No one is forcing the Church to pay for anything so this is a non issue.

Its also a choice not to get the contraception if you don't want it.

Uh, satanick, completely misunderstand the issues much?

Yeah, I don't understand why the Catholic church is offended because they have to play by the same rules as everyone else in business. The church won't even be paying for contraception. Explain to me the issue if I have it wrong.

No, not all people that work at a religious institute are religious. Those who are, and do not want to take birth control have the right to not do so. However, the church needs to give it's employees the option.

No, it's an issue of individual freedom...These are not churches. They operate in the public sphere and don't just hire Catholics. Yell all you want, the courts have ruled countless times that you can't force those who work for you to abide by your religious tenants outside a church. (And you'd think the fact even CATHOLIC women don't abide by the prohibition against using birth control would give these clueless men a clue as to how well THIS one will work...)

Not a contraception issue because almost all Catholics use contraception no matter what the heavy weights say. A true non-issue.

Based on the concept that the Church could operate hospitals and universities within the context of religious freedom, generations of Americans have been educated and cared for by the missionary work of the Church.

Wrong. The Church is engaging in commerce. The federal government can regulate commerce.

This is constitutional.

Corporations are not people. No individual is being forced to violate their religious beliefs. These Catholic institutions are being forced to allow their employees their own freedom of religion.

If you really want to come down to freedom of religion, then I should be able to practise mine without the restrictions of the RCC. They are actually forcing their religion on others. The freedom of religion is being able, personally, to believe and adhere to your own religion. It does not mean that others can force their beliefs on another. They are acutally being very hypocritical in their new crusade. If as a catholic one does not believe in certain medical procedures then they do not need to have them. Conversely, if I am of another belief I should be able to follow my religion free from the constricts of others. They are just imposing on others freedoms. This all coming from a group who as lost their moral authority the day the molested a child and did nothing. Whether that was 10 yrs ago or 1000 yrs ago.

If a hospital was run by the group who does not believe in blood transfusions, and there is such a group, does that mean that I or you could not receive that treatment? Religion needs to stay out of healthcare or we're all in for sub-standard care.

Here goes the right again, telling women what to do with their bodies.

Bill Deacon you cannot spin the obvious owning an operating an educational institution or a hospital does not exempt you from federal law. I'm sure Stanford, Harvard, and Yale also have a mission.

Whether you want to be a hospital or college, you are not exempt from federal law based on your religious beliefs... Some folks believe in polygamy, others sacrificing goats, smoking marijuana, human sacrifice... Should they also be exempt from federal law?

The Church doesn't view it as commerce, we view it as mission.

I don't care if what the Church views it as, it's commerce and subject to all government regulations.

It's constitutional to make regulations and laws for everyone. Singling any group out based on religion is more unconstitutional than this is.

What about individuals' rights? Why does the "church" trump individual workers/employees?

WHY should an organization (christian/muslim/whatever...) dictate what I can or cannot do. They can’t…I refuse to allow them to put their stink on my life. I refuse to allow any church of any denomination to control my life. They (catholic health care) provide a public service. Some employers only provide one health insurance for their employees. That basic health insurance must be the same across the board.

If the catholic church wants to sell insurance, better live with the fact they have to cover birth control...

One last thought on the catholic church...the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I guess what the cult needs is to be told by a court that what the law says is that if they are bleeding the government for health care fundings, they in turn, just like everyone else, needs to adhere to the laws.

Hey, Catholic Church America is not a theocracy!!! It still is last I checked a democracy.

Remember, the separation of church and state; least we go back to the Medieval Ages with the Pope. Righties you're all hypocrites when you feign Islamic law taking over America. This is no better!!!

Beverly in Chicago

Hey, Catholic Church America is not a theocracy!!! It still is last I checked a democracy.

Remember, the separation of church and state; least we go back to the Medieval Ages with the Pope. Righties you're all hypocrites when you feign Islamic law taking over America. This is no better!!!

Once again since you have posted this over and over in this thread..

America is a REPUBLIC.

Who the heck wants to work for the Catholic Church anyway???? The only way you'll make the big bucks with them is if you're in on keeping the molestations secret!! Geez...

Once again, this is a great example of why the Catholic Church has it bass ackwards.

It's fine to live your values. What is not fine is forcing those values down on other people. The only soul you have responsibility for is your own. If you don't like the service, here's a thought. DON'T USE IT.

Instead of living their values, they're all ready to force you to live by what they feel is right.

And please - don't use the "you can still get it even if you don't have insurance" argument. Take a look at the price of some of those female-side contraceptives - even for a month's supply. It's absolutely nuts what is charged. And keep in mind - not all women take contraceptives just for the "birth control" aspects of the medication - so we're going to deny these women access to cost-effective medication necessary to manage their condition.

Bright. Very bright.

We'll all end up answering to God when we die (assuming you believe in God). I sure as hectate don't plan on answering to his bureaucrats on this earth before I hear His judgment.

