"Birth control is a basic standard of care for women."

Ummmm, no. Let's make the distiction between "medical" and "health."
If a man wants to take female hormones, his health will not be hurt if he does not. That is medical, not health. If he is hurt in an accident and will die without treatment, that is health. Likewise plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons (except accident reconstruction).
Birth control is a choice. It is not a health necessity.
If I must pay for one's decision to screw without protection, then pay for the healthcare of the resulting children as well as the mom's WIC card....when does it end? Do I owe you a free bong with pot?
Health necessities I have little problem with, even though I believe it is not the federal government's business to provide anything.

Dumbass thinks that sex is the only reason for birth control pills.

"Birth control is a basic standard of care for women."

Ummmm, no. Let's make the distiction between "medical" and "health."

Catholic Church Operates with a Blind Eye

Indeed. The One-Eyed-Monster is blind.

One such "blind eye" is how they miss-interpret the bible to justify soo much bullshit. Instead of following Jesus statements of "what you do unto the least among you" they follow paul in his legalism about who is good enough and who is damned, for the sake of controling people.

hmmmmm pharisees again. And rather than worry about the health needs of women they're after enslavement and persecution of women for male-dominance at the expense of individual liberties. That's where the US constitution is/was way better than Catholicism ever is/was.

That Freakonomics movie link was impressive soulfly. Yet I think there's even more beyond that... like it suggested... unwanted pregnancy putting infants into poverty situations... vs the same mothers years later in stable situations giving birth to infants in good healthy homes. The children get real parents rather than dumped onto the state orphanage (which in most nations is voluntarily run by the churches, hmmmmm).

The children get real parents rather than dumped onto the state orphanage (which in most nations is voluntarily run by the churches, hmmmmm).
#6 | Posted by reitze at 2012-02-13 08:02 AM | Reply | Flag: ...

almost forgot... and the same moms have good lives rather than...

Being stuck with unwanted child, forced onto welfare for 5 years or more, or worse end up imprisoned with the child handed over to the church.

Well, whaddya know, Diablow missed the entire pare about the Catholic Church facilitating pedophile's access to catholic children throughout the world for decades.

Whodda thunk that?

Hey Diablow, how many Catholic families use sscientific birth control today?

Why do you pretend that the Bishops are being respected by your own flock?

If Catholics reject Catholic theology, why should the government embrace it?

Birth control is a choice. It is not a health necessity.

Of course!

Women cannot control their own lives, ensure their own prosperity or pursue their own careers without the ability to choose when they become pregnant. Take away birth control and there's more abortions, less college educated women, more women and children mired in poverty and a weaker overall economy.

If Catholics allowed women to be priests and to lead the church, they'd drop their stupidity about birth control immediately.

It's NOT the government's business to tell a church what they should preach. Isn't that in the first amendment? Shifting the cost from the church to the insurance which the church pays for is a fucking smoke screen. It ain't free if their insurance is going to pay the cost and pass that along in the form of higher premiums.

Birth control is a choice. It is not a health necessity.
If I must pay for one's decision to screw without protection, then pay for the healthcare of the resulting children as well as the mom's WIC card....when does it end? Do I owe you a free bong with pot?
Health necessities I have little problem with, even though I believe it is not the federal government's business to provide anything.

#1 | Posted by Diablo

Being that you are not too healthy yourself, you wouldn't know the difference, catolico.

I speak of mental health. A good sex life promotes good mental health as well as good physical health.

Mebbe you just ain't gettin' any, which goes a long way towards explaining a few things...

It's NOT the government's business to tell a church what they should preach.

No one is telling a church what to preach.

But churches don't get to operate side businesses that ignore the rules non-religious companies have to follow.

The Supreme Court made it clear in Employment Division v. Smith that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws. That decision was written by Antonin Scalia, no less.

It's NOT the government's business to tell a church what they should preach.

And exactly what does the government tell the RC church to preach? Nothing. Contraception coverage isn't mandated for the church, just its ancillary businesses.

and if you are so hung up on supporting the RC's preachings, you'll probably be anti-war, pro-illegal immigration and definitely pro-welfare and Unions, right?

