E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCENTENNIAL, CO — Mitt Romney injected himself into a battle between religious groups and the Obama administration on Monday night, calling a new requirement that health care plans include coverage for contraception a "violation of conscience."
Before one of the largest crowds of his campaign, Romney decried the new rule, which requires religious institutions like hospitals, universities and charities to provide coverage for contraceptive services as part of their health care plans, regardless of the particular group's teachings on contraception.
While churches are exempt from the new requirement, it has quickly become a lightning rod issue for social conservatives, with the Catholic Church leading the charge against it.
"We must have a president who is willing to protect America’s first right, a right to worship God, according to the dictates of our own conscience," Romney said to an audience of nearly 3,000 people gathered in a high school gymnasium. "We'll either have a government that protects religious diversity and freedom, or we'll have a government that tells us what kind of conscience they think we ought to have."
Romney, who rarely discusses social issues unprompted on the stump, on Monday made his opposition to the mandate a major applause line at his rally outside Denver.
The issue has quickly become a part of the Republican campaign; Newt Gingrich has accused the Obama administration of waging a "war against religion" with the regulation.
Romney's comments echo a Washington Examiner op-ed piece he wrote last week, in which the former Massachusetts governor used even more forceful language to describe the new rule as "trampling" religious freedom.
"The Obama administration is forcing religious institutions to choose between violating their conscience or dropping health care coverage for their employees, effectively destroying their ability to carry on their work," Romney wrote, saying he "stands with" Catholic bishops opposed to the mandate.
Romney's focus on an issue of particular interest to Catholic voters comes on a day in which his campaign has focused its fire on Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic who has made social issues a cornerstone of his campaign.
The former Massachusetts governor's comments tonight could be seen as an attempt to try to peel away voters from Santorum, the Republican rival a Romney campaign senior adviser acknowledged could snap Romney's electoral win-streak with an upset in Minnesota or Missouri tomorrow.
Democrats called the attacks on the law hypocritical, and were quick to point out similar provisions in the healthcare law Romney passed in Massachusetts.
“It's the ultimate hypocrisy that Mitt Romney is hitting the President for the same birth control policy he oversaw and protected as Governor," Obama campaign adviser Stephanie Cutter said in a statement. "The problem for him is that women are on to him. The trust of voters is priceless in elections, and unfortunately for him it can’t be bought.”
Leave a Comment:
So Weathervane Willard and the rest of the Pubbies think this is a winner for them? The only people attracted to this argument are the anti-abortion fanatics who were against Obama in the first place. The rest of the people will shake their head at this attack on birth control. Think about it, birth control reduces both the number of abortions and health care costs.
Al, being logical about birth control as a way to reduce abortion won't work with the right-wing. They are not logical.
Hey, what's up with the Americans for Prosperity ads with Reagan versus President Obama--Don't they know Reagan isn't running, and uh, isn't around anymore? Beyond St. Reagan the Myth, it just goes to show no one wants to carry the torch from Bush/Cheney.
And so Romney declares he knows whats best for womens bodies.
Company - Religious bases medicine does not need the contraception or abortion and people won't go to religious based medicine anyhow because they know such things are unacceptable to them (not all on the contraception btw). The whole situtuation is a ridiculous power grab by Government.
Well the Right Wing-Nuts are all over the place. They critize anything without giving one iota of thought to their premises and the probable outcome. Silly nuts! They are almost always siding against the Catholic Church. They castigate and moan the pedifiles in the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church hiding these criminals for decades, perhaps centuries. But please no birth control. On this issue we are united with the Catholic Church because it makes "political-hay". We need to have more people in the country and world starving to death, especially the "unlucky" children who are the result of the LACK of practiced birth control. Gee that is real smart. Have more babies for more food stamps and more health care and more cost for all of US! And, you guessed it, the opposition are the very people who complain and want to eliminate all the social programs for the poor. The party of NO, is surely the most ignorant and intolerable bunch in this country. Hard to believe, but oh so true! What a bunch of redneck mentally deficient losers!
Next week Romney will want to ban fornication because the Church disapproves of it. Tsk. Tsk.
If Mitt is saying religious law trumps secular law, then the Republicans have just legitimized sharia law in the US. And this brings back polygamy in Utah. Rastafarians will be happy to hear that secular law no longer applies to them.
None of you know that freedom of religion means the government cannot tell anyone how to believe, worship or change the values they have. It does not mean that the government can tell all religious organizations, companies and people what religious or non religious tenets they have to believe and adhere to.
You all have the meaning backward. The government told some Catholic adoption services that they have to give babies to gays. The Catholic adoption service picked up its marbles and left the state with the huge financial problem.
All you liberals complain about the government interference in our daily lives and here you support the government telling existing companies and religious organizations how to run their business. You have a double standard when you want to make one.
I don't like Catholicism, or want to be Jewish or a Buddhist, but if you want to be one, then I will respect what you believe and how you want to practice your religion or lack of one. I certainly am not going to tell you what to believe or how to practice your religion.
You may remember the recent supreme court decision, that the Supreme Court allowed a religious school to fire a handicapped teacher. In essence it said it was a religious organization and private and could do what it wanted regardless of the law about disabled people.
