating what doctrine ANY church can or can not teach. Today contraception, tomorrow who knows.
elimgarakFeb 9, 2012
Minimal medical standards. This makes complete sense. If you can't set minimal standards for medical care, then what can you set standards on?
DiggPiggletFeb 9, 2012
So you think laws can't have exceptions?
elimgarakFeb 9, 2012
No, but I think certain laws should not have exceptions. Such as this one. Medical care is medical care. If you don't want it, don't get it - but it should be available to people who do want it.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
The government is legislating church doctrine.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
contraception in not medical care. It's a choice.
elimgarakFeb 9, 2012
"contraception in not medical care. It's a choice."
Most doctors would disagree. It is medical care in many cases. It helps with migranes for example.
Furthermore, the ability to plan when children are born is far more important and has way more impact on the individuals and on society than many medical procedures. Flu shots are covered - therefore contraceptives should definitely be covered.
nhavarFeb 9, 2012
So then you're okay with people letting their children die from easily treatable diseases on the grounds that it's allowed by their religion? Are you okay with allowing me to stone adulterers because I feel it's within my religious rights? What about sacrificing animals is that okay too. At what point does one religion's beliefs being to intersect with another religion (or secularism) to the detriment of someone who is not in said religion. At what point is it okay for the government to step in?
Nowhere is the government saying that Catholics and Catholic organizations can't continue to preach or encourage abstinence or that Catholics are forced to use contraception. But their THIRD PARTY insurance carriers must provide the same standard of care that is provided to other non-religiously affiliated businesses and non-profits. Then if the Catholic church chooses to start excommunicating their own members who receive birth control that's entirely up to them to enforce their religious belief on their own followers.
The reality is that even among Catholics use of contraception is in the high 90's. So the church is attempting to enforce a rule that most Catholics don't even follow, making this whole kerfuffle a giant red herring. People will argue up and down that this is a slippery slope, which is always how people argue when they can't argue the current point, they point to something far flung that's impossible to prove/disprove.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
The Government is legislating Church Doctrine.
elimgarakFeb 9, 2012
"The government is legislating church doctrine."
No, the government is legislating a healthcare provider's doctrine. If the church doesn't want to be controlled it shouldn't be a healthcare provider. If a church wants to provide healthcare it must obey the same rules as everyone else.
letherialFeb 9, 2012
its the reverse really.
Someone who works for a place that is owned by a religious organization (a hospital, college, etc..) is now forced to follow a doctrine that most Americans just dont agree with.
Its not that the government is saying you must give out birth control to everyone....the government is simply saying that your religion does not trump individual rights to privacy and it must available.
This will fail in court, precedent is already set for this.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
The Government is legislating a law (Obamacare) that is dictating to a church to provide a service that is fundamentally AGAINST their doctrine. What don't you understand. What's next? Sex change operations? The liberals favorite mantra "Separation of Church and State" is a two way road. Pity you can't understand that.
On top of it no one is now forced ti follow a doctrine that they don't agree with. They are not paying for contraceptives. You want to use them go ahead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialFeb 9, 2012
The church is not the issue, f**k the church. Not everyone believes in the catholic church and just because a individual happen to get a job working for a hospital that a church runs; the individual should not have less access to what everyone else is allowed to have.
The government is not telling the church that they must hand out birth control in there church...they are not telling the church they cannot speak out against birth control; they are simply saying they must provide for there employees the same as everyone else.
If the Catholics dont like it, then dont hire anyone other then Catholics(it still needs to follow the law), but dont force everyone to follow such a stupid retarded doctrine that hardly anybody in America follow.
The real solution to this is a public option...since that was killed by the right , i find this whole ordeal hilarious.
and this will fail in court, mark my words.
pc25Feb 9, 2012
Separation of Church and State is a two street. You and the rest of the liberals have a problem when it goes the other way. They are legislating a law that forces the Church to go against their teachings. Even the lunatic Chris Matthews sees what you and the others refuse to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XYg1ywwLoX4
"If the Catholics dont like it, then dont hire anyone other then Catholics(it still needs to follow the law), but dont force everyone to follow such a stupid retarded doctrine that hardly anybody in America follow"
If people are unhappy with the coverage that is offered they are free to work for another employer. All the Catholic Church needs to do for the moment is to file for an Obamacare waiver and then when it is not given sue for discriminatory practices.
"the government is simply saying that your religion does not trump individual rights to privacy and it must available."
The Catholic Church is not telling you that if you conscience dictates not to use contraceptives. They are just saying we are not paying for them.
