E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
CINCINNATI, OH –- Newt Gingrich today tried to link Mitt Romney and Barack Obama as one in the same when it comes to their stances on birth control for religious institutions.
“Romneycare and Obamacare they're too similar,” Gingrich told the crowd inside Price Hill Chili Restaurant at his first campaign event in the Buckeye State this morning. “There's been a lot of talk about the Obama administration's attack on the Catholic Church. Well the fact is, Gov. Romney insisted that Catholic hospitals give out abortion pills against their religious belief when he was governor.”
Gingrich was referring to a Feb. 3 Boston Globe article, which reported that Romney -- in Dec. 2005 -- "required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion."
More from the article: "[Romney] said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law - one passed by lawmakers despite his veto - but he also said that 'in his heart of hearts,’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception."
Since Jan. 30, Gingrich has relentlessly criticized the Obama administration for including a provision in the health-care law that requires all religious institutions to cover birth control in their insurance plans, despite religious teachings.
“The Obama administration is engaged in a war against religion,” the former House Speaker, who converted to Catholicism, told supporters at a rally in Jacksonville, FL two weeks ago after hearing the letter sent by Catholic Bishops to churches read at mass. “Their decision last week that they would impose on every Catholic institution, every Jewish institution, every Protestant institution, the Obamacare standard of what you have to buy as insurance. It is a direct violation of freedom of religion and an example of the increasingly dictatorial attitude of this administration.”
Yesterday in Colorado, Romney jumped in the battle, calling the Obama administration’s coverage for contraception a "violation of conscience” and has written in the past that he "stands with" the Catholic Bishop’s opposed to the mandate in the health care law.
But today, Gingrich argued that when Romney was governor, he made religious institutions cover birth control as well.
“Over and over, you get the same pattern. And I think that a Massachusetts moderate finds it very hard to draw a sharp contrast with somebody who is an Illinois radical," Gingrich told the 150 person crowd in the Buckeye State.
Leave a Comment:
RUT ROH!
Willard just got busted yet again! lol
It's a miserable day for the GNOP when their own party is doing the opposition research for us Democrats! lmao
Could you all have picked a more flawed candidate to run against this President?
Breaking News; Prop 8 has gone down in flames... YAY!
Newt’s home State of Georgia is one of the 28 States that require the very same thing that the ACA requires.
So where is Newt’s outrage at his home state???
Thank for the news Feisty, as a Californian, I have a stake in this ruling. I'm off to research articles on the ruling.
Newt has selective outrage, depending on the political needs of the situation. Not that different from any other politician, not to mention a lot of internet political warriors.
Wait until the Republican Presidential Convention. Newt will be outraged at the outcome, trust me.
Hey First Read any response from the Romney camp?
Sailcat - all of the current candidates might be. This time, I think there really is a chance for a national convention to just pick somebody else.
So lets get this straight.
The emergency room law was passed over his veto, which in this case I would disagree with, but MA does have a religious exemption for coverage, contrary to what Obama adviser David Axlerod claimed today.
So just how has Romney been busted again?
*waves to Sailcat*
I have missed you!
Dennis, glad you mentioned the 28 states that already require what President Obama's ACA does. Seems to me, there's once again a double standard going on in terms of outrage. If President Obama does something to bring all states in line, bring out the pitch forks and torches.
To repeat my comments from yesterday and today, when the Catholic Church chose to accept public taxpayer money and chose to provide services to all the public, not just Catholics, they forfeited the right to claim their religious doctrine reigns supreme. This rule only impacts those entities that provide services to all, that hire workers regardless of religion, that accepts public taxpayer dollars as part of their services. Individual parishes are not subject to the rule.
Glad to be back, Feisty! i may have a reprieve from work for a while...hopefully!
Everyone knew that the 9th Circuit would rule 2-1 that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. It will now go to a full vote of the 9th Circuit and then to the Supreme Court. In the mean time same sex marriage is still banned in California. Also remember the 9th Circuit gets over ruled by the Supreme Court more than any other court.
As far as the topic of this thread, according to the article Romney vetoed the bill and it was over ridden. Romney admitted that "in his heart, he believes rape victims should have access to emergency contraception." The decision by the Obama Administration was to all contraception not just in emergency cases such as rape or incest.
Dennis, I believe if one is against something in one state he would be against something in the other 27 states, I don't see any reason to have to name all states individually.
The last I heard Catholic hospitals treat more than just Catholics. When someone shows up for treatment I have not heard of anyone being asked ther religious beliefs. While they won't like it Catholic healthcare facilities will follow the laws and go what is required. Such decisions are usually made between the medical personnel and the patient. If the patient's religion doesn't allow for contraception than they don't get contraception but it is up to the patient or their kin to tell medical personnel about the patient's beliefs.
Sarge,
It is about “full disclosure”. Don’t you think it would be appropriate to mention that he is/was also upset with his home State’s decision?
Say it before others do !!!
