Mandated Contraceptive Coverage

1. 84

   Joelipooposted 12 years ago

   Obama just made a statement about changing his mandate that religious organizations must provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.  This has caused an uprising becuase it infringes upon religious freedoms.  The Catholic Church has been making a big deal about it.  Now, the insurance companies will have to pay for the free contraceptives instead of the religious organization paying for it.  Obama claimed he made the change because he cares about religious freedoms.  Does it seem more like he was scared about the political backlash his mandate was causing?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      gregasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      All he was concerned about is that almighty vote. He like a chameleon and changes his colors more and more the closer it comes to election time. After all, he is a "polotician". Greg

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Change is what you voted for. Change his mind. Change his principles. Change his promises. Hope & change

      replyreport
   3. 91

      melporposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The vast majority of women supposed his change today, both catholics and non-catholics.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Personally, I think the whole idea of insurance having to pay for contraceptives is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Why the hell should anyone be entitled to free contraception? There's already a foolproof free plan to avoid any complications caused by having sex.
      
      I'm sick to death of this bullshit. Government needs to keep their stinkin' hands out of the mundane and unnecesary areas of everyday life. They have no business doing this. It has nothing to do with health care. And then we wonder why insurance is so high.

      replyreport
   5. 82

      Wayne Brownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The president, under the terms of the Constitution, certainly does not possess the power to decree that the Catholics or any other religion will follow a certain path or action. If that were true, he could have decreed that Islamic mosque would not be built at Ground Zero...he did not.  At the same time, his fall back position is unconstitutional as well.  His position is not awarded the power to tell insurance companies how they will conduct their business in a free market economy. No...he is purposely testing the waters here to see what he can get away with in terms of "assumed power" and you will see it again and again. This man loathes the Constitution and what it stands for in the lives of all Americans.  Sadly, far too many agree with him and stand at the ready to trash the one document that defines, establishes and protects our rights as citizens of this country. Ignorance is such bliss. WB

      replyreport
   6. 63

      prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think most employers have their contributions/share in medical and dental of every employee. Religious institutions should not be exempted. Availing of contraception and reproductive health in general are covered under overall men's/women's medical health.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. There is no requirement that anybody use contraceptives who believes it is wrong or sinful to do so. The Catholic church and evangelicals are wrong to try to impose their moral strictures on the rest of us. Thanks to the Catholic church the sale or use of contraceptives was illegal until the Connecticut law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Griswold v Connecticut 1965. Incredible, isn't it?
         
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
         
         Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".
         
         Contraception
         
         In 1915, architect William Sanger was charged under the New York law against disseminating contraceptive information.[7] In 1918, his wife Margaret Sanger was similarly charged. On appeal, her conviction was reversed on the grounds that contraceptive devices could legally be promoted for the cure and prevention of disease.[8]
         
         The prohibition of devices advertised for the explicit purpose of birth control was not overturned for another eighteen years. During World War I, U.S. Servicemen were the only members of the Allied forces sent overseas without condoms which led to more widespread STDs among U.S. troops. In 1932, Sanger arranged for a shipment of diaphragms to be mailed from Japan to a sympathetic doctor in New York City. When U.S. customs confiscated the package as illegal contraceptive devices, Sanger helped file a lawsuit. In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients.[8]
         
         In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts. However, Griswold only applied to marital relationships. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried persons as well.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Is this the same Marge Sanger that was responsible for the banning of DDT in Africa, thus allowing 12 million people to die so that Bird eggs would hatch? Just wondering.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               There is no mention of banning DDT in her Wikibio.
               
               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Google search it---Wiki has been scrubbed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I'll take your word for it. Few lead a perfect unblemished life. I'm not sure what the pros and cons of DDT are. However, I recall that a young child of one of my grade school teachers died from exposure to DDT used in a a household hand sprayer. Sometime later DDT was outlawed in this country and most other countries, as I recall.
                     
                     Here's an entry from Wikipedia on DDT.
                     