Religious practices in the United States are trumped by secular law all the time when there is a conflict. Thus, Native Americans who believe in using peyote as part of their religious rituals were fired from their government jobs for doing so, and the US Supreme Court upheld it in 1990.

Likewise, traditionalist members of the Sikh religion believe that a man should avoid cutting his hair, and should bind it up in a turban. So what if an orthodox Sikh gets a job as a construction worker? He can’t get a hard hat on over the turban. Does he have the right to forgo the hard hat on the construction site, so as to retain his turban? The question went to the US courts, and they said Sikhs have to wear hard hats.
Or there are many instances in which Muslim religious laws and practices have been over-ruled in the United States by the courts. American law forbids Muslim-American men to take a second wife, something legal to them in many of their home countries. State law tends to award community property in cases of divorce instead of the much smaller payments men can make to divorced women in Islamic law, even if the couple have specified in their marriage contract that Muslim law (sharia) will govern these issues.

Like Sphincty says, polygamy should be legal, as well as dope and peyote.

It's NOT the government's business to tell a church what they should preach.

A church can still preach whatever it likes. It can tell women not to use birth control. It simply cannot make that decision for them.

To the fanatically devoted, it has never been sufficient to merely preach an ideology. Most religions preach things so utterly ridiculous that followers will reject them unless coerced to obey.

To many religious leaders, notions like freedom, liberty, privacy, and due process are merely obstacles to the greater glory of god. Given a chance, they will not hesitate to undermine these values.

-The Catholic Church may be winning the day on contraception,

no, it isn't. it isn't winning anything, even with Obama's pandering to them.

one way or the other, catholic organizations will pay for contraception. If not directly, then the'll pay it through premiums.

no getting around this. It's semantics.

My priest said on Sunday, "The catholic church has failed miserably on this issue".

He's right. ...considering how few catholics not use natural family planning.

But that doesn't mean the church is gonna give up on this issue.

Dear Lord, please let this controversy awaken millions of women to the evil that is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I'd love to see a mass exodus from thar church.

Just like the other thread. BIG GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST. Bow to big government.

Remember that a government large enough to meet all your needs is large enough to take everything you have.

.....and they will.

A church can still preach whatever it likes. It can tell women not to use birth control. It simply cannot make that decision for them.

exactly this!

Catholics and Republicans have both failed women.

You cannot legislate morality. You can preach all you want but it is up to the women to decide what is right and what is wrong for themselves. And they have a right to equal access to preventive care under the law. It is not up to some old white men in robes who think they know what it is best for women and their health.

If the Church's argument was strong enough then women would simply not use birth control as they would be True Believers. There would be no issue.

The Church is apparently not doing a very good job of convincing their flock as 98% of Catholic women use birth control.

-Dear Lord, please let this controversy awaken millions of women to the evil that is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I'd love to see a mass exodus from thar church.

why would it? if women were gonna leave the catholic church in droves, they would have a long time ago.

this issue is NOTHING compared to what should drive more away.

honestly, if the pedo coverup bullshit can't take down the catholic church, this sure as hell can't.

Let them use it then, or if they want their employer to provide it for them then they can work somewhere else.

-A church can still preach whatever it likes. It can tell women not to use birth control. It simply cannot make that decision for them.

who is having a decision made for them? as illustrated by the 98% stat, women in the church are deciding for themselves.

in the 50's, you would notice that families of 6 or more were common in the catholic church pews, nowadys families of 2 or less is normal, does that suggest contraceptive use is wide spread among catolics? This suggests that McConnell's view is the losing one.

"Dumbass thinks that sex is the only reason for birth control pills."

If they're using it for something else, then its not contraception. Duh.

"Of course!

Women cannot control their own lives, ensure their own prosperity or pursue their own careers without the ability to choose when they become pregnant. Blah blah blah..."

Nonsense based on the false premise that taking the pill and having it paid for by insurance is the only way to avoid pregnancy. There are ways to avoid pregancy that don't involve the pill. And women on a plan that doesn't cover the pill can still buy it on their own if its so damn important. And of course health plans are part of employee compensation and employers who offer non-competitive plans will suffer for it....