The Catholic Church wonders why attendance is down. It's idiocy like this that drive Catholics away from their faith.

Count me as one of em.

Hi Joe R-

You missed the point. The Catholic Church does not "sell" insurance. They provide it like any other entity to their employees. Now, because they are being forced by the administration to provide birth control and contraceptives through their carriers (against their beliefs) to their employees, they are suing. Several Catholic universities have already opted not to provide insurance at all because of this mandate. They don't have to "live with" anything. That's what the Courts will decide, not you, or me, or anyone else posting on this thread.

This is a serious Constitiutional issue which will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, like many other laws, policies, mandates which have emanated from this administration. We can agree to disagree over this, but please get your facts straight.

Also, you sound very angry regarding religion. Why? It's not necessary to be hostile to people who don't think like you do.

Guess churches can start paying taxes then too!

The only thing the catholic church needs to do is simply stop asking for and receiving government funding and subsidies. That's all they have to do if they want to make their own rules and deny their workers and students any forms of healthcare benefits. Nobody is stopping them. The law says that if they are receiving these government benefits, then they have to adhere to the laws that go with the benefits they apply for and receive.

Beverly in Chicago,

That is exactly what the Church lawsuit is about! The government not interfering with the religious beliefs of an individual or group! By mandating insurance to cover contraception, mandating that every policy be the same, and mandating that every employer provide that policy, the government is not regulating commerce or religious employers, it is dictating to them. That is government interference in religion. I thought the compromise was a just way out of the mess with the exception that someone is still going to pay for it through higher premium dollars. I applaud the Church's action because it is one of the few entities large enough to stand up to the Federal Government for it's principles and have an honest shot at winning!

This is a 1st Amendment issue; the SCOTUS just rule UNANIMOUSLY earlier this year in FAVOR of a religious school being exempt from federal law; read it and weep Liberals:

HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v . EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL.

Held:

1. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits
brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in
violation of employment discrimi­nation laws. Pp. 6–15.

(a) The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Familiar with life under the established Church of England, the founding generation sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church. By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the Eng­lish Crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. Pp. 6–10.

What that MEANS is, the Federal Government CANNOT tell a religious organization what it MUST do in terms of its religious practices. The Catholic Church (not the individual members) is protected under the 1st Amendment from Government interference with its religious practices. That separation of Church and State swings BOTH ways, people - you want religion out of the Government, you must ALSO keep Government out of Religion!

Mikela,

What government funding and subsidies are you referring to? Please elaborate.

Starsailer,

On what grounds, based on the information in this story? Please enlighten us.

Sorry Catholics, but if you want to run a business, it has to adhere to labor laws. You can't just refuse to pay your employees for working on a Sunday because your fairy tale book tells you. You have to still obey the law.

More spin, it is NOT a contraception issue , it is a freedom of religion issue, the RIGHT, to practice one's faith and not be forced by a government to do what is contrary to it.

So all business associated with religion should be exempt from Federal Employment laws? What's next, all business run by men should be exempt? All business run by anyone with the last name of "Bush" should be exempt? You must be ok with this business, La'ie Treatment Works (sewer), being exempt from federal/state/local employment laws.

Toasty,

Sorry, but that is not for you to decide. Insulting others does nothing to further your "argument". That's why we have real courts, not courts of public opinion.

Right off the top, just their tax exemptions in themselves are a huge government subsidy in and of itself. The only differance between the church exemption and any other corporate exemption is that unlike the corporations, the church does not have to explain their finances.

Zosyn

Hey, Catholic Church America is not a theocracy!!! It still is last I checked a

Once again since you have posted this over and over in this thread..

America is a REPUBLIC.

But, not enough for you righties to get it!

FYI: We don't need to argue semantics.

When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic; besides listing to the self appointed professor, Glenn Beck?

The United States fits the second description of a republic, which, combined with the definition of a democracy, makes us a republic of representative democracy.

I love how these pieces of shart keep trying to not play by the rules of the Government. They don't pay taxes, they don't do a LOT that the rest of us have to do, all behind the guise of "Religious Freedom". even though they're trying to change the rules of our Government to fit their religion, FORCING us to practice their religion. I wish they'd rule that churches are attempting hostile takeover of our Government, or strip away those whiny little sharts' tax exemption. It's time for the churches to pay their fair share, Catholic, Christian, whatever religion they are.

Mikela,

Tax exemptions are not subsidies. Simple fact. Try again.

the same could be said about those who don't want to drive down the road and see a catholic church. No one is saying you have to take contraception nor are they saying you must look at the catholic church.

Get over yourselves!

Party vs. Party and Squeaky wheel politics.

Keep your ideology or lack there of to yourself.

Some religions recant medicine completely.

Live your life and leave mine alone. I answer to god! You don't answer for me!

Stolen from the tea party "Don't tread on me!"

