Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[TigerHeat 9]

Now, I'll ask again, as I rephrased it...explain to me how the reasoning used to push these violations of conscience on religious groups cannot be used to later force them to provide RU-486 or other abortion procedures in their healthcare plans under the banner of "essential" healthcare.

Well, for starters, this issue has been DIRECTLY addressed in the legislation. To not know this is to not have been paying attention as it was paramount to the bill's passage...

• Prohibits the Secretary of HHS from requiring the coverage of any abortion services as part of the essential health benefits for any qualified health plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);
  
• Allows the insurance company to decide whether or not to include coverage of abortion services, including the Hyde abortion exceptions, in a qualified health insurance plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);
  
• Prohibits insurance companies from using federal funds, including federal tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, to pay for abortion services except for those services allowable under the Hyde amendment (pg. 2071);
  
• Requires an insurance company that chooses to offer a plan in a State Exchange with abortion coverage, beyond the Hyde abortion exceptions, to collect a separate second premium payment from each enrollee for the cost of the abortion coverage (pgs. 2071-2072 & 2074-2075);
  
• Requires the insurance company to deposit all separate payments into a separate account that consists solely of abortion premium payments and that it is used exclusively to pay for such services (pgs. 2072-2074);
  
• Requires the state health insurance commissioners to ensure that insurance companies comply with these requirements in accordance with guidance and accounting standards set by the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office (pg. 2075)
  
• Requires insurance companies that offer general abortion coverage as part of a qualified health plan to provide a notice of coverage in the summary of benefits and coverage explanation (pg. 2076);
  
• Allows states to pass a law prohibiting the inclusion of abortion coverage in plans offered in a state health insurance Exchange (pg. 2069);
  
• Requires the director of the Office of Public Management to ensure that there is at least one private, multi-state qualified health plan offered in each state insurance Exchange that does not provide coverage of abortion services beyond the Hyde exceptions (pgs. 2087-2088);
  
• Prohibits insurance companies offering qualified health plans from discriminating against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions (pg. 2076);
  
• Prohibits the preemption of state laws regarding abortion (pg. 2077);
  
• Maintains current Federal laws relative to conscience protection; willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion (pg. 2077);
  
• Establishes and provides $250 million for programs to support vulnerable pregnant women (pgs. 2170-2173); and
  
• Increases the adoption tax credit and makes it refundable so that lower income families can access the tax credit (pgs 2400-2407).
  

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

All of those bullet points are irrelevant to Titan's point. The IOM recommendations, contained within the enactable purview of the Secretary of HHS and embedded within the ACA, are TOTALLY relevant. Those are the things that your side is not discussing, and that is where this new mandate came from...out of left field. The ACA gives a bureaucrat near carte blanche to cook up new requirements along the way. There are more coming, too. I just read that thing, and now I'm researching the board members of IOM. Pretty interesting...

[AFTiger 282]

Father Sammie Maletta sums it pretty well:

[RunInRed 16,460]

You know as well as I do that the so-called protections against abortion funding were hotly contested, as to whether they really provided an effective firewall against federally funded abortions. They mostly amount to accounting loopholes. So much so that Obama added a powerless "signing statement" to the document.

Actually, I don't know. Accounting loopholes? What are you talking about? The language in the law is what it is. You raise some valid points in this debate but your concern here is not merited by the facts.

[RunInRed 16,460]

None of that has ANY relevance. I never disputed any of that and you know it. In fact, we weren't even discussing that. The ACA wasn't what was being discussed...the new HHS mandate WAS. Then I began discussing the TRUE motivation for this NEW coercive attack on a religious organization, and you brought up some silliness about hyperbole.

Of course it has relevance. You brought up how private sector Big Pharma was benefiting from the mandates in ACA -a point which I don't deny- and so my response pointed out that ever piece of major legislation has trade-offs. I was just providing a balanced view, if you will.

I believe that ACA is TRULY in danger of never being enacted now that Zero has stuck his tool in this hornets nest. It's going to burn. He won't be able to trick a Stupak again. In fact, by the time the Vatican finishes weighing in on this (they are formulating a response for the millions of Catholics, you know? oh, no you didn't...) the cover that libdem "Catholics" have had will likely be GONE. There are NUMEROUS bishops talking about using the ONE stick they have and never use. If they swing that stick GOODBYE libdem Catholics. No more "Catholic block vote". Nope. It'll be five and five for all but Nancy. We've already begun receiving letters regarding the proper way to address this in Catholic thought...something that the formerly very-liberal (not referring to politically here) Church rarely did.