That provision of the law is in direct violation of Separation of Church and State and it will be upheld in the Supreme Court.
letherialFeb 9, 2012
First, calling me a 'liberal' shows your not thinking clearly. Just because people dont follow the crazy right, doesn't make them a 'liberal' alot of people take things issue by issue and dont put themselves in a little black box like the right supporters do (like you)
There are TONS of things that religion must support by law, even though the religion teaches otherwise, because the teaching does not help the society as a whole and forces their belief on others. This is one example. The courts have always told religious groups they must follow the law and the law dictates that they must provide the same healthcare as everyone else. (this is a key point, its not like they are the only place that must provide birth control)
What this really comes down to is another stupid attack on the president to avoid dealing with the issues that the right currently has no answer for. They are simply trying to press this issue to win a election, this is not about the constitution and if you believe other wise then i am sorry you are so easily manipulated.
Also, Chris Matthews believes that this is a complicated issue where individual rights and rights of a church butt heads...i know cause i watch him
publiclurkerFeb 8, 2012
Most Cathiolics of all [parties support birth control. Don't assume that you are anything but the ignorant, loud mouthed minority. yopu'
ll humiliate yourself a lot less.
stevanoskiFeb 8, 2012
trolling eh, still asking everyone about their nuts?
publiclurkerFeb 8, 2012
well, maybe you'll find yours if people remind you enough. Then you wouldn't need all of the manhood enhancements.
DiggPiggletFeb 9, 2012
Never trust an Internet user with "lurker" in their username.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
As one who was raised Catholic I feel comfortable saying that there are few intelligent Catholics who don't realize that the church is fundamentally flawed. A worldwide organization run by celibate octogenarians has little if any hope of remaining relevant absent some major change to the way they do things. We're talking about an establishment where bishops fought the introduction of a piano as opposed to an organ because it was too "contemporary". Catholics love God in spite of the church, not because of it.
Next time you swing by a Catholic Mass, take a look around. Any family with less than 8 kids is breaking the church's rules on birth control (keep in mind, the pul-and-pray method counts as birth control in the eyes of the church).
So yah, any Catholic who's having sex and isn't perpetually giving birth or siring offspring recognizes that the church is wrong on this one.
swiftwings88Feb 9, 2012
Any Catholic capable of applying the principles they (should) believe should have now trouble arriving at the conclusion that contraception is a grave moral wrong.
You don't have to agree with it and this discussion isn't really about the Catholic faith, it's about religious rights in America.
Either way that's no reason to besmirch an entire religion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
DiggPiggletFeb 9, 2012
Does the Bible say that avoiding pregnancy is wrong?
swiftwings88Feb 9, 2012
The Bible is not the sole source of religious truth in the Catholic faith. If you really want me to get into the specifics of Catholic sexual teaching I will.
The Church teaches that the sexual act is a conjugal act of creation. It is the highest expression of love and simultaneously communes with God towards the creation of a new eternal soul.
As such there are two fundamental aspects to the sexual act unitive and procreative. The unitive aspect as between a husband and wife and the procreative aspect as between the couple and God.
Contraception destroys both. It destroys the unitive aspect by making the sexual act a pure object of carnal fulfillment and it destroys the procreative aspect by artificially denying the possibility of life, i.e. cutting God out of the picture.
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a natural rhythm method which seeks to preserve these two aspects while allowing the family the ability to constructively decide when to have children. The Church is quite clear that the motivation for family planning ought not be for selfish reasons but for reasons of prudence and right judgment.
All of this is immaterial to the overall issue though which is the trampling of the 1st amendment by an overzealous HHS Secretary and bad legislation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 9, 2012
Did you read the official Catholic church position on the child abuse scandal? Blaming the children for their adult Priest behavior? I have, as an ex Catholic, or simply as a parent, plenty of rational reason to besmirch an specific religion: the Catholic Church.
letherialFeb 9, 2012
It is about religious rights, the rights of american citizens to have the same access as everyone else despite religious affiliation.
This is simply the church trying to take control...like it always has, and always will.
u2canfailFeb 9, 2012
Actually, it is consistent with policy, they have a need for a fresh group of victims. I find it amusing that we still have Catholic parents willingly bringing their children to church. After the official church position on all the abuse was: the child was guilty of being far too seductive for a Priest to be able to resist.
I have no respect left at all for the HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Their "official church position" blame the child, ended any respect I had left, as an ex Catholic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jpurdyFeb 9, 2012
Well said.
Dioceses have filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying millions in settlements, while the Catholic church overall is one of the wealthiest single entities in the world.
Trivia question, not irrelevent - What is the real reason that priests were forbidden to marry?
geejayeFeb 9, 2012
What is the real reason that priests were forbidden to marry?
Let me guess: so that any material wealth that the priest has goes to the church - not a family?
jpurdyFeb 9, 2012
Exactly, so they couldn't have children to inherit property.
It's relevent today because if priests were allowed to marry, and have a normal sexual life, there would be far fewer pedophiles in the priesthood, if any.
geejayeFeb 9, 2012
So - not outing the pedophiles was a pure, bottom-line, business decision.