This isn't a "Law" it is another in a long line of "Edicts" come from 1600...please someone show me where any congressman/woman voted for this
walkingman1-
Nobody is trying to bully religious institutions or tell people how to run their business. Essentially what this boils down to, in my opinion, is the exemptions religious organizations have regarding the law. Can they and should they be allowed to cherry pick health care options based on their beliefs? Some people say yes and others say no. You don't have to agree with trying to bring about equal healthcare opportunities for all, but don't take it as an attack on religious institutions.
A condom stops a beating heart!
PJuliet
If Mitt bans fornication that'll just get Newt really mad. I mean that's all Newt did at Tulane with his draft deferments. If we'd had contraception when this country really needed it Newt woulda ended up in a knotted used condom and tossed - I guess that could still happen at the Covention - knotted and tossed, I mean.
Walkingman1: Just because your health care covers contraceptives, doesn't mean you have to use that coverage. Are you seriously that delusional? It's like the legions of idiots who think that legalizing drugs will somehow create a tidal wave of NEW users. Holy crap, Heroine's legal?!?!? Never tried it, but man, I sure do have the urge to get a fix now! *rolls eyes* Seriously, grow up.
Al in Vista CA - The Birth Control pill was ready for distribution in 1960 - I went on it in 1964 - not a word for 52 years and now it's an issue?
Look at Huckabee he had Romney sign a pledge on personhood - this has been bothering these guys forever - it was the start of women's revolution when they no longer were chained to the bed or stove
Roe-Versus -Wade didn't start the women's freedom "The Pill Did" And now they are coming after us with a vengeance - I say OK - no more Viagra - no more vasectomies - no more rubbers and no more sex and most of all no more masturbation - because the bible tells you not to do it Quote "It is better to put your sperm in a woman than spew it on the earth"
Ridiculous! If the CHURCH (and I mean the CHURCH, not associated institutions) wants to say "no" to covering contraceptives ... that's fine.
But most, if not all, "religious" hospitals/institutions employ scads of people not of that religion. Imposing "no contraceptives" on them would also be unfair.
If taking the Pill is against your religion, the answer is simple. Don't take it. But don't make that decision for your coworker.
Romney is a businessman, he's selling what people want, if you don't want it, don't buy it. Simple as that!
I am getting tired of the "you liberals are applying a double standard" argument. No one is telling you what to believe, how to worship, or how to go on about your daily lives. However, in America, you have to play by the rules as a business. And the rules are based on simple equality. What if someone were to start a business and base their business model on religious precepts? There are many "christians" who believe that African American's are beneath them and that races should not mix. Should it be ok to deny medicines or health care or services based on their religious precepts? Of course not! It's time to grow up and realize that there is a massive difference between saying, "You must service all," as compared to, "I want to choose to whom I service." You want tax exempt status? You want to operate a business? Business and individual freedom of expression are not the same thing.
For example: A minister does not have to marry any two people, as that is his/her individual right not to do so. A minister can refuse to provide counsel to a person based on his own personal beliefs. The church can preach against and teach against whatever they wish. But, if they are a business, they are not treated as individuals any longer. There are gray areas certainly, however, by the large, as a business, trying to force segregation and and denying services based on "religious" teaching is very dangerous indeed.
No one is telling conservatives what to believe or how to behave in their personal life. So this double standard argument is total rubbish.
Just another non-issue being trumped to the hills by all the hapless TeaDunces who simply have no real causes to support...
Btw, Tony - no one of any consequence is gonna buy Romney in the end.
It's not really a big deal Mitt will change his mind just in time for the general election.
Mitt Romney injected himself into a battle between religious groups and the Obama administration on Monday night, calling a new requirement that health care plans include coverage for contraception a "violation of conscience."
And this is what Vladamir Putin's campaign had to say Feb. 4, 2012:
'Real Russian patriots should stay at home and make babies... not loiter at demonstrations,' Russia's deputy prime minister says amid continuing anger over disputed elections
See any similarities in thought process?
Here is some info regarding Russia:
By Chloe Arnold
June 28, 2008
MOSCOW -- Dilyara Latypova is a gynecologist in the Russian republic of Tatarstan. With more than 25 years of experience, she's seen some progress in family planning since the days of the Soviet Union, when such topics were largely taboo.
Still, she says, the situation today is far from ideal. For many women, the most common method of birth control remains a Soviet-era holdover: abortion.
Despite an abundance of new family-planning options, Latypova says lack of public awareness and prohibitive expenses -- like $25 monthly packs of birth control pills -- mean many women still see abortion as their only choice.
In the years after the Soviet collapse, before the expense grew too great, some gynecological clinics attempted to provide birth control for free, a practice that has proved successful in places like the United Kingdom. The number of Russian women who use the pill as their primary form of birth control remains low -- between 3 and 13 percent, as compared to 52 percent in Europe. The predominant form of preventive birth control is the highly uncertain rhythm method.
Vartapetova warns that attempts to prevent abortions or to restrict access to birth control would be a mistake. "When we talk about the demographic crisis, quite often there's a misunderstanding -- that family planning leads to smaller family size. International evidence that shows that that's not true -- and that family planning actually improves women's health and decreases abortion rates. But this information isn't that well-known among our policymakers.”
I find the TP/Republican agenda very frightening. Preventing access to birth control will only raise the number of abortions. Make abortion illegal and you will only have more back alley abortions raising the mortality rates of your mothers, sisters, wives and daughters.
The more the evangelicals and religious right wing force their concept of religion on me the less I want anything to do religion. The ideal of a new America was religious FREEDOM not a dictatorship of what I am "suppose" to believe. Bunch of Nazi's if you ask me.
