jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (59 posts)

I'm still fuming over the birth control pill controversy.

  1. amymarie_5 profile image88
    amymarie_5posted 4 years ago via iphone

    I take birth control pills for medical reasons. I have PCOS.  Without it, my hormones would be imbalanced and I'd be at risk for uterine cancer.  There are many women like me. I find it disturbing that those who oppose covering birth control don't know this and equally appalled that those who defend contraceptives have not brought this up. Furthermore, it angers me that the catholic church, who run so many hospitals, are ignorant to this fact. Why aren't more women speaking up? Are we being silenced by the media? What are your thoughts?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Probably because you don't share the same beliefs as others...

    2. Dale Hyde profile image86
      Dale Hydeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A clue here, your anger is not stimulated by what you write about. No subject, topic or item can make you angry unless YOU allow it to anger you. You remain in control.

    3. 70
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You don't have insurance to cover it?
      Do you have the money to buy it yourself?
      Just as you believe that it should be provided, there are those that do not share the same belief.  Why are they wrong and you are right?
      From what I understand, they are not trying to deny your use of them, they are trying to avoid compromising their religious philosophy.  As I seem to remember, the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to their own religious beliefs.

      1. Wendi M profile image83
        Wendi Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Beliefs should have absolutely nothing to do with medical/health problems.  Would you deny diabetics insulin because of religion?

        1. amymarie_5 profile image88
          amymarie_5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is my point exactly. I was raised catholic so are many of my friends who are on the pill so when people say its a religious thing, I gotta call that BS

          1. Wendi M profile image83
            Wendi Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, I understand, and agree with, your point.  I don't understand logic's logic though!

    4. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Amy, this is a constitutional challenge masked behind the guise of distribution of contraceptives.  The president is testing the water to see if he can walk right over the Consititution and decree whatever he wants. His position is unconstitutional in the first place and his fallback "compromise" (as he describes it) is unconstitutional as well.  He is not worried about whether or not you get the birth control pills you need, he is looking to undermine the one document that protects us all...the Constitution. That may not seem important to you but it will someday when you realize what he has done with it. WB

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    They are not ignorant. They have an ideal model for what people are suppose to be. You don't fit the mandate and so don't count.

  3. 0
    jenuboukaposted 4 years ago

    What a great point to make Amy! There should be some insight to this very much indeed.  Many women suffer from extreme periods as well as irregular ones, and may have to use birth control to regulate that among other things.  For some women trying to conceive, sometimes a birth control pill can help in the matter.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I rather imagine that any good catholic will tell you that prayer will be far more successful than birth control pills.  If God wants you to be pregnant, then you will be and taking every pill in the world won't change that.

      1. Greekgeek profile image97
        Greekgeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And the same goes for praying away uterine cancer, I suppose, which is what the original poster uses birth control pills to prevent. We shouldn't use medicines, according to that argument, because it's subverting the will of God.

        I have no problem with people who believe that. But in that case, they shouldn't work at state-funded hospitals that DO provide medicine to patients unless they're willing to provide that medicine; they should instead be funding their own "no medications, no operations" alternative medical treatment centers.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, we already have main religious groups that believe that way.  Fortunately, it doesn't go over well with the feds - every now and then you hear of someone up for child abuse or murder for allowing their child to die when a common, simple medical procedure could have saved them.

          If a church wants to do that (to themselves, not their kids) that's OK, but it needs to be termed a hospice or something similar.  Not "alternative medical treatment" as it isn't treatment at all.  Such practitioners should certainly not be in any hospital, whether state funded or not.

    2. amymarie_5 profile image88
      amymarie_5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Jenbouka! I know a girl that uses birth control pills to treat her acne. Other acne meds don't work as well and have worse side effects. It's amazing what the pill can treat!

  4. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    the media made it the controversy it shouldn't be.