So much for caring about the weak, the poor, and the suffering - and their "doctrines".
swiftwings88Feb 9, 2012
Straw man argument, how bold.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
Care to link where the Roman Catholic Church says anyone will go to hell if their insurance covers contracetpion?
...
Yeah, I thought not.
swiftwings88Feb 9, 2012
Catholic Catechism 2370 and 2399 come to mind offhand. Although the church does not presume to dictate where people "go" after they die. Only God knows the soul. The Church can only make pronouncements on the inherent good or evil of an action.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
Thank you for an honest reply, but while those do apply to contraception, neither one mentions insurance like the OP's asinine comment suggests. And as you mention, while the Church calls it evil, they make no assertion that this would condemn a soul to hell.
shark72Feb 8, 2012
Interestingly, most Catholics think that employers *should* be required to provide health plans that include birth control at no cost:
http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/survey_majority_of_catholics_favor_birth_control_in_health_care_coverage
For what it's worth, the folks who are up in arms about this are out of step with the populace -- even Catholics.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
But do they expect it if they work FOR the church?
pc25Feb 8, 2012
they shouldn't
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
If they work for *a* church and not for a diocese, community center, or school then they shouldn't expect it, nor does HHS require it. If they work for a diocese that hires on the open market and doesn't require its employees to practice their religion then yes, that's certainly a reasonable expectation.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
Church Diocese...tomayto tomahto.
publiclurkerFeb 8, 2012
Ouzel7 moron...tomayto tomahto.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
That was so clever. Feel free to join the conversation anytime.
DiggPiggletFeb 9, 2012
Off topic again lurker? Is that what you do on Digg? Off topic insults?
TGRHvWGAFFeb 9, 2012
PL's comment aside, there's a huge difference between the two. Large diocese offices have multiple entities underneath them and can employ hundreds of people. Case in point, with this nontroversy one of the more vocal diocese is in Maine and oversees multiple schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. That's an awful lot of people who are not members of the church and who are not ordained members of the clergy.
That's what you're all too willing to gloss over: a church can do whatever it wants. A diocese cannot.
swiftwings88Feb 9, 2012
So you're saying if I decide I'm going to work for the Catholic Church, I don't have to expect to have some Catholic values involved? That doesn't make sense to me. If I'm going to work for a Muslim charity I expect to not be able to do a lot of things that are offensive to Islam. Don't work for a religious organization if you don't want to play by their rules. Better their rules than the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nhavarFeb 9, 2012
@swiftwing88 - but the reverse of what you said is also true for the church - don't hire outside of the faith if you expect those employees to uphold the tenants of the faith.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 9, 2012
@Swift: Keep in mind, the term "church" is very ambiguous. So let's define the job in question as being with an organization that is not specifically a church itself, but rather a company that is religiously affiliated. And that position is advertised on the open market by what claims to be an equal opportunity employer. If it was me taking that job, there are certain things I'd do to be courteous - I wouldn't put a Flying Spaghetti Monster sign or a Darwin fish up in my cube for example.
But I wouldn't start practicing that religion just because it's the place where I work. If you go to work for a Muslim charity will you start doing morning prayers facing Mecca before you leave for work?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 9, 2012
As an employer, I would think most expect health insurance to be a benefit for employees, not the employer. In other words, insurance offered should be a standard policy, and not affected by the religion itself.
We have religions that do not believe in health care at all or a set of specific forms of health care. If they have a work opportunity, at a company run by Christian Scientists, is it then OK to offer no health insurance, they do not use health care. Or if an Scientology does their policy for health insurance only cover a "quiet birth", or no psychology, because that is what they practice, as a group?
Isn't rattlesnake handling done by some churches, as a show of faith? I can't wait for this, as your next religious freedom issue.
As an employer, you have an obligation to employees, and it is not to force your belief system on workers.
u2canfailFeb 9, 2012
In some communities, a Catholic Hospital is the only medical
option. Does that mean you simply do not work? We can force all communities to offer a public option! Ah, the taxpayer dollars.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
I don't care what anyone says my insurance should cover, that isn't their business or their choice, that's for me to decide. Ditto for a company. Sadly, the Government sees different so sit back and watch as the cost of your insurance rises as they are forced to provide more coverage than you may want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spectecjrFeb 9, 2012
I think you are unfamiliar with health insurance and how it works in this country. Or do you have an a la carte plan? If so, specify the provider and the plan. Because I think your insurance foes exactly what you're complaining about already - because that's what insurance plans do.
Or are you going to complain about having to carry car insurance when YOU never crash?
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
Obviously health care isn't like picking pizza toppings and excluding the things you don't want, but it would be wrong to suggest that consumers don't have choices. A quick search of the 98104 zip code below shows 39 different plans, with different co-pays and deductibles and other differences. Also, it sort of begs the question, if there weren't insurance companies that didn't cover it, why do we need a law to mandate that they do?