                     In 1962, Silent Spring by American biologist Rachel Carson was published. The book catalogued the environmental impacts of the indiscriminate spraying of DDT in the US and questioned the logic of releasing large amounts of chemicals into the environment without fully understanding their effects on ecology or human health. The book suggested that DDT and other pesticides may cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds. Its publication was one of the signature events in the birth of the environmental movement, and resulted in a large public outcry that eventually led to DDT being banned in the US in 1972.[4] DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day and remains controversial.[5][6]
                     
                     Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle, the national bird of the United States, from near-extinction in the contiguous US.[7]
                     
                     [This doesn't have much to do with the topic of this thread--Contraceptives.

                     replyreport
   7. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think the Bishops' position had anything to do with politics, i.e., the election in November? Maybe they should just tell their Catholics not to use contraceptives and not try to impose their views on non-Catholics?

      replyreport
2. 60

   BobbiRantposted 12 years ago

   Many insurance companies gladly pay for Viagra.  Equality?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      These churches do not support contraceptives. Viagra is the exact opposite.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I think the idea is that one's employer cannot in fact decide whom one does or does not sleep with or under which circumstances, or punish choices they disagree with. Just because you happen to be sweeping the floor of a church rather than an office building--this does not change.  These are acts of conscience and belong to the individual.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You knew when hired what their beliefs were. Create your own business & establish whatever rules you want. Don't try to force your opinion into their business.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You may be able to pick and choose jobs, but not everyone is.  So if a person chooses to take the job they can get, I don't see why the employer should be able to basically fine them for having protected sex. None of their business what their employees (not congregation, *employees*) do in their own homes.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  So knowing in advance what the terms are means nothing to you. Just force what you want on others.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     In this case, yes.  Churches have been issued a "bye" on many issues that cut their business costs below that of their competition from tax cuts and benefits to not paying for unemployment benefits.  Now they want another one; while all other business pay for this insurance cost, the church wants another "bye" from the laws governing businesses.
                     
                     If a church wants to participate in the business world, whether it be a hospital, a university or other school, or a used clothing store they need to understand that they will be playing on a level playing field.  Regardless of their belief system. 
                     
                     If they don't want to play the business game they don't have to.  Our constitution does not give any religious organization the right to do anything they want and it is past time that we quit subsidizing their business ventures by modifying the laws for them.

                     replyreport
                     1. 74

                        Tim_511posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        For that argument to have any logic, you first have to explain why and how the federal government has the power granted under the Constitution to tell any private company what insurance( if any at all) that they must provide to their workers.  If you can explain this, only then does that point hold.
                        
                        A job is not a right, but a privilege provided by someone else at their expense.  If a person doesn't like the rules for a company, there is no requirement that they take a job with them.  That is not subsidizing their business because no money comes out of your pocket to provide for them.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I won't argue Obama care - that will be for the courts to decide.  The general point, however, holds for much more than that one narrow case.
                           
                           But money out of my pocket?  Of course it is.  Who do you think provides the food stamps for laid off workers that can't get unemployment because they are laid off from a religious based business?  Who do you think picks up the extra tax bill that these businesses have been exempted from?

                           replyreport
                           1. 74

                              Tim_511posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Okay, I thought that you were referring specifically to the healthcare and contraceptive issue with that statement.  I'm not sure specifically how some of the other issues work, so I won't argue with that.

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 I meant to refer to the contraceptive issue and healthcare only in that IF the businesses that churches are competing with must pay it, then the church based business should also. 
                                 
                                 Whether or not the whole thing is legal is another question entirely.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Food Stamps, unemployment, Obama Care, birth control: none of these are mentioned in my Constitution. None of these were in existance up until the 1960's. Wonder why this country reached it's pinnacle BEFORE all this UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOCIALISM was allow thru by the Liberal courts. Maybe more people should actually read it. IT "was" the LAW OF THE LAND once.

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 While I will agree that liberals with their socialistic outlook is ruining our country, it is not unconstitutional.  Unless you can point to the section of that document that specifically says the federal government cannot give out food stamps or any other charity (welfare)?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    The 10th admendent . Next question.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 67

                                       Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       American liberals aren't socialists or have a "socialistic outlook" whatever that means. They believe in a social safety net (unemployment compensation, Social Security, Medicare, OSHA and so forth) which is not "socialism." In addition, they believe in government regulation of business to prevent the depredations of monopolies, crooked bank practices, insider stock trading and so forth, sufficient to provide a modicum of assurance that businesses and the market will deliver honestly and fairly on the promised benefits of the market. This does not remotely amount to socialism. The only arguments are over the extent and design of social safety net programs and the amount of business, environmental and other regulation needed in a modern free enterprise democracy.

                                       report
               2. 59

                  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? The issue is shouldn't even be which employers are exempt from this. The issue should be why is this even on the books? This is not the domain of government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  replyreport
3. 60

   pedrogposted 12 years ago

   Well, religions can be a powerful lobby, and clearly he changed that to keep the "white catholic" voters, but when the muslin community wants to live by the sharia law, will that be religious freedom too? If i come up with a religion that worships gamble, hard drugs and prostitution will it be legal for me and my followers to practice this freely and without paying taxes? Well i guess you have to respect my religious freedom...

   replyreport
4. 61

   Steve Orionposted 12 years ago

   Isn't this much less of a argument of religion than it is of contraception? The religious fools are against contraception, so being forced to provide it naturally upsets them. Shouldn't the debate be about contraceptives, not religion? I can't claim I should pay less taxes since my religion demands it, but I can argue against being taxed because of another reason, like say, a valid one.
   