So Jody, if Catholic Hospitals refuse to treat non-Catholics then they could up hold the ban? You don't see a problem with your logic? Also, the Federal Government bans money it gives to organizations from being used for abortion. However, Planned Parenthood accepts this money and agrees not to use that money for abortion but for other services. Why are Catholic organizations to be treated differently when they accept Federal money?
As this story gets more press it will only solidify the catholic vote for Romney that Obama foolishly pissed away.
Although I still firmly believe that Obama will reverse himself and ease the mandate.
Well said Jody, it bears repeating as I too mentioned it in an earlier post today.
In addition to your above post, I want to mention that as a Catholic I am deeply offended by the likes of Mitt Romney, a Mormon, criticizing the President on this subject, when his church has been notorious in how they disdain Catholics and have no interest in their wellbeing except to try to convert them. And now he is fighting for the Catholics....when expedient!
The other thing is this is more about women's rights regardless of religion and is just a back door for the right to try and impose their views with their usual faux outrage and self righteous hypocrisy.
Alan, this is not about treating patients, it is about insurance a Catholic hospital offers an employee as a benefit, that wants an exemption, not to give women who work for them or a spouse the benefit of getting scripts for birth control. As Catholic hospitals employ people of many backgrounds and beliefs, it isn't right they should be denied that benefit.
The other thing is this is more about women's rights regardless of religion and is just a back door for the right to try and impose their views with their usual faux outrage and self righteous hypocrisy.
faux outrage??? Is this democrat Kathy Dahlkemper's outrage faux? Just admit it Obama screwed up and now he's going to have to reverse himself.
"I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception,” Dahlkemper said in a press release sent out by Democrats for Life in November. "We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage."
Alan, we're not talking about abortion, this rule does not dictate that Catholic hospitals must offer abortions. No, my logic is just fine. Hospitals cannot turn away anyone needing care. For years, Catholic hospitals have refused emergency treatment for women, to save their lives, when that treatment required an abortion. An administrator a few years back was fired from a Catholic hospital because she chose to save the woman, not the baby. Transferring the woman to another facility was not an option, she would have died in the process. That kind of religious doctrine as logic is beyond me. Not all workers at these facilities are Catholic, they are multi-denominational and as such should be offered the same benefits as is provided elsewhere, religious doctrine should not be forced on those who do not share that belief. The hospitals are run as public health institutioins; as such, the laws that apply to the general public preclude religious doctrine.
BTW, no one is requiring ANY of these people to take birth control pills or use any other form of contraception that is coveres if it is against their own religion. That's the piece no one mentions. The Government is not forcing Catholics at these public institutions to use birth control or any of the other specified medications--that remains an individual choice. They are simply stating that IF they are offering health care coverage to their employees and serve the general public, the health care coverage must be the same as is available elsewhere.
I'm not a Catholic but as far as I understand their doctrine, contraception, the-day-after-pill and abortion are all the same. It's not really for you to make the distinction for them. I was never happy with the way Bush involved religious organizations with federal money but to force them to buy a product that contradicts their beliefs, even if the end user is a non-believer, looks to me like its a contradiction of the first amendment.
Either way the only thing that concerns me is that Obama said that premiums would come down and every mandate he has passed has caused premiums to go up. he also said that insurance would be so reasonable that there would be no need to garnish wages and then he passes a mandate. These are my issues.
Newt Gingrich is THE poster child for why post birth abortion should be legal.
How about we let women decide things are are soley their's...........this kind of crap is why I left the church 56 years ago.
All for it if you allow me to choose what I want covered by my insurance premium.
There they go again, with the right-wing hypocrisy.
All this fuss about individual responsibility, and now suddenly women are incapable of deciding whether to use birth control or not. That's right, it's not about organizations offering health care benefits regardless of whether the organization has religious affiliation, it's about making the option available to EVERYONE (equality), and letting the individual decide if she wants to use it or not.
Damn fundamentalists. Otherwise this would be a Christian Republic of the United States theocracy practising a Christian version of Sharia Law and somehow that would be okay. Get religion out of politics!
Alan, NJ -- Hell no. I want the greedy health insurance companies regulated up the wazu -- Or better yet, get rid of them altogether. Ya wanna to talk about religion, it is immoral to profit from illness. Single-payer/Medicare for all!
No I don't want to talk about religion I want to talk about the lies that candidate Obama told in 2008.
"If you like your insurance you can keep it". Why does he keep changing it then?
"Premiums will come down by around $2500 per family". Why does he keep adding mandates that INCREASE the cost of premiums. It's expensive enough without his ideological requirements. Free preventative medicine. Bull@!$%#, somebody HAS to pay for it.
"Insurance premiums will be so reasonable that there is no need to garnish wages". And what do call the penalty if you ante up and buy one of his sooooooo reasonable premiums?
Lies, Lies, Lies....oh sorry he's a politician...flip..flop...flip....flop
baldeagle11 -- Good point!
In Utah the LDS Hospital is the only provider for many insurance companies in the state, at least for high-cost equipment, serving many who are not Mormon. In Utah there also are a lot of non-profit options (Intermountain Healthcare) and clinics where you meet with a nurse at a lower cost, with the doctor only involved to write a prescription if needed.