Having every woman on the pill is not a civil rights issue. Its a Big Pharma pipe dream. They are using the PC crowd as useful idiots. Force all insurers to cover the pill and they can keep overcharging Americans like they do with everything they produce...

The Supreme Court made it clear in Employment Division v. Smith that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws. That decision was written by Antonin Scalia, no less.
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

#12 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2012-02-13 12:04 PM | REPLY | FLAG

no question that they are not entitled to an exemption as a matter of right, but neither is the government precluded from granting such an exemption. politics rule on that subject.

Do I owe you a free bong with pot?
Health necessities I have little problem with, even though I believe it is not the federal government's business to provide anything.

#1 | Posted by Diablo

You owe me your compassion as a fellow human being.

If cannabis is what I need to be healthy you should not begrudge my choice of medication.

it is not the federal government's business to provide anything.

way to think it through devilboy...

If it is not the federal government's business to "provide anything" can we please disband the entire military the CIA the FBI the DEA the FAA the DHS the NSA and all the rest now?

I bet the budget would magically balance overnight

I suppose we would all have to learn Chinese though and that would be a real bummer. I have other stuff to do.

.

That said, I strongly believe that the government has no place dictating religious beliefs. But I also believe that religion has no right dictating governmental standards.-per the article

Fortunately the law disagrees....

First Ammendment, United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

In other words freedom of religion trumps government "standards"

Continued......

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It really does amaze me how quickly the rule of law is ignored in this country by this president and others?

To many religious leaders, notions like freedom, liberty, privacy, and due process are merely obstacles

#15 | POSTED BY DR_ICEPICK AT 2012-02-13 12:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

This is rich coming from a supporter of Obama whom just threw out Habeas Corpus via the NDAA.

no question that they are not entitled to an exemption as a matter of right, but neither is the government precluded from granting such an exemption. politics rule on that subject.

True, but look what happened when the Obama administration compromised. The Catholic Church doubled down and now wants all insurers to be able to stop offering birth control, women be damned.

#28. don't think so. govt. can pass laws of broad application that can infringe on religion so long as they are not passed for the purpose of infringing on religion.

there can be laws outlawing the use of peyote, for instance, even though that is used by some religions. they've passed laws against polygamy, which were against the Mormon religion. they pass laws against animal sacrifice, etc. this is necessary.

#30. the church will pay for its stupidity on this subject in terms of membership. it's a political fight they've taken too far IMHO (and actually think they are shortsighted on the first go 'round too). the church can be very stubborn that way...

It really does amaze me how quickly the rule of law is ignored in this country by this president and others?

#28 | Posted by Dirk

Which Law(s) are they breaking? Got a link on that charge?

Amazing how many here don't understand that the rule of law and that it is not applied at the whim of the Church. Any Church. We don't need the permission or the blessing of any Religion to interpret the rule of Law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The law is religion neutral and should be. In fact, concessions were made (that in my mind) were completely unnecessary. Allowing women equal access under the law does in no way prohibit the free exercise thereof.

If the church believed in polygamy should we allow them that exemption to their "employees"?

Should be an easy answer since it's already been decided. In 1878 Reynolds v. United States.

The Mormons, believing that the law unconstitutionally deprived them of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion, chose to ignore the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act at the time.... that it was his religious duty to marry multiple times.

The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty.

#31 WTF SOMOCO? Smoke peyote if you want to, its your inalianable right and if it kills you that's your choice too. But using laws to control people is satanic. Is that what you mean? Catholic = Satanic?

Why doesn't anyone notice that if MANDATING a church to purchase unwanted insurance is BAAAD, then mandating a human to purchase that same insurance is worse.

Fucking Doctors kill more people than guns do - and HCR is INSURED DEATH. It wouldn't have been so bad if it were the single payer system Obama campaigned on. But when he cut the deal with the corupt insurance companies - he just doubled down on the nations Health Care problems. As a result healthcare has just become more dangerous. 1/2 the USA is on something, and from my imrpession 1/3 are actually on OPIUM, the most popular of perscriptions. The WOD is only to prevent weed from eliminating the Opium market - so the military gets dibbs on it too - controlling the silk road of course ;0 ;) ;;p

#34. Peyote side effects include homicidal and psychotic behaviors. my guess is we don't want folks driving down the street after taking it. it could harm more than just the user.

