Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[RunInRed 16,458]

You and I both know 99/100 employers will always choose the bottom line ... meaning, if they have an option to wiggle out of something that will cost money, they are going to do it. We have regulations and guidelines in this country for a reason ... history proves we need them.

You skirted around the main point, again, because you just cannot understand a world where people are allowed to make their own decisions. Am I to assume that you cannot rationalize your belief that others must be forced to pay for things you want access to?

It just baffles me how you guys can't see the other side of the sword ... one minute you want free choice and then the next, you want government to setup a structure that doesn't enable people to make those exact choices. Talk about irony.

[BamaGrad03 0]

It just baffles me how you guys can't see the other side of the sword ... one minute you want free choice and then the next, you want government to setup a structure that doesn't enable people to make those exact choices. Talk about irony.

There's nothing free choice about Obama's healthcare plan. Especially when the government is telling people what to do.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

You and I both know 99/100 employers will always choose the bottom line ... meaning, if they have an option to wiggle out of something that will cost money, they are going to do it. We have regulations and guidelines in this country for a reason ... history proves we need them.

You skirted around the main point, again, because you just cannot understand a world where people are allowed to make their own decisions. Am I to assume that you cannot rationalize your belief that others must be forced to pay for things you want access to?

It just baffles me how you guys can't see the other side of the sword ... one minute you want free choice and then the next, you want government to setup a structure that doesn't enable people to make those exact choices. Talk about irony.

This doesn't square with reality. Even under the system we had prior to the ACA, right at 90% of employer-based health care plan included contraceptive coverage. If employers were so eager to cut coverage to save money, it wouldn't be anywhere near that number.

Not to mention, tell me: Which structure are we calling for that prevents people from making choices? Is anyone attempting to remove contraceptives from the market? Has anyone proposed that companies be forbidden to offer this coverage in their plans? Anyone put any barriers up that would prevent enterprising pro-contraception insurance companies from offering cheap coverage for these things? If this is such a 'win-win' for everyone, why aren't NARAL and Planned Parenthood announcing a new contraceptive insurance initiative?

au2004ece is right...your error is that you mistake the "right" to have others pay for access to birth control for you as the actual access to it. Thus refusing to be bullied into paying for it is the same thing as denying access in your mind.

It's a complete sea-change in the definition of the word though. For instance, I just decided that I refuse to buy you a new car. You can't make me pay for it no matter how 'essential' you believe it is to your life and ability to find work. Sorry, not going to do it.

Did I just deny you access to transportation?

[RunInRed 16,458]

It just baffles me how you guys can't see the other side of the sword ... one minute you want free choice and then the next, you want government to setup a structure that doesn't enable people to make those exact choices. Talk about irony.

There's nothing free choice about Obama's healthcare plan. Especially when the government is telling people what to do.

And by telling them what to do you mean enabling access to healthcare. Riiiight.

[au2004ece 30]

You and I both know 99/100 employers will always choose the bottom line ... meaning, if they have an option to wiggle out of something that will cost money, they are going to do it. We have regulations and guidelines in this country for a reason ... history proves we need them.

You skirted around the main point, again, because you just cannot understand a world where people are allowed to make their own decisions. Am I to assume that you cannot rationalize your belief that others must be forced to pay for things you want access to?

It just baffles me how you guys can't see the other side of the sword ... one minute you want free choice and then the next, you want government to setup a structure that doesn't enable people to make those exact choices. Talk about irony.

What the hell are you talking about?

I want free choice. How does allowing employers to have free choice reduce free choice??????????

[RunInRed 16,458]

This doesn't square with reality. Even under the system we had prior to the ACA, right at 90% of employer-based health care plan included contraceptive coverage. If employers were so eager to cut coverage to save money, it wouldn't be anywhere near that number.

I'm not sure where you get the 90% figure from but I can give you some solid data around those who had no access to healthcare coverage pre-ACA.