RomneyCare and his position regarding the Catholic providers is probably based on this--and very legitimate--though I still wouldn't vote for him as POTUS under any circumstance.
TruePatriot-445959....it is most definitely a woman's right to choose birth control, and I would never dispute that (separation of church and state), but that separation cuts both ways, because just because a woman has that right, it doesn't mean that every single health care organization has to cater to that particular right. If a clinic or hospital is sponsored and run by a religious order, (that would also imply that those believing in that religious order are financially supporting the institution as well) then they should not be compelled by the state to do something that goes against their religion, nor to provide it to others. If others have different beliefs, there certainly are other clinics and healthcare organizations out there that are not bound by religious beliefs. And they should not be denied payment for genuine medical care offered, regardless of somebody's background. If a person is treated for a broken arm, the institution should be paid appropriately for treating that broken arm. Walking into a religious based medical center (usually a large cross, or a saint statue, or a larger than life statue of the virgin mother is a clue) then, yes they should receive equal and fair treatment for ailments and emergencies, but last I knew, the decision to terminate a pregnancy was optional, so the choice of medical institution should be optional as well. The government cannot compel us to terminate a pregnancy, so why should they be able to compel medical institutions to perform such procedures? Likewise, the use of contraceptives is not a government mandate, and therefore they should not be able to mandate medical institutions or medical professionals to dispense these items in conflict with their freedom to choose otherwise. The freedom to choose implies that two choices are possible, but yet this sort of requirement would say that the only people who have that right of choice are those who choose birth control and abortion.
Sue-3329001 -- I believe in regulation. I particularly believe in regulation of health insurance providers, and that standardization is a good thing (from slavery to education to health care and other laws). I don't see what's wrong with a standard of women getting birth control for free everywhere in the nation and from all providers--if women choose to. This will help reduce abortions. Oh that's right, I forgot, women should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen...
Nothing wrong with one size fits all?
and when someone legitimately disagrees with you and respectively argues their point you resort to disrespect because if its not your one-size-fits-all opinion they do not deserve any respect?
Come on, people, we are talking about INSURANCE, not abortion or any other hospital procedure. If a hospital or school offers INSURANCE to its EMPLOYEES (not its patients or students), that INSURANCE cannot exclude prescription coverage for birth control pills. That is the sum total of this nontroversy.
Whaaaaat! Bob Livingston! He and Newt both cheated on their wives at the same time they were trying to impeach President Clinton. After Larry Flint (Hustler Magazine) outted Bob Livingston, Livingston resigned from the House of Representatives in shame similar to Newt, and both ended up on "K" Street with the rest of the lobbyests.
Wow, those 2 still hanging out together after all these years! Who would'a thunk it!
Obama / Biden 2012
If any of these politicians wives, daughters, lovers got pregnant by accident or were raped I guarantee you they would be finding the nearest doctor to terminate the pregnancy. What a bunch of lying SOB's. They will say and do anything. What they want is absolute over women. Why any woman would vote for anyone in the GOP is beyond me!
The remark about being kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen was intended as a general comment, not toward Sue-3329001 -- My apology to her if taken that way.
This nonsense is being spun by douche-bags like Newt Gingrich (and Perry if he was still running) as an attack on religion (and in turn their backward beliefs that includes sexism against women). When in fact it is merely:
Well said! The Teapublicans are just trying to gin up their base because their candidates suck.
Newt says that Obama administration is, "Waging war on religion". For Pete's sake, Newt, could you be more of a hysterical drama queen? You are reminding me more and more of the simple, little, old woman in the red t-shirt at the McCain Town Hall meeting. Sheesh!
Karen C.-1567472 -- And this coming from a serial adulterer.
Hey, does any know if religious organizations cover Viagra?
TruePatriot, I think we are watching a meltdown in motion.
If Newt doesn't believe in abortion, then he shouldn't have one.
What I see here is people really stretching the line between rights and entitlements. I have the right to carry a gun, but there are requirements of registration and licensing. And the government is not going to use taxpayer dollars to buy me that gun or teach me how to use it properly. I have the right to drive a vehicle, but the government isn't going to buy me one, and once again, their are requirements upon me as the citizen to exercise this right. Because a woman has the right to choose, she cannot force her right on another who may believe differently. There are hospitals and clinics that do not have religious affiliation and the staff is not bound by a moral belief that says it is wrong, so why can't the women who are free to exercise these rights, exercise them at these facilities? Why do all facilities have to conform to one set of values. We can choose which Dr we see and which hospital we go to (at least now), so choose according to your belief system. As for the notion of not providing contraceptives under health insurance if you happen to be employed by a religious hospital....well, there are plenty of people not affiliated with religious hospitals, schools, universities etc who also do not get their contraceptives paid for by the medical insurance provided through their employer...it is a way to economize on the pharmacy end of a policy and many businesses take advantage of eliminating that benefit. Once again, having the right to choose does not make it "free of charge".