Tha Monkeh,

Who is forcing you to practice any religion? Silly Monkeh, you know that is not true.

With six of the nine Supreme Court Justices practicing Catholics, what do you think their decision would be?

Bill Deacon wrote:

I don't see many nuns on the Forbe's 500 list, do you?

Me:

No, but I wonder how the church is able to pay those multi-million dollar settlements caused by the pedophiles they employ.

Really Cinnamon? You're trying to tell me that a church's private company can break any law it wants?

Heartlight3-

And Katherine Sebelius is Catholic also. Kinda puts a hole in your argument.

Hey Obama how's that gay marriage stance working out for you buddy? Can't imagine it took the church this long to decide - I think you pushed them over the top...

I thought all Catholic leaders were supposed to be celibate eunuchs anyway (or is that should be celibate and euthanized) ?

If they are not supposed to have sex, why would they need or care about contraceptives ?

Toasty,

And what law have they broken? And you know that is not what I said, but I'll play along.

"In the face of public pressure, President Barack Obama announced a compromise in which employers could opt against including coverage for contraception, but insurers would be required to provide the option of coverage of those services to employees who wanted it."

I can't believe that the media still calls that a 'compromise', when it's nothing more than;

"If Catholic institutions don't want to cover contraception, they still have to cover it, but we'll pretend that the insurance company will pay for it"

Of course, the insurance company just says "Yes, we'll pay for it, but the Catholic Church has to pay the extra cost to cover it".

It's still forcing the Catholic Church to offer something that violates their religious beliefs - a clear conflict between 'Church and State'. Typical phony baloney rhetoric from Obama.

Why are we even having this conversation? Religions are NOT exempt from the law. They cannot practice animal sacrifice, or deny their child a blood transfusion, or practice polygamy, or evade the draft -- And in this case when religions get into lucrative business ventures of health care or education, they are NOT exempt from labor laws.

It's bad enough they are raking in huge profits and don't pay taxes, or use contributions to build lavish temples but are considered a charity. I'm SO sick of the abuse of IRS code, especially the blatant and ever growing preaching politics from the pulpit and block voting. Let's define charity, and how much MUST actually go to charitable causes, and that and only that can be tax exempt.

Between corporate welfare and religions gaming the system, we are losing trillions in revenue that is needed, by the way, to help the poor, sick, elderly, disabled, and the "least of those among us." Stop the hypocrisy!

T Bourlon -- After the 2000 election, Citizen's United, and a few other rulings by this right-leaning SCOTUS, I don't really care what they say. They legislate from the bench.

Wow Roy your really slippin

I thought health insurance was part of employee compensation?

Argue so much you forgot to think

True Patriot,

Because this is America, and not everyone thinks the way you do. It's very simple, really. Just because you don't want to have the conversation doesn't mean it's not going to happen. That's why we have the court system, so when a party thinks they have been wronged, they can present it for argument and resolution.

Obviously, some sort of middle ground should be reached here. We all know why religious institutions don't want to cover it: it interferes with the natural intent of intercourse and in some instances may result in abortion by preventing the embryo from implanting in the unterus.

On the other hand, women (and the administration) want it covered because - contrary to the talking points - it's still expensive and can be legitamately used for reproductive health. I know first hand about this because for the longest time, neither my nor my wife's company (both were secular multination corporations) covered the pill. When my wife needed it for hormonal regulation to control (of all things) acne, we had to pay out of pocket. And this was a last resort as everything else she tried would not fix her problem. Lo and behold, the pill did. And it really bit into our budget.

I think the compromise will need to be that the doctors will need to provide the insurance companies (NOT THE EMPLOYERS) with the medical reason for the pill. If it's a legitamate medical issue - other than actual birth control - it should be covered. Now, if the employee and the doctor lie, which will happen, the conscience of the religious institutions is clean because they are taking it on faith that the employee needs it for the reason she stated. She'll have to live with the consequences of her dishonesty which, depending on her religious beliefs, will range from severe to nothing at all.

On the flipside, the religious institutions could opt to offer no benefits at all. I don't think there's any law that says they have to offer health benefits. Then the point of this mandate will completely backfire as a lot of people will then be without health coverage. Talk about the law of unintended consequences. If that extreme happened, however, it would be up for debate as to whether the blame would be on the administration or the religious instituitions were ultimately responsible for that outcome.

In all honesty, I'd rather have universal single payer coverage so that the burden of health insurance is removed from employers all together with plenty of private insureres available for folks who want to buy additional coverage on their own. That's what Canada has and - again, contrary to talking points - my Canadian friends and relatives tell me that dual system works out just peachy up north.

Cinnomon12: What color is the sky on your planet?

Cinnamon12: you are a lot more patient with these clueless people than I would be...but I'm so glad that someone on here has a handle on what this issue is all about. Thanks for posting.