I rarely agree with catholicsism on any matter. But this is a case of too much goverment, too many laws that serve no purpose other than to slowly turn our democracy into socialism. Wake up while you still can!!!!! Tell the goverment to butt the hell out of private lives. If we wanted our every move, thought and action to be goverment controled we would move to iran.
Here we go again. The right wants to use this as a distraction. Just like gay marriage, abortion, birth records, school records and the was on Xmas. These are not issues. Why does the right do this crap all the time? The answer to get the christian folks panties in a bunch & to get them to vote on faith instead of real issues. Its pandering to the evangelicals. We here all this talk that the left is at war with christians. This is proof that its the other way around. This is a battle for birth control. The right is chipping away at birth control. There some righties wanting to ban birth control. The way I see it they are starting to see a decline of white babies here in America. What better way to fix that than ban birth control. The religious right and there leaders in my opinion are the real America Taliban!
peteM your comment about condoms is wrong. You can't stop a beating heart when one is not beating in the first place. I guess they don't explain how life starts where you live. You need to go ask your preacher about that one. For your information a woman's ovum is a cell that has to have fertilization to amount to something. Did you miss that in school when they were teaching human reproduction.
capncaveman: wake up, indeed. Move to Iran if you want religious law to rule all. CATHOLIC CONTROL IS BEST???? No thanks.
So if it's all about CHOICE, why is every organization REQUIRED to pay for birth control and abortion?
This is not an attack on religion, it is nothing so simple as that. This is an attempt to find a balance between a woman's right to choice/privacy and religious freedom. Catholic hospitals employ thousands of workers and they aren't all Catholics, let alone devout Catholics. Why should those women who work for them be denied access to contraception? And please don't say, "They can go get another job". Get real, it's not that easy.
These establishments have a year to figure out they are going to do this. They don't even have to be the one's that offer it. They can refer their workers to other services. This is about access, not force. No one will be forced to take a Plan B pill, or use any other form of contraception they don't believe in.
Churches are not included in this rule. What this is about is primarily Catholic hospitals. First off, these hospitals are not churches or religious organizations. These are businesses who are affiliated with a religion. These businesses employ people of many faiths. They provide services to people of many faiths and charge money for those services. In theory, they are non-profit, but the reality is that is just a technicality using the religious affiliation as cover. These hospitals receive about $45 billion in Federal funding annually. Very often these hospitals also receive State and local government supporting funds.
Being businesses for the most part and employers, they are covered by government rules and regulations. In that regard, they are no different than any other employer. I can understand that their boards of directors, who may often be religious people, have reservations about this, but that's just too bad. The same could occur in any other business who had management with religious convictions. Should any business then be granted religious exemptions? No, absolutely not.
People who are siding against this ruling need to realize that in fact what they are doing is using a very similar argument to those who would promote Sharia law. Take this hospital example and carry it to a religious subdivision. Let's say that the Muslim religion sponsors a Muslim community with religious funds. Should that community be able to have their own rules and laws exempt from government law? I don't think any of you would support that. But in reality, that would be no different than the situation here.
These hospitals are not allowed to make their own laws superseding public law. They are not allowed to discriminate. They must obey all other US law. If the Catholic religion somehow decided that girl children were the embodiment of the devil and advocated killing them, would they have a religious right to kill every girl child patient? Of course not, civil law would supersede religious law.
The fact of the matter is that these Catholic hospitals are businesses that employ a very large number of people, most of whom are not Catholic. If these hospitals tried to make all employees attend a Catholic mass before working everyday as a condition of employment, they would be immediately sued and would lose their case in every court all the way to the Supreme Court. If they discriminated against employing non-Catholics, they would also be sued and lose. If they refused patients unless the first converted to Catholicism, they would likewise be sued and lose.
The Catholic church needs to be careful here as they are treading on dangerous ground. The fact is that they enjoy an affiliation with religion that really isn't justified. They are businesses first, providing health care for a fee. They don't have to like the ruling, but they need to accept it.
I just listened to a debate on Alex Wagner's show that was so silly I was smiling through it. It seems that religious men think that religious women agree with them on this. To set you gentlemen straight. I am one of the 98% of conservative religious women that are 100% behind birth control and planned parenthood and health insurance agencies being required to provide it free of charge. You are really fooling yourself if you think the Republican women clapping at Romney's anti birth control comments are being themselves. They are simply tickling their male counter parts ears. Healthcare statistics prove us 98% are on the right side and you gentlemen on the wrong side of this issue. I suggest you let it go before you alienate those Republican women as well. Did the Mississippi "personhood" amendment failure teach you nothing?
To say nothing of the fact that this is already going on in 23 states, including MA, and yet Catholicsm continues.
Of course, Mittens was FOR this same rule before he was against it.
Smitty:
peteM your comment about condoms is wrong. You can't stop a beating heart when one is not beating in the first place. I guess they don't explain how life starts where you live. You need to go ask your preacher about that one. For your information a woman's ovum is a cell that has to have fertilization to amount to something. Did you miss that in school when they were teaching human reproduction.
There was nothing but sarcasm and contempt in my original comment - it was in no way meant to be serious.
I don't have a preacher (not interested in organized religion) had plenty of sex ed and biology and am pro-choice and pro-stem cell research.