Sue--the problem with your 'theory' that those who want birth control or abortions should go elsewhere is stymied by the fact that in many small towns, the ONLY hospital is Catholic owned and run. So I'll tell you a little (true) story. A friend of mine, (who, by the way, IS a doctor) was pregnant with her second child. At 6 months, she was diagnosed with pre-ecclampsia (extreme High blood pressure in the mom, caused by the pregnancy) and put on bed rest. At about 8 months, her mom stopped by, and found her in full seizure, and called an ambulance, which transported my friend to the nearest hospital, which happened to be Catholic. Once there, the doctors discovered that she was heavily in labor, and the baby was STUCK in the birth canal. Since the mom had HBP, she was on high doses of blood thinners, which made a C-section impossible (bleed to death) the baby was stuck, the mom still having uncontrollable seizures, and the doctor, (THANK GOD--and I'm not being facetious) did what he had to do--a partial birth abortion. He made the decision that the mother would either have died or been paralyzed and comatose, and he made the CHOICE (with, BTW, full agreement on the part of both her mom AND husband) that the mom's life came first, that their FIRST child deserved to still have a mom, the husband to still have a wife, the mom to still have a daughter.
The doctor, BTW, WAS a Catholic. The patient was not. The hospital, in its infinite wisdom, discussed whether the doctor should be fired, and really didn't have the stomach for it.
NO church, or other entity has the right to take decision making out of the hands of the patient and their doctor. (Who had NEVER seen my friend before she was brought into the ER in full seizure)
And YOU may think the decision to terminate her pregnancy was optional, I sure don't.
And while I deplore the use of partial birth abortions, in the case of a woman who dithered around too late, NO WAY do I think they should be banned. Nothing is ever totally black or white.
"abortion pills"
I just love how he throws these inflammatory words and the stuck on stupid crowd just eats them up. I hope someone calls this jerk on it.
From a pure pro-life perspective, anything that causes an end to pregnancy after conception is abortive... or whatever that word is. That is the purpose of the morning after pills, after all. So, it's not too much of a stretch to say abortion pills.
There's a lot of questionable rhetoric on both sides of the abortion issue.
So using that reasoning, "early withdrawal" is murder?
Wasn't there a "penalty" for that? Just askin!
King - reference the above note about questionable rhetoric, lol.
Torpedo - depends on the yield, I s'pose.
I about drove off the road this morning when I heard Romney call birth control "abortive pills", and to confirm, that was birth control pills, not the morning after pill. So when I wear a rubber I'm also committing an abortion??
Women should decide these things for themselves not withstanding a male dominated church ruling. Can we please come out of the dark ages in the catholic church?
Kathryn Sullivan-a response
You can rail against the Catholic church, or you can choose to join with other Christian denominations that are not as rigid with regard to birth control. Personally, if you begin to challenge one aspect of the church teachings, it isn't long before you are questioning them in their entirety and it becomes debatable whether or not you are truly still a believer in that faith practice. Just as women have the freedom to choose, so too, you have the freedom to choose where and with whom you will worship and practice your beliefs.....If you are a liberal in terms of women's choice issues, then I suppose that your political position can bring you into direct conflict with church teaching. The solution is pretty simple-accept church teaching or find another church. However, hurling insults about the dark ages is not going to cause the Roman Catholic Church to look any more favorably on your viewpoint, nor is it going to cause other devout Catholics to flock to your cause. And if you are looking to get away from a male dominated church body (as it would seem that you believe that to be the source of these prohibitions on birth control and abortion) then look for those faiths that openly embrace the notion of ordaining women and putting them into positions of authority....Ironically, the faiths that do so are also followers of the same bible, and most of those faiths (Christian denominations) still hold to the value of life as a gift from God and something that human beings shouldn't be controlling in terms of life and death choices. You can fuss and fume and call it fundamentalist or whacko or whatever you want, but there are those Christians who still view the Bible as the Word of God and as such, don't choose to editorialize, condense what is written there. They also don't presume to think that things worth mentioning in the Bible are suddenly no longer appropriate in our modern society. Your comments show that you have very little respect for the rights of others to believe differently, even if they do so without hurling insults or cursing. And guess what.....I am not even a Catholic. What I do hear in your post is a lack of respect for viewpoints other than your own, and the notion that enough bombastic browbeating will get you your own way.
We have a different version of the Bible, by the way. Also, over 90% of Catholics use birth control. The church is OLD male dominated and in the dark ages. I personally have little respect for those old cogger and feel they should keep their noses out of women's business. Don't they have enough to do with managing their pedifile priests?
I still can't believe that we have devolved into any kind of discussion on the morality of birth control. It is just bizarre and I believe could only happen in the atmosphere surrounding this equally bizarre primary campaign. Which one of these candidates has the stones to say that he is not going to discuss something that surely 95% of the American people don't even question. Birth control is a good thing for everyone who wants to use it, period. It will be something else to watch the eventual nominee walk back from this craziness when faced with a general election population.
I for one would truely love for the Catholic church to return all government funds, and then refuse to treat anyone who is not catholic, or better yet just close their doors. Then the government would be forced to take up the slack for all the free healthcare that the Catholic church provides. This is not about birth control or abortion, its about Government intrusion.