Doubter,

Same as on yours. Why do you ask? Is it because I don't agree with you? Just because I don't insult people? Do you have anything to add to the conversation at all?

Juanita,

Thanks. This is a potentially landmark case, and some of the folks on here think the issue is over because they say so on a blog. Sorry, but that ain't the way it works. However, there is no reason to insult and call names, so I try not to do that.

I never said the broke a law, and you know that. They ARE protesting requirement that they provide health care for their employees, Cinnamon. Stop playing stupid.

That is exactly what you were trying to imply. Where in my comments did I say I thought they could break any labor law they wanted? I do not even understand what you are saying at this point.

Here's whats funny to me. If you said using the law of large numbers to force me to pay for someone else to have free out of pocket contraception is wrong I might agree, but the same argument could be made by those who don't drive and pay taxes for roads in which they don't use. However you take a crazy my religion stance?

Oh yes this most certainly is a democratic party approach of getting the female vote. Sure I agree with democrats more than republicans of late. Mainly because I know the youth of this country do not support the current republican approach so they are temporary at best.

Hanging yourself is against the law. You maybe be hung but don't you dare hang yourself. Its Justice and I hold the stick!

I know blah blah blah blah blah blah:)~

I'm implying that all businesses are required to obey the law.

An employee/member of the Catholic church is free to use/take whatever contraceptives they want. I have never heard of a church employee being fired or a member being ex-communicated because they chose to use contraceptives. Just don't expect the Catholic church (or their directly affiliated organizations) to pay for any portion of their cost.

For those claiming insurance companies cover Viagra when prescribed for E.D... please provide a list of these insurance companies...... (crickets)

Wow Bev in Chicago... Someone calls you out on your incorrect statement that the U.S. is a democracy and you double down on your obvious ignorance by creating a whole new type of government called "a republic of representative democracy". That would be hilarious... if it wasn't so sad. Just to clarify things for you (as if it will do any good what with you being a progressive and all).... the U.S.A. was set-up as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Yes, most of our government representatives ARE chosen through direct democratic elections. However, that does NOT make the U.S.A. a democracy. How did you make it through school without learning one of Ben Franklin's most famous quotes? At the close of the first constitutional convention Mr. Franklin was asked what type of government had been created. His reply was, "A republic... if you can keep it."

The Catholic Church is taking this to court to decide whether this law will stand or be struck down based upon their belief that it unnecessarily intrudes of religious freedom. Larger implications are out there if the the courts agree with the church, and vice versa. That's all I am saying.

But it doesn't, because it only affects their privates businesses, not their church.

MDB123 "Wow Roy your really slippin - I thought health insurance was part of employee compensation?"

Even by employers that don't offer health insurance? Give me a break.

And while some employers do offer health insurance as part of their compensation package, they should be able to make reasonable exceptions in what they will pay for.

The real question revolves around "Is it reasonable for the government to require religious based institutions to provide services that violate their religious doctrines?"


Obviously, people will disagree depending on their personal beliefs, so it will likely have to be decided by the Supreme Court, but my bet would be on the church's position, based on a long history of the court restricting government 'mandates' that violate well established religious practices.

Time will tell, but it doesn't look like the Obama Administration's track record with the Supreme Court is looking very positive - so far.

You can say that, but the Church believes it intrudes into their religious beliefs on both counts. You cannot separate the two. Which is why this will be such an important issue for the courts to decide. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to sort all of this out, not you or me.

WarhammerThree "On the flipside, the religious institutions could opt to offer no benefits at all. I don't think there's any law that says they have to offer health benefits. Then the point of this mandate will completely backfire as a lot of people will then be without health coverage. "

That's already happening, as some Catholic institutions have cancelled coverage for ALL employees rather than offer services that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Here's a link;

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/17/second-catholic-university-may-drop-health-insurance/

The Roman Catholic Church is completely 100% our of line on this issue. They refuse to accept the separation of church and state which is at the core of the U.S. Constitution. Denial of coverage for contraception is denial of legitimate health benefits--the issue is just that simple.

By the way, my son and daughter in law are practicing Roman Catholics. They are expecting twins this June. I do hope they have several more children. But they have been practicing contraception since before they were married, and the same is true for the vast majority of U.S. Roman Catholics.

Roy,

I might be talking out my butt but I would place bet that someone could find something in every insurance policy that defies their personal religious beliefs.

This is an attack on democrats plain and simple and more so a direct attack on Obama.

Personally I think its a stupid unnecessary mandate.

If republicans would be republicans instead of anti democrats I could see myself being a republican. Ruin yourself i don't really care.

Party vs Party

Screw liberals and conservatives!

Rank and file Catholics ignore what the Bishops say on most issues -- especially on birth control. All you need to do is look around Mass on any Sunday. You no longer see families with 5, 6,7 or more kids. This is simply the big shots at the top trying to regain power. Most states have similar insurance laws on their books now and have had them for years.