For the record.
peteMT,
RE: your post #1.10
Pete, I bet you failed basic biology, right? If not, please explain how a condom stops a "beating heart" or, any heart! Pete, I say ignorance is alive and well here on the Newsvine!
Of course the Catholic Church is hurting their own congregation. Do you realize the percentage of Church going Catholics who use birth control? The number is high, very high. Guess they also want to deny divorcees health care coverage. Care to guess how much their premiums are going to go up if these women are forced into pregnancies or God forbid an abortion. Do they cover vasectomies? Guess not. How about the little blue smurf pills? Come to think of it, they want to outlaw sex entirely, except for what goes on behind the veil of secrecy. Birth control is a basic tenet of female health care and should be a basic right. Over-population of the planet should be a sin.
To: Catholic Bishops
From: 98% of American moms!
Keep your hands off our children and out of our vaginas!
GET IT NOW?
Why does the party of "less government intrusion" worry so much about what goes on in peoples bedrooms. As a former Catholic or a lapsed one if you will. I know that the vast majority of Catholic women use some form of birth control other than "Vatican Roulette". If your church operates a business like a hospital, University, non church real estate or even a hall for wedding receptions that are run for profit the you have to follow the laws like all businesses do. If your profit making non church enterprise takes in government money, even education loans and Pell grants then you have to follow the law. Eventually the employees will vote with their feet and leave. Let's not give human eggs human rights. 1.6 billion people world wide in 1900 over 7 billion today. Do the math.
The Constitution give people the right to practice their own religions- NOT to force others to practice the same religion. Catholics are free not to use birth control, but they have no right to prevent others from using birth control. When you become an employer, you have to follow equal opportunity and other rules aimed at ensuring that workers are treated fairly.
As religions go, I have less issues with Catholicism than some other religions. Catholics tend to be New Testament Christians and don't take everything in the Old Testament so literally. I suppose that if anybody has a claim to the first Christian religion it is probably them. However, like any religion, they are a product of man's interpretations. They have a lot of flaws. They do have a very business like hierarchy and they have the position of Pope that gives them an edge on others by having a direct connection to God. Without a doubt, the best organized religion in the world. All the big Catholic hospitals is good evidence of that.
They do some pretty good things, but they have some serious problems too. Most Catholics tend to be "practical Catholics". A good example of this is how many Catholics use birth control. I read somewhere that among the major religions, Catholics were the best educated. For a lot of Catholics, they view their religion more as guidelines rather than steadfast rules. On the whole, they are a bit more realistic about things even though their leaders hold to a tighter line.
There are a couple Catholic leaders who have spoken out about this, but it is a bit surprising that so many non-Catholics seem compelled to voice their views in "support" of the Catholic's plight here. I find it a bit funny as I remember back when JFK was running for President and it was many other Christian religions that had a real problem with it because they feared that the Pope would basically run the country. You have to realize too, that virtually all other Christian religions can trace themselves to some break away from Catholicism.
Bottom line though is that the hospitals we're talking about are primarily business off-shoots of the religion. As businesses and employers, they really should have no complaint here.
So Romney believes that a Catholic hospital with mostly non-Catholic employees and a high percentage of Catholic employees who do not believe this bit of dogma, should be able to pocket the money for contraceptive coverage for all its employees, using the health care system to punish those who do not subscribe to their beliefs. Jeez, Millard, I believe the Constitution forbids them to do this and still have "acceptable" coverage under the AHA. I believe that separation of Church and Stae forbids any Church to use any government program to force their beliefs on others.
I have had personal experuience with this situation. My wife had severe dysmennorea (sp?) and was prescribed birth control pills to control it. The BCBS Plan for the Catholic hospital paid for it, but the hospital pocketed the money and returned it to Blue Cross. They did the same for several D&C's and the eventual partial histerectomy that fixed the problem. This was a case of Roman Catholic nuns forcing their beliefs, over medical advice and for purely medical reasons, on people who did not subscribe to them. May they roast in hell.
Hey Walkingman1, I didn't realise that religions have a right to dictate what kind of health care plan I can or can't have. Next they'll be telling me I can't pull the plug on grandma who's been brain dead for 2 yrs. Odd that they don't want woman to use contraceptives but I have never heard them tell men to abstain from sex to prevent unwanted births. How about we bring all those unwanted babies that were born due to no birth control to the Vatican and let them care for them.
Religions aren't the ones doing the dictating here. It is your govt. This isn't about abortion to me. It's about the govt mandating religious organizations to do things against their core tenets. It seems to bend over backwards on other issues to avoid this but not here. It could be another issue.
Along the lines of Obamacare. It's not about healthcare. It's the govt mandating you buy a product to be a citizen (health insurance) or be fined whether you want it or not.
I believe it should be up to each citizen to choose (pro choice right?) whether they want contraception, and not the govt mandating you to support it if you don't believe in it. The govt as my grandad used to say is "getting to big for its britches"
Maybe the fairest way to do this is have them only cover their non-Catholic employees and not the Catholic ones so as not to infringe on their beliefs.
Betcha' that would work out good for 'em! Not! Wouldn't it be a kick though?
This is man who brought companies, fired workers, reduce their wages, convert full to part-time, shipped American jobs oversea, etc. to make a quick profit for himself and his elite friends on the back of working American is now talking about "CONSCIENCE" Please Mitt !!
When is Mitt going to talk about his faith Mormon, instead of women contraception?
Is Mitt going to FAKE until November ?