   "Obama has violated our religious freedom!" That is so utterly laughable it saddens me. He was right to reverse the decision, though, since it helps his reelection chances. What else do you expect?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It was Obie that claimed he reversed it for religious freedom. He therefore is the one that is "utterly laughable".

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Steve Orionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Is "Obie" President Obama? If so, then no, I doubt he overturned it for any other reason that politics. It was the religious groups that pressed for the overturn for religious freedom, not politics. They are therefore the ones that are "utterly laughable."

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Of course he overturned it because of politics, those that vote for him because they think he is honorable are the ones who are utterly laughable. Is that you?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Steve Orionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So is he to criticize because of that? I think that would be more a criticism of the game than of him, as he is just a player.

               replyreport
         2. 0

            Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            NOPE--Obie claimed at the press conference today that he changed it for religious freedoms. He's the laughable one.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Personally, I think you've all gone insane if you can't see that what's laughably offensive to me as a taxpaying citizen is that the government sees fit to get involved in mandatory rubberizing of irresponsible people at the expense of businesses.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Irresponsible people? How is using contraceptives irresponsible?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Steve Orionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I think this clearly illustrates the ignorance of the opposite side. They see it as "mandatory rubberizing of irresponsible people," not grown women making their own decisions as they see fit. Such a shame that, when it comes to topics of debate, ignorance impedes any potential headway that could be made.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Grown women making their own decisions should pay for what they want. If a " grown woman " decides she wants to vacation in Aruba, should taxpayers for that bill too?

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Steve Orionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Well employers often provide paid vacation.... but I digress. This falls, like anything related to it, under health. The fight isn't over benefits provided, but over contraceptives, right?

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Key word was provide. They are not forced to give vacation. But you do digress. This started with you trying to make the conservative side look stupid over the "religious freedom" idea. You quickly changed horses when I pointed out that it was your Obie that said HIS about -face was because of "religious freedom". CHECKMATE

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Steve Orionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 ...
                                 "My Obie?" I believe that "Obie" maturely refers to the President of the U.S. and "my" refers to the notion that I somehow take possession of him. President Obama said it was for religious freedom, while it was really about politics and votes. He fibbed when he spoke about religious freedom, the conservatives are sincere. I was also unaware we were playing chess, but sure, you win...

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Fibbed?---When your side lies, it's a fib. When the RepubliCRATS lie, is it still just a fib, or is it then a whopper?  AND yes --you were shown to be foolish in trying to make the other side look bad when your side was  "utterly laughable".

                                    replyreport
                  2. 67

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     That's a good question. Actually the reverse is true. I think coturepop thinks sex is irresponsible unless the individuals are trying for a pregnancy.

                     replyreport
5. 59

   readytoescapeposted 12 years ago

   The point of the entire argument beyond the separation of church and state is that government should have no power to enact legislation to compel (by rule of law and threat of punishment), an individual or a corporation to do anything.
   
   In this issue the government is compelling all institutions to provide “reproductive care” (liberal catch phrase) at no cost beyond normal co-pay. Some providers have no issue with this coverage, others, like the Catholic Church, its subsidiaries and charities, are ardently opposed because it is in direct contravention to their core doctrine.     
   
   This has nothing to do with a woman’s health, choices or freedom to choose, this is a clear violation of constitutional provisions providing separation between church and state and the incursion of government on individual liberty. One’s freedom to believe or not, or to practice their religious doctrine as they see fit.
   
   By forcing an individual or group to violate their core beliefs under the pressure of the penalty of law is a clear breach of constitutional intent and an abuse of power

   replyreport
   1. 60

      pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I will use my argument again:
      
      "when the muslin community wants to live by the sharia law, will that be religious freedom too? If i come up with a religion that worships gamble, hard drugs and prostitution will it be legal for me and my followers to practice this freely and without paying taxes? Well i guess you have to respect my religious freedom..."

      replyreport
      1. 59

         readytoescapeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Your argument about Sharia Law does not hold water. If Muslim wants to live by Sharia law that person is free to do so, however the enforcements and penalties that you elude to and that are prevented, (and the ones that make headlines here in the modern world), are typically perpetrated against others that chose not adhere to that standard. Those people/victims are entitled to the same liberties and protections you and I are.   
         
         Your argument is that one single entity via their own personal set of beliefs should control all others by force and that one individual’s rights to religious freedom are greater than another individual’s right to choose what to believe or how to live.
         