  5. stclairjack profile image78
    stclairjackposted 4 years ago

    the church allows the use of birthcontroll pills when employed for dissorderes such as yours, which i'm familliar with,... hormone therapy the likes of which "the pill" affords work rather well in many cases,.....

    what the church does NOT endorse is the use of "the pill" or other means for contraception,...

    and before some one asks what difference it makes,.... ask your self,... you may take narcotic pain killers to relieve pain,.... or you may take them to get high,.... i'm sure you see the point.

    contraception within the teachings of the catholic church is not a simple subject from any stand point,.... but then,... sex never is,.. is it? ha!

    1. amymarie_5 profile image88
      amymarie_5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not aware that the church allows the use of the pill for medical reasons. I have family members that work at a catholic hospital and I don't think contraceptives have ever been such an issue until just recently. The thing is that if they are so vehemently against contraceptives, it would be difficult to get the pill for health reasons. I imagine they would try to offer less effective medications.

      1. stclairjack profile image78
        stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        for a devout catholic its a question of intent,...

        what is the reason for using this medication?,.... if thier is a valid medical reason for taking the pill, such as treating severe acne, regulation of menstral cycle, treatment of pcos, etc then the use of "the pill" is allowed in good concience,... the fact that it may/probably will prevent pregnancy is seen as a side effect,.... in much the same way that other drugs have side effectts,....

        you may ask if thier are other treatment options available,... but if you and your doctor decide that this is "medicaly" the right way to go, then you are acting within your faith,.... priests and the church allow this.

        again, it is a question of intent,... if youre intent is the treatment of a dissorder and NOT contraception then the church judges your INTENT.

        its a uniquely catholic thing i think,.... perhaps it would clear it up if i were to say that the church is NOT against contraceptives,...... the church is against CONTRACEPTION,.... there is a difference.

        1. 60
          joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It seems to me that it is Gods' job to question someones intent. If there is such a being.  THe trouble is that the church hierarchy want people to be answerable to them whereas, again if there is a God people should be answreable to Him not some fly by nite, tythe collecting, hypocrit who usually gets caught in a message parlor with who knows what or in the scaristy with some young child.  Let god sort things out because it is just as much a mess inside his church as it is outside of it

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think the biggest problem is that the catholic church wants lots and lots of little future catholics running around. 

            I cannot believe that anyone would claim that God's edict to populate the earth has not been satisfied; that leaves that they want more new catholics to fill the collection plate.

            1. stclairjack profile image78
              stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              i'll not argue that we've more than satisfied the comand to go forth and mutiply,... :-),.... however,.... there is something to be said for a little study of demographics,....

              if we fail to breed enough replace ourselves as christians, catholic, protestant, or what ever,.... do not be suprised when you suddenly find yourselves out numbered by those who still value the family and children.

              the muslim faith, for all its querks and failings in the eyes many,.... does at least value the family and the production of children.

              its not a complicated concept,.... breed or perish.

              that said,.... i'm not sure i think we all need 8 children per couple iether,... the duggars scare me to death,.... in three generations they could feild thier own division. ha!

          2. stclairjack profile image78
            stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            joe,... were you born with a built in ability to examine your own concience?... was there never a moment in your life, ever, in which you sought the council of another person in order to solve a spiritual problem or question?..... thats why the church,... any church exists,... to help in that proscess.

            the fact that we find many church leaders caught in the same human failures as others,... means they are human,.... just like us,.... the church is human,.... a devine creation made up of all to human pieces.

            i take some comfort actualy in the idea that the person i turn to for advice sufferes the same temptations as me, has experienced the same pain, frustration, and dissapointments as me,....

            how intimidating it would be to have to stand before some being that was truely perfect with no understanding of my difficult state.

            in some ways, depending on how we handle it over time,... i think church scandle, weather in the catholic church, which makes a great deal of headlines,... or within little protestant churches, which gets little press coverage in comparison,.... scandle forces us to see the human side of it,... the failure of man,... and the chance that man has to learn and rise above it.