The government has no right to tell any religion who it has to treat or what it has to provide. Uhm I don't think I see any Muslim hospitals out there providing free healthcare to everyone.
I have long contended that the true separation of church and state would result in politicians and elected officials becoming completely mute on the subjects of birth control and abortion. The government would neither promote nor detract. The government would offer no funding in support of either. We wouldn't be enacting laws or defining life in terms of days and weeks, trimesters...the government just wouldn't be concerning itself with any aspect of these issues. What a candidate thought wouldn't matter, and the candidate would be free to be true to their own religious conviction without anyone needing to know what it is. The government isn't talking about it, isn't legislating it, isn't funding it. Then, we as a society have the true freedom to make our choice based upon our individual beliefs......And if we truly believe it is the right choice, then we will find a way to make that choice a reality just as we manage to allocate our resources to fund other choices in our life. If giving out contraceptives is a birthright that our government must provide if it is to be deemed fair to all people, then why isn't it my birthright to have plastic surgery (equally elective and a personal choice) Why doesn't the government have to pay for my tummy tuck or my botox? Those are choices as well, and choices that I have the right to make, so does that mean I also have the right to expect somebody else to pay for them, even if they disagree and feel it isn't appropriate??
Darla-393671
You have no way of knowing which Bible to which I refer or perhaps, it is better to say which edition or translation. Predominantly used among most Christian denominations is the New International Version having replaced the King James. However, I do own a copy of the Oxford Bible and a copy of the Dewey, and I am well aware of the several books which have been debated back and forth as to whether they are in keeping with the actual Biblical Cannon or not...However, the books which differ or are in question are not books of law and do not get involved in a discussion of God's definition of life, or what is intended by the commandment not to kill, therefore to all intent and purposes, we are talking about essentially the same word of God. From one biblical edition to the next, the ten commandments are pretty stock standard-killing and causing harm to other human beings is a definite no-no. The problem comes in when people try to circumvent the prohibition to not harm or kill by trying to redefine at what point a living thing is a living thing. That is an area of person conviction, largely controlled by our religious upbringing and the degree to which we embody it, and as such shouldn't be legislated for or against...However, if you feel that a child is not a child until it passes through the birth canal and as such has no protection as a human being, so be it. But I resent any and all attempts to structure society so that I have to accept that definition. Since a soul (life essences given by God) is put in place by God, I have no way to know at which point in the process of life, this soul is imparted, and not having that knowlege, I do not want to be responsible for an error in judgement or scientific data that would cause me to do harm to another human being at any point in their existence. That is my right and freedom.
Sue--MY Bible was published in 1874, and it says that God created Adam from a lump of dirt, and BREATHED life into him. So my definition of life is when that lump of matter can BREATHE on its own. That is my best guess as to when a soul is imparted, too, but the Bible leaves us all guessing on that. And when you say you resent any and all attempts to structure society so that I have to accept that definition--I just think that you want MY resentment at YOUR attempts to do the same according to YOUR beliefs to be ignored.
My OBGYN, right after my first child's birth (6 week check-up) told me he didn't want to see me pregnant for at least two years. Astounded (surely repeat business was to his advantage) I asked why and he told me this "parable''.
""A woman's body, when she becomes pregnant, is the fetus's grocery store. Now, if she eats really well, and takes vitamins, the fetus will grow strong, and will be born strong and healthy, but it will STILL find the grocery shelves a little sparse toward the end of the pregnancy, and will "shop" by robbing the mom of nutrients like calcium.
Now, the mom can build her body back up (re-stocking the shelves, so to speak) but that takes about two full years.
Would YOU want to shop at a grocery store that had empty shelves? Or even a poor selection of goods?
Because that is what happens when you have multiple pregnancies too close together--and with each succeeding pregnancy, the 'shopper's' selection gets poorer and poorer.""
My OB, by the way, WAS a Catholic. And he advocated strongly for birth control, and for family planning. He'd seen the results of too many pregnancies, too close together.
So when you are being sanctimonious about what is good for the 'baby', I guess you never thought of that, huh?
“Over and over, you get the same pattern. And I think that a Massachusetts moderate finds it very hard to draw a sharp contrast with somebody who is an Illinois radical," Gingrich told the 150 person crowd in the Buckeye State"
=====
First, I love how Gingrich continues to refer to others by their State and then some title. Massachusetts moderate, Illinois radical. I don't exactly recall hearing Gingrich refer to himself as a Georgia pimp?
And second, I presume that Romney's defense against the President will simply be to repeat "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever bounces off of me, sticks on you" and transition right into the 3rd verse of American the Beautiful and go on simply believing that he should be the Republican nominee, not because there is anything special about he as a candidate, but simply that he waited in line like the GOP Establishment told him to do and that now his arguement is that it is simply his turn.
it seems to me that he is calling those states, or any states that vote democratic, un-American.
I don't exactly recall hearing Gingrich refer to himself as a Georgia pimp
snort!
Good one, Allan. Glad I didn't have any coffee in hand.
Alan, I'm cleaning water off my desk. Had a mouthful - great one!!!
