Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[Grumps 3,704]

Sorry TM- I think a lot of this is just common sense and I would support this proposal regardless of the Administration.

So let me ask a common sense question:

Does requiring a person/organization with long-held religious beliefs against abortion to pay for an abortion violate that person/organization's right to freedom of religion? Yes, or no? Come on, it's common sense.

I believe we were discussing birth control. But based on your comment, I guess preventing pregnancy = abortion.

The plan includes medicine for medically induced abortion. By the way, I notice that you did not answer the question!

channonc, I sure would appreciate it if you would answer my question. Please feel free to explain how my question is completely irrelevant or stupid or racist or whatever, but go ahead and answer it. Please.

[BamaGrad03 0]

We are talking mostly about hospitals (who by the way provide healthcare services) from denying coverage for the very things that prevent abortions. AFA emergency contraception... don't have a big issue with it, but that's not really what the meat of the argument is. If that was the only thing the Church objected to in this case, you may have an argument, but BC pills, shots, etc... I am just not seeing the big issue here.

Who's to say the Catholic church is any more accepting of contraception than they are abortion?

This whole argument is absurd. I personally shouldn't be forced by the government to pay out of pocket for someone else's sexual proclivities. It's not constitutional in any sense of the word. I shouldn't have to pay for old men penis pills, young womens contraceptives, or any woman's abortion.

We are talking about SOMEONE ELSE making a SEXUAL choice and the government telling me that I have to pay for it.

[channonc 466]

We are talking mostly about hospitals (who by the way provide healthcare services) from denying coverage for the very things that prevent abortions. AFA emergency contraception... don't have a big issue with it, but that's not really what the meat of the argument is. If that was the only thing the Church objected to in this case, you may have an argument, but BC pills, shots, etc... I am just not seeing the big issue here.

Who's to say the Catholic church is any more accepting of contraception than they are abortion?

This whole argument is absurd. I personally shouldn't be forced by the government to pay out of pocket for someone else's sexual proclivities. It's not constitutional in any sense of the word. I shouldn't have to pay for old men penis pills, young womens contraceptives, or any woman's abortion.

We are talking about SOMEONE ELSE making a SEXUAL choice and the government telling me that I have to pay for it.

As I stated before, there are plenty of non-sexual reasons one would be prescribed or need to use birth control pills. Please address why other medical reasons for needing the same medication should not be covered.

BTW- I really hope that there is this much outrage over medicines that help with HIV, AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. But again, it seems the ailments that affect men are fine. Women, good luck!

[BamaGrad03 0]

But again, it seems the ailments that affect men are fine. Women, good luck!

Last time I checked, not being able to use contraception in a sexual relationship affects the man and the woman. Don't try to frame this as some sad sack 'women are oppressed' argument. It isn't like HIV/Aids only affects men. And I'm pretty sure those medicines are already available on these policies - with no protest.

There may be plenty of non-sexual reasons for using birth control. That point is immaterial. Especially when considering this plan covers far more than that.

Basically this boils down to Americans being forced to pay out of pocket for people's unwillingness to make the choice to abstain. And their unwillingness to spend $10 a month on birth control should they not wish to abstain. It's sort of like the health insurance debate. You want me to pay for your condoms and birth control because you say you can't afford it. But I bet you waste $10 on some other non-essential every month. So if it is such a non-priority for you that you won't save the dollars to buy your own in lieu of buying other non-essentials monthly, why must it be a priority for me to buy it for you?

[MDM4AU 332]

You do realize that this is about good, old fashioned birth control pills, right? The morning after pill is already available OTC, and therefore would not be covered anyway by insurance.

No...no, it's not. That is what is sad. smh

And, with the Healthcare Insurance reform bill, many OTCs may be covered by the insurance RX coverage if a Dr. writes a prescription for it.

[Grumps 3,704]

We are talking mostly about hospitals (who by the way provide healthcare services) from denying coverage for the very things that prevent abortions. AFA emergency contraception... don't have a big issue with it, but that's not really what the meat of the argument is. If that was the only thing the Church objected to in this case, you may have an argument, but BC pills, shots, etc... I am just not seeing the big issue here.

Who's to say the Catholic church is any more accepting of contraception than they are abortion?

This whole argument is absurd. I personally shouldn't be forced by the government to pay out of pocket for someone else's sexual proclivities. It's not constitutional in any sense of the word. I shouldn't have to pay for old men penis pills, young womens contraceptives, or any woman's abortion.

We are talking about SOMEONE ELSE making a SEXUAL choice and the government telling me that I have to pay for it.

As I stated before, there are plenty of non-sexual reasons one would be prescribed or need to use birth control pills. Please address why other medical reasons for needing the same medication should not be covered.

BTW- I really hope that there is this much outrage over medicines that help with HIV, AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. But again, it seems the ailments that affect men are fine. Women, good luck!