            1. 60
              joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Can I call you Jack.  Jack, I can honestly say that I never sought council from anyone about religion. God ia a total mistery and in the absence of his presence since the beginning of time I cannot attach credibility to anyone claiming to be called to the ministry of Gods' wishes. Just because a group of people gathered ancient writings and claimed they were inspired by God I will not place my life in someone elses' hands.  Bible stories are just that stories on the same level as Grimms" fairytales.  The story of Jesus Christ was written by the Egyptians about another son of God long before the story of Jesus, born in a stable to a virgin, highlighted by a enormous star and visited by kings. The story goes on to follow his life to age twelve then lose him until age 32 and then crucifies him on a cross.
              The Catholic church had shown me since as early as the sixth grade that they are about control thru guilt. If you can control peoples' most intimate mom ents (sex)you can get them to do almost anything you want. I have shunned religious explainations of God and am a more balanced individual for it. I have no problem with people who want believe that they were born a sinner because Adam and Eve ate an apple and if you don't get that sin cleansed with baptism you will burn in the eternal fires of hell.  Now there is an all merciful God for you. How about the rule that you cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven if you don;t know the bible.  Some people live to be ninety and have the wherewithall to access the bible and some people live and die without even knowing someone who knows what the bible is but God is all just.  I don't suffer the weakness that would drive me to a church to save my soul and then be used to save the souls of others. Religions are bogus and they should be limited to those who want bet their lives on some self ordained agent of God and please leave the rest of us, who choose common sense, alone.

              1. stclairjack profile image78
                stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                no offense intended,.. hope i can call you joe,...

                i find organized religion to be coumbersom at best most of the time,... precicesly because self ordained power mongers tend to preach free will while stripping it away in the same breath.

                it appears you and i will choose to look at it differently but i'm willng to bet my whiskey money that you and i arent that different.... however,... like you,... i'm not willing to bet my life or soul on the screamings or pontifications of any one man/woman/church.

                i've taken a lot of time n life to ponder the different aproaches, belief systems,.... if one does thier home work they will find one tha fits them.

                my choice is the correct one but only correct for me, i am not a converter of souls,..... i answer questions when they are asked of me, and i provide coucil when it is asked of me,.... i do not convert people,......

                nor do i trash thier belief sytem(s) except when they seem to be spoiling for a fight,... in which case they get one,.... or when they are advocating something that is universaly opposed by human being the world over.

                the forums are n interesting place for conversation,... but are not quite the same as conversation or letter writing are they?! ha!

  6. dmop profile image85
    dmopposted 4 years ago

    IMO it is issues like this that keep driving more and more people away from God. I think the church (which ever one you choose) should focus more on bringing people closer to God. Just my opinion

    1. amymarie_5 profile image88
      amymarie_5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Dmop,
      You are so right about that! People are leaving the catholic church in record numbers. The church is not in touch with society and is still trying to control its followers. Bringing people closer to God is exactly what the church should be doing. I'm a former catholic by the way. I think the term is 'lapsed catholic'.

  7. michifus profile image87
    michifusposted 4 years ago

    The catholic church should allow nuns to take contraceptive pills. Women who never have sex have an increased risk of developing cancer. Taking the pill - even for a relatively short period - can reduce that risk.

    The contraceptive pill is a medication - it has uses other than birth control, as you point out. It is simply hormone therapy.

    1. stclairjack profile image78
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      the pill and other hormone supliments are the WORST thing you can use if you develope cancer,... taking estrogen, progesterone, etc is like pouring fuel on a fire with cancer.

      the same goes for men as well,... if a man has cancer of certain types,... ie; prostate, testicular, etc,... hormone supliments of testosterone are a death sentance,.... one may like the enitial effects of it,... strength, stamina, sex drive,.... but its hiroshima for cancer,...

      lastly,.... the idea that all nuns should take the pill at least for a little while to somehow protect themselves from cancer,..... good luck scooter,.... when the pope sprouts wings and talks mohamed into a ham sandwich,... then MAYBE we'll see. ha!