Not to mention, tell me: Which structure are we calling for that prevents people from making choices? Is anyone attempting to remove contraceptives from the market? Has anyone proposed that companies be forbidden to offer this coverage in their plans? Anyone put any barriers up that would prevent enterprising pro-contraception insurance companies from offering cheap coverage for these things? If this is such a 'win-win' for everyone, why aren't NARAL and Planned Parenthood announcing a new contraceptive insurance initiative?

See slippery slope conversation about and subsequent (immediate) Blunt amendment where a structure was being proposed that would allow any company to deny coverage of things they found 'morally objectionable.' Thankfully, this measure failed but we all know it won't be the last attempt to erode choice in this country. I can't speak for NARAL or Planned Parenthood - nor am I trying to.

au2004ece is right...your error is that you mistake the "right" to have others pay for access to birth control for you as the actual access to it. Thus refusing to be bullied into paying for it is the same thing as denying access in your mind.

Only because you guys so easily dismiss the barriers that exist for some... (See recent hearing with Sandra Fluke where college students testified basic birth control can cost upwards of $1,000 per year).

It's a complete sea-change in the definition of the word though. For instance, I just decided that I refuse to buy you a new car. You can't make me pay for it no matter how 'essential' you believe it is to your life and ability to find work. Sorry, not going to do it.

Did I just deny you access to transportation?

Only if you start de-funding the DOT. Your analogy is not analogous.

[au2004ece 30]

au2004ece is right...your error is that you mistake the "right" to have others pay for access to birth control for you as the actual access to it. Thus refusing to be bullied into paying for it is the same thing as denying access in your mind.

Only because you guys so easily dismiss the barriers that exist for some... (See recent hearing with Sandra Fluke where college students testified basic birth control can cost upwards of $1,000 per year).

FINALLY, you have provided a answer to my question.

You provided high cost as a reason why somebody else denying to pay for something for you is equal to denial of access.

I could argue with that statement, but I find this question even more important:

Why is your "right to access" more important than the employers "right of free choice"?

[BamaGrad03 0]

And by telling them what to do you mean enabling access to healthcare. Riiiight.

Please explain how anyone is trying to limit anybody else from birth control.

You guys keep bringing this up as if the catholic church is demanding that birth control be eliminated from the pharmacy counters. That's just not the case. And frankly, its a dishonest way to frame a debate.

And while we're on the topic, why do you remain determined to label elective contraception as basic healthcare? It's not. Not in any way, shape, or form.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I'm not sure where you get the 90% figure from but I can give you some solid data around those who had no access to healthcare coverage pre-ACA.

A few different places:

Those numbers probably have decreased over the past decade. The government pays for insurance coverage of contraceptives for millions of its workers and for millions of low-income women through Medicaid, Title X and other programs. Ninety percent of employer-based health-insurance plans cover contraceptives, and most states require insurers that cover prescription drugs to cover contraceptives.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/14/obamas-contraception-plan-wont-cut-pregnancies/

Even if you try to jigger the numbers to fit the narrative in your favor by simply looking at all the plans offered by insurers, you still have a situation where 66% of all plans offered include contraceptive coverage. And that includes lumping in basic "catastrophic coverage" plans some healthy people opt for just to cover major surgery, accidents, serious illnesses and such.

Another points out that 80% of large employers cover contraception.

See slippery slope conversation about and subsequent (immediate) Blunt amendment where a structure was being proposed that would allow any company to deny coverage of things they found 'morally objectionable.' Thankfully, this measure failed but we all know it won't be the last attempt to erode choice in this country. I can't speak for NARAL or Planned Parenthood - nor am I trying to.

A situation enflamed by the lack of common sense provisions for religious conscience exemptions. Otherwise, it simply would have been the same group of folks who simply want to roll back "Obamacare" altogether.

I don't expect you to speak for specific organizations, but you could speak to the issue of why all these folks so in favor of this being provided for free don't step up to provide it instead of ramroding down religious organizations' throats.

Only because you guys so easily dismiss the barriers that exist for some... (See recent hearing with Sandra Fluke where college students testified basic birth control can cost upwards of $1,000 per year).