There WILL still be a monolithic Catholic vote. It just will no longer be friendly to this crew of Catholicism haters.

The current sentiment is "we won't be fooled again" (cf. Cardinal Dolan's letter) Heh.

Actually, part of the legislation has already been enacted and the balance more or less goes into effect in 2014. Of course, SCOTUS is expected to weigh in on the individual mandate some time this summer but logic tells me this bill survives. We shall see...

[arnaldoabru 11]

Do you dispute that Big Pharma was a MAJOR campaign donor to President OBama in the last cycle? Do you dispute that Big Pharma stands to gain $$$B's from this mandate?

No I do not.

- Do you dispute the fact under the Healthcare Reform Law 30 Million+ more Americans will have healthcare coverage?

- Do you dispute the fact the government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses? That doctors will not become government employees and that further, the U.S. government actually intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada? Do you dispute the facts the key parts of the current U.S. system -- employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor -- would stay in place? Lastly, do you dispute the fact that the only thing the government is creating is health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own, so they could more easily compare plans and prices?

None of that has ANY relevance. I never disputed any of that and you know it. In fact, we weren't even discussing that. The ACA wasn't what was being discussed...the new HHS mandate WAS. Then I began discussing the TRUE motivation for this NEW coercive attack on a religious organization, and you brought up some silliness about hyperbole.

I believe that ACA is TRULY in danger of never being enacted now that Zero has stuck his tool in this hornets nest. It's going to burn. He won't be able to trick a Stupak again. In fact, by the time the Vatican finishes weighing in on this (they are formulating a response for the millions of Catholics, you know? oh, no you didn't...) the cover that libdem "Catholics" have had will likely be GONE. There are NUMEROUS bishops talking about using the ONE stick they have and never use. If they swing that stick GOODBYE libdem Catholics. No more "Catholic block vote". Nope. It'll be five and five for all but Nancy. We've already begun receiving letters regarding the proper way to address this in Catholic thought...something that the formerly very-liberal (not referring to politically here) Church rarely did.

There WILL still be a monolithic Catholic vote. It just will no longer be friendly to this crew of Catholicism haters.

The current sentiment is "we won't be fooled again" (cf. Cardinal Dolan's letter) Heh.

Do you think there will be a "monolithic" female vote?

[Grumps 3,704]

Do you dispute that Big Pharma was a MAJOR campaign donor to President OBama in the last cycle? Do you dispute that Big Pharma stands to gain $$$B's from this mandate?

No I do not.

- Do you dispute the fact under the Healthcare Reform Law 30 Million+ more Americans will have healthcare coverage?

- Do you dispute the fact the government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses? That doctors will not become government employees and that further, the U.S. government actually intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada? Do you dispute the facts the key parts of the current U.S. system -- employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor -- would stay in place? Lastly, do you dispute the fact that the only thing the government is creating is health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own, so they could more easily compare plans and prices?

None of that has ANY relevance. I never disputed any of that and you know it. In fact, we weren't even discussing that. The ACA wasn't what was being discussed...the new HHS mandate WAS. Then I began discussing the TRUE motivation for this NEW coercive attack on a religious organization, and you brought up some silliness about hyperbole.

I believe that ACA is TRULY in danger of never being enacted now that Zero has stuck his tool in this hornets nest. It's going to burn. He won't be able to trick a Stupak again. In fact, by the time the Vatican finishes weighing in on this (they are formulating a response for the millions of Catholics, you know? oh, no you didn't...) the cover that libdem "Catholics" have had will likely be GONE. There are NUMEROUS bishops talking about using the ONE stick they have and never use. If they swing that stick GOODBYE libdem Catholics. No more "Catholic block vote". Nope. It'll be five and five for all but Nancy. We've already begun receiving letters regarding the proper way to address this in Catholic thought...something that the formerly very-liberal (not referring to politically here) Church rarely did.