  8. michifus profile image87
    michifusposted 4 years ago

    No, to help prevent cancer, not when you have it. Recent research in Australia suggests that taking the pill can reduce the risk of developing it, and two aussie doctors have suggested that nuns should have a course, at least once. I cant imagine that it will ever happen though

    1. stclairjack profile image78
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      you got that right

    2. amymarie_5 profile image88
      amymarie_5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Michivus, that is very insightful. I also heard that nuns should take the pill. It does protect against cancer and it's one of the reasons I'm supposed to be on it. Of course stclairjack is right. It'll be a cold day in hell before the church even considers that!!!

  9. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    To Amy's original point; it seems she has a medical problem. A hormonal imbalance is a medical problem. It just as easily could have been a Thyroid problem. I take Synthroid because my Thyroid was removed seven years ago due to cancer. But Synthroid is not about sex so there is no controversy. But Synthroid is used by body builders because it can speed up your metabolism which helps them burn fat. That sort of use is illegal. But if she has a prescription and the medical records back it up then insurance should cover it. That part seems to be clean to me.

    As for the birth control side of it there may be an argument that this is an elective use of the pill. There are other forms of birth control. Should that be covered? If I was an insurance company I'd want to cover it because having a baby IS covered and that costs a lot more money from a purely business point of view. I don't get the rigidity of Catholics on this. I'm not going to sit here and say life begins at conception even though TECHNICALLY speaking something is happening that will become life.

    Men purportedly take Viagra for a medical reason. That part of their body doesn't work. Can it be measured (no pun intended) like a hormonal imbalance can be measured? I'm not sure. I know I told my doctor that I wanted to try Viagra and he gave me a sample (actually it was Cialis). It seems I could have gotten a prescription very easily....

    1. 60
      joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Should disfunctional men be forced to take viagra because a limp digit is a form of birth control

  10. 60
    joe scaliseposted 4 years ago

    Catholics are attempting to take the tree of the forbidden fruit out of the garden of eden. It wasn't the tree of knowledge that was evil.  What got Adam and Eve evicted from paradise and stained the souls of future gnenrations was disobedience.  It is not a matter of removing all temptation. If you are a believer it is a matter of obedience. If priests and ministers were sincere they would see that they are failing to reach their flock.  Perhaps they should be less concerned with the accumulation of wealth and start prioritizing the saving of souls.  If you are going to live your life by fairytale stories at least get it right.

    1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
      The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Caiaphas lives....

      There's the irony and the hypocrisy. The "HIgh Priests" have allowed themselves to become drunk with power (disobeying Christ) yet they have no tolerance for the temptations of the flesh in their "subjects." It's all about temptation to push things further than they need or should be....

  11. Nouveau Skeptic profile image76
    Nouveau Skepticposted 4 years ago

    What's to speak up about?  The final version got universal coverage for all women.  That's a win.

    1. stclairjack profile image78
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      exactly!,... though it will take some time to measure the impact of it,.... insurance companies are now mandated (forced) to cover birthcontroll at thier own expense (laughable) for clients covered under church policies,....

      one of two things will happen,...

      A) the cost will be passed along in premium hikes to all under that policy,.... therby forcing devout catholics to pay for contracpetion in a "round the barn" manner,....

      B) the insurance provider will drop the church and its subsidiaries rather than cover something at thier own expense.

      it sugests that the catholic church or some other religious conglomerate may need to get into the healt insurance buisness in order to provide designer coverages.

      i'm fine with the church being the spiritual guide for my soul,.... i'm not sure i want the christian conglomerate healthcare giant deciding weather or not i get my arthritus meds,... or just "carry my cross",..... though the insurance buisness seems lucrative,.... i can seen the tax free apeal,.....

      wow,...... i'm getting 6 extra weeks in purgatory for this arent i? ha!

  12. S G Hupp profile image82
    S G Huppposted 4 years ago

    In the debate centered on the Catholic Church, I think everyone is losing sight of the real question which is "does the government have the right to interfere with church doctrine in matters like this.  The answer from a constitutional standpoint is no.  I personally believe the birth control restriction within the catholic church is an asinine throwback to an earlier historic period.  But I'm also very offended that my government feels justified in forcing a church to violate it's principles.

