politicususa.com— On Meet The Press, Rachel Maddow debunked the Republican claim that Obama has declared war on religion and exposed the secret conservative agenda against contraception.
Feb 5, 2012View in Crawl 4
Exactly. It amazes how the church thinks it can participate in the market, and claim it doesn't have to play by the same rules as everybody else, based upon religious dogma. To the contrary. The church has declared war on societal norms, Constitutional values, and free market rules which are secular in a capitalist society.
Follow your logic through. Force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives and they will dismantle their entire Hospital system which 1 in 6 Americans rely on for care. Good job, you really did something to help the people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
If someone chooses to go to a Catholic business, they agree by the terms of service. Thats how agreements work. To outlaw a practice of business is bulls**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
they are free to be a church. its when they stop being a church and start being an insurance provider that they have to follow the rules of being an insurance provider.
They are providing a service that does not include contraception.
If someone wants to buy that service they should not be stopped by force of law.
It was ridiculous and unnecessary.
There is a simple mechanism to not have to deal with this situation. Dont enter into an agreement and dont buy services from an organization you dont agree with.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
if they want to be an insurance provider they need to follow the rules of being one.
no one is forcing their members to use or get the contraception. If that's their worry, then they need to preach harder or whatever it is that catholics do to brainwash their members to keep them following their rules.
If we were to accept your thesis, it would blaze a path toward eliminating religious freedom in the U.S. since religious institutions would only need to go on a commercial buying spree to force their narrow social views on U.S. society. Given the Catholic Church's history in Europe, Americans would be correct in repudiating their position on this healthcare issue.
As an American who values religious freedom, I could NEVER support the theory that merging religion and commerce justifies imposing one's religious/social beliefs on those who do NOT share them. If the Catholic Church or any other religious healthcare organization refuses to abide by U.S. healthcare guidelines/practices, then they need to sell their healthcare facilities and get out of the business entirely.
Religious dogma does NOT trump ANY American's right to access ALL healthcare services.
P.S. Rachel DESERVES a standing ovation (and has my gratitude) for putting Alex Castellanos AND David Brooks in their place on this issue. THEY were wrong, SHE was right.
Rachel Maddow is an idiot (she's just the Rush Limbaugh of the Left), and Laborer is right: nobody's holding a gun to anybody's head and telling them that they can't buy birth control. The Catholic Church is not "imposing" anything on anybody. It simply wants the right to offer health insurance packages to its employees on terms that don't violate Catholic conscience. They want the freedom to offer a plan to its potential employees and the freedom for those potential employees decide whether or not they agree to the terms offered.
You people don't seem to realize that this mandate is targeting all Catholic employers, not just Catholic healthcare providers. Any Catholic employer (like, say, a Catholic university) would be required to offer an insurance plan to its employees that includes coverage for birth control.
Why is it so evil to allow a group of people who find that objectionable to offer an alternative compensation package if the employees agree to it? Why do we need the government to step in and demand that nobody has the freedom to offer or receive any other kind of insurance plan?
"No one forces people to buy from a certain business."
Really? Since you're blithely unaware, most communities limit the number of hospital beds available. If the majority or ONLY hospital(s) available have Catholic affiliations, one's HEALTHCARE choices are LIMITED.
IF we're talking about health insurance providers, take a good look at the SMALL number of insurance providers.
Choice is an illusion in healthcare, much like politics. Speaking of choice, patients aren't the ONLY people who have it. Catholic institutions are NOT required to provide healthcare services OR insurance EITHER. THAT is a privilege, society affords the Catholic Church.
@pinkfish411,
The Catholic Church is free to practice it's religion in the U.S. However, it is NOT entitled to force it's social beliefs on others. You'll notice I said SOCIAL, not religious, beliefs because that is PRECISELY what their views on women's healthcare choices amount to in this country.
I take particular affront to their positions on womens healthcare because I've personally witnessed how much poverty and suffering their social policies create in Central/South America. Instead of alleviating that poverty and suffering, the Vatican condones it, uses it for political purposes and does precious little to alleviate the conditions. THAT'S why millions of people stream into the U.S. FROM that region of the world. The Vatican hopes to use those "Catholic votes" to control/manipulate the U.S. It's NO coincidence we're watching the Catholic Church attempt to exert FAR more influence in this country than in the past.
I would agree with you on this: anyone (including the Catholic Church) can (and will) sell you whatever crap they think they can get away with.
However... when you call that crap "insurance", it must meet a minimum standard.
Remember those mortgage bonds that were rated "AAA" by their insurers, but didn't meet the standard? Do you still think outlawing non-standard insurance practices is bulls**t? Really?
Yeah... this is way over your head. I'm wasting my time with you.
Every time I've been offered insurance as part of a compensation package, I've been able to look at the policy documents and see what all is covered. I fail to see how offering a package that doesn't cover contraception is anything at all like deliberately lying.
We've had different insurance plans that cover different things forever. Why are Americans suddenly to stupid to read a policy and agree to what it covers before they sign up?
It wouldn't have been necessary it it weren't for those greedy-bastards denying coverage through a maze of "agreements".
You are making arguments as if health insurance is a free market. Health insurance is no longer a free market, in part to end this bulls**t about what's covered and what isn't.
Mostly they are just waiting for corporations to buy them out anyways. Most of the catholic hospitals I knew of as a kid are long since in the hands of big business.
By "participate in the market" I assume you mean provide an essential service with, objectively measured, some of the best outcomes at the lowest cost per patient because they operate as a non-profit or not-for-profit profit?
There's all sorts of things going on in this country, every day, where people are being forced to financially support the religious beliefs of others. This is not new.
Think about the tax exempt status of religious organizations, for example. They don't pay taxes, and the taxes that they don't pay come out of the pockets of every other tax paying citizen or corporation. If you are a member of a religion other than mine, you are subsidizing my religion through your tax dollars, even if my religion includes aspects that you strongly disagree with, and I likewise am subsidizing your religion . Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it is what we've always done in this country.
In the same way, taxpayers are forced to subsidize members of the military who function as chaplains for service members of various faiths.
Some religions do not believe in medical care at all. Yet anyone who believes in these religion is subsidizing, with their tax dollars, all sorts of government medical programs.
And yet here we have one religion crying over having to pay for contraception because it goes against their beliefs. It seems disingenuous, at best, when they do this and are silent on all of these other issues. Oh, well, perhaps its because usually the money we're all forced to contribute is more often in line with their beliefs than not. Were it to go away, their religion would suffer more than the rest of us. So yes, we should end all forced subsidies of religion and see how they like it.
She said nothing. Her argument is incoherrent. She doesn't even understand the debate. She is blinded by love... of abortion. (and she's bitter that she wasn't asked to the prom)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Unless there's very compelling reason, freedom of conscience should trump this kind of regulation. If the regulation isn't capable of accommodating principled dissent, then it's badly written and does more harm than good.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
so all church run and owned busineses are allowed to ignore any law they want as long as they can claim it's against their religion?
what a convenient way to skirt any law you want.
some interpretations of the Koran say that they should kill all non-muslims if they cant convert them. does that mean that if they opened a business, lets say a security guard company, that that would be legal, since thats what their interpretation of their religion says? Or is this just another one of those hypocritical "Freedom of Religion, as long as it's mine" type of things?
(used muslims as an example that RWNJ's would understand.)
no one is infringing on their religion. Following the rules of being an insurance provider and making something available to everyone isnt the same as forcing everyone to do it.
if it's against their religion to use contraception, THEY DONT NEED TO GET OR USE IT. Having it available isnt the same as forcing it down their throats.