There WILL still be a monolithic Catholic vote. It just will no longer be friendly to this crew of Catholicism haters.

The current sentiment is "we won't be fooled again" (cf. Cardinal Dolan's letter) Heh.

Do you think there will be a "monolithic" female vote?

arnaldo, I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't think there will be a "monolithic" female voice because I don't think that women have felt like they were being deprived of access to contraceptive or sterization procedures.

Do you think that women, in general, have felt deprived of access, and that the Obama administration is liberating them from this lack of access? Has there been an outcry from women that I (and presumably others) have not heard?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Do you dispute that Big Pharma was a MAJOR campaign donor to President OBama in the last cycle? Do you dispute that Big Pharma stands to gain $$$B's from this mandate?

No I do not.

- Do you dispute the fact under the Healthcare Reform Law 30 Million+ more Americans will have healthcare coverage?

- Do you dispute the fact the government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses? That doctors will not become government employees and that further, the U.S. government actually intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada? Do you dispute the facts the key parts of the current U.S. system -- employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor -- would stay in place? Lastly, do you dispute the fact that the only thing the government is creating is health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own, so they could more easily compare plans and prices?

None of that has ANY relevance. I never disputed any of that and you know it. In fact, we weren't even discussing that. The ACA wasn't what was being discussed...the new HHS mandate WAS. Then I began discussing the TRUE motivation for this NEW coercive attack on a religious organization, and you brought up some silliness about hyperbole.

I believe that ACA is TRULY in danger of never being enacted now that Zero has stuck his tool in this hornets nest. It's going to burn. He won't be able to trick a Stupak again. In fact, by the time the Vatican finishes weighing in on this (they are formulating a response for the millions of Catholics, you know? oh, no you didn't...) the cover that libdem "Catholics" have had will likely be GONE. There are NUMEROUS bishops talking about using the ONE stick they have and never use. If they swing that stick GOODBYE libdem Catholics. No more "Catholic block vote". Nope. It'll be five and five for all but Nancy. We've already begun receiving letters regarding the proper way to address this in Catholic thought...something that the formerly very-liberal (not referring to politically here) Church rarely did.

There WILL still be a monolithic Catholic vote. It just will no longer be friendly to this crew of Catholicism haters.

The current sentiment is "we won't be fooled again" (cf. Cardinal Dolan's letter) Heh.

Do you think there will be a "monolithic" female vote?

arnaldo, I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't think there will be a "monolithic" female voice because I don't think that women have felt like they were being deprived of access to contraceptive or sterization procedures.

Do you think that women, in general, have felt deprived of access, and that the Obama administration is liberating them from this lack of access? Has there been an outcry from women that I (and presumably others) have not heard?

maybe you should talk to some women.

[BamaGrad03 0]

maybe you should talk to some women.

You can answer the question. You don't have to be a woman to know whether or not someone is deprived of access to something.

And if you're going to go that route, you probably should have said "maybe you should ask a devout Catholic woman."

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I wish my insurance would provide...at no extra costs or copays...my child's asthma medication. I'll make the case to anyone that her asthma medicine is "essential" health care way before someone's birth control pills. That's what's comical about this wholly made-up definitions of "basic" or "essential" care. One merely enables one to have sex more often without consequence. The other actually saves a kid's life. But only the former is decreed to be "essential."

Paging Mr. Orwell...

[BamaGrad03 0]

I wish my insurance would provide...at no extra costs or copays...my child's asthma medication. I'll make the case to anyone that her asthma medicine is "essential" health care way before someone's birth control pills. That's what's comical about this wholly made-up definitions of "basic" or "essential" care. One merely enables one to have sex more often without consequence. The other actually saves a kid's life. But only the former is decreed to be "essential."

Paging Mr. Orwell...

And since YOU aren't willing to pay for someone else's, then you're blocking their access to it.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I wish my insurance would provide...at no extra costs or copays...my child's asthma medication. I'll make the case to anyone that her asthma medicine is "essential" health care way before someone's birth control pills. That's what's comical about this wholly made-up definitions of "basic" or "essential" care. One merely enables one to have sex more often without consequence. The other actually saves a kid's life. But only the former is decreed to be "essential."

Paging Mr. Orwell...