    1. stclairjack profile image78
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this


      1. 60
        joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No the real question is not whether the goverment should violate religious beleif systems. It is do church belief systems supercede government policies.  If my belief system says that all wars are immoral as well as all war machines are evil. Does the goverment have to refund all the money that was spent on wars to people of my faith or pull out of war and destroy our weapons. This is not a constitutional grievance.  This is a test of religious influence. Religions shouldn't even be part of the medical field. Medicine is a pure science abd should not be interfered with by religious beliefs.  Religion needs to be kept personal and protected in that realm.

        1. S G Hupp profile image82
          S G Huppposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Your argument isn't valid.  If you were opposed to combat for religious reasons and you also happened to work for your church and the government decided that going forward, employers were responsible for arming their employees who were then required to join the local militia...THEN you could draw a parallel. As it stands, in the United States, the Military Selective Service act allows for alternative assignments for concientious objectors and it can't legally force your church to buy you a gun.    The refund question is absolutely unrelated. Our tax dollars are spent on a vast number of things that at any given time, a large portion of the population is going to find objectionable...this isn't about refunds.  It's about requiring a certain action.

          1. 60
            joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My analogy may be less than a perfect ezample but hwy should I have to take a support position for war that helps or encourages killing.  But the bottom line is that the government is not required to consider religious beliefs when formulating policy. Religion cannot prove that there si a God or can they prove that the bible is anything more than a book of fairytales.  Faith cannot and should not be legislated. Religious values should be taught and enforced but only for thosse who belong to that particular group.  You may not like it but freedom of religion is for all religions in America. Do you believe that religions from the mideast that alter womens' vaginas to so they don't experience the pleasure of sex should be allowed in America?  The Constitution protects your right to practice your chosen religion but does not guarantee that government policy will always comply with any specific church policy.  Roe vs Wade is the prime example of that.  And you can say what youn want about Roe vs Wade but your conservative republicans have had ample opportunity to overturn this legislation but for obvious reasons chose not to deal with it. If religions spent all this time getting a message to their flock not to use birth control or have abortions your church will have successfully doewn its job.  They need to stay out of everyone elses' pants.

            1. stclairjack profile image78
              stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              now see,.... on many things we agree,.... ABSOLUTELY the reigious right and kool-aid party republicans have had 39 years to work against roe v wade,.. only choosng to do so in the last 15 or so because it was a good wedge issue.

              for the record i think roe v wade should stand,... if you think bortion is wrong dont have one, and do your best to talk others out of one,.... adopt,... donate to pregncy centers,.... donate to adoption  funds,....

              ......but dont scream about the powere of payer while seking to legislate moralty.

            2. S G Hupp profile image82
              S G Huppposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Joe, you're just arguing my side of the issue--very strongly. 

              "Faith cannot and should not be legislated. Religious values should be taught and enforced but only for those who belong to that religious group"

              This is exactly what I'm talking about.  The GOVERNMENT was trying to force the CHURCH to provide birth control to church employees.  It wasn't the CHURCH telling the GOVERNMENT that it couldn't allow birth control for it's people.    And therefore your Taliban reference is backwards and makes no sense. 

              And were you talking to me when you said "your conservative republicans" and "your church"? Those are mighty big assumptions when the real issue is religious freedom.

              1. 60
                joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                First of all birth control is not being forced. It is being offered. You must know that all christians are not practicing birth control and just because they work for a church doesn't mean that they shouldn.t be extended the same offer as the mainstream.  As far as conservative republicans, I was not refering to you. I don't know your affiliation but those of whom I speak are using any issue available to target Obama. And don't take my use of his name here as me supporting his presidency.  I think he has done very little to correct the failings of his predecesor but I wont jump on every band wagon that come down the road

        2. stclairjack profile image78
          stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          i hate it when these conversations flip to nazi refferences as they all too frequently do,.... but with all due respect,..... you think government policy is more important than religious beliefs?

          in a nation founded upon the principal of feedom, a nation that has enshrined religious freedom in its constitution,... not freedom "from" religion but instead freedom "of" religion.