BUT having the church dictate that since it is a church that happens to run an insurance provider so they dont have to follow the LAWS OF THE LAND is THEM dictating and infringing on other people's rights.
which part of that is so hard for you brainwashed cultists to understand?
The most hilarious aspect of all politicususa submittals is how substantive and informative they believe they are, yet are invisible to everyone but those on digg who have to actually go to the trouble of burying the article or wade past the nonsense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
What's really sad is that people don't get what this is really about. Its a horrible gaffe on Obama's part, to favor a faction that demands contraception pills issued on demand, for free and at taxpayers expense, over Catholic church doctrine. Its the gov't abrogating separation of church and state by imposing a pimphand mandate upon the Catholic church infrastructure.
The Republicans are stupid, and now are seizing this issue as an "attack on religion" and Maddow is more than happy to go along with their stupidity by acknowledging their faux "issue". This will succeed in confusing Catholics voters. They won't be able to see the connection between free contraception and "attack on Christianity" and then will "conclude" there is no issue, only Republican babbling.
The smart thing to do would be to not oversimplify and distort the issue in the misguided attempt trigger the "fear" reaction in their base. Their base already hates and is terrified by Obama and the federal gov't. The Republicans should just point out that Obama's administration is violating separation of church and state doctrine, which will piss off the Libertarians and Constitutionalists, AND THEN use superpac money to quietly and directly target large, Catholic voting populations. The Catholic church can't do it themselves, but will appreciate the help (if properly done). Then Obama can do the double-take when he loses a state's electoral votes that he was counting on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
But it is the point. The catholic church is a bunch of bitchy men who want to push their will on everybody else. Even stupid people today are tired of it and do what they want even though they "go to church" on Sunday. Churches in general, and especially the Catholic church, are losing the younger generation and they are scared as hell.
So how do they get control. They get the older generation to make laws for the younger one hindering and forbidding.
I am actually for not requiring them to supply birth control and letting more and more flee from the churches.
1) Its about separation of church and state, not whether mandated access to contraception through church organizations is good.
2) Who gives a rats ass if the Catholic church is a bunch of bitchy male dictators? They don't get to pass laws. If you don't agree with it, don't be a Catholic!
3) The purpose of US gov't is not to establish a mob ruled utopia. Move to France, if that is your thing.
1. A hospital is not a church organization. It is a business that hires many people, most of whom probably do not belong to that church. They are required to get a business license like any other business. Hence they must conform to minimum societal regulations for businesses.
Repeat. A hospital in no a church.
2. I do. The church has much money to buy votes (admittedly much less since they decided to let priests diddle little boys and got caught). They try to pass laws that adversely effect me and my family.
3. Just sounds a bit paranoid to me. Again the setting of minimum standards and regulations for a government recognized limited liability entity.
4. I know a lot of catholics I like just fine. They tend to not listen to the anti over populate the earth rhetoric. I think the catholic church pretty much makes asses of themselves but as long as they keep it to themselves I'm fine with it.
Shhhh! You're this close to revealing that most Catholic women ignore the Church's teachings and are, in fact, not virgins when they first marry, which would cause the heads of some people reading this to explode were it to become known.
Though to be fair I'd rather pay for someones birth control then for their many children via welfare and other supportive services. Or maybe we should eliminate welfare to... in which case we would have a massive crime wave of the likes we haven't imagined in this country... which would actually cost even more.
Every dollar spent at Wendy's has always meant that Dave Thomas (before he passed) or his heirs would have more money to donate to Planned Parenthood. I disagree with PP's pro-abortion mission, but I can't really complain if I eat at Wendy's. That's called freedom - we all get to make choices, and Catholic institutions are just as entitled to follow their consciences - if you really support contraception that much, donate to a clinic.
I love how politicususa headlines always over emphasize the importance of their stories. Maddow didn't debunk s**t, he just touts the usual progressive, in the tank for Obama, talking points.
I agree. I'm a liberal, and I think politicususa is crazy. Rachel Maddow is always "laying waste" to this or "obliterating" that. Pffft, she's just preaching to the choir, like every other show host on MSNBC and FoxNews.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You see this is the problem with american politics, Rachel Maddow attempts to make a reasoned argument based on facts that she researched (Being someone who respects being factual) and you write it off as "Talking points" then proceed to spout off your talking points, Oh thats just the same old liberal obama mumbo jumbo.
Yeah whatever.
Thanks to Obama's continuous gaffes and assaults on protected religious freedoms, he drives more and more people to the polls for Republicans.
Unfortunately for the administration, it's not just the GOP which is claiming that they've declared war on religion, it's the churches themselves. And in an election year that'll spell trouble. You wonder whose advising the WH sometimes when they do this kind of boneheaded s**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Exactly. This isn't a GOP thing. I know a lot of liberal, Democrat-voting Catholics who are pissed off about this and may not be voting for Obama because of it.
One simple answer... employers do provide what you mentioned - by proxy... it's a thing they call money, cash, moolah! By paying a certain wage, they are providing the means for the employee to get those things you said.
So did slave masters in the South. And mining and steel companies by marking up the prices at their company stores. Are you really suggesting your employer has a claim to you and your property since they pay your bills? Please refrain from voting in November.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Why do the vast majority of people work for a wage? So they can purchase the exact things you are saying the company isn't providing. I think most Americans like to have some say in how they spend the money they earn, but if you don't think a major part of what they earn goes towards food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their family, you are in some sort of lala land. Hence, the company is providing you the means to get exactly what you say they aren't providing. If they didn't, it would be very difficult for you to get those things.
And did you somehow try to equate my comment to slave owners? Well that deserves a big old F@*K YOU. How in the hell do you get from someone working in our current society, and being paid a wage, to slave owners? Only in some really messed up mind could that happen.
Where the hell did I ever say the employer lays any sort of claim to you or your property? You really went off the deep end with your comment.
You need some serious reading comprehension skills, and a big dose of grow the hell up.
I do believe that you are the one who said everything is provided to you by proxy. By your "outrage", obviously you think being paid a day's wage for a day's work means the money is yours, not your employers. That also means your employer has no further monetary or moral obligations to you, dipsh*t.
I'll assume you are not advocating for not having any health insurance through employers at all (I could be wrong there, but I'll work off that). There are plenty of things that are provided for through the group health insurance from a company that I will never be able to use, but just because I am not a female does not mean that I don't think they should be allowed to have the same level of access to medical care as I would get for things they would never use, but a man would.
Insurance, taxes... there are various things that most people pay into, that they don't get full measure recompense for, but it is understood that these things are there for everyone's benefit.
The religious employers your are trying to protect so mightily, are engaged in the business, secular, public side of things, not the religious, and as such, should play by the same rules as everyone else that are in that same business. Too damn bad they don't like the rules. They try to hide behind their religion when it serves them - to say they don't have to do things like everyone else because of their religion, but then try to tell everyone else that we need to play by their rules when it comes to other things. If they consider something a sin in their religion, then no one should be allowed to do that, even if they aren't a part of that religion - to that I say they can go take a flying leap.
It is insane how many people defend a religion saying they shouldn't have to provide contraceptives to employees as part of their insurance, because it is against their specific beliefs, and how dare we infringe on their religion - but then also say that no one else should be allowed to have an abortion, because, according to their specific beliefs, it is wrong. Where did their defense of beliefs, or the lack thereof go suddenly?
Oh, that's right, it is just one of the huge hypocrisies that are perpetrated by hiding behind the veil of religion.