So did the Affordable Care Act specify the medications themselves or just use a term like "contraceptives?" You are changing the subject because you cannot defend the truth of what the government is trying to do. Also, did the Affordable Care Act require Catholic organizations to provide anti-hypertensives or diabetic medications or lipid-lowering medications??? Hmmmm. If those medications were not specifically mentioned but contraceptive medications were specifically named does that change anything? Surely it is important to provide antihypertensives isn't it? You don't suppose the ACA FORGOT to mention all other medication classes do you? Why, it's almost like they intentionally focused on contraceptives! Why on earth would the do that? (For clarification's sake, I am only assuming that all other classes of medication were not specifically listed. If you show that my assumption is wrong then I will delete this post and apologize.)

[TitanTiger 20,499]

We are talking mostly about hospitals (who by the way provide healthcare services) from denying coverage for the very things that prevent abortions. AFA emergency contraception... don't have a big issue with it, but that's not really what the meat of the argument is. If that was the only thing the Church objected to in this case, you may have an argument, but BC pills, shots, etc... I am just not seeing the big issue here.

Who's to say the Catholic church is any more accepting of contraception than they are abortion?

This whole argument is absurd. I personally shouldn't be forced by the government to pay out of pocket for someone else's sexual proclivities. It's not constitutional in any sense of the word. I shouldn't have to pay for old men penis pills, young womens contraceptives, or any woman's abortion.

We are talking about SOMEONE ELSE making a SEXUAL choice and the government telling me that I have to pay for it.

As I stated before, there are plenty of non-sexual reasons one would be prescribed or need to use birth control pills. Please address why other medical reasons for needing the same medication should not be covered.

BTW- I really hope that there is this much outrage over medicines that help with HIV, AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. But again, it seems the ailments that affect men are fine. Women, good luck!

First, I already mentioned that if someone needs a prescription for oral contraceptives for legitimate medical reasons that are not birth control related, that should be something discussed separately. But you're dealing in hypotheticals here. The mandate is to cover oral contraceptives for the very purpose that goes against the Church's religious beliefs: artificially preventing or ending pregnancies.

And stop playing the victim with this anti-woman angle. That is not why they are objected to and you know it. Not to mention, contraceptives are just one of an unholy trinity of things that are being forced on church organizations to pay for in violation of their consciences.

[RunInRed 16,427]

First of all, I pointed out that contraceptives really aren't that expensive anymore. My insurance company considers the brand name contraceptive my wife uses to be a non-formulary brand name meaning it's a $50 copay. However, the actual retail price for a month's supply is $38. So we pay for it out of pocket. And again, that's a brand name. Planned Parenthood offers generic contraceptive pills for $10 a month. The local women's abortion clinic here charges a similar amount for the pill or $50 for a Depo-Provera shot that lasts 3 months, which works out to less than $17 a month. This is not prohibitive by any definition.

It may not be a prohibitive definition to you but study after study confirms many, especially young women, struggle with this cost.

And even in a democratic society, we do not have mob rule. Polls do not matter when it comes to the Bill of Rights. If the majority feels this way, then they should go through the legislative amendment process to abridge the 1st Amendment in this way, not issue edicts from the throne.

See, I would contend there would be nothing to abridge...

[RunInRed 16,427]

The only reason the numbers are meaningless are because you don't like what they tell us. So are there really caveats or is this your justification of the data? Spin your response any way you like...

No, they are meaningless because they lack context or specifics. Just like the hypothetical "96% of Democrats support the Bush Tax Cuts!" poll I mentioned before, if you don't have specifics on who exactly comprises this supposed group of "Democrats" or "Catholics", the numbers don't tell you anything that really matters.

You keep being evasive and not dealing with this simple reality that I know you would agree with were that Democrat poll a real one.

But that's the thing. These polls just aren't partisan polls. In fact, I have yet to see one poll to support the narrative you keep weaving. Again, give us some counter evidence because every thing I've seen says the public, of all parties and all religions, are supportive of Obama's position.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

The only reason the numbers are meaningless are because you don't like what they tell us. So are there really caveats or is this your justification of the data? Spin your response any way you like...

No, they are meaningless because they lack context or specifics. Just like the hypothetical "96% of Democrats support the Bush Tax Cuts!" poll I mentioned before, if you don't have specifics on who exactly comprises this supposed group of "Democrats" or "Catholics", the numbers don't tell you anything that really matters.

You keep being evasive and not dealing with this simple reality that I know you would agree with were that Democrat poll a real one.

But that's the thing. These polls just aren't partisan polls. In fact, I have yet to see one poll to support the narrative you keep weaving. Again, give us some counter evidence because every thing I've seen says the public, of all parties and all religions, are supportive of Obama's position.