          it was german government "policy" to treat those of jewish descent as they did,... to the detriment of 6 million jews,..... it was government policy in 1930-40's germany to marginalize, then enslave, then murder 6 million other people in addition to the jews of europe, among them jehovas whitness', atheist, comunists, catholics, gypsies,.....

          in the name of "pure science" they euthenised their own children who had cleft pallets, low IQ's etc,... hell,..... just based on that pre-requisit alone half of this wrting commnity would have been exterminated already for the foolish, calloused and inflamitory things they post.

          do not sir, seek to deffend "government policy" and not expect a fight from those of us who at least have paid the smallets bit of attention to history,....

          it is "government policy" in china to enforce the one child policy,... and at bayonet point if need be,.... and they are just now begining to realize the demographic disaster they have brought upon themselves,... not to mention the moral and psycological one.

          next on my list of things to rail against,.....

          the church,.... meaning the catholic one,.... INVENTED the hospital system as we know it today,.... they invented the college education system as we know it today,.... the first scientists,.... were monks, clerics and priests,... the first study of genetics was done by a piest by the name of mendolson,.... google it,..... (oops,...mendel)

          science is a gift from the catholic church to an ungreatfull world that has turned it upon those who gave it,.... giving no credit, no thanks,.. only claiming high status because they now posses science,.....

          like a spoiled rich child can posess the porche that his father gave him,.... and still hate the father who gave it,.... even run him over with it.

          on the point of religion being personal,.... i whole heartedy agree,.... we should be able to keep that personal,..... unless of course we institute a "government policy" that decrees othewise,...

          as long as its "government policy",..... ok.

          1. stclairjack profile image78
            stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            oh hell,.... i'm not done,....

            it was US governmet policy to EXTERMINATE native americans

            it was US gevernment policy to permit,.. no,.. ENCOURAGE the slave trade in africa through the 18th century,.... even after fifgting a war to stop it in our own country we winked at its veiled form in the sugar industry in cuba and elsewhere...

            it was US government POLICY to subjigate and electorly dissenfranchise the black americn for an additional 100 years,...

            it was US gevernmet POLICY to inter japanese amerians durring WW2,... confiscating thier homes, and property,..

            the term "government policy" does little to aleiviate my fears,.... and it doesnt bring back the dead.

          2. 60
            joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I also hate when conversations flip to Hitler and Nazi oppression and since you opened that bag I will respond to it. First I don't need the Catholic church to protect me from the government. The church had a chance to intervene with Hitler but waited until it was too late.
            Now as to the Catholic church inventing science, medicine and education.  They did these things to control information. If left to the catholic church we would still think that the stars were holes in the floor of heaven.  Countless people were either killed or silenced by sanction or impreisonment if they disagreed with Catholic teachings.  The church retarded science and education.  The Catholic hospitals would not treat some one labeled a heritic or possessed with the devil.  If you carry this debate back to when the Catholic church started colleges and hospitals you would lose on the grounds that they hindered the intelligent forward growth of both and still stand in the way because of archaic church beliefs.  Back to this Hitler BS.  I don't want the Catholic church intervening on my behalf as an American citizen on any issue.  You took me back into the history of Hitler and the Nazi party but historically the Catholic church, when considering the population of the world for comparison, killed more peole, per capita, than Hitler and oppressed as many and by the way they were terrorists.  There is no defending the history of the Catholic church.  They were driven by greed.  They sold indulgences to land barons and kings so they could start fresh with their killing and oppression.  They are not a representation of God they are an INSTITUTION that places greed and control(power)over preparing their flock for eternity.  Because they started the first colleges says nothing more than they wanted the monopoly on information much like today. Don't try to convince me that the fall of organized religion will upset the balance anywhere beyond the hopes and dreams of controllong conservative radical christians.