"Let me do as I want! Don't infringe on my rights... and while we are at it, let me tell you how you should live!"
My comment was in response to your moronic comment about the employer providing things "by proxy." I was merely stating that I see no reason that birth control could not be handled the same was a food - the employer does not directly contribute toward it, they just hand you your paycheck that you can spend however you like.
The thing your more recent and even dumber comment failed to grasp is that hospitals and schools are not some randomly chosen businesses that churches operate. They are part of the churches' mission to care for the sick and educate their young with both traditional academic subjects, and with the principles and beliefs of the church. If they were in the "businesses" to make money, why wouldn't they operate banks or something more lucrative? Instead both schools and hospitals are almost always non-profit or not-for-profit.
How many of her op eds have exploded in her face at this point? I lost count after about the 20th incident... What can I say... I ran out of toes to count on... :PComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Forcing a Catholic organization to pay for contraceptives is like forcing Jews and Muslims to pay for pork.
The hypocrisy of liberals here is astonishing. They defend to the death the right of others to freely practice their own personal moral code (e.g. homosexuality) and want to force Catholics to pay for something they consider morally offensive.
So defending homosexuals from having to forcibly change their morals = good, but forcing Catholics to violate their morals = enlightened and progressive?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Forcing a Catholic organization to pay for contraceptives is like forcing Jews and Muslims to pay for pork."
No-one is forcing the Catholic church into the health insurance business.
Insurance is a regulated industry. The Catholic Church can easily get out of an industry that they don't agree with.
Whether you like it or not, contraception is part of health care. Your argument is akin to Muslims and Jews running a pork store, then bitching and moaning when someone comes to by product.
No, contraception is not part of health care; contraception is a gov't mandated health care.
I have zero problems requiring health care providers to issue contraception medication to deal with a medical condition. But birth control pills in most cases do not prevent death or illness. Its as required for health care subsidization as cosmetic surgery.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I completely disagree, and so would women that take birth control for these reasons (not related to pregnancy):
Reduced Acne -
The hormones contained in birth control pills can also clear up the skin. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals reported that in one study, up to 95 percent of women taking birth control pills noticed a significant decrease in their acne. According to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, this may only be true for certain brands. Progesterone concentration tends to be the determining factor, as those with higher levels are more effective at reducing acne.
Fewer PMS Symptoms -
The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals reports that the hormones in birth control pills also decrease many of the symptoms of PMS (premenstrual syndrome). This includes breast tenderness, bloating and weight gain. In fact, it has been prescribed for this purpose (in addition to pregnancy prevention) for more than 40 years.
Lower Risk of Certain Cancers -
According to the Human Reproduction Update, the risks of many types of cancers are lower in people who take birth control pills. Ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer and colorectal cancer risks are all reduced in women who use oral contraceptives, especially those containing estrogen.
Decreased Endometriosis Symptoms -
Endometriosis is a painful condition that causes growth of uterine lining outside of the uterus. Birth control pills not only decrease some of the side effects of endometriosis, such as dysmenorrhea, but, according to the Human Reproduction Update, they can also reduce the rate of endometrial cell proliferation. In other words, they can decrease the tissue formation outside the uterine walls. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals report that up to 80 percent of women with endometriosis found birth control pills significantly reduced their symptoms.
References :
- American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
- Oxford Journals Human Reproductive Update
- Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
I have zero objections to requiring the Catholic church to provide contraception drugs for those medical conditions. (I have stated this elsewhere.)
My objection is forcing the Catholic run institutions to provide FREE contraception for the sole purpose of preventing pregnancy. If its not directly addressing a health issue, then it has the same urgency and relevance as cosmetic surgery. If the rationale for forcing the Catholic church to subsidize contraception drugs is "we call it health care, and we think it gives desirable results", then at some point, you will give gov't the power to tax people to pay for cosmetic surgery, or mandatory mind-altering medication.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
No, they can't get out of it easily. The only way to get out of it is to stop running Catholic institutions altogether--ANY institution, even ones that are not directly tied to healthcare services--because they're going to be required to cover contraception for all their employees. It's more like Jews or Muslims running a financial services company and being forced to give out hams every Christmas.
Catholic institutions are free to operate healthcare facilities in the U.S. as long as they're willing to operate them in a secular fashion and in accordance with what U.S. society deems appropriate. If this offends the Vatican, then it needs to limit the scope of it's operations in the U.S. to churches and meeting spiritual needs.
Political over-reach by the Catholic Church has been a longstanding problem throughout the world and it's why this country opposed/addressed the issue long ago. That past history is why the country's founders instituted "religious freedom" and "separation of church and state" to begin with.
Healthcare services and religion do not have the same rights and privileges in American society.
The thing is, "society" is not unanimous in deeming this appropriate. Catholics are part of society too (it's not "the Vatican" that's offended here), as are us non-Catholics who disapprove of government overreach into private matters.
Catholics and other will push back against this, and if there's enough pushback, it'll get changed. That's how we go about seeing what our society deems appropriate in this country. The passing of a law is never the final word.
And freedom of conscience is vastly MORE important than subsidized healthcare. It's one of the core tenets on which this country was founded. I don't throw around this accusation lightly or very often, but anyone who doesn't value freedom of conscience is anti-American to the extreme.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It's not about Catholic institutions "in the insurance business." It's about Catholic institutions of whatever sort having to make sure that the insurance plans they provide for their employees cover contraception.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
like i said, if they want to be an insurance provider, then they have to follow the rules of all of the other insurance providers in the country. just because they are a church, that doesnt give them free reign to disregard any laws that they decide they disagree with.
if they dont want to follow the rules of being an insurance provider, then they can stop providing it and offer their employees insurance from a provider that isnt them.
What aren't you understanding? The mandate is that any insurance that is offered to their employees has to cover contraception. That's the issue. The Catholic institutions don't want to be forced to pay for healthcare that includes contraception coverage. This isn't about Catholic insurance companies. This is about any Catholic institution and the healthcare plans that they're required to purchase for their employees.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
just because it's offered, that doesnt mean they have to get it. if this is just about the fact that it would be available (not forced to be used) to church members, then the church needs to work harder at controlling how it's members think.
the mandate is to offer it, not to force them to use it.
but which part of "if you offer insurance, you must offer these things that every insurance provider offers" dont you get?
They're required to pay for insurance plans that cover birth control, and that violates their consciences, and that's the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter one bit whether you think it's silly of them to be offended or not--that's what freedom of conscience means, respecting someone else's conscience even when you don't agree, unless you have a very compelling reason to override their conscience.
What is the compelling reason to force them to pay for a service to be offered? Why not leave that up to the employers and the employees to decide for themselves?
Idiots like you actually talk like it would be better off if the Catholic employers weren't even to provide people with jobs and health coverage to anyone than it would be to allow them to freely set enter into contracts with the people who freely elect to work for them. You're a f**king tyrant, and it terrifies me to think that people like you are actually out there casting votes in my country.
Clearly you don't understand insurance. People pay for their insurance out of their pocket. Then as covered expenses occur the Ins Company reaches into the pool of money paid into to it to cover expenses. So the person who is asking for contraception reimbursement from their Ins Co has already put money into this pool for this purpose.
Also this isn't about forcing the Catholic church to day anything. It's just saying that if the Catholic church chooses to provide insurance to *it's employees* then that insurance needs to meet a minimum standard. If the church wishes not to pay for contraception they could offer health insurance through another means.