         I don’t care if you believe in the Great Spoon, you and everyone else in this nation is free to practice whatever religion they choose, however that belief system and whatever crazy rules, laws, antics or whatever can not be forced upon others.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The Catholic church has a long history of trying to enforce its beliefs on everyone else. Until 1965, thanks to the Catholic church, selling or using contraceptives in Connecticut was illegal. The Connecticut prohibition on contraceptives was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1965.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               readytoescapeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Gee whiz Ralph I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the Spanish Inquisition, as a portion of your assault. Which really serves no purpose to the discussion other than another liberal attack on religion blurring the argument and pushing liberal talking points. However, for your example to have been law, that law had to be ratified by the Connecticut legislature not the Catholic Church. In so your attack should be directed at the people of Connecticut and their Representatives.
               
               The disagreement is not about contraceptives or women’s "reproductive" health. It is a basic constitutional issue of the state, compelling by force, a group to cast aside its religious beliefs in contravention to its liberties. 
               
               But you do bring up an interesting observation and demonstrate that modern day Liberal Progressives much like the Catholic Church of the 15th century are just as fanatical trying to force their social beliefs on everyone and using the force of governmental powers to do a la Torquemada.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The Liberal Warren Court was in error in the Conn. case. Nowhere in the Federal Constitution was the "power to control reproduction" listed. Therefore: That was a power granted to the States in the 10 admendent. The Warren Court had ZERO legal authority to hear that case. Progressivism - with court backing, is how this nation came to the brink of destruction we are now at.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Are you saying you support the right of states to prohibit the sale or use of contraceptives? Get real.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm saying having the Federal Gov't have that right is UNREAL. The 10th admendment CLEARLY says any power not granted in the Constitution to the FEDERAL Gov't  is granted to each STATE. You can hate that fact--BUT it's still a fact.

                        replyreport
               2. 67

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I would never try to tell a Catholic to use contraceptives, and I don't appreciate Catholics (the clueless bishops) telling me not to use them, even to the extent of passing laws making them illegal.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     The church has no legal authority to pass laws. The Conn . Legislature does. AND DID.

                     replyreport
6. 60

   logic,commonsenseposted 12 years ago

   Obama the dictator is acting like all he has to do is say it is so and it is so.  Apparently he forgot their is a Constitution and a legislative branch of government.  Oh that's right, he knows what best for all of us and we are too damnned ignorant to figure it out for ourselves.

   replyreport
7. 0

   Gusserposted 12 years ago

   perhaps I confused Carson & Sanger--MY BAD Thanks for correcting me.

   replyreport
8. 60

   pedrogposted 12 years ago

   Why Catholics are angry with Obama
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Joelipooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That image is entirely inappropriate. You lose any credibility at all trying to have a serious discussion when youuke childish moves like that.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Why should an institution responsible for mass murder, wars, torture, religious persecution, and more recently uncovered, mass sexual child abuse cover up and protecting pedophiles deserves any respect or credibility at all and should be free from mockery?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It has nothing to do with them, it has to do with you.

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Joelipooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am not here as a proponent of the Catholic church.  I disagree with a great deal of what they do.  All of that aside, it doesn't mean they need to be degraded with immature humor.  You can still show respect for an institution you don't support.  My problem here is with Obama and his need to act like a dictator with his mandates.  If he is willing to infringe on religious rights like this, what will be next?  It's a downward spiral.

            replyreport
      2. 67

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Lighten up!

         replyreport
9. 59

   readytoescapeposted 12 years ago

   Ralph, the Catholic Bishops, and many others, are not arguing “your” use of them, they are opposed to being compelled to providing them. There is a difference.
   
   Liberals always try to skew the issue by employing tactics to blur the lines of argument with “talking points” and sound bites intended to strike a nerve in the uninformed.
   
   Contraception in general and its availability or use is not the issue. Anyone can go to any number of the government or private affiliated locations that choose to participate to obtain “reproductive health” aids, like Planned Parenthood for example.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The bishops will go as far as they can to impose their beliefs on everyone. As I mentioned above, they succeeded in lobbying for and passing a law in Connecticut which prohibited the use or sale of contraceptives. Now they want to prohibit all abortions, even when they are medically necessary to save the life of the mother and even the use of "morning after" pills by anyone, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims or atheists.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Joelipooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Isn't that how our system works?  People lobby to try to get laws passed?  That's how most things turn out to become laws because people make a push for them.  The bishops definitely didn't make that law.  The representatives that the people of Connecticut put in office voted to make that law.  I'm not sure when you can say an abortion is mediclally necessary.  Tim Tebow's mother was told she had to abort him when she was pregnant or else she would die and so would the baby.  It's crazy how she is still alive, and he is an NFL quarterback.  That was a "medically necessary" abortion.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Turned out the law they lobbied for was unconstitutional. I'm not a doctor nor are the bishops or you either, I assume. I don't know anything about the Tebow case. However, I believe there are cases where abortion is medically advised and necessary in the interest of the mother's life and/or health.
            