Kennedy had this figured out in 1960 when he said the Bishops didn't support him but the people in the pews did.

Okay, so say the church decided that its businesses shouldn't have to pay people when they work on the Sabbath. That violates the law.

And DMAC, for the last time, A REPUBLIC IS A TYPE OF DEMOCRACY. It is perfectly correct to call the United States either word. If you want to be very specific, you'd need to correct your terms, because republics are just as able to oppress their people as other forms. What we are is a liberal democracy, which includes the democratic process, most often through indirect representation (aka republic) although sometimes direct representation, while the liberties of the individual are upheld by law.

Can the Church prohibit its employees from spending their paychecks on contraception? What's the difference?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal Immigration is a sin too, but we can't remove the 30 million that create that sin.

The Cardinal needs his lawn mowed at a resonable price.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many religious institutions, when faced with being forced to provide services that violate their deeply held religious convictions, will elect to cancel their health insurance, but to avoid being accused of 'benefiting' from the cancellation, they will likely offer a 'stipend' equivalent to their previous health care costs, but there are two problems for the employees with this approach;

1 - The employee would now have to declare that 'stipend' as additional income, so if they get $10,000 in health insurance benefits per year without paying taxes on that, they would now have to pay taxes on that additional income - both payroll and income taxes.

2 - They would have to buy individual health insurance, where the rates for equivalent coverage are much higher than group coverage rates.

These are some of the 'unintended consequences' of Obamacare. They could have continued to provide an exclusion for religious institutions, but they insisted that it be "My way or the highway".

MDB123 "Roy, I might be talking out my butt but I would place bet that someone could find something in every insurance policy that defies their personal religious beliefs....Personally I think its a stupid unnecessary mandate."

I agree with you.

I'll let you figure out which part I agree with.

lol

opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one :)~

lol

If you want to sue the Federal Government, maybe you should be paying taxes...else I think you have the right to shut the hell up.

Cinnamon12

Normally I don't respond to someone’s response to one of my posts (gads that sounds convoluted) but you asked about my hostility toward the catholic church. The catholic church is the greatest blight on the planet. They have KILLED more people in the name of their god than any other religion/sect/government.

So you and everyone knows that reads this and gets their panties in a wad...I believe in GOD. I don't believe in the christen or muslin god. If you want to kill me because I don’t believe like you do? I don’t want anything to do with your religion. I don’t want anything to do with you. I WILL continue to speak out against you how bad your religion is with my last dying breath. Meanwhile, I’ll keep helping my fellow man.

Oh…if you think I’m inaccurate or wrong…history is there to back me up.

I don't think that progressives are aware of the slippery slope that leads from a republic with numerous (and oft-times conflicting) power centers to a unitary state and thence to totalitarianism. It is only when all power is centralized and used to serve some creed or goal with which they disagree that they cry "foul." And witness what happened in the Soviet Union...international Communism never did realize it had been perverted...it took nationalism to crash the myth.

Charlie-1915998 "Rank and file Catholics ignore what the Bishops say on most issues -- especially on birth control"

While that may be true, the problem for the Obama Administration is that they ASSUMED that Catholics wouldn't care, but what if many Catholics do 'ignore' the teachings of the church on birth control, but they may not think it's appropriate for the government to FORCE the Church to violate their religious teachings on the subject.

You might look at it as a 2 question poll;

1 - Do you practice birth control that violates church teaching? Perhaps 50% would say yes.

2 - Do you agree with forcing the church to violate their teachings on birth control? I'd bet 90% would say no.

That's where I believe the Obama Administration made a serious miscalculation.

Emanuel-0684:

If you want to sue the Federal Government, maybe you should be paying taxes...else I think you have the right to shut the hell up.

----------------------

So then, being logical, you will be for people who pay no income tax being forbidden any right to sue the government. Way to go. Let's take your logic to its conclusion. Those who pay no property tax should not have a vote on tax levies. Why you are some sort of genius!

The problem is the GOPTP has fallen under the spell of Ayn Rand and the philosophy of greed and selfishness. Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan (appointed by Bush I), Ben Bernancke (appointed by Bush II), Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, the Koch brothers, Sarah Palin, Ron Johnson, etc. etc. etc. are all her disciples. Sure, a few of them pretend to be Christian and have led many astray under the banner of the supposed "Christian Right" (which is neither), but the fact is that they are following an atheist philosopher into whatever hell any religion has in store for them.

Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the "Christian Right" even has said, "What galvanised the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de-facto segregation." In other words, their wallets took precedent over their hearts.

Earlier in the 20th Century, the Bellamys, William Jennings Bryn, Rev/ Dwight L. Moody, and others preached the Social Gospel, which the GOPTP tries to paint as socialism. When the same mistakes propelled us into the great depression, FDR introduced the New Deal this way: "We call what we have been doing 'human security' and 'social justice'. In the last analysis all of those terms can be described by one word; and that is 'Christianity.'"