"... is like forcing Jews and Muslims to pay for pork..." no more then it is forcing the Catholic Church to buy steaks every Friday during Lent.
I am certain that through food banks and shelters Muslims and Jews pay for pork all of the time. Allowing other people to make decisions for them self should not be against any religion.
Did "Liberals" (or anyone else) force the Catholic Church to provide healthcare services? No? Then quit whining after the Catholic Church attempted to use it's religious beliefs as the basis for denying healthcare services.
If the Catholic Church doesn't wish to abide by U.S. healthcare standards, then it doesn't need to be in the business of providing them. Religion and healthcare are not under the same "freedom of religion umbrella". So, stop assuming they are.
wow so the government telling churches they must cover contraception even though its against their religion is not a war on religious liberty. Wow do you even know the world exists RachelComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wow, so religions telling others how they should be allowed to live their life, even though they don't believe in that religion, is not a war on freedom. Wow do you even know what the hell you are saying kcast?
I voted for Obama but if this goes unchanged before the election, I cant in good conscience vote for him again.
If you take the religious aspect out of it it is still very much an affront to our personal freedoms not just to religious institutions. Whatever you think of them, these large religious institutions and services - are alternatives, employment by, attendance by, services used by, all choice.
People are letting their own personal feelings for another party or institution get in the way of looking at this objectively. We wouldn't tolerate his type of intrusion into other institutions or services.
Imagine if to be "fair" the government passes regulations to support open or low cost access to the internet for everyone. Sounds great but just to be an ISP this base service MUST be at the core of all your other additional services AND it must follow these regulations. No choice. All that stuff they've been doing quietly in secret closets at your ISP anyway, legitimized. Plus some new twits because you know, the government just can't help itself.
Now imagine all the crap they won't want you to have access to, will limit you to, editorialize, etc... all for the good of the public. I hate to say it cause I cringe every time a right wing nut job cries Socialism but this IS Socialism. By giving "access" we're limiting choice and the freedom that comes with it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The Obama administration did overstep its bounds, and Republicans are making a big deal out of it.
If someone chooses to go to a Catholic business, they agree by the terms of service. Thats how agreements work. To outlaw a practice of business is bulls**t, not even taking into consideration the obvious animosity the secular Democrats have to religion.
This coming from an atheist who is himself disgusted by the evangelical practices common in America. But I wouldnt make a law from my past experiences with pushy religious people. Thats not good leadership.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Then what does it mean? Its understood that the gov't doesn't adopt a state religion, and its understood that the gov't does not dictate religious doctrine to other churches.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
First of all, they are not dictating religious doctrine. If Catholic people don't want to use contraception they don't have to (although 98% of Catholics do).
The church has to follow the same laws as everyone else, they are not above the law.
1) Apparently, you cannot define the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, but like an arrogant MORON, you'll claim I am wrong in stating HHS's mandate violates the principle.
2) Its well known that the Catholic leader has proclaimed that taking drugs for the intention of preventing pregnancy is a sin, and against Church teachings. The gov't is now forcing Catholic not-for-profit organizations ("Catholic Charities" and Churches) and Catholic run hospitals and clinics to PROVIDE, at subsidized or NO cost, the very instrument of "evil" their doctrine rejects!
3) The gov't has to follow the same laws TOO! (except when its insider trading, workplace sex harrassment, etc.) The federal gov't tried to say that EEOC law applied to the Church, when picking church leaders. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC) ALL 9 SCJs told the federal gov't to get lost. (I know, ridiculous, the Chinese gov't feels the same way!) The gov't has no business telling a religious organization to do something that violates its religious doctrine; particularly when someone's life is NOT at stake.
skews13Feb 5, 2012
Exactly. It amazes how the church thinks it can participate in the market, and claim it doesn't have to play by the same rules as everybody else, based upon religious dogma. To the contrary. The church has declared war on societal norms, Constitutional values, and free market rules which are secular in a capitalist society.
falcon642Feb 6, 2012
Follow your logic through. Force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives and they will dismantle their entire Hospital system which 1 in 6 Americans rely on for care. Good job, you really did something to help the people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
"Force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives and they will dismantle their entire Hospital system".
that sounds like a logical conclusion. if you think they're actually going to do that, you are pretty gullible indeed.
laborerFeb 6, 2012
If someone chooses to go to a Catholic business, they agree by the terms of service. Thats how agreements work. To outlaw a practice of business is bulls**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
they are free to be a church. its when they stop being a church and start being an insurance provider that they have to follow the rules of being an insurance provider.
laborerFeb 7, 2012
They are providing a service that does not include contraception.
If someone wants to buy that service they should not be stopped by force of law.
It was ridiculous and unnecessary.
There is a simple mechanism to not have to deal with this situation. Dont enter into an agreement and dont buy services from an organization you dont agree with.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 7, 2012
if they want to be an insurance provider they need to follow the rules of being one.
no one is forcing their members to use or get the contraception. If that's their worry, then they need to preach harder or whatever it is that catholics do to brainwash their members to keep them following their rules.
eraptorFeb 6, 2012
@laborer,
If we were to accept your thesis, it would blaze a path toward eliminating religious freedom in the U.S. since religious institutions would only need to go on a commercial buying spree to force their narrow social views on U.S. society. Given the Catholic Church's history in Europe, Americans would be correct in repudiating their position on this healthcare issue.
As an American who values religious freedom, I could NEVER support the theory that merging religion and commerce justifies imposing one's religious/social beliefs on those who do NOT share them. If the Catholic Church or any other religious healthcare organization refuses to abide by U.S. healthcare guidelines/practices, then they need to sell their healthcare facilities and get out of the business entirely.
Religious dogma does NOT trump ANY American's right to access ALL healthcare services.
P.S. Rachel DESERVES a standing ovation (and has my gratitude) for putting Alex Castellanos AND David Brooks in their place on this issue. THEY were wrong, SHE was right.
laborerFeb 7, 2012
Sorry.
No one forces people to buy from a certain business.
Its called free will and contractual obligations. They provide a certain type of business, and people get to decide if they want it or not.
Simple as that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012
Rachel Maddow is an idiot (she's just the Rush Limbaugh of the Left), and Laborer is right: nobody's holding a gun to anybody's head and telling them that they can't buy birth control. The Catholic Church is not "imposing" anything on anybody. It simply wants the right to offer health insurance packages to its employees on terms that don't violate Catholic conscience. They want the freedom to offer a plan to its potential employees and the freedom for those potential employees decide whether or not they agree to the terms offered.
You people don't seem to realize that this mandate is targeting all Catholic employers, not just Catholic healthcare providers. Any Catholic employer (like, say, a Catholic university) would be required to offer an insurance plan to its employees that includes coverage for birth control.
Why is it so evil to allow a group of people who find that objectionable to offer an alternative compensation package if the employees agree to it? Why do we need the government to step in and demand that nobody has the freedom to offer or receive any other kind of insurance plan?
eraptorFeb 8, 2012
@laborer,
You're free to be as wrong as you want.
As proof:
"No one forces people to buy from a certain business."
Really? Since you're blithely unaware, most communities limit the number of hospital beds available. If the majority or ONLY hospital(s) available have Catholic affiliations, one's HEALTHCARE choices are LIMITED.
IF we're talking about health insurance providers, take a good look at the SMALL number of insurance providers.
Choice is an illusion in healthcare, much like politics. Speaking of choice, patients aren't the ONLY people who have it. Catholic institutions are NOT required to provide healthcare services OR insurance EITHER. THAT is a privilege, society affords the Catholic Church.