            1. stclairjack profile image78
              stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              baby and bath water come to mind,.... in all houses a few roaches will be found,.... but we do not burn all houses.

              i've never made exuses for the wrongs of men or the organizations they might belong to,... i try to examine why those mistakes were made,... and not repeat them.

              a higherarchy, no matter it be religious or secular will do bad things if allowed to by its citizenry,.... the soviet union under numerous leaders killed more of its OWN people than hitler did,.. and they did it as atheists,... and they did it through "policy",...

              the original premis for this thread was the government enforcing something upon a religious institution that contradicts its beliefs.

              1. 60
                joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jack, are you really comparing the Inquisition and the Crusades to a few cockroaches. I am aware of the intent of this thread but you took it back in history and I responded.  Back to the thread. No one is forcing contraception or abortion on anyone. These methods of contraception are being made available to the public.  If the church has a problem it should not be with the presence of temptation.  If their flock participates or avail themselves to contraceptives it points to  a weakness in the fibre of their religion. Shall we close our banks so that some wayward christian doesn't violate the  commandment that thou shall not steal.

                1. stclairjack profile image78
                  stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  point taken,.... i say this with a broad smile on my face,... wonderfull response,... i always enjoy a great debate and despise an arguement,...

                  in comparing the crusades and inquisition to cockroaches,... perhaps the two are apples and oranges,.. but fruit none the less,.... my bad.

                  i find myself often playing devils advocate when i point out what some one or something got right,.... body counts do not nessesarily vindicate or convict,...

                  the catholic church, for all its failings, did still get many things right,.... in the midst of all its wrongs,.... and they still do

                  the USA did and does still get many things right,.... in the midst of the many things we've gotten wrong,...

                  the romans pitted man against man for sport,... to the death,... sacraficing christians on the alter of entertainment,.... but they gave the world concreet and the arch,... the first great empire of its kind,... and a cruel lesson to those who would heed it,...

                  even the nazis for all thier twisted cruelty certainly have to be comended for thier efficiency and record keeping skills,.. (and thats the hight of devils advocacy BTW)

                  bottom line,.... these great historical nations, ideas or institutuions are made up of frail faulty human beings,... subject to the whims and base desires that sometimes rule us,...

                  the key to success is in the small voice of cencience being allowed to whisper above the roar of popularity,.... a "government policy" should never superceed the concience of man,.... your concience may not always agree with mine,... but niether should mine be allowed to silence yours because of that dissagreement,.... just because i may or may not out number you

                  when men are allowed to act in good concience,.... the good is preserved.

                  what the obama mandate re; contraception did was force the church to include it in health care coverage when the church believes contraception to be wrong,.... a next logical step would be to force coverage for abortions,... because they are legal and a choice,.... as is contraception,... the unbiquetos "slippery slope"

                  the small whispering voice of concience was fed to the lions in rome,...

                  it was burned at the stake for heracy during the inquisition,...

                  it was excomunicated at best and hanged at worst durring the refformation,...

                  it was gassed in nazi germany,... sentanced to the gulag in communist russia,...

                  the small voice of concience is curently being silenced in the prisons of china,...

                  the small whispering voice of concience does not scream loud enough to be heard above the roar of media or hype,... or talking points,...

                  it whispers in the soul of man,... through the written word,... through a photo,... through a sound track,....

                  now more than ever, we as human beings have a chance to truly see the whole world through electronic media,... and look at it with our concience,... if we would just look,.... rather than just looking away,.... not turning the chanel to watch survivor island,...

                  the small voice of concience in america is being silenced ,.... by the politicaly correct sensors and by being drowned out by the noise of the entertaiment,....

                  like not being able to hear that the coluseum is on fire because of the roar of the crowds as the gladiators die in front of you.

                  our constitutuion does not mention a concience clause,.... but it should..... it exists in law after law that is re-written and struck down etc,... but it should be enshrined in the same way as the first amandment,...........

                  but i'm not sure we can legaly protect what we cannot define,... nor can we be charged with protecting that which we seem to be hell bent on destroying.

                  sorry much,.... i rambled,.... i apologize,.... but beuing madly in love with my own words i'm still gona hit submit. ;-) peace. -jack

                  1. 60
                    joe scaliseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jack I know how you fell about your convictions and I respect that. So let's just cordially agree to disagree

  13. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    I think the question was neatly settled by making them provide full coverage but not directly pay for that part of it. I think this was fair and reasonable arrangement.