I do not wish to alienate atheists who believe in compassion and social justice. I am pointing out that the Ayn Rand model is being espoused and has been shoved down our throats for 3 decades and it a) is not working, b) is not Christian, and c) must be stopped. It lacks the values that Umair talks about and that Jesus (and most religious personages in history) talks about.

The wolves have put on border collie disguises and are leading the sheep to their den.

So when I got caught in the confessional with Linda, By Sister Rose Francis in 8th grade, during lunch, I could have proceded to second base with Linda, because the church basically says laws are made to be broken? Religious freedom only for the pope? Or maybe the other time where I dropped off Angela to go to confession before Easter and waited in the car. Then we still had 45 mins left before she had to be home. 1/2 hr later she decided she had to go back in to confessions ...ahem....and the priest demanded to have me come in to talk with him. How dare him try to tell me what the laws of the church was in his eyes! I had constitutional laws protecting me to the right of privacy. The church has no right to interfere with my constitutional rights. If I have sex with Linda or Angela or with Linda and Angel at the same time, the church cannot deny me my constitutional right to do so.....Catholic Church policy because of its misunderstanding of sex is thus described as...yes....no..no...yes, yes...no, no , no,..yes...no......yes..yes..yes...no yes...no......yes...yes...no ....YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

By the way, make sure you shut the light off on the kneel down pad in the confessional, if you get any ideas to the above!

Joe R: I find it fascinating that although you state that you didn't want anything to do with Cinnamon 12, you apparently didn't feel strong enough about that statement because you responded to her anyway....so much for your convictions.

If it goes to the Supreme Court (likely), here's a hint on which side will win;

There was a recent Supreme Court decision (January 2012) wherein the Obama Administration tried to force a religious school to comply with the same labor laws as other non-religious schools, claiming the teacher's duties were primarily secular. Guess who won - It was UNANIMOUS - 9 to 0 against the Obama Administration.

It wasn't widely reported in the media (it might have made Obama look bad to have even his recent appointees vote against him), but here's a link;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/supreme-court-church-school-cannot-be-sued-over-discrimination-complaint/

Wait a dad gum minute....

This administration is telling religious institutions what to do then giving them a chance to "opt out".

Hey, that sounds a lot like ObamaDoesNotCare.....mandate it then give out 2,500 + "opt out" passes.

Shucks, another deflection issue off to the Supreme Court.

MDB123

...force me to pay for someone else to have free out of pocket contraception...

Women pay more for health insurance than men do, and they pay those premiums, and deductibles before they get a prescription -- This is only about a measly co-pay, typically $20 that in NO way balances the discrimination by insurance companies against women. Some even define pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.

The adults are trying to have a serious conversation here. Why don't you go back to watching your cartoons. Thanks.

@ cinnamon12

"You missed the point. The Catholic Church does not "sell" insurance. They provide it like any other entity to their employees. Now, because they are being forced by the administration to provide birth control and contraceptives through their carriers (against their beliefs) to their employees, they are suing. Several Catholic universities have already opted not to provide insurance at all because of this mandate."

No cinnamon, I think you missed the point. The administration is not forcing no one. It proposed that these religious institutions (namely Catholics) had to provide contraceptives coverage for their employees. After the outrage that came out of this, the administration said:" fine, if you do not want to provide it under your insurance plan than the insurance company will provide it free of charge". Now these institutions are complaining because.....?? Is any of their business if I as an insurance company want to provide free birth control??? HYPOCRITES!!!!

And witness what happened in the Soviet Union

Let's review history, and ask the question again, what DID happen in the Soviet Union? Oh yeah, its Communist government disintegrated, along with communism in East Germany and several other places around the world. According to the right, if they had only implemented Obama care, Communism and the USSR would be alive and thriving today, the wall between East/West Germany would be higher than the tower of Babylon. No wonder they are given the term "Right Wing Nut Jobs".

Hey, over here...

Much like the other pet conservative causes like union busting, this has absolutely nothing to do with how it's being framed. This is a first volley in the war to get Big Business out of paying for any sort of health care for employees. This is a start on dismantling any sort of responsibility for business in treating their employees like human beings. While you bicker over god they are planning the next level of attack that goes something like, well, if a business believes in allowing god to decide and no medical intervention should be taken then the employees of that organization can have no health care.

Just as union busting is a way to let Big Business, eventually, off the hook for paying a fair wage by taking away all of the rights and enforcer on the side of the employees this is about MONEY not religion.

Big Picture Guys, Big Picture. Lift your faces up from your petty squabbles and realize we are fighting the rich, not each other.

As far as I'm concerned, the church needs to quit fighting this because it's going to cost them more. If you don't want to pay for contraception, then hire only Catholics who agree not to use contraception. Since many Catholics do use contraception, that won't leave many people to work for them. They need to start understanding that the WORLD is NOT Catholic anymore. This is not a religious issue; it's a labor law issue.