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 9, 2012
But how many plans are available to you from your employer? Most companies offer only 1 plan, you get only what it offers.
A health insurance policy is a "benefit"? Is it a benefit if it offers only what the owner's religion accepts? This force by the employer for all employees to accept their religion or leave the job.
I find the concept unacceptable.
u2canfailFeb 8, 2012
In this case the church is simply an employer. An employer with most employees who are not Catholic at all. Health insurance is a benefit for employees. If a Catholic employee wants to exercise their belief, they can choose not to use birth control at all.
The decision makes sense.
PS ex Catholic. I do not know one Catholic woman who does not use birth control today, I am guessing no Priest will use the pill either.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
IIRC, we wer told that the Administration had no interest in doing this, though. They assured people that they wouldn't stick their nose in religious affairs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 8, 2012
How is telling employers that their health insurance must cover birth control sticking their nose into religious affairs?
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
Surely you are not this clueless.
treehugger87Feb 8, 2012
Surely you can do better than just name-calling.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
Your question was serious? You really don't understand this issue? I DO find that hard to believe.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
With a name like treehugger, what did you expect.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
Name calling? Clueless is an adjective, not a noun.
shark72Feb 8, 2012
I'll explain it for you.
- if some religious leaders had their way, guns and alcohol would not be for sale.
- if some religious leaders had their way, women would not have all the rights they have.
All of these are allowed by the federal government; some of these are even constitutional rights.
Yet these are not cases of the government sticking their nose in religious affairs.
If you're a devout follower of your religion of choice and you're avoiding birth control, alcohol, certain meats, you name it -- then bully for you. But accept the fact that the federal government will not legislate with the purpose of promoting your religious views, or imposing your religious views on others.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
Then the federal government should have NO right to tell Catholic Institutions that they must provide something that is against their beliefs. IF you go to work for a Catholic institution, you should accept that they will not contradict their teaching in order to provide you with free birth control. And the government should stay out of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 8, 2012
But then the "Religious Taliban" can rule, let's do gun control first, then alcohol. lol
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
So if I take a job with the local Jewish Community Center, are they allowed to tell me that I can't use my paycheck to buy pork at the grocery store? It's compensation after all, just like my health insurance. And they don't want to "provide" me with free pork.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
Not a good comparison. Let's say you work for the local Synagogue. You want them to pay for you to be in the "pork product of the month club." They say, um... no ... if you want pork, you'll need to buy that yourself.
Let me ask you...since abortion is legal...should Catholic organizations be forced to pay for abortions... it's just one step beyond birth control, after all?
If not...why not?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
Actually your comparison just became invalid. Among the various exceptions that HHS already made, individual organizations that primarily employ members of the faithful and whose primary mission is proselytizing aren't affected. A synagogue that employs mostly Jews can still have their way; that's why I specifically chose a community center as an example.
And yes, health insurance is part of employee compensation. My employer can't tell me what medical procedures I'm allowed to have any more than they can tell me what funds to invest in with my 401k.
As for your question about abortion - not that it's relevant since the issue here is "preventive care", but in my opinion no employer has any business denying its employees a legal medical procedure based on the morality of its senior leadership. Of course, those of us who aren't 80-year-old celibate men understand that easier access to birth control lowers the number of abortions performed. If the Catholic church truly cared about reducing the number of abortions performed around the world they'd have a special bottle of sacramental wine that the single female members of the congregation drink from, and it'd be spiked with Yaz.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
@tree, why don't you read the article
FTA
the birth-control rule abridges the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom.
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012
Well...says the WSJ op-ed (no byline, interestingly enough....no one wants to take the credit?)
But as far as legally speaking, that's YTBD.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
If you can not see that the Government is now interfering in religious doctrine, then you are truly clueless.
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012
That's a pretty tattered argument.
One could argue that the gov't forcing people to work on Sunday interferes in religious doctrine. How about collecting taxes that are in opposition to different religious beliefs...such as...I don't know...war? That involves murder, does it not?
You're clueless to act as though it's as simple as you portray it.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
Well... if you go to work for Chick Fil A - you won't work on Sunday. There's a chain of grocery stores where I am that are all closed on Sunday.
Perhaps the government should mandate that these businesses remain open?
That would be a more apt comparison.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012
I'm talking about working for the Federal govt directly.
They force people to work Sunday.
ferretmanFeb 8, 2012
@dirty - Um, no they don't.
Several of the companies I've worked for allow for religious exemptions for working on Sunday or Saturday (whichever religious holiday they might have).
There are exceptions for being in the military, but you consciously and deliberately agree to sign away such rights when you join the military--it's part of the deal.
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012
Ferretman, well if you want to take the exemptions/choice argument...then people choose to be catholic. They choose to believe in these things.
They choose to follow the doctrines. (well, apparently not since around 98% of Catholics us birth control).