So what happens if it becomes part of 'religious freedom' to NOT pay their employees ANY benefits? How about wages? When will wages be lowered to conform to a vow of poverty by Catholic priests?
If they're able to cherry pick through benefits now because of some personally held belief, where will it end? Don't they realize their personal belief are not those held by their employees? Perhaps that should be considered before they ran around buying up hospitals. The Catholics own over 600 hospitals and they sure as heck did not BUILD them with the intention of putting like-minded employees on the staff.
Romney is a tool that believes corporations are people. That alone eliminates him from any valid stance on the right or wrong of corporations to intrude into the personal well being of faith.... unless he intends to Bain Capital faith, too.
This is just a bunch of smoking mirrors... a way to circumvent women's rights once again. Why not pay the dang insurance plans and let women decide? Oh wait, Romney and all the priests (he's a priest, too) thinks women are unable to make those decisions for themselves.
Don't worry mitt, all those 13-year old morman girls will still give birth to their father's children!!!
What a flip-flopper!
Talyn530
Flip-flopper! That's what a used rubber does, especially when caught on the running boards of your Dad's '51 Chevy pick-up truck.
This is political insanity at it's best. This is the party that is trying so hard to push themselves into obscurity that it is truly amazing.
It's his or her own f**king choice, NOT Mitt's.
THe President is simply implementing Agenda 21 adopted by most members of the UN
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm
Pay close attention to line 30. The systematic reduction of population.
Here is the original plan for world social engineering.
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
Uh, Johnny-boy: Explain to all of us how making contraceptives available AS AN OPTION is social engineering or a systematic reduction of population? This should be hilarious!
Maybe, just maybe, a woman isn't ready to bear a child and still wants to, gasp, have sexual relations!
If everyone left everyone else alone the world would be a lot better off!
You might be taking me wrong. I believe in choice. I believe that contraceptives should be available. I don't believe a small group of religious extremists should be deciding policy for everyone.
What bothers me is what I posted is real. Google just about every country, and Agenda 21 and it is being implemented.
The agenda is one of taking away from the freedoms women have and should have, not forcing them to use birth control or even have an abortion. This isn't about making women do anything, and is in fact making sure they don't have to bear kids they aren't ready for, can't afford, or don't want. Not allowing them to make those choices is social engineering.
It isn't as if the world has a few people and needs more, you know.
This too is social engineering - to think differntly is not seeing the whole picture. Simply put You are still telling them what they can or cannot do. My experience with people is give them a chance and they will surprise you every time.
ram-762581
Did you even read the links?
Tell me it isn't socio-economic engineering.
john-737278 So hard to make people stop and read correctly. Reread the article and reread the U.S. constitution and the new Supreme Court ruling which was unanimous.
john - so what?
I haven't found the SCOTUS decision, but it looks as though they would rule for Sackett. At least there will be a precedent. And it is about time the EPA got its hands slapped.
Most of the things in Agenda 21 I can actually get behind as far as sustainability, it is how underhandedly they are going about it without public knowledge that bothers me.
Barbara Adams Jackson
Well, if you don't have a problem with the government determining your future, so be it. I prefer to find my own destiny.
John
I read your link and your reply to Barbara. I suppose since you seem to be a man you cannot understand the impact of not having birth control has on women. Women have been trying to find good birth control since the beginning of time. Abortions have been done since women figured out why their belly was growing. Do you know the old fairy tale of Hansel and Gretal? There is a reason for it. In the Dark Ages it was fairly common for a parent to lead one or more children into the woods to die. Or to quietly smother a newborn. The reason? They couldn't feed another mouth.
As a man perhaps you will never really understand the implications to a woman who has no control over her own body and the heartbreak associated with the birth of a child she knows she cannot care for.
I'm with Barbara on this one. So What. As I see it, promoting birth control doesn't affect YOUR destiny in any way at all. Get back to me when you can get pregnant and we'll talk further.
Thank you DSB
If you actually read all my posts, you might realize that I am with you. I do believe in choice. I do believe in birth control. And I do believe in rights granted by our constitution. My post was about government invading our lives when we don't even know they are doing it.
I have three children and my wife and I had them when we wanted, on our own terms. It is about freedom from interference of government.
Talk about a cranium full of muck! Who in the world wants to spend time reading your old posts, anyway?
I guess that will teach me to not try to raise awareness.
The thing that gets me are the arguments made by Gingrich and now Romney. "War on religion." "Violation of conscience." The fact is, these Catholic hospitals and health care facilities take federal funds. Therefore, the federal government must constitutionally require that all citizens receive the same treatment options. Does this mean Gingrich/Romney are at war with the Constitution of the United States?
Poor Mitt. He must appease the most radical elements of his party in the primary process. Does he think voters will forget these statements and positions in a few months time? No chance of flip/flopping this time.
That is brilliant and should be the talking point forward. Was depressing today to watch Mika on Morning Joe today agreeing with Joe on every talking point. I thought she was intelligent .. now, I'm going for dumb blond.
Yeah, but Mika has really nice legs.
Not all of them took federal funds until 2009. It is extremely hard to not accept federal funds at all, especially because of Medicare and Medicaid. This is why being dependent upon federal help. They always can pull the string and make you dance to there tune.
This is just another big reason to completely repeal the HCL and Privatize Social Security. The government that give, also has the power to take away, if you don't follow their own agenda.
Yes, she does, I just didn't know they would fold so quickly. Her dad is brilliant.