I LOL at the people here who complain that their rights are being violated, yet they are the same people who don't think homosexuals should be allowed to be married. No one likes it when the shoe is on the other foot.

True,

Ha your one of the characters of the cartoon I watch everyday! lmfao! Roy is another! I am writing a book about types of people as yourself! I bet you will buy it and won't even know! LMFAO!

Adults!?

Best education is a free one! REALITY trumps everything.

Don't fall off the donkey

YEEE HA

My methods of madness have personal purpose, and they work!!!!!!

I don't think the Catholics understand that most people aren't Catholic so really don't care about Catholic Rules.

I don't think the Catholic Bishops understand that they are viewed as antiquities of history, who's glory days are long since passed.

I don't think the Catholic Church, and The Pope understand, that their power has been going down hill since The Reformation, and the Protestant's power has been on a slippery slope since the invention of the steam engine. The world is about 40 years ahead of the Bishops, on all topics, and in some cases 1500 years or more.

Many people are not happy with the history of bad behavior by Catholic authority to say the least, and in light of the economic history of the US in the past few years, if you polled the graduates of the major educational institutions the Catholics sponsor... and asked how the graduates are doing with their job searches, the fact that they graduated from a prestigious Catholic college doesn't mean squat. How many jobs are there for theologians?

The eclipse this weekend proved the moon goes around the earth in an elliptical orbit, Not a perfect circular orbit, thus the ring of fire eclipse, not a full eclipse which will happen next time. So how many times does the Church have to be wrong to get the idea lots and lots of people don't care what they think.

(Jenkins emphasized that the university's suit was not intended to prevent access to contraception or to prevent the government from providing services.) If this is not intended to stop some women from having access though a company that happens to be part of any church that is making a profit from it..then just what is it ? If they succeed in this..then..what rights will women have that the church does not have control over ? If this church runs any type of business outside of the church itself..what makes it better than any other business that works for profits ? IF women do not want the church to cover their insurances..then why should other businesses do the same..? WHy should ANY business cover any kind of insurance then,...they too should be able to make the same claim as any church..in that it goes agains their religion..Down through history..the church has been against anything that they did not control...bnesides that..name a religion that does have womens rights set up high ....

I find it rather funny when people say the church views running a hospital as a mission and not for profit. Don't know about anyone else but I have personally found that the catholic church run hospital here is the least understanding about the massive debt major medical issues cause. There is no compassion or anything. All they are interested in is their money. They will not treat at all if you have no funds or insurance, all they will do is transfer you to another hospital. So not a mission but a bit money making business. And as such they should be required to follow all laws that all businesses are required to.

It appears that it will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, and I wouldn't bet with the Obama Administration. There was a similar case that was just decided in January 2012 by the Supreme Court, wherein the Obama Administration sued a religious school to reinstate a teacher under the government's discrimination laws that apply to all secular employers, including private schools - the government claimed that, since the teachers duties were primarily secular in nature, the religious school should have to comply with the same rules as any other school. The result was a UNANIMOUS decision (9 - 0) against the Obama Administration - citing the separation of church and state. Even all of Obama's recent appointees to the Supreme Court voted against Obama.

Most people probably never heard about the decision from the media - probably because it would have made Obama look bad for even his recent appointees to vote against him. Here's the story on the case;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/supreme-court-church-school-cannot-be-sued-over-discrimination-complaint/

One more example of Obama trying to force HIS version of morality on everyone with his "My way or the highway" demands. I suspect that his attempts to force catholic institutions to comply with HIS version of Obamacare will have a similar outcome.

fpn1943 " the administration said:" fine, if you do not want to provide it under your insurance plan than the insurance company will provide it free of charge". Now these institutions are complaining because.....?? Is any of their business if I as an insurance company want to provide free birth control??? "

Thanks for the laugh. How about the Obama Administration saying "insurance companies must provide health insurance for all children up to the age of 45 "free of charge"."

The President has no authority to tell ANY insurance company that they must provide any coverage 'free of charge'. Private insurance companies have every right to charge whatever they feel is appropriate for any mandated services. It would be like Obama telling car companies that he wants them to provide an extra $1,000 per car in new safety features, but they can't charge any more for the car - It 'ain't gonna happen'.

Obama may feel that he's a 'dictator' who can tell private companies what they can charge for and what they can't, but 200+ years of legal precedent will get in the way.

There is no compassion or anything. All they are interested in is their money.

Amen - someone who sees it as it is - money, money, money, under the pretense of religion. I'll never forget the way the Catholic hospital treated AIDS patients before AIDS had a name. Cross-bones and skulls and labels on the door signifying contamination. Compassion, hell no - labels, hell yes.

98% of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptives. Deal with it.

1% of Catholic men have dressed up like a nun or priest for Halloween..............made that one up, tell me though, we have all seen some at parties.