And since YOU aren't willing to pay for someone else's, then you're blocking their access to it.

We actually treat it with two medications. Both are more expensive than any oral contraceptive my wife has ever been on. But yeah, being able to breathe is way less essential than consequence-free sex.

I never realized it before but because everyone isn't paying for her asthma medicine so I can get it for free, they are denying me access to it. Where do I file the paperwork to correct this egregious trampling of my rights? Re-defining words is FUN!

[arnaldoabru 11]

maybe you should talk to some women.

You can answer the question. You don't have to be a woman to know whether or not someone is deprived of access to something.

And if you're going to go that route, you probably should have said "maybe you should ask a devout Catholic woman."

Would she be one of the 98% who have used birth control?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

maybe you should talk to some women.

You can answer the question. You don't have to be a woman to know whether or not someone is deprived of access to something.

And if you're going to go that route, you probably should have said "maybe you should ask a devout Catholic woman."

Would she be one of the 98% who have used birth control?

Even if she were, it isn't germane to the question being asked.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I wish my insurance would provide...at no extra costs or copays...my child's asthma medication. I'll make the case to anyone that her asthma medicine is "essential" health care way before someone's birth control pills. That's what's comical about this wholly made-up definitions of "basic" or "essential" care. One merely enables one to have sex more often without consequence. The other actually saves a kid's life. But only the former is decreed to be "essential."

Paging Mr. Orwell...

And since YOU aren't willing to pay for someone else's, then you're blocking their access to it.

We actually treat it with two medications. Both are more expensive than any oral contraceptive my wife has ever been on. But yeah, being able to breathe is way less essential than consequence-free sex.

I never realized it before but because everyone isn't paying for her asthma medicine so I can get it for free, they are denying me access to it. Where do I file the paperwork to correct this egregious trampling of my rights? Re-defining words is FUN!

Is the reason for denying coverage was that this was a pre-existing condition?

[MDM4AU 336]

I wish my insurance would provide...at not extra costs or copays...my child's asthma medication. I'll make the case to anyone that her asthma medicine is "essential" health care way before someone's birth control pills.

This!

I HAVE to take 3 medications each day. I spend over $100/ month in copays for Rx that treat conditions that I did nothing to bring on myself. One of the prescriptions costs me $65/month because there is no generic alternative. When I had a point-of-sale drug plan, this medication (with insurance discount) cost me roughly $7.50/pill or around $230/mo. That is about 3x the price for the average Brand Name birth control pill without a discount.

I also take medication for Asthma and I have to carry an epi-pen with me where ever I go for certain allergies. Please someone explain to me how a woman's birth control pills are more "essential" than my medications?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I wish my insurance would provide...at no extra costs or copays...my child's asthma medication. I'll make the case to anyone that her asthma medicine is "essential" health care way before someone's birth control pills. That's what's comical about this wholly made-up definitions of "basic" or "essential" care. One merely enables one to have sex more often without consequence. The other actually saves a kid's life. But only the former is decreed to be "essential."

Paging Mr. Orwell...

And since YOU aren't willing to pay for someone else's, then you're blocking their access to it.

We actually treat it with two medications. Both are more expensive than any oral contraceptive my wife has ever been on. But yeah, being able to breathe is way less essential than consequence-free sex.

I never realized it before but because everyone isn't paying for her asthma medicine so I can get it for free, they are denying me access to it. Where do I file the paperwork to correct this egregious trampling of my rights? Re-defining words is FUN!

Is the reason for denying coverage was that this was a pre-existing condition?

Nope. They cover it somewhat, but not like they do contraception. I have copays. It used to be three Rx's, now it's only two. All are brand name. The one we dropped because she has improved was a non-forumlary brand name and was $50 a month for the copay. Sure wish they considered asthma medicine "essential" like birth control pills. Then my copays would be zero.

[RunInRed 16,460]

I wish my insurance would provide...at not extra costs or copays...my child's asthma medication. I'll make the case to anyone that her asthma medicine is "essential" health care way before someone's birth control pills.

This!

I HAVE to take 3 medications each day. I spend over $100/ month in copays for Rx that treat conditions that I did nothing to bring on myself. One of the prescriptions costs me $65/month because there is no generic alternative. When I had a point-of-sale drug plan, this medication (with insurance discount) cost me roughly $7.50/pill or around $230/mo. That is about 3x the price for the average Brand Name birth control pill without a discount.