HCR is INSURED DEATH.

This from someone who believes his cable box is spying on him.

Life is terminal.

@12
RCADE, Let's see if the Controllers can trash the 10th Amendment first.

In other words, this isn't a prohibition, it's a dictate from a dictator.

SOMOCO, if people do that and it happens too often then the stories and warnings take on meaning - so does the 2nd amndt. Otherwise by condoning the drugging/arresting of symptoms you only escalate the social disease. If some choose those and "handle it" --- we used to call them "shamen" or "preachers".

This from someone who believes his cable box is spying on him.

Life is terminal.

#37 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-13 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag: LOL, here!

#40. hey, don't get me wrong. i like peyote as much as the next guy. i prefer to mix peyote with guns.

but seriously, guns preserve freedom. peyote distorts reality.

If I must pay for one's decision to screw without protection, then pay for the healthcare of the resulting children as well as the mom's WIC card....when does it end?

Better question: Where did it start?
Diablo, do you realize a man's lifetime health insurance costs are doulbe a woman's?
Do you know the reason is the costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth?
Do you know it's been this way since before Obama was born?

Birth control is a choice. It is not a health necessity.

The ability to make choices is a health necessity.

"Birth control is a choice. It is not a health necessity."

Just to see if you're tethered to reality, can you give three examples where birth control IS a health necessity?

Peyote side effects include homicidal and psychotic behaviors. my guess is we don't want folks driving down the street after taking it. it could harm more than just the user.

#36 | Posted by somoco

What a lot of 60ish hysteria. Mescaline is a very safe medicine, when used as directed. Driving wouldn't be considered a safe set and setting.

#28. don't think so. govt. can pass laws of broad application that can infringe on religion so long as they are not passed for the purpose of infringing on religion.

#31 | POSTED BY SOMOCO AT 2012-02-13 01:26 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

And of course this mandidate does exactly that by attacking the religious views of many Catholics in this country.

Fortunately it does not matter what you think. The SCOTUS will be deciding on Obama Care later this year.

Peyote side effects include homicidal and psychotic behaviors. my guess is we don't want folks driving down the street after taking it. it could harm more than just the user.
#36 | Posted by somoco

Flag: control freak....for our own good, of course!;)

frankly, i didn't know that there was so much controversy in the laws banning the use of peyote. i used it as an example of why laws could be enforced against the Catholic Church - like requiring it to have insurance that covers contraception.

i really don't give a shit about psychedelic drugs, and prefer them greatly to speed and the like. but sheesh, i'm hardly a control freak for defending laws against them.

The Catholic Church has survived greater fools than Barack Hussein Obama over the ages, though he's certainly the biggest American fool they've had to contend with. They'll still be around long after he's forgotten, and just an embarrassing footnote in American history.

i really don't give a shit about psychedelic drugs, and prefer them greatly to speed and the like. but sheesh, i'm hardly a control freak for defending laws against them.

#50 | POSTED BY SOMOCO AT 2012-02-13 06:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yea....you are a control freak! Ruled by fear of things which you do not understand, which is a lot. It's just unfortunate you are not alone in your fear.

It might be funny if it weren't sad how hard the church works on defining us/them good/bad criteria based on old stories in a pretty good book. M'thinks that "idolizes" the book, and the way they interpret it elevates Paul over Jesus too.

#52. what makes you believe I don't understand psychedelics? what make you believe that I've never tried them, know what they do? i actually don't fear them. however, i don't believe they should be legal. just like alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. that's why we need Romney for President. good clean living for all.

That said, I strongly believe that the government has no place dictating religious beliefs. But I also believe that religion has no right dictating governmental standards.-per the article

Fortunately the law disagrees....

First Ammendment, United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

In other words freedom of religion trumps government "standards" -- per Dirk

No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control.

No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control.