  14. 0
    Larry Wallposted 4 years ago

    I understand that many women take birth control pills for various and legitimate medical reasons other than contraception. The Catholic Church does not object to that. The majority of the workforce does not work for Catholic institutions and therefore, the most recent birth control controversy does not apply. For people who work for Catholic institutions, there is a simple answer. The law could be written that religious based institutions that oppose contraceptive pills and devices, shall now be require to offer them as part of the routine medical coverage. However, the medication shall be covered only if the patient supplies from her doctor, with possibility of being subjected to the requirement of a second opinion, stating that the patient needs the medication for medical reasons other than contraception. The reasons would have to be spelled out in the letter. This practice is done for many medications. The information, like all insurance medication should be kept private. The final decision should rest with the insurance administrator and not with a member of the clergy. The insurance administrator may have to seek advice from the church on some issues, but the decision will not be left to your parish priest.

    Many so-called complex issues have workable solutions. This is one of them.

    All insurance plans have their quirks. Men have to take certain blood tests and get a not from their doctor to get Viagra. The plan I happen to be on will not cover the migraine medication my wife takes because there is no generic and therefore is too expensive. She is going have to meet with her doctor and find an alternative that hopefully will work.

    The contraception issue can be worked out. However, it has been turned into a medical/political issue. We have the threat of an uncertain health care reform plan hanging over our heads and a political race that seeks to create as much segmentation of the voting population as possible.

    1. psycheskinner profile image83
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that would be exactly the wrong thing to do.  Employers don't get to decide issues of conscience for people they happen to employ or the doctors that happen to treat them. Those people get full care, those doctors get full professional discretion, no one needs to grovel for permission from the high and mighty guy who signs the checks--the church just doesn't have to directly fund some parts of it.  That is, exactly what the new law requires.

      I don't see why the church should have more power over the lady who mops the floor than the people who sit in the pews. She only signed up to do a job, not follow a God. If the church only wants to hire the obedient devout--it is their responsibility to ensure this outcome--and not the legal and medical systems duty to enforce it.

      1. 0
        Larry Wallposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I really think we are on the same page. When dealing with group insurance policies, the governing body that owns the policy pays a portion of everything. It collects some premiums from the employers, but usually pays a portion. If it is against Church doctrine to encourage or promote the use of contraceptives, then a alternate solution has to be found. If the medicine is for treatment of a medical condition, and not to prevent pregnancy, the plan I suggested, or something like it is one alternative.

        I do not know the cost of birth control pills. I worked in a neighborhood drugstore when I was 15 and 16, about 45 years ago, and they were not that expensive, even for that time.

        I also know that the state of Louisiana considered the possibility of disallowing payments for oral contraceptives under the policy for state employees. Since my wife and I were not involved, I do not remember the outcome. But it does show that this is not a new issue.

  15. stclairjack profile image78
    stclairjackposted 4 years ago

    Ok, lets see if I can express this right,…

    The catholic church just has it wrong when it comes to contraception,…
    The best way to instill a  love of family is to teach it,… not legislate it, or decree it.

    That said, the catholic church has it absolutely right on the question on abortion,…. In part,… It is a moral wrong, and a blight on the soul of mankind,…. However,… criminalizing it is NOT the answer.

    Drinking yourself to a stupor to the ruination of yours and others lives is a moral wrong,… but liquor is legal,… and boy oh boy am I glad.

    Gambling away your wages at the track to the detriment of your family, loved ones and responsibilities is a moral wrong,… but we have legalized gambling.

    Being deceitful and conniving is morally wrong,… but we have glamorized it in pop culture and rewarded it on contrived reality TV.

    Contraception is a small piece of the abortion puzzle,… and the abortion question is only a symptom of a larger problem,…… we are living in a time of changing values,… we are valuing family less and matterial success more,….

    To argue over reproductive issues is to argue over how to treat the fever while NEVER addressing the underlying infection.