I really see this as a non issue, the Catholic church may own the hospitals, but they are not religious institutions per se, they are businesses, subject to the same laws and regulations that other business enterprises in that class are subject to. This is not a church/state issue. The health bill excludes religious institutions and their employees, but that is for only religion, hospitals are not religious institutions..
That is what HHS is saying.........seems simple to me.......you want to do business in the public sector you play by our rules.
By neccessity, a hospital must be run as a business, at the most basic level, in order to pay for materials, medicines, salaries, a physical facility. As I understand it, there are private hospitals and religious affiliated hospitals and that represents two different classes. A Religious hospital is by definition a private hospital, but the reverse is not necessarily true, and private hospitals do operate on a for profit model of business with financial reporting and Boards of Directors. The equal access to medical care states that the private and religious hospitals cannot pick and choose whom they treat in terms of urgent and emergency care. However, the patients are not entitled to treatment in a private facility for an elective or non-emergency type of event.
Sue-3329001- this has nothing to do with patients! It is about EMPLOYEES!
Many, I dare say, MOST people working in religious institutions are not members of the faiths. I work at a Catholic university. As an employee my insurance should include birth control coverage, should I deem it a need.
Do you it get it now? You keep making a case for patients, no one is suggesting that a religious institution offer birth control, or perform abortions to any patient.
The Catholic Church is painting itself into a corner by making all this noise about this change. Most women that work within these religious networks did not realize that they were not provided this service. Now these women will have to take a position on this issue, and with the position the church has chosen to take, many will leave.
These are highly skilled doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers etc. where finding new employment does not pose a problem.
What are you conservatives doing? You're forcing people to draw a line in the sand with your politics. STOP IT! We are human beings. Complex. Hire only members of the your faith and these institutions will certainly miss out on many of the best and the brightest. I want all conservatives to: GET YOUR HEAD FROM UNDER MY DRESS!
Well ole newtie must have believed in some form of birth control or there would have been more children out there defending their dad's adulturous behavior, now wouldn't there?
Union Baby, Tennessee
You got it. Not just Newt, all those right wing nuts included. Let them come out and tell the world how they do it.
I think M. Romneys policy was fair and reasonable.
Gingrich is a white trash Georgia Ridge runner
GET EM" NEWT!!! Let's make this pretty boy bleed hahahahaha!!!
The Catholic church wants the freedom to be oppressive...
You'd think the Church would do a better job instructing their adherents rather than blaming the government for making it too easy to get contraceptives. It seems to me it should be up to individual Catholics to follow their church's edicts, not up to the government to enforce them.
The only war being waged is by the Catholic Church on the health of women.
Amy, 98% of Catholics do not follow the Church's teaching on birth control. It is a wink, wink sort of truce.
Gingerbread,
Where did you get 98%?
Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published [in April] showed.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/05/catholic-bishops-fight-to-deny-health-care-to-the-98-percent/
I can almost guarantee the insurance provided by the Catholic business's not only does not cover contraceptives but pregnancy and birth too. I think this is less about religion and more about money.
Thanks Dennis.
I am really surprised by this number.
The size of Catholic families, ie. number of children, has decreased dramatically, so, uh, obviously they are using birth control. This is another non-issue. If they're using birth control and their health insurance has to pay for it, I don't look for Mitt to garner any votes out of this.
theototia No one else is
Gingerbread Mamma
Where do you get your figures on those who do not follow the Catholic church teachings? 99%? I am sure that there are those who disagree, and it may be a large percentage; however their disagreement does not come in the form of an "in your face" outright challenge to authority and teaching. As you yourself so aptly put it a "wink, wink sort of truce", which leads me to believe that perhaps there are as many undecided or unsure Catholics as there are those who are in opposition to the Church stance on abortion and contraception.
I love the way the old repulsive GOP members try to force their cult member beliefs on other people .Wasn't Newt the one who had sex with other women while he was married ? And Romney we all know about him !
Say it ain't so - he was just followin' what the Bible told him - "Love thy Neighbor"...guess ol' Newt took it a little too literally.
No, don't you remember? He said it was because he worked too hard and loved his country too much.
The REpuicks are a joke REALLY
Yeah, Newt married his much older school teacher and she paid his way through school, all the way to his Phd. He's cheated on two wives and divorced twice and NOW he's a Catholic. The Catholic church accepted him. A whore monger!
With this and the sexual abuse against little boys, the Catholic church is a SHAM as far as I'm concerned. Give me my damn birth control coverage!!
Price Hill in Cincinnati ... I grew up there. Used to be a middle class blue-collar neighborhood with a bar and/or church on every corner. The area has mostly fallen on hard times, but Price Hill Chili has always hosted the big name republicans. They would usually start there to be seen with the common people, then progress on to Indian Hill to be with the elite for their fundraisers. Cheese coneys for lunch and filet mignon for dinner.
I don't understand why this whole "Catholic health care" matter has become such an attention deserving issue in this campaign. Aren't things like jobs, education, defict reduction of more importance?