#55 | Posted by hope4hope

They are forcing Catholics to provide birth control to others.

They are forcing Catholics to provide birth control to others.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ

so what

"They are forcing Catholics to provide birth control to others."

Whoa there, bucko.

The Catholic church formed a corporation so they could take advantage of corporate law and protect the church from any financial failures and liabilities. Then when a law came out affecting corporations, they suddenly wanted to be treated like a church again.

They are forcing Catholics to provide birth control to others.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ

so what

#57 | Posted by truthhurts

It was a rejoinder to Hope's stupid comment.

It also speaks to my to and fro with BBob on a different thread - he claims modern-day liberals champion freedom while at the very same time this mandate is clearly coersive.

It's NOT the government's business to tell a church what they should preach. Isn't that in the first amendment? Shifting the cost from the church to the insurance which the church pays for is a fucking smoke screen. It ain't free if their insurance is going to pay the cost and pass that along in the form of higher premiums.

#10 | Posted by Sniper

ok we have one supporter of sharia law in america, let me see how many more I can count

First Ammendment, United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

In other words freedom of religion trumps government "standards"

Continued......

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It really does amaze me how quickly the rule of law is ignored in this country by this president and others?

#28 | Posted by Dirk

No. 2 in the pro sharia law in america column

"this mandate is clearly coersive."

Only to a church. This group is a corporation.

Should churches who form corporations be exempt from the law as if they were still a church?

Yea....you are a control freak! Ruled by fear of things which you do not understand, which is a lot. It's just unfortunate you are not alone in your fear.

#52 | Posted by Dirk

Ok Dirk, should a muslim man be tried for assault if he beats his wife for what he deems a religous transgression?

#62 | Posted by Danforth

Setting aside the unconstitutionality of ACA for a moment...granting churches an exception would actually be an affront to the equal protection clause of the Constitution - much like granting unions an exclusive 5-year avoidance of the Cadillac tax.

The issue here is that the federal government is coercing institutions to act against their conscience and are doing so by force.

The issue here is that the federal government is coercing institutions to act against their conscience and are doing so by force.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ

its done all the time who cares

btw institutions dont have consciences

"The issue here is that the federal government is coercing institutions to act against their conscience and are doing so by force."

Nonsense. You wouldn't be making the same argument if their "conscience" led them to pay less than minimum wage or to not offer health care at all. When they gave up their church status for the protective confines of a corporation, they took the regulations WITH the protections. Now they want the advantages of both worlds, and the responsibility of neither.

Ok Dirk, should a muslim man be tried for assault if he beats his wife for what he deems a religous transgression?

#63 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2012-02-13 07:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Absolutely! Her rights were violated?

Ok Dirk, should a muslim man be tried for assault if he beats his wife for what he deems a religous transgression?

#63 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2012-02-13 07:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Absolutely! Her rights were violated?

#68 | Posted by Dirk

ok so you support wife beating,

how bout honor killing, you ok with that too?

When they gave up their church status for the protective confines of a corporation, they took the regulations WITH the protections. Now they want the advantages of both worlds, and the responsibility of neither.

I actually agree with that - they wanted to have their cake AND eat it.

I get that.

A lot of the backlash with this goes well beyond the religious/conscience aspect - it's the accross-the-board coersion that is Obamacare and statism.

Ok Dirk, should a muslim man be tried for assault if he beats his wife for what he deems a religous transgression?
#63 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2012-02-13 07:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

For the record I have no problem if he wishes to whip himself with chains or inject heroine into his veins....religion or no religion

Should churches who form corporations be exempt from the law as if they were still a church?

#62 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-02-13 07:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG

sure. if they are wholly-owned subsidiaries. if they are, then they are set up to promote and further the non-profit mission of the church. the church has and owns many different corporations, including different diocese.

"sure. if they are wholly-owned subsidiaries."

Well, that sure makes my life going forward easier. I'll be forming a new religion, and the corporation to protect it so I cad defy laws I don't like, any day now.

"if they are, then they are set up to promote and further the non-profit mission of the church"

But as a separate entity. They aren't "the church" at that point. They aren't in the hospital business to convert, or even mainly to spread the gospel.