I also take medication for Asthma and I have to carry an epi-pen with me where ever I go for certain allergies. Please someone explain to me how a woman's birth control pills are more "essential" than my medications?

To both of you, have you checked into how ACA will affect your specific situations?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I wish my insurance would provide...at not extra costs or copays...my child's asthma medication. I'll make the case to anyone that her asthma medicine is "essential" health care way before someone's birth control pills.

This!

I HAVE to take 3 medications each day. I spend over $100/ month in copays for Rx that treat conditions that I did nothing to bring on myself. One of the prescriptions costs me $65/month because there is no generic alternative. When I had a point-of-sale drug plan, this medication (with insurance discount) cost me roughly $7.50/pill or around $230/mo. That is about 3x the price for the average Brand Name birth control pill without a discount.

I also take medication for Asthma and I have to carry an epi-pen with me where ever I go for certain allergies. Please someone explain to me how a woman's birth control pills are more "essential" than my medications?

To both of you, have you checked into how ACA will affect your specific situations?

To my knowledge, it doesn't affect it much at all. I've no idea why birth control gets singled out to be provided at no extra cost to the end user while others don't other than ideology and election year pandering.

[MDM4AU 336]

Nothing changes for me. I don't expect it to.

[RunInRed 16,460]

To my knowledge, it doesn't affect it much at all. I've no idea why birth control gets singled out to be provided at no extra cost to the end user while others don't other than ideology and election year pandering.

Again, the law intends to give consumers the freedom to seek whatever healthcare services they deem appropriate -not to be abridged by those with power (in this case, the Catholic church)- which includes certain preventive-health services that are specific to women.

And by the way, just for the record, I disagree with the Catholic Church's beef that Obama's compromise was not good enough. Let's be clear: they would not have to provide contraception in their health plans. And if (heaven forbid), females freely chose they wanted to separately purchase this healthcare through the insurance company, it would not add any cost to the employee’s premium. So the whole 'we shouldn't have to pay for something we disagree with' argument goes right out the window.

And now we come circular (again), the gripe is with broader principle/moral objections issues not specific facts that relate to this contraception tangent, IMO.

[TigerHeat 9]

To my knowledge, it doesn't affect it much at all. I've no idea why birth control gets singled out to be provided at no extra cost to the end user while others don't other than ideology and election year pandering.

Again, the law intends to give consumers the freedom to seek whatever healthcare services they deem appropriate -not to be abridged by those with power (in this case, the Catholic church)- which includes certain preventive-health services that are specific to women.

And by the way, just for the record, I disagree with the Catholic Church's beef that Obama's compromise was not good enough. Let's be clear: they would not have to provide contraception in their health plans. And if (heaven forbid), females freely chose they wanted to separately purchase this healthcare through the insurance company, it would not add any cost to the employee’s premium. So the whole 'we shouldn't have to pay for something we disagree with' argument goes right out the window.

And now we come circular (again), the gripe is with broader principle/moral objections issues not specific facts that relate to this contraception tangent, IMO.

There was NO compromise. You know that, but the current Talking Point is that Obama compromised, so that's what all the O-bots parrot. The 0 admin decided that the insurance companies would pay "instead of the Church". Laughable. Pat yourselves on the back for the weasel-words. There's an ass-kicking en route that will make the last mid-terms look like a minor bump. Obama is going to keep going until the dems are relegated to the scrap heap. He is KILLING liberalism, and his mindless drones just follow along echoing the same talking points.

[arnaldoabru 11]

To my knowledge, it doesn't affect it much at all. I've no idea why birth control gets singled out to be provided at no extra cost to the end user while others don't other than ideology and election year pandering.

Again, the law intends to give consumers the freedom to seek whatever healthcare services they deem appropriate -not to be abridged by those with power (in this case, the Catholic church)- which includes certain preventive-health services that are specific to women.

And by the way, just for the record, I disagree with the Catholic Church's beef that Obama's compromise was not good enough. Let's be clear: they would not have to provide contraception in their health plans. And if (heaven forbid), females freely chose they wanted to separately purchase this healthcare through the insurance company, it would not add any cost to the employee’s premium. So the whole 'we shouldn't have to pay for something we disagree with' argument goes right out the window.