As I said, the argument doesn't hold water. The number of exceptions at this point is massive and the law can be applied in other ways, such as an employment requirement, not a religious one, etc.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
That's a pretty tattered argument
Really? That' the argument the Digg liberals have used ad nauseam on the threads towards the evangelicals. Keep your morality out of the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012
So, why are you ok with it now all of a sudden?
You're missing the point. No one has a problem morality in government so far as I know. The problem arises when the moral imperatives of one group trump those of another group via legislation.
As a society, we have some generally agreed upon moral imperatives, such as theft is wrong. We also lump the health and welfare of our citizens in there, which this goes to.
Now, I'm all for you arguing the merits of this separately, in fact I say have at it. But stop trying to act like this is some singular assault on religion. It isn't.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
"The problem arises when the moral imperatives of one group trump those of another group via legislation."
That's exactly what you are doing now. You are forcing the views of the state on Church doctrine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 8, 2012
That's a matter of perspective. From a purely medical point of view, no it isn't.
From a religious point of view (some religions, not all), yes it is.
The problem is, this happens all the time and can be argued occurs on a daily basis a thousand ways. But this one has not only been selected as the target, but pronounced to be aimed at religion.
This may shock you, but most people see it as a simple bit of common sense. It reduces the need for abortions, it assists in women's health.
I'm still waiting to hear from Christian Scientists on how prescription drug benefits infringe on their religious beliefs since they don't believe in using medicine.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
The problem arises when the moral imperatives of one group trump those of another group via LEGISLATION.
your own words - CASE CLOSED
u2canfailFeb 8, 2012
On an employer, of people who are not that faith, The Catholics employed there are not mandated to use birth control at all. The Church in this case, is trying to mandate it's doctrine to all.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
They are free to seek employment from another employer who offers that coverage in their benefits package. They took the job knowing full well what the health plan offers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SPATIALGUYFeb 8, 2012
pc25, How does forcing the views of the state on Church doctrine. Deal with things like polygamy. Because that would be totally awesome... I want 8 wives one for each night of the week and 2 on Sundays.
What about other religious doctrine like the Sikh. Their religious doctrine requires baptized members to carry a kirpan, a small sword, under their clothing. So we should we allow them to carry their weapons on board private commercial aircraft and in schools? Because of we can't force the views of the state on Church doctrine right?
Now pc25 You are clearly and utterly against Government interfering in religious doctrine right.
Then you must have been just fine and dandy with Mosque Plan Near 9/11 World Trade Center Site right?
We a nation have the freedom of religion right? I guess the folks wanting to build that mosque clearly had the moral and religious right to build that commercial location correct?
Oh I'm also thinking of becoming a Rastafarian... yea and tomorrow I think I'll head down to the neighborhood playground and smoke a huge blunt and a few bags pot in front of the kids.”</sarcasm>”
You can't have it both ways. Either religious doctrine falls under federal law or it doesn't...private institution or not.
If it doesn't matter I'm planning on becoming a Mormon plus a Rastafarian. That way I can get stoned all day and screw like a drunken monkey all night... With the total blessing of god... Boy I love this country. As for condoms... who cares. Bareback feels a lot better. ”</sarcasm>”
pc25Feb 8, 2012
you are the people that want it both ways. You want religious institutions out of your personal lives, however in this case, you want the State to impose it's will church doctrine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Feb 9, 2012
FTA - meaning "from the article" is offensive now?
TGRHvWGAFFeb 9, 2012
Comments like this are why smart people are mean to you Ouzel. Next time you disagree with something posted on Novenator's blog remind me to quote it with an "FTA" in front of it and act like you're a moron because that didn't settle it.
And it pisses people like me off because on some level you know I'm right and that PC's comment was asinine, it's just that you're suspending that thought because he's a conservative. Either you're doing it subconsciously because you're a hack or you're doing it deliberately just to be a pain in the arse. Either one is a character flaw on your part and makes you the sort of person I try very hard to avoid in life.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
Hey numbnuts - why don't you stop quoting opinion as if it's fact.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
hey retard, wtf don't you understand, if it gets to court it will be declared unconstitutional. It's a 2 way street, and the libs don't like it when it goes the other way. BTW did you see he's backing off on that provision of the laws today. Only idiots like you and the rest devour the crap sandwiches that Obama serves you like it's a gourmet meal. He knows he overstepped his bounds.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
You have no business calling anyone retarded, ever. I've met paraplegics with closed head injuries that are smarter than you.
The Obama administration may very well make a calculated backpedal - it won't be the first time he's done it. One thing he's had to figure out is that sometimes you just can't deal with stupid people in large groups. And in this case they're the people dumb enough not to be able to distinguish between an actual church and a religious hierarchy, who just get all pissed off because the pederast behind the pulpit told them to get pissed off.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
Hey idiot, Obama is in way over his head and he knows it. Another massive government intrusion into a private institution. A gross over calculation on his part and he is in damage control now.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
WGAF - it seems like you were the one who lobbed the first bomb here.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
It is typical liberal behavior, insult and then play the victim card when someone pushes back.