Ok Dirk, should a muslim man be tried for assault if he beats his wife for what he deems a religous transgression?#63 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2012-02-13 07:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Absolutely! Her rights were violated?#68 | Posted by Dirk

ok so you support wife beating, 69 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2012-02-13 07:59 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Are you having reading comprehension issues this evening?

no but you are, try rereading my posts

Well, that sure makes my life going forward easier. I'll be forming a new religion, and the corporation to protect it so I cad defy laws I don't like, any day now.

if you have a religion, go for it. btw, most religious organizations are incorporated. I'm unaware of one that is not.

But as a separate entity. They aren't "the church" at that point. They aren't in the hospital business to convert, or even mainly to spread the gospel.

but they exist to further the non-profit mission of the church. they also have their own non-profit mission, and are directed by the church, and under the moral compass of the church.

#73 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-02-13 08:05 PM | REPLY | FLAG

no but you are, try rereading my posts

#75 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2012-02-13 08:10 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You asked me if a husband should be tried for beating his wife.

I Said absolutely.

You said I support wife beating.

Please show me what I missed?

you are correct I misread your reply, my apologies,

though you are inconsistent with your support for separation of church and state

The Catholic Church should just say... NO..... were not going to do that and direct their HR people not to process any claims for that service, then just go about business like nothing ever happened.

Your move Obama.

"We don't care what you say in Washington" could become the law of the land.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER......

They are forcing Catholics to provide birth control to others.

House of Worships and Religious nonprofits are exempt. If the Catholics want businesses beyond that, they are and should be treated like the rest of us.

They are forcing Catholics to provide birth control to others.

House of Worships and Religious nonprofits are exempt. If the Catholics want businesses beyond that, they are and should be treated like the rest of us.

#80 | Posted by hope4hope

That's just the point. They not being treated like every one else.

Tomorrow morning there will be a Govt. representative at your door taking you to the park to help kill all the geese that are crapping all over the place.

You will be issued a golf club and a roll of paper towels.

If this is morally reprehensible to you, to bad there are to many geese as per your Govt.

And its "NO HOPE IN THAT DOPE" OR NOPE IN NOVEMBER, either one is just as good.

The "compromise" was a trick. Somewhere somebody will have to pay the costs. If not by the Catholics then by other insurance payers or by tax payers or by loan guarantors for the money that the U.S. borrows. A good many people who will be paying will be Catholics.
I am not a Catholic, but I really don't think that I should be paying for abortions done for non-serious reasons. Most are done for convenience and are needed as the result of not making the right choice at the right time.

A lot of the backlash with this goes well beyond the religious/conscience aspect - it's the accross-the-board coersion that is Obamacare and statism.

Bullshit.

You're calling it that because you're afraid to have the real debate. I'm calling every last one of you Catholics on the carpet, right now.

I've never once heard that the Catholic church's religious freedoms are being oppressed because they are forced to operate in states that engage in the death penalty. I'll pause and let that sink in.

See, normal people understand the difference between a church and a hospital, even when they're both named St. Francis. At some of the Catholic medical schools, those students who have to do their OB/GYN rotations elsewhere if it includes abortion. They don't teach their students that in their Catholic school. But by taking the class elsewhere, the students get the education they need to be a doctor, and society can find a way to please both the Church, and modern medicine.

If a Catholic health plan doesn't want to cover contraception, that's great, but as a health plan their duty is foremost to treat their patient. They can find a way to get Catholic doctors to do their icky abortion stuff outside their network, they should do the same for their health plan participants when it comes to contraception.

But, you see, there is a synergy between two political forces that want to control women's uteri: The Catholic Church, and the GOP.

The true backlash, and this is the regrettable fate of the Catholic Church, is that the Catholic Church will always be at odds with a woman's right to choose.

Catholic dogma puts G-d at the arbiter and manifestation of conception. Technically, a miracle occurs during the act of what scientists call fertilization. And that, in turn, gives the Catholic Church domain over women's reproductive rights.

This isn't about contraception, or religious freedom. This is a fight for who has more political will right here in the real world: The State or the Church.

Make sure you know which side you're cheering for.