I'm not talking about whether it's a partisan poll or not. I'm talking about some generic, self-described "Catholic" label on people that doesn't have any specifics. They simply ask if someone's Catholic but don't give us any idea if they are saying that because that's the church they were baptized in but haven't attended for 30 years, whether they are there every time the doors open or what. That matters. Just like saying someone is a Democrat that almost never votes in elections or supports any Democratic causes doesn't really tell you what the mind of Democrats really is.

I'm not putting forth a narrative, I'm pointing out the shoddiness of the polls.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

First of all, I pointed out that contraceptives really aren't that expensive anymore. My insurance company considers the brand name contraceptive my wife uses to be a non-formulary brand name meaning it's a $50 copay. However, the actual retail price for a month's supply is $38. So we pay for it out of pocket. And again, that's a brand name. Planned Parenthood offers generic contraceptive pills for $10 a month. The local women's abortion clinic here charges a similar amount for the pill or $50 for a Depo-Provera shot that lasts 3 months, which works out to less than $17 a month. This is not prohibitive by any definition.

It may not be a prohibitive definition to you but study after study confirms many, especially young women, struggle with this cost.

I'm sorry, but if they can afford to pay insurance premiums through their employer, they can come off $10 a month. This ruling does nothing for the unemployed or part-time workers who don't have employer-funded insurance policies.

See, I would contend there would be nothing to abridge...

Because you refuse to truthfully engage the issue. You seem to think that government should get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are important to a group and which they should not worry about. That is not how its supposed to be done.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

You're nuts.

If you think Rasumussen has given "a balanced explanation of the 'disagreement'," you're nuts.

He asked a general question first to determine if the respondent's feel mandating that insurance companies provide contraception in their coverage without extra cost to the employee is alright. Once you get that answer, you move on to other factors so the answers to those don't affect the answer to the general principle of paid-for contraception. Then he basically asks if effects on overall health care costs would change your response. Then he asks if such a requirement violates some organization's religious beliefs would that affect your response. This is a normal progression of how to ask something properly.

So how are these questions?

If an employer refuses to include FDA authorized contraceptives in employees' health insurance plan, will the ultimate cost of that insurance, increase, decrease or not be impacted?

Should an employee's ability to access FDA authorized contraceptives through her health insurance be dictated by the religion of the employer?

And one other problem with this question is that it is misleading:

The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?

"Churches" are exempt.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Fair enough, though I think people already understand that the contraceptives in question are legal or "FDA authorized". What they may not understand is the nature of the objection that the church organizations have. They aren't trying to prevent their employees from obtaining contraceptives, they just object to being forced to provide them with their money. It forces them to materially participate in something they consider an objective evil. I think there's much less danger that the average person is somehow under the misapprehension that the church is objecting to some off the street, homebrew drug that isn't FDA approved

As far as the last objection, some of these organizations are outreaches of churches. They are simply an extension of the church's mission. They are completely run by the church. But in either case, it is the church that objects to it. I don't think that one was a big deal.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Fair enough, though I think people already understand that the contraceptives in question are legal or "FDA authorized". What they may not understand is the nature of the objection that the church organizations have. They aren't trying to prevent their employees from obtaining contraceptives, they just object to being forced to provide them with their money. It forces them to materially participate in something they consider an objective evil. I think there's much less danger that the average person is somehow under the misapprehension that the church is objecting to some off the street, homebrew drug that isn't FDA approved

My point is that on issues as complex as this it is virtually impossible to truly frame a simple question in a manner that does not have a tendency to bias the responder. Your initial point in regard to the polls to which you objected was that you had to look at how the question is framed-- I agree. But suspect that is true for every poll on this issue.

[Grumps 3,704]

Fair enough, though I think people already understand that the contraceptives in question are legal or "FDA authorized". What they may not understand is the nature of the objection that the church organizations have. They aren't trying to prevent their employees from obtaining contraceptives, they just object to being forced to provide them with their money. It forces them to materially participate in something they consider an objective evil. I think there's much less danger that the average person is somehow under the misapprehension that the church is objecting to some off the street, homebrew drug that isn't FDA approved

My point is that on issues as complex as this it is virtually impossible to truly frame a simple question in a manner that does not have a tendency to bias the responder. Your initial point in regard to the polls to which you objected was that you had to look at how the question is framed-- I agree. But suspect that is true for every poll on this issue.

You are 100% correct. That is why it is crazy to get excited about a poll that seems to say what you like and crazy to get upset about a poll that seems to say what you don't like. The big question is why do some people seem to justify their philsophical beliefs based on polls?????

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

Deflection. Ignoring the issue by bringing up an entirely separate, unrelated topic, in hopes of making your point.

The govt has no right to demand something so widely accessible and inexpensive be given away FREE. It's wholly unconstitutional.