Also these Catholic hospitals provide more free healthcare to the poor and underpriviliged than most any for profilt hospital. Maybe they will just stop doing that, this isn't about contraception this is about government over reach.
What next, are they going to force schools not to seve french fries for lunch once a week...... oh wait they are already doing that. I don't care if it is President Obama doing this or whomever the next president might be, the government is over reaching and trying to run my life and make my choices for me. I'm fine with the seat belt laws, and other safety laws, but when the government starts telling me what I can eat and when, and what I as an employer "have to provide" then its time to take action and vote out all politicians who would vote for such things.
Its amazing that its okay to tell employers what they must provide for their employees when it violates the basic tennants of their religion, BUT the left gets in an uproar when a state tries to ban food stamps for drug abusers and the purchase of convenience foods. Why is it okay for poor people to use food stamps to buy junk food, but it can't be served in schools?
DB Akron, so now it's the government's fault that the Catholic Church doesn't actually fund its own hospitals well enough to keep them operating?
Charitable donations and church funding total only about 5% of the income for religious hospitals in the U.S. About half comes from Medicaid/Medicare. Almost all of the rest comes from taxpayer-funded appropriations and from patients and insurance providers. When it comes to providing charitable care to the poor, religious hospitals are no better than non-religious, private, non-profit hospitals and both trail public hospitals by a wide margin (though they all beat out for-profit hospitals handily, sorry Ron Paul).
But no, it's big, bad, evil government's fault that they fund healthcare for at risk populations like the poor and aging. Or that communities see value in funding emergency rooms and ambulances. Or that they might have any form of non-discrimination policy to ensure that the entire community has access to life saving and improving health services. How dastardly of them!
Of course, this whole debate is rather wide of the point since the policy in question actually makes no service mandates on religious hospitals. It merely says that when large employers are required to provide health insurance for their employees, those plans have to cover birth control for the employees who want it.
True to its nature, the Catholic Church starts another Inquisition, this time with a Mormon at its helm. They may not be after Muslims or Jews this time around, but they are after the non-wealthy classes. Leave it to the Catholic leadership to cry victim as they find any diversion to offset dallying with the choir boys.
Red DevPS - The Birth Control was ready for distribution in 1960 - I myself went on it in 1964 - so now the Catholic Church just woke up from the Dark Ages - My confession when I was a Catholic and I told my priest I was on the pill after three children and one miscarriage - do you know what this wonderful man told me
"Bless you my child - say 3 Hail Mary's - 3 Glory B's and 1 Our Father" and I received Communion that Sunday
Where the devil have they been when every priest absolved you?
52 years later and they're still fighting this nonsense - every Catholic woman I knew was on the pill!
Very interesting to me how many "good Catholics" are married for many years and somehow only have one or two children. Don't tell me they aren't practicing birth control! When I was young, before 'the pill' there were so many extremely poor families who had 8, 10 or even 15 children. Now you rarely see a family with more than 2 or 3 children. People have not changed - birth control has made it possible for a woman to not become pregnant every year.
If you don't believe in birth control, don't practice it. But don't complain about government controlling our lives (since Obama became president) and then try and do away with a woman's choice to use or not use birth control depending on her desire to have a child or not. I choose to not drink alcohol or use tobacco but if you want to use it, it's not my right or desire to tell you that you can't. It's all legal, as it should be.
Mitt Romney is wrong. Why should a religiously affiliated university or hospital get the privilege of being allowed to implement discriminatory policies that would be illegal for any other university or hospital? If that is allowed, then on what grounds could they be prevented from any other form of discrimination?
This rule does not apply to individuals or their consciences. It does not apply to churches or ministries. It is hardly an assault on religious liberty, a liberty that most Republicans like Romney (and too many Democrats as well) so often forget includes the right to not worship any gods and to not be forced to subsidize them.
Nathan - you are spot on. Romney wants to claim this is an issue of religious freedom. Where does offering insurance coverage for birth control force Catholics to take the pill. It doesn't.
Nathan, very well put.
Their cherry-picking and falsely interpreting the law, and complaining about why their church's congregation can choose to accept easier access to more comprehensive health care coverage or not, makes their holier-than-thou leaders just as quick to demand legislation of their form of restrictive morality imposed into your lives.
What this boils down to is that the religious right is complaining that their power-base is being challenged because they're sensitized to everything and anything they feel that threatens their Borg agenda in an election year. So what do they do? They essentially side with the under-regulated, for-profit, private sector insurance industry that caused so much of the trouble we've had with the low quality of socio-economic, class-divisive, unaffordable health care in this country!
Women, want a right-wing government to monitor your uterus and watch what you do and say in the privacy of your bedrooms and bathrooms? Want to be coerced to read a Bible every day and night? Want them to take away, by scriptural edict turned into their dream of arbitrary inventions of ill-conceived constitutional amendments, religious control over your own reproductive destiny? Vote for know-it-all patriarchs in the Republican Party that want to turn YOU into a second citizen, and become micromanaged property of the morally hypocritical men in their church!
rradiko, all I can say is, AMEN!! Preach it honey! :o)
Well, personally, I'm concerned about the Duggars if Romney and his 18th century followers prevail. How will they maintain their monopoly on irresponsibly giant families and the right for every woman to drop a baby every year. With Romney in charge, everyone will have a farmer's sized family all ready to work the back acre. And there goes the Duggar's uniqueness. How sad. Just when it seemed safe to be an ignorant religious zealot, here comes an unintended consequence.