Oh and hilariously, all these women and their vaginas are literally being treated like they are somebody else's property by one of the participants in this "debate" while we sort this out.

It's only been fifty years since they invented the Pill, I can understand the old ways of thinking still have a lot of sway here.

Just like our black folk are still largely fucked despite fifty years of paper equality, owing to the centuries-deep heap of crap they're starting from.

I googled 'the pope is an idiot in a funny hat' and found these images amusing.

Oh and hilariously, all these women and their vaginas are literally being treated like they are somebody else's property by one of the participants in this "debate" while we sort this out.

Are you fricking kidding me?

They are being treated like somebody else's property because we are debating whether or not they should have free access to contraception on their employer's dime?

You pro-mandate zealots are really coming up with absurd arguments to justify your coersion.

You're calling it that because you're afraid to have the real debate.

No. At its core that IS the debate. Government is ordering people to DO something they don't want to do. That is completely different from laws that serve as deterrents to illegal actions (government telling people NOT to do something).

People don't like paternalistic, condescending and egotistical snobs bossing them around at the point of a gun.

Make sure you know which side you're cheering for.

I am cheering for the absence of coersion - which means I am pretty much cheering against a vast majority of the leftist agenda.

Government is ordering people to DO something they don't want to do.

Government is ordering health insurance plan to insure health services.
If there were a health objection, that would be one thing.
But there isn't.

If female contraceptive services weren't considered part of health care, you might have an argument.

But when you're running a health care company, you have to deliver health care.

Beyond that, the government orders lots of people to do things they don't want to do.
Such as pay taxes, and serve on juries, and pay child support, and register with the Selective Service.

I am cheering for the absence of coersion
No, you are not.
You have no problem whatsoever when an employer or a church coerces a health care decision.
It's only when the government stands up for a woman's right to access modern health care that would be denied her based on religious superstition that you cry "coercion!"

But in truth, it's always a trade-off. So let's say both ways are coercion. Maybe a good way to judge which is preferable is to look at how many people are being coerced. On the one hand, you have potentially millions of women losing access to contraception. On the other hand, you have a handful of corporate fictitious persons being told they are required to process certain billing codes used elsewhere in the industry.

I can tell which of those scenarios coerces more people. Can you?

Government is ordering health insurance plan to insure health services.
If there were a health objection, that would be one thing.
But there isn't.

The objection is government taking away choice. An employer chooses which health plans its going to make avaialable to its employees and it's none of the federal government's God damn business what is covered in said plans.

No, you are not.
You have no problem whatsoever when an employer or a church coerces a health care decision.

They are not coercing a health care decision. They are simply deciding for themselves which insurance policies they will pay for. You seem to lack a fundamental understaning of the definition of the word "coersion".

It's only when the government stands up for a woman's right to access modern health care that would be denied her based on religious superstition that you cry "coercion!"

The care isn't "denied"! Nor is access to the "care" (sic). These organizations know they can't prevent their beneficiaries from using contraception, they just don't want to be forced to pay for it.

Maybe a good way to judge which is preferable is to look at how many people are being coerced. On the one hand, you have potentially millions of women losing access to contraception.

Let me get this straight. Up until now, this mandate didn't exist. But now that it does exist and it ends up being rescinded millions of women not only will be denied insurance coverage for contraception but they'll be denied access altogher. Employers all over the place are all of a sudden going to drop the plans that they currently offer that cover these things simply because they want to exert control over a woman's body?

That's your argument???

"they exist to further the non-profit mission of the church."

No, that's what they're hiding behind. Big difference.

The objection is government taking away choice.

Whose choice is impeded, exactly?
What has the government taken from We The People?
Is it a person's choice to purchase contraceptives?
Or is it a health insurance company's right to choose to deny medicine to a plan member?

We can do this all day.
I'll still be right.

These organizations know they can't prevent their beneficiaries from using medicine, they just don't want to be forced to pay for it

Yeah, funny thing, how when you run a health care racket, you're expected to provide health care.