@pinkfish411,
The Catholic Church is free to practice it's religion in the U.S. However, it is NOT entitled to force it's social beliefs on others. You'll notice I said SOCIAL, not religious, beliefs because that is PRECISELY what their views on women's healthcare choices amount to in this country.
I take particular affront to their positions on womens healthcare because I've personally witnessed how much poverty and suffering their social policies create in Central/South America. Instead of alleviating that poverty and suffering, the Vatican condones it, uses it for political purposes and does precious little to alleviate the conditions. THAT'S why millions of people stream into the U.S. FROM that region of the world. The Vatican hopes to use those "Catholic votes" to control/manipulate the U.S. It's NO coincidence we're watching the Catholic Church attempt to exert FAR more influence in this country than in the past.
californicatorFeb 7, 2012
@laborer
I would agree with you on this: anyone (including the Catholic Church) can (and will) sell you whatever crap they think they can get away with.
However... when you call that crap "insurance", it must meet a minimum standard.
Remember those mortgage bonds that were rated "AAA" by their insurers, but didn't meet the standard? Do you still think outlawing non-standard insurance practices is bulls**t? Really?
Yeah... this is way over your head. I'm wasting my time with you.
laborerFeb 7, 2012
Your 'correlation' between a health services package and mislabeled junk mortgages jumps the logical equivalent of the Valles Marineris.
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012
Every time I've been offered insurance as part of a compensation package, I've been able to look at the policy documents and see what all is covered. I fail to see how offering a package that doesn't cover contraception is anything at all like deliberately lying.
We've had different insurance plans that cover different things forever. Why are Americans suddenly to stupid to read a policy and agree to what it covers before they sign up?
californicatorFeb 7, 2012
It's called "Regulation". Get used to it.
It wouldn't have been necessary it it weren't for those greedy-bastards denying coverage through a maze of "agreements".
You are making arguments as if health insurance is a free market. Health insurance is no longer a free market, in part to end this bulls**t about what's covered and what isn't.
penglustFeb 6, 2012
Mostly they are just waiting for corporations to buy them out anyways. Most of the catholic hospitals I knew of as a kid are long since in the hands of big business.
americanblarneyFeb 7, 2012
By "participate in the market" I assume you mean provide an essential service with, objectively measured, some of the best outcomes at the lowest cost per patient because they operate as a non-profit or not-for-profit profit?
californicatorFeb 6, 2012
If the Catholic Church gets away with this B.S., I'm gonna set up "The Church of Christ, Scientist Insurance Company".
I wouldn't have to give any medical treatment to anyone, as it would be against my religion.
I'd make a ton; I just need to find some Church of Christ, Scientist fools to buy my crap insurance...
californicatorFeb 6, 2012
Then, I'm gonna setup "Amish Car Insurance, Inc."
Any takers?
laborerFeb 7, 2012
True, you could start one.
And no one would buy your service.
Just as people dont have to buy any service they dont agree with.
Its not governments job to decide what all services should be included in a certain business package.
Thats up to to the free will of consumers and producers, not the whim and fancy of some nanny state.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
damndjFeb 6, 2012
Never try to get one past Maddow. She will make you look like a fool.
californicatorFeb 6, 2012
The best part of this video is watching Castellanos realize his B.S. argument just got knee-capped.
After the exchange with Maddow, Castellanos looks like he bit into a s**t sandwich.
Way to go, girl!
americanblarneyFeb 7, 2012
At my old job, there was one insurance options, and it sucked. I quit my job and found a new one with better benefits, welcome to capitalism.
notachickenhawkFeb 7, 2012
There's all sorts of things going on in this country, every day, where people are being forced to financially support the religious beliefs of others. This is not new.
Think about the tax exempt status of religious organizations, for example. They don't pay taxes, and the taxes that they don't pay come out of the pockets of every other tax paying citizen or corporation. If you are a member of a religion other than mine, you are subsidizing my religion through your tax dollars, even if my religion includes aspects that you strongly disagree with, and I likewise am subsidizing your religion . Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it is what we've always done in this country.
In the same way, taxpayers are forced to subsidize members of the military who function as chaplains for service members of various faiths.
Some religions do not believe in medical care at all. Yet anyone who believes in these religion is subsidizing, with their tax dollars, all sorts of government medical programs.
And yet here we have one religion crying over having to pay for contraception because it goes against their beliefs. It seems disingenuous, at best, when they do this and are silent on all of these other issues. Oh, well, perhaps its because usually the money we're all forced to contribute is more often in line with their beliefs than not. Were it to go away, their religion would suffer more than the rest of us. So yes, we should end all forced subsidies of religion and see how they like it.
americanblarneyFeb 7, 2012
GE and Google don't pay taxes either, no religious affiliation there
chassupFeb 6, 2012
She said nothing. Her argument is incoherrent. She doesn't even understand the debate. She is blinded by love... of abortion. (and she's bitter that she wasn't asked to the prom)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 7, 2012
Exactomundo.
She doesnt understand voluntary actions in a free society.
particleman420Feb 7, 2012
and you dont understand that regulations arent trumped by religious beliefs.
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012
Unless there's very compelling reason, freedom of conscience should trump this kind of regulation. If the regulation isn't capable of accommodating principled dissent, then it's badly written and does more harm than good.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 7, 2012
so all church run and owned busineses are allowed to ignore any law they want as long as they can claim it's against their religion?
what a convenient way to skirt any law you want.
some interpretations of the Koran say that they should kill all non-muslims if they cant convert them. does that mean that if they opened a business, lets say a security guard company, that that would be legal, since thats what their interpretation of their religion says? Or is this just another one of those hypocritical "Freedom of Religion, as long as it's mine" type of things?
(used muslims as an example that RWNJ's would understand.)
chassupFeb 7, 2012
Your understanding of our Constitution is frieghtening... how could you make such a statement?
Please read the first amendment, try to remain objective, and then read your last post.
particleman420Feb 7, 2012
no one is infringing on their religion. Following the rules of being an insurance provider and making something available to everyone isnt the same as forcing everyone to do it.
if it's against their religion to use contraception, THEY DONT NEED TO GET OR USE IT. Having it available isnt the same as forcing it down their throats.
BUT having the church dictate that since it is a church that happens to run an insurance provider so they dont have to follow the LAWS OF THE LAND is THEM dictating and infringing on other people's rights.
which part of that is so hard for you brainwashed cultists to understand?
cyberdactylFeb 6, 2012
The most hilarious aspect of all politicususa submittals is how substantive and informative they believe they are, yet are invisible to everyone but those on digg who have to actually go to the trouble of burying the article or wade past the nonsense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantFeb 6, 2012
What's really sad is that people don't get what this is really about. Its a horrible gaffe on Obama's part, to favor a faction that demands contraception pills issued on demand, for free and at taxpayers expense, over Catholic church doctrine. Its the gov't abrogating separation of church and state by imposing a pimphand mandate upon the Catholic church infrastructure.
The Republicans are stupid, and now are seizing this issue as an "attack on religion" and Maddow is more than happy to go along with their stupidity by acknowledging their faux "issue". This will succeed in confusing Catholics voters. They won't be able to see the connection between free contraception and "attack on Christianity" and then will "conclude" there is no issue, only Republican babbling.