Completely bogus figure. Basic birth control costs as little as $10 a month from clinics like Planned Parenthood around the country and often condoms are free. I can buy a box of 12, allowing me to have sex 3 times a week, per month, for about $14 at Walgreens. The local abortion clinic in Montgomery offers the Depo Provera shot for $50. It lasts 3 months meaning the cost is about $17 a month.

And this pro-contraceptive fact sheet points out:

Contraceptives can be prohibitively expensive for some women. Costs for supplies alone can run approximately $360 per year for oral contraceptives, $180 per year for the injectable, $450 for the implant and $240 for an IUD.

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/EPICCFactsheet.pdf?docID=1076

So the price ranges from about $120 to $360 a year for "basic" birth control. No where near $1000.

Only if you start de-funding the DOT. Your analogy is not analogous.

Actually, it's spot on. Not allowing you to force me to pay for something is not the same thing as denying you access to it. What isn't analogous is equating "someone else won't pay the bill for me" to "they won't let me have it."

[BamaGrad03 0]

Even if it did cost $1000 a year. Just because something is cost prohibitive, doesn't make it a basic right.

I want a Ferrari, but just because I can't afford it, I'm not lobbying the government to make you buy me one.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Even if it did cost $1000 a year. Just because something is cost prohibitive, doesn't make it a basic right.

I want a Ferrari, but just because I can't afford it, I'm not lobbying the government to make you buy me one.

But Ferraris are elective in nature...

Of course, so are contraceptives and sterilizations. Because as I pointed out, the Church already allows for using oral contraceptives to treat endometriosis, ovarian cysts and such and such things are covered in under medical in their plans. Similarly, having a hysterectomy done for non-contraceptive medical purposes is already covered.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think sex supplies are elective as well. And just because I don't want to buy them for someone else, doesn't mean I'm denying them access to them.

[Auburn85 432]

This doesn't square with reality. Even under the system we had prior to the ACA, right at 90% of employer-based health care plan included contraceptive coverage. If employers were so eager to cut coverage to save money, it wouldn't be anywhere near that number.

I'm not sure where you get the 90% figure from but I can give you some solid data around those who had no access to healthcare coverage pre-ACA.

Not to mention, tell me: Which structure are we calling for that prevents people from making choices? Is anyone attempting to remove contraceptives from the market? Has anyone proposed that companies be forbidden to offer this coverage in their plans? Anyone put any barriers up that would prevent enterprising pro-contraception insurance companies from offering cheap coverage for these things? If this is such a 'win-win' for everyone, why aren't NARAL and Planned Parenthood announcing a new contraceptive insurance initiative?

See slippery slope conversation about and subsequent (immediate) Blunt amendment where a structure was being proposed that would allow any company to deny coverage of things they found 'morally objectionable.' Thankfully, this measure failed but we all know it won't be the last attempt to erode choice in this country. I can't speak for NARAL or Planned Parenthood - nor am I trying to.

au2004ece is right...your error is that you mistake the "right" to have others pay for access to birth control for you as the actual access to it. Thus refusing to be bullied into paying for it is the same thing as denying access in your mind.

Only because you guys so easily dismiss the barriers that exist for some... (See recent hearing with Sandra Fluke where college students testified basic birth control can cost upwards of $1,000 per year).

It's a complete sea-change in the definition of the word though. For instance, I just decided that I refuse to buy you a new car. You can't make me pay for it no matter how 'essential' you believe it is to your life and ability to find work. Sorry, not going to do it.

Did I just deny you access to transportation?

Only if you start de-funding the DOT. Your analogy is not analogous.

RIR, you are in favor of eliminating the Bush tax cuts on everyone. You've also said you don't really mind higher gas prices if it accelerated alternative energy solutions. Why so picky and choosy about cost and affordability?