[RunInRed 16,427]

Because you refuse to truthfully engage the issue. You seem to think that government should get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are important to a group and which they should not worry about. That is not how its supposed to be done.

Oh do I? Maybe I just refuse to believe that certain sects get to ram-rod their personal religious beliefs down the throats of us all. Much less, use them to shape public policy. Chicken. Egg.

[Grumps 3,704]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

[Grumps 3,704]

Because you refuse to truthfully engage the issue. You seem to think that government should get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are important to a group and which they should not worry about. That is not how its supposed to be done.

Oh do I? Maybe I just refuse to believe that certain sects get to ram-rod their personal religious beliefs down the throats of us all. Much less, use them to shape public policy. Chicken. Egg.

Just so you know, when the government threatens your livelihood by taking control of the internet and denying the freedom of speech I will be fighting for your rights and your livelihood even if you are not willing to take up the fight yourself.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

[Grumps 3,704]

Because you refuse to truthfully engage the issue. You seem to think that government should get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are important to a group and which they should not worry about. That is not how its supposed to be done.

Oh do I? Maybe I just refuse to believe that certain sects get to ram-rod their personal religious beliefs down the throats of us all. Much less, use them to shape public policy. Chicken. Egg.

Hypocrite, thy name is Run.

Certain sects (liberals/socialists) ram-rod their personal sociological beliefs down the throats of us all (meaning ALL Americans, not just females who work for religious organizations). They (you) invent rights that don't exist and place them above rights that do exist to CREATE (not just shape) public policy.

I'm sure that when you guys finish correcting the Bill of Rights then all will be well.

[Grumps 3,704]

Alright, let's say I'm a Christian Sceintist (or Jehovah Wtiness) and I own a company. We provide medical insurance for our employees. My religious beliefs don't allow for blood transfusions. I wipe that away from the coverage the employees get. The government,federal or state says no you can't do that.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'm a Christian Scientist, my child gets sick. Needs treatment that will save his life. I refuse because my religious beliefs tell me God will heal my sick child. The evil Government steps in and says no, this child has to go to a hospital.

Have my religous freedoms been trampled on?

I'll be happy to answer:

Yes.

Yes.

So the little kid dies with out getting medical attention. Are the parents to be charged with a crime?

No, I do not think the parents should be charged with a crime, though obviously this is quite complicated (how old is the child, what are the child's religious beliefs, etc.). What would the crime be? I am pretty sure this is not a new idea. My guess there is legal precedent out there for it. Either way, that is my answer as truthfully as I know how to answer it.

[Grumps 3,704]

Because you refuse to truthfully engage the issue. You seem to think that government should get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are important to a group and which they should not worry about. That is not how its supposed to be done.

Oh do I? Maybe I just refuse to believe that certain sectsreligions get to ram-rod express their personal religious beliefs down the throats in front of us all. Much less, use them to shape public policylive their lives. Chicken. Egg.

Here, I fixed that for you. It is amazing how few words I had to change.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Because you refuse to truthfully engage the issue. You seem to think that government should get to pick and choose what religious beliefs are important to a group and which they should not worry about. That is not how its supposed to be done.

Oh do I? Maybe I just refuse to believe that certain sects get to ram-rod their personal religious beliefs down the throats of us all. Much less, use them to shape public policy. Chicken. Egg.

In what way are they ramming anything down anyone's throat? Let me list the ways in which exempting them from this requirement doesn't do exactly that:

1. It takes away no one's freedom to procure or use contraceptives, have sterilizations done or get abortifacients like the morning after pill or ella, including the Catholic organization's own employees.

2. It forces no company or organization that is secular in nature or even of any other religion to adopt the same policy toward these services.

3. It forces no insurance company to stop offering these services to other customers.

4. It does not mandate that the government remove this requirement from non-religious organizations.

5. It does not prevent the government itself from providing free contraceptives, sterilizations or abortifacients to every woman who wants them free of charge.

6. It does not prevent NARAL, Emily's List, NOW, Planned Parenthood of America or a thousand other pro-choice and women's health groups from banding together to provide free or low cost contraceptives to women in these exempted organizations.

I could go on and on about the ways in which the Catholic church is not ram-rodding a damn thing down anyone's throat. I don't know how you get the idea that allowing the Catholic church and its organizations to opt out of this requirement (particularly those who self-insure which all of you on the other side of this have yet to address), which might affect something like .001% of the population and still doesn't prevent them from obtaining these things through other means that don't require the Catholic organization to materially participate in it, forces their beliefs on other people. In fact, the opposite is happening with this rule. You and others who support and push this are forcing your beliefs on the Church and then acting like they are crazy to think that it really isn't up to you to tell them when their beliefs and consciences are being violated.

Public policy gets shaped by the parameters of our Constitution. It isn't being shaped by the Church except in the sense that they have a legal, Consitutional objection to this power grab.