The smart thing to do would be to not oversimplify and distort the issue in the misguided attempt trigger the "fear" reaction in their base. Their base already hates and is terrified by Obama and the federal gov't. The Republicans should just point out that Obama's administration is violating separation of church and state doctrine, which will piss off the Libertarians and Constitutionalists, AND THEN use superpac money to quietly and directly target large, Catholic voting populations. The Catholic church can't do it themselves, but will appreciate the help (if properly done). Then Obama can do the double-take when he loses a state's electoral votes that he was counting on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rednipFeb 6, 2012
Most American Catholic women are on birth control already. How many of them have 10-15 kids?
netantFeb 6, 2012
Again, its not the point.
penglustFeb 6, 2012
But it is the point. The catholic church is a bunch of bitchy men who want to push their will on everybody else. Even stupid people today are tired of it and do what they want even though they "go to church" on Sunday. Churches in general, and especially the Catholic church, are losing the younger generation and they are scared as hell.
So how do they get control. They get the older generation to make laws for the younger one hindering and forbidding.
I am actually for not requiring them to supply birth control and letting more and more flee from the churches.
netantFeb 6, 2012
1) Its about separation of church and state, not whether mandated access to contraception through church organizations is good.
2) Who gives a rats ass if the Catholic church is a bunch of bitchy male dictators? They don't get to pass laws. If you don't agree with it, don't be a Catholic!
3) The purpose of US gov't is not to establish a mob ruled utopia. Move to France, if that is your thing.
4) Whether Catholic women use contraception or that you are prejudiced against Catholics is not the point.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustFeb 8, 2012
1. A hospital is not a church organization. It is a business that hires many people, most of whom probably do not belong to that church. They are required to get a business license like any other business. Hence they must conform to minimum societal regulations for businesses.
Repeat. A hospital in no a church.
2. I do. The church has much money to buy votes (admittedly much less since they decided to let priests diddle little boys and got caught). They try to pass laws that adversely effect me and my family.
3. Just sounds a bit paranoid to me. Again the setting of minimum standards and regulations for a government recognized limited liability entity.
4. I know a lot of catholics I like just fine. They tend to not listen to the anti over populate the earth rhetoric. I think the catholic church pretty much makes asses of themselves but as long as they keep it to themselves I'm fine with it.
notachickenhawkFeb 7, 2012
Shhhh! You're this close to revealing that most Catholic women ignore the Church's teachings and are, in fact, not virgins when they first marry, which would cause the heads of some people reading this to explode were it to become known.
skribbleFeb 6, 2012
"...free and at taxpayers expense..."?
Actually neither of those things.
Though to be fair I'd rather pay for someones birth control then for their many children via welfare and other supportive services. Or maybe we should eliminate welfare to... in which case we would have a massive crime wave of the likes we haven't imagined in this country... which would actually cost even more.
penglustFeb 6, 2012
Stop with the accurate facts. You'll just make them angrier.
angelofchaos99Feb 7, 2012
Two words: Single payer.
Well, the replies should be fun. *gets popcorn ready*
americanblarneyFeb 7, 2012
Every dollar spent at Wendy's has always meant that Dave Thomas (before he passed) or his heirs would have more money to donate to Planned Parenthood. I disagree with PP's pro-abortion mission, but I can't really complain if I eat at Wendy's. That's called freedom - we all get to make choices, and Catholic institutions are just as entitled to follow their consciences - if you really support contraception that much, donate to a clinic.
tyhoFeb 6, 2012
I love how politicususa headlines always over emphasize the importance of their stories. Maddow didn't debunk s**t, he just touts the usual progressive, in the tank for Obama, talking points.
I no longer give them page views.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikoniumFeb 6, 2012
I agree. I'm a liberal, and I think politicususa is crazy. Rachel Maddow is always "laying waste" to this or "obliterating" that. Pffft, she's just preaching to the choir, like every other show host on MSNBC and FoxNews.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tyhoFeb 6, 2012
Well, I'm glad there's at least one of you.
craigreedFeb 6, 2012
You see this is the problem with american politics, Rachel Maddow attempts to make a reasoned argument based on facts that she researched (Being someone who respects being factual) and you write it off as "Talking points" then proceed to spout off your talking points, Oh thats just the same old liberal obama mumbo jumbo.
tyhoFeb 6, 2012
Yeah whatever.
Thanks to Obama's continuous gaffes and assaults on protected religious freedoms, he drives more and more people to the polls for Republicans.
Keep cheering him on...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 5, 2012
Unfortunately for the administration, it's not just the GOP which is claiming that they've declared war on religion, it's the churches themselves. And in an election year that'll spell trouble. You wonder whose advising the WH sometimes when they do this kind of boneheaded s**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
oh i know, they should totally bow to the church's will in order to avoid offending them.
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
Whether they should or shouldn't is a separate issue.
This is a terrible move politically.
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
Exactly. This isn't a GOP thing. I know a lot of liberal, Democrat-voting Catholics who are pissed off about this and may not be voting for Obama because of it.
phillymozartFeb 6, 2012
One simple question: if an employer does not provide food, clothing. or shelter for their employees, why should an employer provide health-insurance?
dividebyoFeb 7, 2012
One simple answer... employers do provide what you mentioned - by proxy... it's a thing they call money, cash, moolah! By paying a certain wage, they are providing the means for the employee to get those things you said.
As an interesting side note to that - there at least were companies in the past that directly gave assistance for some or all of those things (and others) too:
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/01/131725100/the-legacy-of-george-f-johnson-and-the-square-deal
phillymozartFeb 7, 2012
So did slave masters in the South. And mining and steel companies by marking up the prices at their company stores. Are you really suggesting your employer has a claim to you and your property since they pay your bills? Please refrain from voting in November.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dividebyoFeb 9, 2012
Good lord, grow up and learn to think a little...
Why do the vast majority of people work for a wage? So they can purchase the exact things you are saying the company isn't providing. I think most Americans like to have some say in how they spend the money they earn, but if you don't think a major part of what they earn goes towards food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their family, you are in some sort of lala land. Hence, the company is providing you the means to get exactly what you say they aren't providing. If they didn't, it would be very difficult for you to get those things.
And did you somehow try to equate my comment to slave owners? Well that deserves a big old F@*K YOU. How in the hell do you get from someone working in our current society, and being paid a wage, to slave owners? Only in some really messed up mind could that happen.
Where the hell did I ever say the employer lays any sort of claim to you or your property? You really went off the deep end with your comment.
You need some serious reading comprehension skills, and a big dose of grow the hell up.
phillymozartFeb 9, 2012
I do believe that you are the one who said everything is provided to you by proxy. By your "outrage", obviously you think being paid a day's wage for a day's work means the money is yours, not your employers. That also means your employer has no further monetary or moral obligations to you, dipsh*t.
americanblarneyFeb 7, 2012
Their employees can also spend that wage on contraceptives - so why does it have to be forced down the throat of religious employers?
dividebyoFeb 9, 2012
I'll assume you are not advocating for not having any health insurance through employers at all (I could be wrong there, but I'll work off that). There are plenty of things that are provided for through the group health insurance from a company that I will never be able to use, but just because I am not a female does not mean that I don't think they should be allowed to have the same level of access to medical care as I would get for things they would never use, but a man would.
Insurance, taxes... there are various things that most people pay into, that they don't get full measure recompense for, but it is understood that these things are there for everyone's benefit.
The religious employers your are trying to protect so mightily, are engaged in the business, secular, public side of things, not the religious, and as such, should play by the same rules as everyone else that are in that same business. Too damn bad they don't like the rules. They try to hide behind their religion when it serves them - to say they don't have to do things like everyone else because of their religion, but then try to tell everyone else that we need to play by their rules when it comes to other things. If they consider something a sin in their religion, then no one should be allowed to do that, even if they aren't a part of that religion - to that I say they can go take a flying leap.