[RunInRed 16,458]

Even if you try to jigger the numbers to fit the narrative in your favor by simply looking at all the plans offered by insurers, you still have a situation where 66% of all plans offered include contraceptive coverage. And that includes lumping in basic "catastrophic coverage" plans some healthy people opt for just to cover major surgery, accidents, serious illnesses and such.

Another points out that 80% of large employers cover contraception.

Well good. Let's keep it that way and see if we can even improve those numbers. And of course the infamous fact: 98% of Catholic women use birth control.

A situation enflamed by the lack of common sense provisions for religious conscience exemptions. Otherwise, it simply would have been the same group of folks who simply want to roll back "Obamacare" altogether.

I don't expect you to speak for specific organizations, but you could speak to the issue of why all these folks so in favor of this being provided for free don't step up to provide it instead of ramroding down religious organizations' throats.

Well, for one, it despite how 'cheap' it is, it costs money. And two, as you've pointed out, most of these groups are trying to improve access by offering highly subsidized/free healthcare.

Completely bogus figure. Basic birth control costs as little as $10 a month from clinics like Planned Parenthood around the country and often condoms are free. I can buy a box of 12, allowing me to have sex 3 times a week, per month, for about $14 at Walgreens. The local abortion clinic in Montgomery offers the Depo Provera shot for $50. It lasts 3 months meaning the cost is about $17 a month.

And this pro-contraceptive fact sheet points out:

Contraceptives can be prohibitively expensive for some women. Costs for supplies alone can run approximately $360 per year for oral contraceptives, $180 per year for the injectable, $450 for the implant and $240 for an IUD.

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/EPICCFactsheet.pdf?docID=1076

So the price ranges from about $120 to $360 a year for "basic" birth control. No where near $1000.

So now now you want to dictate the terms (frequency) of sex for people? Talk about limiting choice and telling people what to do. Look, I think we both realize there is a cost to birth control ... we can debate over what that is cost is but I'm not going to adamantly say what some one can afford ... everyones' situation is unique and different. But the bottom line is there is a cost and for some (usually, the most vulnerable in our society), are the ones who are affected the most.

Actually, it's spot on. Not allowing you to force me to pay for something is not the same thing as denying you access to it. What isn't analogous is equating "someone else won't pay the bill for me" to "they won't let me have it."

We differ in that you still refuse to admit that cost is a prohibitive factor.

[RunInRed 16,458]

RIR, you are in favor of eliminating the Bush tax cuts on everyone. You've also said you don't really mind higher gas prices if it accelerated alternative energy solutions. Why so picky and choosy about cost and affordability?

Good question.

I'm in favor of eliminating the Bush tax cuts for several reasons: 1) They greatly benefit those who already have the most. 2) No spending off-set was ever identified ... i.e., they increase the deficit. 3) Historically, a different tax structure (most recently, the Clinton rates they replaced), proved much more fair and effective.

As for gas prices, they don't bother me. Ultimately, in a market-based economy, things like higher prices will ultimately breed competition/spur alternative options (i.e., if gas was $1.00/gallon, you would hear very little about weening our dependency on fossil fuels despite the fact we know it's a finite resource, emboldens our enemies in Middle East and puts out a by-product that is not good for the environment).

So in both the above situations, it's not just about face-value cost ... there's a bigger picture.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Well good. Let's keep it that way and see if we can even improve those numbers. And of course the infamous fact: 98% of Catholic women use birth control.

The numbers would already be improved without trampling on the rights of religious organizations.

And that fact has been throughly debunked already.

So now now you want to dictate the terms (frequency) of sex for people? Talk about limiting choice and telling people what to do.

Do you not see how convoluted this thought process is? No one is dictating anything to them. YOU are the one dictating to others what they should do. People can have all the sex they want. No one is stopping them.

You cannot honestly believe that line of BS you just typed.

Look, I think we both realize there is a cost to birth control ... we can debate over what that is cost is but I'm not going to adamantly say what some one can afford ... everyones' situation is unique and different. But the bottom line is there is a cost and for some (usually, the most vulnerable in our society), are the ones who are affected the most.