SPATIALGUYFeb 8, 2012
Oh pc25 you are one of those... my religion is the only real religion people.
Yea I do want religion out of my personal life. Personally, I don't care what religion somebody practices AT HOME. Do what you want to yourself and yourself only. When its taken out and into the public and commercial level it impacts more than just the people who are for that religion.
Like most liberals we don't care what people believe, we don't care what you preach... we don't care what color you are, what race, gender or sexual orientation. Everybody is equal in gods eyes.
When groups and organization gets exclusionary, predatory, monopolistic or just treat them differently that's when liberal get upset
Because of the conservative perspective It only took how many decades to except gays in the military.. like a lesbian can shoot a gun or something.
If you are catholic you are not supposed to get divorced... but the do. when you are catholic you are not supposed to have children or sex out of wedlock...but it happens a lot.
It's all about choices... if you don't want to use birth control then buy it. If you don't want an abortion that's fine if you believe that way. But you can't tell somebody else can't do themselves.
We dictate to one organization that they can't discriminate while allowing the other one can just based on religion.
If that would be the case honor killings could be justified under its religious doctrine where its extremely criminal for the rest of the population.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
You are comparing a Catholic business not providing birth control to "honor killing"?
Tell me you are not.
"I don't care what religion somebody practices AT HOME. Do what you want to yourself and yourself only. When its taken out and into the public and commercial level it impacts more than just the people who are for that religion."
So when someone says, "God bless you" after you sneeze, you take serious offense?
It almost seems like you favor driving ALL religion underground.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
Oh pc25 you are one of those... my religion is the only real religion people.
Show me where I said that. I don't care what religion one follows. That's a personal decision. At the same time I do not want Big Brother legislating a law that tells ANY church that I may or may not belong to that they have to modify their church doctrine to conform to a law that the government LEGISLATED. You want religion out of your life fine, however by the same token the Government should enforce laws such as this that are in direct violation to that church's teaching. That is a very DANGEROUS precedent and Obama just shot himself in the foot over this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYg1ywwLoX4&feature=player_embedded
Matthews (even a broken clock has the right time 2 times a day) is right on the mark with this one.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
@Ouzel:
Read PC's comment at which I take offense:
"@tree, why don't you read the article
FTA
the birth-control rule abridges the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom."
Now come on. Would you let a liberal get away with such a blatantly obstinate comment? It's offensive to me and it should be offensive to you too. PC's a troll of the worst sort and my civility with him has been far more of a kindness than he deserves.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
So are you tree? I'm confused.
I think PC's comment was relevant.
Perhaps you'd like to patrol this thread and call out "publiclurker" on her comments?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
(sigh) So first off Ouzel, I'll agree. Publiclurker's comments in this sub are inane at best. And no, I'm not treehugger. I've never maintained more than one digg account at one time, and every account I've ever had employs nomenclature that makes it pretty clear who I am.
Having said that - PC25's comment presented an opinion in the article as if it was fact, striking a tone of incredulity that anyone would question a clearly controversial opinion rendered in the article when it's presented with the letters "FTA" in front of it. If a liberal did that you'd call them out for it in a heartbeat. And yes, such a blatant suspension of logic is offensive to me. And it would offend you if it were posed by a liberal.
SPATIALGUYFeb 9, 2012
Ouzel7... You are comparing a Catholic business not providing birth control to "honor killing"?
Hell yea I am...
I'm saying throughout history horrible and unspeakable things have done in the all in the name of religion.
Even now, honor killings are still taking place, Female genital mutilation is still being practiced,
Child marriage is still being allowed. It wasn't that long ago that children in America where being married off really young. It wasn't that long ago polygamy was an excepted practice in the name of religion.
u2canfailFeb 8, 2012
I agree, in this case they are simply an employer, and health insurance is supposed to be a benefit to employees. Any Catholic employee can simple not take the pill. They easily, if inclined can follow church mandates.
publiclurkerFeb 8, 2012
but that's not what they want. they want to force as many people down to their level as they can. One only need to look at how their kin the Taliban operated in Afghanistan. It's only the continuous work of everyone else that keeps the American version of these idiots in check.
jpurdyFeb 9, 2012
Interesting that those who are complaining about requirements for health care to cover birth control are the same people who would deny women the rights to privacy and their own health care.
miklkitFeb 9, 2012
That is precisely what Constitutional scholars are saying.
The catholic church is an employer and as such must comply with the same rules as every other employer.