And now we come circular (again), the gripe is with broader principle/moral objections issues not specific facts that relate to this contraception tangent, IMO.

There was NO compromise. You know that, but the current Talking Point is that Obama compromised, so that's what all the O-bots parrot. The 0 admin decided that the insurance companies would pay "instead of the Church". Laughable. Pat yourselves on the back for the weasel-words. There's an ass-kicking en route that will make the last mid-terms look like a minor bump. Obama is going to keep going until the dems are relegated to the scrap heap. He is KILLING liberalism, and his mindless drones just follow along echoing the same talking points.

and your great list of God's On Party candidates are doing so well

[Grumps 3,704]

maybe you should talk to some women.

You can answer the question. You don't have to be a woman to know whether or not someone is deprived of access to something.

And if you're going to go that route, you probably should have said "maybe you should ask a devout Catholic woman."

Would she be one of the 98% who have used birth control?

It's funny that you guys claim that 98% of Catholics us birth control. I bet that 98% of hookers don't use birth control. 98% is one heck of a lot. I saw a poll that said that 98% of 18-24 year olds who go online use social media. Do you really think that more Catholics use birth control than 18-24 years old use Facebook? Do you really? You libs crack me up!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

To my knowledge, it doesn't affect it much at all. I've no idea why birth control gets singled out to be provided at no extra cost to the end user while others don't other than ideology and election year pandering.

Again, the law intends to give consumers the freedom to seek whatever healthcare services they deem appropriate -not to be abridged by those with power (in this case, the Catholic church)- which includes certain preventive-health services that are specific to women.

Which would be great if the law didn't abridge the Church's religious freedom to provide it?

And by the way, just for the record, I disagree with the Catholic Church's beef that Obama's compromise was not good enough. Let's be clear: they would not have to provide contraception in their health plans. And if (heaven forbid), females freely chose they wanted to separately purchase this healthcare through the insurance company, it would not add any cost to the employee’s premium. So the whole 'we shouldn't have to pay for something we disagree with' argument goes right out the window.

I'm sure you do. But as you said, the dollar is the bottom line and if these plans truly cost the same or less to provide contraception vs not providing it then you wouldn't have a thing to worry about would you? Employers would be clamoring to add contraception, sterilization and the morning after pill to their coverage to save money. But that's not really the case. It costs money to provide these drugs and services. And you might be the only person to actually believe that the insurance company is just going to eat that cost and not roll it into the price they charge on the next yearly negotiation with the Church. But the Church knows better and so do I.

Not to mention, all those religious organizations who self-insure...they are having to pay for it directly. It was no compromise. It was semantics.

And now we come circular (again), the gripe is with broader principle/moral objections issues not specific facts that relate to this contraception tangent, IMO.

I already told you it was always about the broader principle...that being that following the First Amendment is a higher principle than free birth control, no matter how good an end you happen to believe the latter is. I don't care about contraception per se. I've used it, my wife has used it. The church I belong to doesn't have an issue with it so long as it's preventative and not after the fact such as with abortion-inducing drugs or procedures. Standing up for this principle, in this particular instance, really doesn't directly benefit me. But ultimately, I do think it benefits us all. And it does so far, far more than any benefits to having someone else pick up the full tab for us to get to have sex as much as we want without a baby coming into the picture.

[TigerHeat 9]

maybe you should talk to some women.

You can answer the question. You don't have to be a woman to know whether or not someone is deprived of access to something.

And if you're going to go that route, you probably should have said "maybe you should ask a devout Catholic woman."

Would she be one of the 98% who have used birth control?

It's funny that you guys claim that 98% of Catholics us birth control. I bet that 98% of hookers don't use birth control. 98% is one heck of a lot. I saw a poll that said that 98% of 18-24 year olds who go online use social media. Do you really think that more Catholics use birth control than 18-24 years old use Facebook? Do you really? You libs crack me up!

The real number of Catholic women that use birth control is closer to 99.7%. Just because it violates every tenet of the religion means nothing, I tell you.

Rubes. Parrots. O-bots.