But part of the argument for this being necessary is the cost. And that cost has been shown not to be prohibitive at all.

And given that 89% of unplanned pregnancies are happening with people already using birth control, it's not even solving that problem either.

We differ in that you still refuse to admit that cost is a prohibitive factor.

Because it's not. $10-30 a month for oral contraceptives just isn't prohibitive for employed people who have healthcare benefits. It isn't. And if it's that important to you, you do without some other things. I have friends that shut off cable TV, went to cheap pre-paid cell phone plans and other things to be able to purchase things that were more important to them. One month of basic cable would pay for 2-6 months of oral contraceptives. I'm just not buying the excuse that "there's a cost" means "therefore you should pay it for me."

And even if it was, it is still not "denying someone access" because you refuse to pay for it anymore than I'm denying you access to a Rolls Royce by refusing to pay for it.

[RunInRed 16,458]

And that fact has been throughly debunked already.

Oh I almost forgot, you don't trust the numbers and don't like the way the poll questions were worded. My bad...

Do you not see how convoluted this thought process is? No one is dictating anything to them. YOU are the one dictating to others what they should do. People can have all the sex they want. No one is stopping them.

You cannot honestly believe that line of BS you just typed.

What we continue to disagree on is the relatedness of cost and access to birth control.

But part of the argument for this being necessary is the cost. And that cost has been shown not to be prohibitive at all.

And given that 89% of unplanned pregnancies are happening with people already using birth control, it's not even solving that problem either.

Birth control has proved to be 99% effective when used appropriately so either we have an education problem with users or your facts are wrong.

But back to the main point, we still disagree over the cost component. But even if I conceded to your point that ~$30/month ($360 year) is not cost prohibitive, I still think you are wanting us to step over dollars to pick up pennies.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Oh I almost forgot, you don't trust the numbers and don't like the way the poll questions were worded. My bad...

No, the number was actually debunked by a statistician...in this thread. I trust numbers, I just don't trust crap.

What we continue to disagree on is the relatedness of cost and access to birth control.

Because you are redefining words to mean what you want them to mean.

Birth control has proved to be 99% effective when used appropriately so either we have an education problem with users or your facts are wrong.

Take it up with pro-choice, pro-contraception Guttmacher. They're his numbers.

But back to the main point, we still disagree over the cost component. But even if I conceded to your point that ~$30/month ($360 year) is not cost prohibitive, I still think you are wanting us to step over dollars to pick up pennies.

And I still think you're wanting to toss aside first principles to pick up lesser ones.

[BamaGrad03 0]

What's amazing to me is that we would rather have the church violate their long held moral principles than we would to ask someone to give up 1 soda a day for a week to pay for their sex life themselves.

[RunInRed 16,458]

No, the number was actually debunked by a statistician...in this thread. I trust numbers, I just don't trust crap.

So you believe the vast majority of Catholics don't use birth control and other forms of contraception? And if so, I've got some ocean front property...

And I still think you're wanting to toss aside first principles to pick up lesser ones.

I don't feel my first amendment rights are any less because people have access to birth control as part of their healthcare plan. And deep down, I don't think you do either - you just have a moral beef against abortion and other human morality issues (which, is fine) and your using this issue as your vehicle to drive your point home.

[au2004ece 30]

Runinred, again I'm left to assume you can't answer my question because you know their is no reason your so-called "right to access" should trump the right of the employer to make their own choices.

With all your blah blah about cost (which is irrelevant during a discussion of if I should but it for you), you never explain why you believe that one group should subsidize the sex-life choices of another group. You seem to believe that people have zero responsibility to avoid choices that they cannot afford. Is that what you believe?

[TigerHeat 9]

No, the number was actually debunked by a statistician...in this thread. I trust numbers, I just don't trust crap.

So you believe the vast majority of Catholics don't use birth control and other forms of contraception? And if so, I've got some ocean front property...