This has nothing to do with religion.
markglFeb 9, 2012
LOL.
swiftwings88Feb 9, 2012
My wife doesn't use birth control. I know many Catholic women who do not.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
Exactly, insurance is an employee BENEFIT. The Government should no more be dictating the nature of that benefit than they should be defining what your compensation must be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chassupFeb 9, 2012
“The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it’s always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.”
Barack Hussein Obama, 1995
tomasiiFeb 9, 2012
Argue the merits of this all you want. Fact is, Obama stepped in it when he didn't have to and even several Democrats are backing away from this policy which seems like an attack on religion.
liberalstoogeFeb 9, 2012Submitter
I don't care what anybody says, I just know that this is the policy that is going to get the economy rolling again! 3% unemployment here we come!
KapsiotFeb 9, 2012
Obama really screwed the pooch on this one.
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012
The idea that it's bad for health insurances to have a minimum standard of service, because it contradicts someone's faith, is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in 2012 yet.
I appeal to religious people to be reasonable and let the president take welcomed birth control measures that will benefit the country's society, education and economy. You have no right to bring your faith to the table. It's a political measure with important, positive national health implications. Belong to as many religious cults as you want, but please stop interfering with your own society's progress!
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
You think its progress that a group of bureaucrats decides what insurance YOU pay for must cover, regardless of what coverage is appropriate for your life? My 88 year old grandma doesn't need contraceptive coverage. Forcing her to pay higher rates for the lifestyle choices of people that do isn't progress, its collectivism.
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012
Those "bureaucrats" are making laws for you (that barely affect the profitable business of health insurance - and I should know, I work in health technology), so that YOU can have better health standards, and so that YOU and YOUR FAMILY can enjoy having the freedom and choice to get contraception and gynecology/urology assistance as a precaution, and in case of emergency. You're not paying "higher rates", it's a needed standard when you live in a modern society.
How is this a BAD THING? Are you people completely INSANE? Did religious evangelism really exterminate the last remains of brain activity in your heads??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
Let me ask you a question about your auto insurance:
Does it re-reimburse you for monthly car washes to protect your car from salt damage? Does it pay for oil changes every 3,000 miles? No, it provides protection against major unexpected costs associated to damage to your vehicle due to accident.
So, if thats how you auto insurance works, and your home owners insurance, why would you expect your health insurance to pay for non-necessary lifestyle expenses like contraception? We've co-opted what insurance is supposed to be and inserted another layer of bureaucracy between us and our doctors and in cases like this it adds zero value, it only increases costs.
Perhaps you can explain to me the problem with people purchasing their own contraception if they want to use it. Its not like its somehow free, everyone with insurance ends up having that cost paid in their premiums, so ultimately all you're doing is forcing everyone to subsidize the cost for those that use it.
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012
"Perhaps you can explain to me the problem with people purchasing their own contraception if they want to use it."
The problem is, often, they won't, even when they should have. This leads to social problems in a much larger scale, more abortions, more teen pregnancy.
Fighting against this kind of measures decreases awareness about contraception, by making it a taboo (which is exactly what the church is trying to do, because they believe in multiplication and evangelization today, just like they always did). And you're falling for their bulls**t.
Contraception is a "non-necessary lifestyle expense"?
I'm done here. Your absolute trailer-trash ignorance is making my stomach sick.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 9, 2012
Many health insurance plans have offered coverage for preventive care long before the health care overhaul was passed, and they did so because it works. There's a very different dollar amount associated with the treatment of medical conditions that can go unchecked and develop into something much worse. Mandating preventive care is not something new that the government dreamed up, it was produced by the private sector.
With respect to contraception in particular, those of us with women in the house know that it's not uncommon to treat other conditions such as heavy acne, severe menstrual cramps and heavy periods with oral contraceptives.
As for your whining about how you don't want to pay for someone's birth control - if you're opposed to abortion then you should be the biggest fan of birth control on the planet. And even if you remove abortion from the equation, it's cheaper for you to pay for birth control than it is for pre- and postnatal care.
The only argument you have here is that you don't like people having sex without facing some kind of consequences for it, and the rest of us really don't care.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grannysrightFeb 9, 2012
This has nothing to do with politics other than for Obama. This has to do with church rights, and if the government can tell the church what they can do then the church can tell the government what they can do with it.
Separation of church and state should cover it all.
Closed AccountFeb 9, 2012
yeah...i dont want it. there are entire regions in canda w/o access to a lifeflight chopper. if that is due to hhs i'll say no thanks. i realize i might never need it but i would rather have an not need than need and not have.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
The better question is why I, as a man, am being forced to buy insurance that covers
lifestyle choices that I don't need (I have no need of contraception or maternity coverage).
icwydFeb 9, 2012
Because that's the way insurance is supposed to work. If it didn't then nothing would be covered.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
Does your auto insurance pay for routine oil changes or car washes? No, it insures against unexpected loss, not routine expenses.
icwydFeb 9, 2012
Contraceptives are not just used for contraceptives. I would not expect you to understand that.