Do what I say not what I do... 98% "do" but the Poop "says". Sadly, Obama doesn't give a shit about represneting people either. What the poop wants the poop gets with him - that shit's in his ass!

though you are inconsistent with your support for separation of church and state

#78 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2012-02-13 08:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Not at all. It is my opinion that you ought to be able to fling yourself into a volcano for your religions sake however i just dont belive you should be able to fling me into a volcano for your religions sake:). I also don't believe the government should be involved in your decision to throw yourself into a volcano, although clearly they have been in the past with the Morman decision. As with many SCOTUS Decisions it is my opinion that this was more political then Constitution based. If a man can marry a man what is wrong with a man marrying two or more women? Bottom line is your religion however uncomfortable it may make me is none of my fucking business as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others.

What's funny is that people are realizing this law now - why? Because we had to pass the bill to know what is in it ... right?

For those people without faith -- your "understanding" of how people balance faith and law is way off base. You forget -- you do not have to be Catholic, or any other faith. You are because you believe in that faith. Sorry -- no links to "faith" because either you have it or you do not. For the libtards, AGW is your best reference.

The Catholic Church built hospitals all across this great nation, they do care about health and well being. Who on this blog does not have a Saint Joseph's or Sacred Heart church by them? That's right -- the female hating, stone age thinking organization that has the audacity to disagree and defend their faith brought those facilities to your towns, cities and villages. The Church provides adoption services for orphans, rehabilitation for drug users, counseling and comfort to societies forgotten. Catholic nun and priests defend the helpless, even giving their lives in 3rd world nations to spread God's word.

But because the Church will not support contraception it is against health care. Idiots.

Snoofy,

This is why your a Libtart..

By your reasoning and the rest of the Lib nuts, every thing falls under health care.

How fast you drive.
What you eat.
What you wear.
What you drive.
The paint on your house.
Where you live.
The type of plants in your yard.
At what temperature you house is at.
The soap you wash with.
The toothpaste you use.
What your job is.
HOW MANY KIDS YOU CAN HAVE.

Is this getting through ?

The final product of Liberalism is totalitarianism it is undeniable and absolute.

Step back and take a deep breath.....understand... your addicted....get help.

No country in all of human history has gone from a free market to socialism and said we where lucky to survive capitalism.

....NOPE IN NOVEMBER.....

Failed women?

No.

The catholic church has failed humanity.

By your reasoning and the rest of the Lib nuts, every thing falls under health care.

How fast you drive.
What you eat.
What you wear.
What you drive.
The paint on your house.
Where you live.
The type of plants in your yard.
At what temperature you house is at.
The soap you wash with.
The toothpaste you use.
What your job is.
HOW MANY KIDS YOU CAN HAVE.

Is this getting through ?

How fast you drive is up to the States.
What you eat is a free-for-all, we don't even know if it's GMO or what.
What you wear is not nearly as controversial as not wearing anything, which would also be a health issue, as it turns out.
The paint on your house, you mean lead paint? Of course that's a health issue, silly goose!
The type of plants in your yard... well, if you're allergic to tree nuts, that could be a big issue. Otherwise, pretty minimal. The Noxious Weed Inspector did tell us to pull up some sort of invasive plant, if you consider that an abridgement of your freedom, perhaps you'd be happier in your Ted Kaczynski shack in the woods where I guarantee no official will bother to inspect your noxious weeds.
House temperature is dependent upon your desire to pay big utility bills to create big temperature changes.
The soap you wash with is absolutely within the domain of public health.
So is the toothpaste you use.
What your job is, that's only relevant to public health because of the asinine way we provision health care through employment in this country.
HOW MANY KIDS YOU CAN HAVE shouldn't be a government concern, yet we incentivize having more kids, I guess since capitalism requires endless growth, which (until about thirty years ago) meant endless growth of the labor pool.

The reality is that most everything does in one way or another touch upon health, but there's no need to make the umbrella that big. There are a number of things which are first and foremost health issues, such as access to care, which because of our primitive economics means being insured. Things like limiting the number of children (or encouraging families to have more) are more about economics than health.

Do you really not see that the Federal income tax deduction for dependents is a direct government intervention in HOW MANY KIDS YOU CAN HAVE?