Indy, just drop the "R" from "importance" and you'll know where those issues stand with these candidates.
Darn it Ursula, you just made me spill my coffee. lol
try telling the REpucks and other catholics that
Let's face it
Angry man Newt is gonna keep running his mouth until Pres-Obama is re-elected
Umm hmm
Probably will even after he's reelected.
Maybe the Catholic hospitals should stop taking state and federal taxpayer monies and start raising their own money by selling off the Vatican artwork? Then they could do whatever they wanted.....
Or, they could drain the Catholic Clergy Molestation Defense Fund.....oops! Did that already......?
Republican candidates seem to want religious institutions that care for the public to have a special set of laws, just as Congress did with insider trading. Bishops have nothing to lose as long as they remain celibate. There are no women bishops. Accusations of war on religion would not have been feasible without the religious bigots war against women's health care services.
MORE GINGRICH LIES...This is from the NARAL website Massachusetts legislation...IT WAS VETOED BY ROMNEY>>>>GOT IT!
Passed the Emergency Contraception Bill: In 2003, with the Coalition for Choice, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts authored the Emergency Contraception Bill. The Bill will enable pharmacists to dispense EC through a collaborative agreement with a doctor, and make EC available to rape survivors at hospital emergency rooms. The Senate passed this bill in 2004 but despite overwhelming support in the House, then Speaker Finneran declined to bring this measure up for a vote. The EC Bill was passed with veto-proof majorities by the House and Senate, but vetoed by Governor Romney. On September 15, 2005, the Senate and House voted to override Romney's veto. This bill went into effect 90 days after final passage.
It is truue that both Romney and Obama require healthcare providers to follow healthcare laws-whatwever their theologic position-and this is because they are acting as health care providers, not as theological organizations. You can be one or the other-but you do have follw applicable law for each-this incluses reporiting child abuse and such-something the catholic church has fallen down on in the past (we hope the future is better).
Gringich is right to bring this up. It shows Romney has a tine ar on religious subjects-and the Kosher foods thing onlyserves to drive this point home.
Lost in this entire debate going on between male politicians and male leaders of the catholic church.......what about what women want? Has anyone bothered to ask them what they want? Why do men get to decide again what women want or need or get........I am just flat tired of men telling women anything !!! Time for women to tell them how the cow ate the cookie.
So my thought is catholic and evanglical women should be at the forefront of this debate, I heard a statement on PBS that said we're living in a whole new world and nobody is looking to have 10,11,12 kids anymore. So she said contraception is needed. I'd like to know if catholic or evangelical women feel that is the truth??!!
As a cradle and still committed Catholic, I find it hypocritical for Newt to wrap himself in anti-abortion Catholicism while forgetting the whole tradition of Catholicism that condemns unfettered greed, laissez-faire capitalism, pre-emptive war, and serial philandering. At the same time Catholic bishops should clean up their own acts in order to regain moral credibility. Catholic hospitals and other large institutions under mostly nominal Catholic sponsorships should get real: Most Catholics have or do practice birth control. Pope Paul VI ignored the recommendations of his own study committee when he condemned birth control. All this hurrumping by bishops is a smoke screen to cover up their lack of moral authority, lost amidst the scandal of their coverup of abuse by clerics. In deciding to hire and serve the full range of the public, offering full range of employee benefits respects the consciences of their workers.
Withe Mr. Gingrich's background one would think he would support the use of birth control. Another GOP tactic of misdirection. The focus here is economy and the fact it is getting better and jobs are being created. Something the GOP do not want to discuss.
HOw is providing emergency contraception to rape victims a problem except to radical Muslim nuts that hate women and people that are just like them? Is Gingrich saying that the catholic church are a bunch of radical nutbags that hate women?
Would someone please confirm that that's the church's stance? A "hate women" stance? I doubt that decent Americans would choose to be part of a sick and disgusting institution like that, so he must be wrong.
What about the employees that work at the hospitals and universities that are not catholic? That's discrimination. That's forcing religious beliefs on employees of a hospital, doctors, nurses, janitors, etc, teachers, professors. How well would these hospitals and universities be able to provide a good product if every employee had to a practicing catholic? Not very well. This is something you see in Iran, not in the USA. Not one employee has to take advantage of this benefit if they so desire. Birth control is used by women for more than just birth control, including contolling menstruation for women near menopause. Truth be told, most Catholics have moved past the 1800's and use birth control.
These bishops have no leg to stand on about morality when they did nothing to stop our youth from being molested by the thousands for decades. I wonder how many Nuns take birthcontrol due to be molested in the church. Hypocrisy at its best.
Mitt Romney doesn't believe in Abortion, welfare, food stamps, planned parenthood, medicaid, and now birthcontrol, the one thing that can reduce all of the above. LOL, Can you believe we have a man running for president that is this out of balance with the reality of life. GOP the party of small government for corporations and huge government in our private social lives.
how about this child abuse crap catholics can't you police yourselve this more important than contraceptives or is it on your screen at all, come on concervetives get you head out of your a$$$$$$
Dear Friends:
I pray for our Catholic Hospitals, staff, and those that seek medical treatment and all. The hospitals are Catholic Hospitals. What else can be clearer? The oath the medical doctors take has meaning. It is not a license to kill. The unborn child even in fetal state of development is a child. A gift!