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012
Obama: "I passed a law that raises healthcare standards and will, over time, reduce teen pregnancy and abortions in America!"
Christian Right: "But... if abortions are reduced, then what will we blame the liberals for??? WHY ISN'T THE PRESIDENT ASKING THE CHURCH'S PERMISSION BEFORE MAKING A DECISION??? BLASPHEMY! You will hear from our lawyers!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dumprunFeb 9, 2012
Before Catholics take on modern inventions like birth control. They should go on a rampage to stop all their parishioners from masturbating. I don't know why people are shamed into giving them money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
I find myself wondering if there is the existence of Muslim insurance and if said insurance must cover free birth control. Ditto, the Amish.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
So if my religion only believes in prayer healing, can I hire people and promise health care as part of their compensation, then when someone gets sick tell them the only thing I'll cover is prayer?
If so I think I just stumbled onto my early retirement plan.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
That would be called "offering no health insurance benefits"... at least the Catholics offer health insurance benefits ... they just don't offer free birth control as it is and HAS ALWAYS BEEN against their church teaching.
Make no mistake. This is something new that the Administration is doing after we were all assured that no.."Obamacare wouldn't force religious organizations to do anything against their beliefs."
And this is why many people are skeptical of EVERYTHING that comes out of DC.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
You sound awful dismissive of my fictional religion. So how do we decide which religion gets to impose its rules and which ones don't? And while we're at it why should we stop at birth control? The HPV vaccine is only appropriate when a woman becomes sexually active. Should the church refuse to cover vaccination for unmarried women in the office, as the church doesn't believe in premarital sex? For that matter shouldn't all reproductive health treatment be denied to unmarried employees? And what about divorce? The only way the Catholic church recognizes a divorce is if the marriage gets annulled - a procedure that by the way makes Washington bureaucracy look simple by comparison. So if I take a job working for my local diocese, get divorced, and then remarry... can my employer refuse to cover my new wife until I properly get my previous marriage annulled?
For a group of people who were awful pissed off about the spectre of the government controlling their health care, the right seems to be just fine with the church controlling it.
As for the perceived bait-and-switch: the Obama administration isn't the group that classified birth control as preventive care. That would be the Institute of Medicine. Perhaps the Catholic church should take it up with them since they apparently know more about the medical field.
Ouzel7Feb 8, 2012
A virtual army of strawmen!
TGRHvWGAFFeb 8, 2012
For every rule the Catholic church has there's a perfectly valid question of whether or not they should be able to enforce that rule on their employees the same way they want to enforce this one. And lemme tell ya, those bitches have an awful lot of rules.
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012
The idea that it's bad for health insurances to have a minimum standard of service, because it contradicts someone's faith, is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in 2012 yet.
I appeal to religious people to be reasonable and let the president take welcomed birth control measures that will benefit the country's society, education and economy. You have no right to bring your faith to the table. It's a political measure with important, positive national health implications. Belong to as many religious cults as you want, but please stop interfering with your own society's progress!
swiftwings88Feb 9, 2012
It's not a minimum standard of service at all. It's basically asking the Church to participate in a business it conceives as a grave moral wrong. This is about the rights of Americans versus the mandate of the government. I'm constantly surprised at how the usually libertarian Diggers come down on this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012
How are they "asking the church to"?? This is healthcare law, it has nothing to do with church. They didn't ask the church's opinion on this, and they're not welcome to give it, because ...IT'S THE CHURCH!!! And church isn't supposed to open their mouth when it comes to politics. AT ALL. EVER. It's called "separation of church and state", and it exists for a very good reason - to avoid repeating the same mistakes of the dark ages.
This is about the right of Americans (and any developed country) to health standards VS the church, getting up everyone's asses, as usual.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
SPATIALGUYFeb 10, 2012
Another trumped up non issue by the GOP. I can't believe congress is wasting all this time on this non issue... This is exactly like the Debt Crisis, sure we had the issue of a debt problem but then the GOP made it a national crisis out of it, they took us to the brink and caused the US to have its credit rating dropped. What good did it do? nothing!
Now we have a Birth control issue.... Are you freaking kidding me.
We have really major problems that need to be solved and the GOP is having a conniption fit about the pill. What a bunch of political pukes.
The GOP kicked and screamed for years, decades...about gays in the military... really??? A lesbian can't shoot a gun or something. A Gay guy can't wage war? Stupid!
Then we had congress wrapped up in steroids in baseball... WTF! Tell me why I could care about that.
Then we had the healthcare problem... The us had a chance to finally fix healthcare so everybody that wanted it could have it for free. But no, there were Death Panels, Kill grandma, and Government takeover of your healthcare.
So it got watered down to something that isn't worth a s**t... something that most people will find is ineffective at giving people free access to healthcare.
Thanks GOP for taking that away.
defeasto1Feb 9, 2012
oh