            We are wasting each other's time.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Joelipooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Just like Obamacare and all of this is unconstitutional.  If you feel this is such a waste of time, than why do you continue to comment?

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Good question. I've almost never convinced anyone to change his mind or even admit his "facts" were incorrect. Opinions are like axxholes. Everybody's got one.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Gusserposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Everyone has an opinion, ONLY mine is correct.

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Right. Everybody is crazy except you and me, and I have my doubts about you! :-)

                        replyreport
   2. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "“talking points” and sound bites intended to strike a nerve in the uninformed."
      
      You mean talking points like "stop murdering babies?"

      replyreport
   3. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If it were up to the the bishops the manufacture, use or sale of contraceptives would be unlawful as was the case in Connecticut until the law was ruled unconstitutional.

      replyreport
10. 59

    readytoescapeposted 12 years ago

    Ralph again, no salient point that addresses the issue of the government, particularly the Obama administration infringing upon the rights and liberties of Americans. All Americans.
    
    Just the same tired old, “ignore the real issue because we can’t win rhetoric.”

    replyreport
11. 61

    Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

    ...and everyone but you, thinks yours stinks!        Not you personally...that's just the end of the saying.

    replyreport
12. 67

    SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago

    here's Ron Paul's viewpoint on this issue:
    
    From his weekly Texas Straights Talk phone/online series:
    
    The last paragraph ourlines the "real" issue Americans should be concerned with.
    
    "Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the "morning after" pill.
    
    Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.
    
    Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?
    
    In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.
    
    So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.
    
    But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.
    
    Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.
    
    The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes."

    replyreport
    1. 80

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "Last year, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul introduced a bill in Congress that would allow states to ban contraception if they choose.
       
       Paul's "We the People Act," which he introduced in 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2011, explicitly forbids federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States from ruling on the constitutionality of a variety of state and local laws. That includes, among other things, "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction." The bill would let states write laws forbidding abortion, the use of contraceptives, or consensual gay sex, for example.
       
       If passed, Paul's bill could undermine the most important Supreme Court case dealing with contraception—1965's Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the high court found that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraception was unconstitutional based on a "right to marital privacy" afforded by the Bill of Rights. In other words, the court declared that states cannot interfere with what happens between the sheets when it comes to reproduction.
       
       Paul's bill would also keep the federal courts out of cases like Roe v. Wade and 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, in which the justices found that privacy is a guaranteed right concerning sexual practices and struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional."
       
       Ummmm, Ron Paul fans...what about the 4th amendment? The right to privacy?
       Do you know, the R's in power in the state of Virginia are forcing woment to have vaginal probe ultra-sounds before opting for an abortion?
       
       And that gvr wants to be VP.
       Women: the siren is sounding!!! Thes people are after your rights! Second class and terrified...that's how they want you!~

       replyreport
       1. 60

          pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          That should be called Back to the Dark Ages Act.

          replyreport
          1. 80

             lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Yes..it's very strange.
             They want to stop women from "things in the sexual realm"...it's creepy.
             
             I mean--do what you want in your bedroom.....why do they care about others?
             
             Is it purient, or perverted?

             replyreport
             1. 60

                pedrogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I guess that must be some kind of social control method, women emancipation was always a problem for religious people and religious institutions, you can see it in the catholic church, it is one of the last institutions in the civilized world that still discriminates based on gender.

                replyreport
13. 67

    SparklingJewelposted 12 years ago

    sorry, no, it is Constitutionally up to the states from the people's vote, not the federal government's decision

    replyreport
    1. 80

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       So--the courts have no voice in the Constitution? It's just the states that matter?
       That's Wrong. They are all checked and balanced. States cannot strip rights willy-nilly. There are courts to determine if they have over-reached their power.

       replyreport
14. 60

    howtogetgoodgradeposted 12 years ago

    Seems as if the white house's tweak to the contraceptive portion of the bill really didn't do much at all. Religious institutions are still, indirectly now, involved in providing a service that shocks their conscience.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       They aren't paying for it.  I don't see how it is any of their business whatsoever beyond that. They can be as shocked as they like about what private individuals do in their private bedrooms, I really don't care.

       replyreport