Genecide is not taught in the catholic religion nor murder.
Amen.
Shar Walker,
Birth Control is not Abortion or genocide, and its the right of any women to decide if she want to get pregnant. Let me break the news to you that many women like to have sex for othero than procreation. Catholic hospitals employees and patients are not all Catholics. Using birth control is not killing an unborn child. What are you talking about?
shar walker - that is your opinion and your choice. Don't think you have the right to force it on everyone else. We should all have our choice. Not all of us believe a fetus is a life so we don't believe it is murder.
Please everyone google how the Catholic Church has been trying to take over other hospitals/buyouts/takeover, etc. We had to fight hard not to have the Catholic Church take over Exempla Lutheran in Wheatridge, Co.
I imagine they thought that if they owned every hospital they could dictate who would be treated and for what.
If you take Federal money you will abide by the federal laws.
shar walker, believe what you want. God stops more fetuses than man every thought to. Shar, please, please read the Bible and do not let someone in the Catholic religious order tell you what is in it. The Bible has been changed so many times by religious fanatics that if you could read the original it would not be what it is today.
shar walker
I second your heartfelt prayer of respect for life, and I respect the idea of praying for those who offer medical services, that they may do so with moral convictions and treat all fairly to the best of their ability. However, I hate to tell you that the oath that you refer to, the Hypocratic Oath, has not been required of physicians in many, many years....like so many other things, it has become a matter of choice.
slightlyold
You can't have it both ways.....If it is a human event, it is an abortion and it isn't really taking a life, because it really isn't a life yet anyway, but if somebody miscarries (as I presume you mean by your reference to God being responsible for stopping fetuses in greater number than mankind) you have managed to put a negative spin on it....So, in your world, mankind may destroy fetuses, but God cannot.....what a scary world indeed. As to the Bible being changed by religious fanatics....may I ask how you know? Are you fluent in Greek and Hebrew, and have you read the original texts? Many of the clergy have read the original texts and are fluent in those languages and teach from that perspective.
Shar--sorry, but it is YOUR FAITH that believes a fetus is LIFE. In fact, it is a parasite, right up until it can survive on it's own.
Did you know that the 'sainted' Mother Theresa taught the people she worked with (desperately poor residents of Calcutta India) that EVEN ABSTAINING from sex was a sin if the reason for doing so was to keep from having more babies?
The people she was caring for were almost all AIDS victims, who were cranking out AIDS infected babies who died miserably (HIV+ babies born in the states have a shot at overcoming it due to our advances in medical care/health at birth) and who knew that even if the baby lived, it would be orphaned soon by their own deaths, and Mother Theresa was encouraging those people to "be fruitful and multiply" or risk damnation for abstention????
another religious group trying to tell the rest of the country how to behave. i'm catholic. i have used birth control. i have never had an abortion. i have had two babies when my husband and i wanted them.
if these right wing and religious nuts do not want to use birth control..don't. if uncle pervert rapes his daughter and she has to have the baby because she is not allowed to have an abortion..have the baby, even if she's screwed up for the rest of her life.
if they do not saction same sex marriage, don't marry anyone of your same sex.
just don't tell the rest of us what to do!!!! i'm so sick and tired of some wacko imposing their belifs on other people, as there is nothing real these folks can bring to the betterment of our nation, they bring stupid crap up to muddy the water, and deflect everyone's eyes from the real stuff.
if they want to live like that 19 and counting cow, live it. just stay out of my uterus, my bedroom, and my life. minding your biz should be the new chant for 2012.
dihi You GO Girl
Amen, dihi548!!!
I worked for a health care group that works under the "Catholic Directive"- no birth control pills, fetus way more important than a living human being, etc...
The truth is that the vast majority of Catholics no longer believe this stuff, and most employees (the majority of whom self identify as Catholics) spend a large amounts of time and energy finding ways around this crazy crap.
Why? Because people in health care see the tremendous damage and suffering the Pope's rules cause. We treat the pregnant 13 year olds repeatedly raped by Daddy/Uncle/brother-they come in with slit wrists, Draino damaged GI tracts, etc.-these girls just break your heart. Usually ,they are too damaged to care for themselves without years of treatment- but according to the priests, they are "parents" from the moment of conception.
We see the anguish on an uneducated, poor man's face when we tell him his wife is dead- they thought they were following "God's" rules by not using birth control and obeying the instruction to be "fruitful" - just because a Doctor TOLD them that a 6th pregnancy for a diabetic, hypertensive woman would possibly kill her- they decided to listen to the priest instead.
You see this crap long enough-you get tired of the rich dudes in Rome who polish golden candlesticks all day and make the "rules"- they aren't around when the real stuff goes down.
Some of the most effective advocates of birth control and making abortion rare but keeping it legal are health care professionals and Nuns who worked at Catholic hospitals-it's a real training ground for revolution against the Pope.
AMEN!