It is insane how many people defend a religion saying they shouldn't have to provide contraceptives to employees as part of their insurance, because it is against their specific beliefs, and how dare we infringe on their religion - but then also say that no one else should be allowed to have an abortion, because, according to their specific beliefs, it is wrong. Where did their defense of beliefs, or the lack thereof go suddenly?
Oh, that's right, it is just one of the huge hypocrisies that are perpetrated by hiding behind the veil of religion.
"Let me do as I want! Don't infringe on my rights... and while we are at it, let me tell you how you should live!"
americanblarneyFeb 10, 2012
We are all dumber for having read your comment.
My comment was in response to your moronic comment about the employer providing things "by proxy." I was merely stating that I see no reason that birth control could not be handled the same was a food - the employer does not directly contribute toward it, they just hand you your paycheck that you can spend however you like.
The thing your more recent and even dumber comment failed to grasp is that hospitals and schools are not some randomly chosen businesses that churches operate. They are part of the churches' mission to care for the sick and educate their young with both traditional academic subjects, and with the principles and beliefs of the church. If they were in the "businesses" to make money, why wouldn't they operate banks or something more lucrative? Instead both schools and hospitals are almost always non-profit or not-for-profit.
karmashockFeb 6, 2012
the only thing laid bare is her credibility.
How many of her op eds have exploded in her face at this point? I lost count after about the 20th incident... What can I say... I ran out of toes to count on... :PComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
falcon642Feb 6, 2012
Forcing a Catholic organization to pay for contraceptives is like forcing Jews and Muslims to pay for pork.
The hypocrisy of liberals here is astonishing. They defend to the death the right of others to freely practice their own personal moral code (e.g. homosexuality) and want to force Catholics to pay for something they consider morally offensive.
So defending homosexuals from having to forcibly change their morals = good, but forcing Catholics to violate their morals = enlightened and progressive?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
californicatorFeb 6, 2012
"Forcing a Catholic organization to pay for contraceptives is like forcing Jews and Muslims to pay for pork."
No-one is forcing the Catholic church into the health insurance business.
Insurance is a regulated industry. The Catholic Church can easily get out of an industry that they don't agree with.
Whether you like it or not, contraception is part of health care. Your argument is akin to Muslims and Jews running a pork store, then bitching and moaning when someone comes to by product.
netantFeb 6, 2012
No, contraception is not part of health care; contraception is a gov't mandated health care.
I have zero problems requiring health care providers to issue contraception medication to deal with a medical condition. But birth control pills in most cases do not prevent death or illness. Its as required for health care subsidization as cosmetic surgery.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
californicatorFeb 6, 2012
"No, contraception is not part of health care"
I completely disagree, and so would women that take birth control for these reasons (not related to pregnancy):
Reduced Acne -
The hormones contained in birth control pills can also clear up the skin. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals reported that in one study, up to 95 percent of women taking birth control pills noticed a significant decrease in their acne. According to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, this may only be true for certain brands. Progesterone concentration tends to be the determining factor, as those with higher levels are more effective at reducing acne.
Fewer PMS Symptoms -
The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals reports that the hormones in birth control pills also decrease many of the symptoms of PMS (premenstrual syndrome). This includes breast tenderness, bloating and weight gain. In fact, it has been prescribed for this purpose (in addition to pregnancy prevention) for more than 40 years.
Lower Risk of Certain Cancers -
According to the Human Reproduction Update, the risks of many types of cancers are lower in people who take birth control pills. Ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer and colorectal cancer risks are all reduced in women who use oral contraceptives, especially those containing estrogen.
Decreased Endometriosis Symptoms -
Endometriosis is a painful condition that causes growth of uterine lining outside of the uterus. Birth control pills not only decrease some of the side effects of endometriosis, such as dysmenorrhea, but, according to the Human Reproduction Update, they can also reduce the rate of endometrial cell proliferation. In other words, they can decrease the tissue formation outside the uterine walls. The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals report that up to 80 percent of women with endometriosis found birth control pills significantly reduced their symptoms.
References :
- American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
- Oxford Journals Human Reproductive Update
- Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/31023-advantages-taking-birth-control-pills/#ixzz1laPGWu8T
netantFeb 6, 2012
I have zero objections to requiring the Catholic church to provide contraception drugs for those medical conditions. (I have stated this elsewhere.)
My objection is forcing the Catholic run institutions to provide FREE contraception for the sole purpose of preventing pregnancy. If its not directly addressing a health issue, then it has the same urgency and relevance as cosmetic surgery. If the rationale for forcing the Catholic church to subsidize contraception drugs is "we call it health care, and we think it gives desirable results", then at some point, you will give gov't the power to tax people to pay for cosmetic surgery, or mandatory mind-altering medication.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 7, 2012
A lot of things can increase health.
A yoga class for example.
Or regular fruits and vegetables.
You could make the argument that any of number of things can increase, and should therefore be mandated to be included on someones insurance.
But that would be ridiculous.
Just like this bulls**t law.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
californicatorFeb 7, 2012
Thank you, Doctor. /s
Please post the article that says fruit and yoga cure cancer, endometriosis, PMS, and acne.
laborerFeb 7, 2012
Really?
You dont see the correlation between proper diet & exercise and cancer?
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
No, they can't get out of it easily. The only way to get out of it is to stop running Catholic institutions altogether--ANY institution, even ones that are not directly tied to healthcare services--because they're going to be required to cover contraception for all their employees. It's more like Jews or Muslims running a financial services company and being forced to give out hams every Christmas.
Nobody's forcing people to work at Catholic institutions, either, by the way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
YachtRokrFeb 6, 2012
Catholic institutions are free to operate healthcare facilities in the U.S. as long as they're willing to operate them in a secular fashion and in accordance with what U.S. society deems appropriate. If this offends the Vatican, then it needs to limit the scope of it's operations in the U.S. to churches and meeting spiritual needs.
Political over-reach by the Catholic Church has been a longstanding problem throughout the world and it's why this country opposed/addressed the issue long ago. That past history is why the country's founders instituted "religious freedom" and "separation of church and state" to begin with.
Healthcare services and religion do not have the same rights and privileges in American society.
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012
The thing is, "society" is not unanimous in deeming this appropriate. Catholics are part of society too (it's not "the Vatican" that's offended here), as are us non-Catholics who disapprove of government overreach into private matters.
Catholics and other will push back against this, and if there's enough pushback, it'll get changed. That's how we go about seeing what our society deems appropriate in this country. The passing of a law is never the final word.
And freedom of conscience is vastly MORE important than subsidized healthcare. It's one of the core tenets on which this country was founded. I don't throw around this accusation lightly or very often, but anyone who doesn't value freedom of conscience is anti-American to the extreme.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
no one is forcing them to do it.
they would just have to give up their tax free federal funding.
it's very simple.
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
Wrong. The mandate applies to all Catholic employers whether they're receiving government funding or not. It's not contingent on funding.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
then they should get out of the Insurance business if they dont want to follow the rules of the insurance business.
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
It's not about Catholic institutions "in the insurance business." It's about Catholic institutions of whatever sort having to make sure that the insurance plans they provide for their employees cover contraception.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
like i said, if they want to be an insurance provider, then they have to follow the rules of all of the other insurance providers in the country. just because they are a church, that doesnt give them free reign to disregard any laws that they decide they disagree with.
if they dont want to follow the rules of being an insurance provider, then they can stop providing it and offer their employees insurance from a provider that isnt them.