This should be of interest to all religions, not just Catholics. It goes after the Protestants, Jews, and Muslims faiths. They all have to conform to what the government determines what procedures that all American health providers and insurance should even though government policy is in direct conflict with their belief systems. I'm sure there are Hospitals and clinics built by Mormons, especially in Utah. That is why Romney is involved.
This will kick charitable hospitals out of the system that will be replaced. Faith based hospitals may make up as much as 25% of our health care system. That's a huge problem in a hard time if they just close up. if they don't then they have to abandon their faith and become inconsequential.
Heck even Romney care didn't do this.
America - there reality, you have elected people that despise people with religious values and only lip service to your most cherished values.
What is really sad is much of the Denominational and Catholic leadership backed Obama and his concept of Universal Health care. They have now done a 180, but they have lost a lot of credibility with their respective memberships. America, please forgive them and replace the charlatans that deceived us as a nation.
You are clueless. You obviously aren't a woman, and you obviously have no clue how health care works or why it is so important for women to have access to birth control. No one said anyone had to use the birth control, but it is a legit part of health care and many who work at those hospitals aren't Catholic. They have a right to use it if they want and it is part of their heath care.
Maybe your cherished values are babies coming to people who didn't want more, can't afford them, were forced to have sex, or wanted to wait, and maybe you don't care if they are used for several other medical reasons and should be available...so don't use them, but it doesn't mean you get to choose for everyone else. You are just silly in saying this is about people despising people with religious values, and this is about protecting mothers and children, and the whole family, really. But I guess having control of women's reproductive rights is cherished to you...sad.
The Catholic church has lost way more credibility than Obama ever could...lol. America doesn't need to forgive anyone except the people who don't care about women and children.
So if I were raped, beaten into a coma, but impregnated, you would force my abusive father to keep me alive until I birthed that baby so he could raise it and do it again? You would call that a violation of conscience? I would rather have access to birth control, thanks.
obama "despises" people with religious values? lol, that's funny db. Wrong, but funny.
This is such a hypocritical argument. The catholic church owns these organizations and should not be forced to pay for something that is against the basic tennants of their religion. What will the government do when the catholic church says "okay fine" we will just close all of our corporate entities rather than provide health coverage for contraception", how many people will that force to become unemployed, how many people will no longer have access to health care when some of these hospitals close their doors?
My religious beliefs lead me not to contribute to any organization that I feel would ever consider donating money to planned parenthood. That is my right. Your belief system may lead you not to contribute to any organization that DOES NOT donate to planned parenthood, that is YOUR Right.
It is the right of the catholic church NOT to purchase health insurance that provides contraception and abortion coverage. The government CAN NOT force them to do this.
Actually people that want this coverage can always find somewhere else to work. While looking for a job, the benefit package always plays a big part on whom I choose to work for.
There are already laws in 26 states that require this coverage. 6 states use the same "model" as this proposal. The most absurd and insulting part of Romney's diatribe is that ROMNEYCARE requires it.
Wake up people! When will you LEARN that arguing about someting that is not even the issue (including the coverage is NOT NOT NOT a mandate for using the coverage regardless of who says it) is the way you give up the right to use your brain to make informed decisions!
And they still do back President Obama as I myself do.
Geez, next thing you know the Feds will be forcing the Seventh Day Adventist hospitals to offer blood transfusions in their emergency rooms. Jerks...
The so called "feds" want to ensure you have the option. It is the Catholic Church who wants to impose its will to ensure you have no option.
I like the point you're trying to make, but it's Jehova's Witnesses who are against blood transfusions, not Adventists. Unless you've met some really wacky Adventists..and there are those in abundance.
/Grew up Adventist. Mom's a nurse. You get the idea.
Wrecked in WA - stay on topic we are talking about birth control - however I believe in certain states as a state issue Jehovah Witnesse's children were taken from parents to save a child - never a Federal Issue
My daughter had a baby in a Seventh Day Adventist hospital and needed several blood transfusions right after the birth, which she got as they were needed. They saved her life.
I am not SDA but I did attend an SDA high school. I didn't agree with their religious beliefs, but they take health very seriously. If I had to go to a hospital I would have no issue with going to an SDA hospital.
Sorry, Jehovah's Witness'... Easier to be clever when you don't screw up the punchline.
Haha, sorry. Disregard comment on previous..uh, comment. :)
Violation of conscious? Birth control is a violation of conscious?
Now that I think of it, everything is a violation of conscious?
US is over populated. Too many people. Not enough jobs. Dwindling resources and opportunity. Social Services stretched to the danger point. And these folk want more mouths to feed that they want nothing to do with. Christians? Or-------------masochists.
Barry, nope, not masochists. More like people who think that their religious beliefs should be enforced upon everyone else.
@Ram: Amen.
"Be fruitful and multiply..." ...so that there will be more mouths to feed.
Without easier access to birth control, the poverty, social unrest and institutional strain that comes from overcrowding and greater competition for less resources, knows no limits.
Conservatives are getting so desperate for ANYTHING they will turn nothing into an issue? Democrats must be laughing their butts off at this ignorance.
This has NO effect on churchs at all
"While churches are exempt from the new requirement, it has quickly become a lightning rod issue"
Nobody is protesting that health insurance pays for viagra.