RIR, do you believe The State is an appropriate replacement for the Catholic Church's leadership to their interior organizations on this issue? If not, why is your statement here relevant? Or even worth any consideration? You want to say "they do wrong anyway, so f them and their teachings". That's a no go in my book, and being as I know THOUSANDS of practicing Catholics I dispute what you imply here. Don't confuse the minority Catholics with the majority...regardless of what ThinkProgress tells you is going on in the Church. So I doubt you have any ocean-front property available.

And I still think you're wanting to toss aside first principles to pick up lesser ones.

I don't feel my first amendment rights are any less because people have access to birth control as part of their healthcare plan. And deep down, I don't think you do either - you just have a moral beef against abortion and other human morality issues (which, is fine) and your using this issue as your vehicle to drive your point home.

As a Catholic, I DO see that my 1st Amendment rights are being attacked by this action. Your opinion of my 1st Amendment rights is irrelevant. This tells me that there are people in one party that are fine with forcing my Church to do what they think is correct regardless of our rights. They have invented a new right "access to birth control" and are going to ram the requirement to pay for it down our throats.

This tells me the modern Democrat party would love to see a State-controlled Catholic Church like it exists in most Fascist and Communist countries.

I travel regularly, and I attend Mass in every city. I've NEVER seen the Church energized like this. In my 44 years, I don't remember political discussions UNTIL NOW. Every parish I've been in recognizes that the current administration is now an enemy of the Church...just a few months after the USCCB helped Obama get ACA passed. Talk about betrayal...

The Democrats are in real danger of a strategic blunder of irreparable significance. They are about to permanently lose a massive block of voters for no real reason. Obama will be gone, but Catholics will remember the New Penal Law the Democrats are enacting. When you start losing even the Jesuits, you are losing badly. The comical part of that is that the Democrat leadership includes many notional, out-of-touch Catholics and think they are on solid ground. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"It doesn't matter what your Church teaching is, we're going to take your money and force you to do waht we say. You'll learn to like it. Besides, some of you violate your own teachings, so we can force all of you to be involved." That is the essence of what WE have heard from this. The rest is pointless spin that we see right through.

Keep digging, Dems, keep digging!

[au2004ece 30]

I think this issue goes far beyond birth control. The issue is government choices versus individual rights. With obama as president, the government will always win that argument. Individual rights mean nothing, or are bastardized to mean rights to force others to do something for you, when governments get to plan our lives. How can people support these types of policies? Because they don't think and believe the argument is about making people stop using birth control without recognizing the power grab the government is making and the destructiveness these anti-freedom policies will place on our economy.

[TigerHeat 9]

I think this issue goes far beyond birth control. The issue is government choices versus individual rights. With obama as president, the government will always win that argument. Individual rights mean nothing, or are bastardized to mean rights to force others to do something for you, when governments get to plan our lives. How can people support these types of policies? Because they don't think and believe the argument is about making people stop using birth control without recognizing the power grab the government is making and the destructiveness these anti-freedom policies will place on our economy.

The Obama admin is trying to get their foot on the neck of the Catholic Church. Birth control is the convenient excuse. What's the purpose? What we think (I'm speaking of the people I hear and talk to in the Church) is the Democrats want to replace all Catholic institutions with secular institutions. Drive Catholic hospitals, schools and charities out of existence (e.g., the Planned Parenthood donation scam attempt with SVDP, and the near constant Catholic Charities hate from the Obama admin.) That will lead to more government dependence and more uninsured.

[Auburn85 432]

The way this issue has been framed, you absolutely cannot be against this unless you are anti-woman or anti- women rights. Birth control is currently accessible. This law wants to go a step further and make it "free." Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it.

And what's really flat out disturbing is the one in this thread arguing so hard about cost and affordibility is the same one who wants to not only raise taxes on the rich, but on everyone. He also doesn't mind gas prices skyrocketing, which will increase food prices too. Yet, he's fighting so hard for "free" birth control under the veil of how women shouldn't be burdened with having to pay a penny for birth control.

RiR would ultimately put more of a burden on women through higher taxation and higher gas prices... but this is ok.