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
What aren't you understanding? The mandate is that any insurance that is offered to their employees has to cover contraception. That's the issue. The Catholic institutions don't want to be forced to pay for healthcare that includes contraception coverage. This isn't about Catholic insurance companies. This is about any Catholic institution and the healthcare plans that they're required to purchase for their employees.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 7, 2012
and what does that have to do with catholics?
just because it's offered, that doesnt mean they have to get it. if this is just about the fact that it would be available (not forced to be used) to church members, then the church needs to work harder at controlling how it's members think.
the mandate is to offer it, not to force them to use it.
but which part of "if you offer insurance, you must offer these things that every insurance provider offers" dont you get?
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012
They're required to pay for insurance plans that cover birth control, and that violates their consciences, and that's the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter one bit whether you think it's silly of them to be offended or not--that's what freedom of conscience means, respecting someone else's conscience even when you don't agree, unless you have a very compelling reason to override their conscience.
What is the compelling reason to force them to pay for a service to be offered? Why not leave that up to the employers and the employees to decide for themselves?
Idiots like you actually talk like it would be better off if the Catholic employers weren't even to provide people with jobs and health coverage to anyone than it would be to allow them to freely set enter into contracts with the people who freely elect to work for them. You're a f**king tyrant, and it terrifies me to think that people like you are actually out there casting votes in my country.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
but like they said in the video. if you want to be a medical insurance provider, you have to follow the rules all the other ones do.
skribbleFeb 6, 2012
Clearly you don't understand insurance. People pay for their insurance out of their pocket. Then as covered expenses occur the Ins Company reaches into the pool of money paid into to it to cover expenses. So the person who is asking for contraception reimbursement from their Ins Co has already put money into this pool for this purpose.
Also this isn't about forcing the Catholic church to day anything. It's just saying that if the Catholic church chooses to provide insurance to *it's employees* then that insurance needs to meet a minimum standard. If the church wishes not to pay for contraception they could offer health insurance through another means.
"... is like forcing Jews and Muslims to pay for pork..." no more then it is forcing the Catholic Church to buy steaks every Friday during Lent.
chilidogsFeb 6, 2012
I am certain that through food banks and shelters Muslims and Jews pay for pork all of the time. Allowing other people to make decisions for them self should not be against any religion.
YachtRokrFeb 6, 2012
Did "Liberals" (or anyone else) force the Catholic Church to provide healthcare services? No? Then quit whining after the Catholic Church attempted to use it's religious beliefs as the basis for denying healthcare services.
If the Catholic Church doesn't wish to abide by U.S. healthcare standards, then it doesn't need to be in the business of providing them. Religion and healthcare are not under the same "freedom of religion umbrella". So, stop assuming they are.
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012
So you'd rather Catholic employers not offer health insurance to their employees at all?
clitniblr036Feb 5, 2012
Perhaps Obama should send SEAL Team SIX to go after the Catholic Taliban.
KapsiotFeb 6, 2012
Shut up, Rachel, you stupid cow.
chilidogsFeb 6, 2012
You are always so clever and classy.
killersquirelFeb 6, 2012
It's always fun to see his posts. It's a window to the world of the ignorant jackass.
kcast985Feb 7, 2012
wow so the government telling churches they must cover contraception even though its against their religion is not a war on religious liberty. Wow do you even know the world exists RachelComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dividebyoFeb 9, 2012
wow, so religions telling others how they should be allowed to live their life, even though they don't believe in that religion, is not a war on freedom. Wow do you even know what the hell you are saying kcast?
robr7Feb 7, 2012
I voted for Obama but if this goes unchanged before the election, I cant in good conscience vote for him again.
If you take the religious aspect out of it it is still very much an affront to our personal freedoms not just to religious institutions. Whatever you think of them, these large religious institutions and services - are alternatives, employment by, attendance by, services used by, all choice.
People are letting their own personal feelings for another party or institution get in the way of looking at this objectively. We wouldn't tolerate his type of intrusion into other institutions or services.
Imagine if to be "fair" the government passes regulations to support open or low cost access to the internet for everyone. Sounds great but just to be an ISP this base service MUST be at the core of all your other additional services AND it must follow these regulations. No choice. All that stuff they've been doing quietly in secret closets at your ISP anyway, legitimized. Plus some new twits because you know, the government just can't help itself.
Now imagine all the crap they won't want you to have access to, will limit you to, editorialize, etc... all for the good of the public. I hate to say it cause I cringe every time a right wing nut job cries Socialism but this IS Socialism. By giving "access" we're limiting choice and the freedom that comes with it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 5, 2012
Its such bulls**t on both sides.
The Obama administration did overstep its bounds, and Republicans are making a big deal out of it.
If someone chooses to go to a Catholic business, they agree by the terms of service. Thats how agreements work. To outlaw a practice of business is bulls**t, not even taking into consideration the obvious animosity the secular Democrats have to religion.
This coming from an atheist who is himself disgusted by the evangelical practices common in America. But I wouldnt make a law from my past experiences with pushy religious people. Thats not good leadership.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantFeb 6, 2012
While I can't say I agree with the specific arguments you presented, I am in total agreement (and a non-Catholic, anti-denominational Christian).
Its forcing gov't policy over church doctrine; the very thing gov't is supposed to avoid when following separation of church from state.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ammattikiFeb 6, 2012
That is not what separation of church and state means.
netantFeb 6, 2012
Then what does it mean? Its understood that the gov't doesn't adopt a state religion, and its understood that the gov't does not dictate religious doctrine to other churches.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ammattikiFeb 7, 2012
First of all, they are not dictating religious doctrine. If Catholic people don't want to use contraception they don't have to (although 98% of Catholics do).
The church has to follow the same laws as everyone else, they are not above the law.
laborerFeb 7, 2012
They are selling a health service.
If a post-menopause women wishes to buy from her church health program that does not include contraception, she should be allowed to.
Its not the governments place to say what a company can and cannot sell unless it directly harms another.
Not providing contraception in a health service that is completely voluntary to buy is not harming anyone.
Its bulls**t leadership, and it is what creates the environment of uncertainty that keeps American business from thriving.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantFeb 7, 2012
1) Apparently, you cannot define the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, but like an arrogant MORON, you'll claim I am wrong in stating HHS's mandate violates the principle.
2) Its well known that the Catholic leader has proclaimed that taking drugs for the intention of preventing pregnancy is a sin, and against Church teachings. The gov't is now forcing Catholic not-for-profit organizations ("Catholic Charities" and Churches) and Catholic run hospitals and clinics to PROVIDE, at subsidized or NO cost, the very instrument of "evil" their doctrine rejects!
3) The gov't has to follow the same laws TOO! (except when its insider trading, workplace sex harrassment, etc.) The federal gov't tried to say that EEOC law applied to the Church, when picking church leaders. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC) ALL 9 SCJs told the federal gov't to get lost. (I know, ridiculous, the Chinese gov't feels the same way!) The gov't has no business telling a religious organization to do something that violates its religious doctrine; particularly when someone's life is NOT at stake.
ammattikiFeb 7, 2012
I may have misinterpreted your original statement. Probably because it is so stupid and poorly worded.
The government is not trying to dictate religious doctrine. End of story.
ammattikiFeb 7, 2012
In reply to your 2nd comment.
That is a completely different topic than the one being discussed here. Should people be able to choose individualy what is in their policy. Maybe.
But the question here is, should a church be treated differently to every other business in America.