That's because MEN use Viagra.
yep, those GOP folks and their laser-like focus on jobs and the economy. Time to bring back the 'war on christmas", that got their base all worked up too.
I beg your pardon Mitt, let's speak about infringing on others religious rights for a moment.
What do Mormons (LDS Church) do... you baptize someones else dead...
"Mormons have been criticized in recent years for the practice of posthumously baptizing thousands of deceased Jews (among them Holocaust Victims)
"Mormons routinely perform proxy baptisms for the dead, though, ... "If you then convert them posthumously you'll even take away why they died."
"In an effort to block posthumous re baptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormon's Genealogical Society of Utah." Isn't this Ancestry.com?
By the way....my family have already chosen our religion! Stay away!
PTNY - one of the slimiest practices I have ever experienced, and they do it with a smile and with glee. They change your religion with a simple dunk. They troll through archives to find your names, and dunk, you are a Mormon. I was forced as a Mormon kid to perform that ritual. It was morally reprehensible, but it was a practice required. I still have to wipe that slime off my sleeve. Good news for Mormons, they have converted more Mormons than any other religion. Considering the dead outnumber the living, no surprise there.
I personally have no issues with Mormons or any other religion. However, this is pathetic. I just learned about this practice this week.
According to LDS doctrine, baptisms for the dead does not change a persons religion, beliefs, desires, or any other part of them. When someone is baptized for the dead, it is believed that this allows them the opportunity to accept the ordinance of baptism if they did not receive it while they were alive, but only if they want it. If they don't, then it makes no difference. The records of the person baptized are never added into the church as former members, however they do try and track who has been baptized for the dead already so that they don't do it again and again.
According to LDS doctrine, baptism is a necessary ordinance, and it must be done by those with the proper authority in the priesthood, which they believe originates from Christ (They believe that the priesthood fell into corruption after the apostles had died). There are a lot of people who have lived on this earth who would have never been baptized in any way. Instead of them being stopped, or in purgatory, or whatever else you want to define it as, this would allow them to have the same opportunity as those who were baptized in their lifetime.
They also believe that a body is required for the baptism ordinance, which is why those that have passed on could not be baptized on the other side. They believe that they are separated from their body for a time. Thus a person stands in for the individual being baptized.
Members who are doing baptisms for the dead are supposed to be doing it for their family line only. This doesn't always get followed though, and is a very difficult and hair raising thing to verify on the spot. A member can be baptized for themselves at 8, and can do baptisms for the dead in the temple at 12. The LDS church has tried to make this a prominent issue within their genealogy website.
Familysearch.org is the genealogy site owned by the LDS Church. Ancestry.com is a privately held company. I believe that they collaborate though.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Churches are already exempt from this ruling. What is the issue? Just because, for example, a Catholic hospital will be required to have their insurance cover birth control, the only ones they should be concerned about following their doctrines are fellow Catholics, who won't use that part of the health insurance. Don't most employer-funded health insurance cover birth control anyway?
This seems to me more like political fodder during election time than anything.
Aimee - Actually birth control has not been covered by employer-funded insurance I worked for a pharmaceutical company and I was not covered - however your penal implants were covered because it was a surgical operation
If it's that big of a deal to the Catholic Church, then I suggest yanking all federal funding, and their tax exempt status. They can then do as they please with regards to internal policy, as long as it's not damaging or hurtful to others.
At the same time, the State/Federal government should stop recognizing marriage in the tax code. And only apply tax bonuses to those under civil union. The Church can keep their 'word', and lose out on the benefits they've enjoyed in this country.
You think Obama hates religion? It could be sooo much worse for you.
Well it should not bother him one bit then. Just tell him it only pertains to the middle class and the poor, in other words working peons, nothing that concerns him.
j smith - sorry you got the wrong guy - Romney doesm't care about the poor or middle class - get your facts straight
Seem like Romney trying to cut all you guy short. You know the wives will be saying oh no, I can do that I am not protected. At least Trojan will have a lot of business and this will create jobs.
Don't worry about his comment because next week he will take it back. Mitt never stick to nothing. HE can even decide which side of the butter he should butter first....that man is sick.
Romney make Bommerang decision, he always take them back at the end of the day!
Have have no love for Catholic Hospitals as one refused to treat me when I broke my collar bone.
Obama is wrong on this one. If they don't comply, they don't get funding. Why is Obama forcing tax dollars on them that they don't want. That is the issue.
Keep the church out of government and tax dollars out of religious organizations. They rip off their flocks enough so that they don't need to rip the rest of us off at the hands of a politician.
The only hospital serving our community of over 60,000 people is Catholic owned. Consequently, any men or women in our area who say they are done having babies as wish to have a vasectomy or their tubes tied have to go to another city to get it taken care of. Even in cases where there are serious medical reasons for the individuals not to have children, the local Catholic owned hospital will not serve them.
I for one am sick and tired of a religious institution dictating what care is available to the community. Meanwhile, that very same institution is asking for a new sales tax on all local residents to fund an expanded emergency room. So are they here to serve the whole community or not? Why should that hospital's 800+ employees, many who are not Catholic themselves, be denied health plan coverage for birth control pills or devices?
What business does the church have telling people to choose between having more babies and having sex? The vast majority of Catholics in practice simply ignore the Church's anti birth control edicts.
Is it a violation of conscience to make women raise babies they don't want and to make taxpayers pay for the education (at $10,000 per year per child), the welfare costs and the prison expenses for many of them?