Why do all the higher ups(bishops through popes) wear pointy hats and costumes? Don't see that in the bible! Since not required in the catechism or bible they should be paying clothes taxes where applicable.

I'm still laughing at the chant, "Let Jesus come inside you, let Jesus come inside you".

Can only Catholics work for Catholic organizations? Last I checked, Holy Cross hospital has a few Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Atheists on the payroll. Not to mention some of the Island countries of the Caribbean that have "other" religious beliefs.

Is it not the person that uses birth control the one that is the sinner in the eyes of the Church and not necessarily the one that offers it?

This is a blatant attempt by the GOP to use the Catholic Church to create a "talking point". The suits have no merit, because the church is trying to ban access to contraception, not the government mandating they provide it. Another loser for the GOP. Thankfully only 1% of our population are total loosers, headed by the GOP.

The Catholic Church wants to totally control the reproductive systems of its employees. Not only do they want deny you contraception in your insurance coverage, they also will fire you for receiving in vitro fertilization (Emily Herz a teacher in an Indiana Catholic Church).

Next they will monitor employees to ensure they don't spend their paychecks for condemns.

Where do the rights of the Pope end and our rights begin?!

The Bible's Viewpoint
Is Contraception Morally Wrong?
WHAT do you think? Is it wrong for married people to use contraception? Your answer may well depend on your religious convictions. The Catholic Church teaches that every action designed to impede procreation "is intrinsically evil." Catholic dogma promotes the idea that each act of sexual intercourse between marriage mates must remain open to pregnancy. For the Catholic Church, then, contraception is "morally unacceptable."
Many people find this point of view difficult to accept. A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article on the subject noted that "more than three-quarters of Catholics in the United States say the church should allow the use of artificial birth control. . . . And millions ignore the ban every day." One of them, Linda, a mother of three, freely admits to using contraceptives but says: "I don't really believe in my conscience that I'm sinning."
What does God's Word have to say on this issue?

Life Is Precious
God considers the life of a child to be precious, even in the very earliest stages of development. King David of Israel wrote under inspiration: "You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. . . . Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing." (Psalm 139:13, 16) A new life begins at conception, and the Mosaic Law indicates that a person could be called to account for injuring an unborn child. In fact, Exodus 21:22, 23 specifies that if a pregnant woman or her unborn child suffered a fatal accident as a result of a struggle between two men, the matter had to be brought before the appointed judges. They were to weigh the circumstances and the degree of deliberateness, but the penalty could be "soul for soul," or life for life.
Those principles are relevant to contraception in that some methods of birth control appear to be abortive. These methods of contraception are not in harmony with the divine principle of respect for life. Most contraceptives, though, are not abortive. What about the use of such methods of birth control?
Nowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate. God told the first human couple and Noah's family: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth." But this command was not repeated to Christians. (Genesis 1:28; 9:1) Hence, married couples may decide for themselves whether they will raise a family, how many children they will have, and when they will have them. The Scriptures, likewise, do not condemn birth control. From a Biblical point of view, then, whether a husband and wife choose to use some nonabortive method of contraception is really a personal decision. Why, though, does the Catholic Church condemn contraception?

Human Wisdom Versus Divine Wisdom
Catholic sources explain that it was in the second century C.E. that professed Christians first adopted a Stoic rule according to which the sole lawful purpose for marital intercourse was procreation. The reasoning behind this position was thus philosophical rather than Biblical. It was based, not on divine wisdom, but on human wisdom. This philosophy persisted down through the centuries and was elaborated on by various Catholic theologians. The logical outgrowth of this teaching, however, was the idea that sexual pleasure as an end in itself is sinful and, consequently, that sexual relations that exclude the possibility of procreation are immoral. But this is not what the Scriptures teach.
Using poetic language, the Bible book of Proverbs describes the joy that can result from appropriate sexual intimacies between husband and wife: "Drink water out of your own cistern, and tricklings out of the midst of your own well. . . . Let your water source prove to be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth, a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly."—Proverbs 5:15, 18, 19.
Sexual relations between husband and wife are a God-given gift. But procreation is not their sole purpose. Sexual relations also allow a married couple to express tenderness and affection for each another. So if a couple should decide to exclude the possibility of a pregnancy by using some form of contraception, that is their choice to make, and no one should judge them.—Romans 14:4, 10-13.

To have the Catholic church, which has inflicted pain on many a young boys sexuality, is quite absurd. Is contraception through the church, even an issue, when it involves clergy, raping young children? You have not confessed to your Heavenly Father for your own sins, and you want to judge others?

Joe R-

I would not even know where to begin with you being inaccurate or wrong, I don't have that kind of time. Wow!

You seem incredibly angry, but that's ok. Also, what are "christen" and "muslin"?

fpn1943-

You missed the point and are still missing it, intentionally I believe. That's not what this is about. This is about government intrusion into religious freedom, a much more serious issue. You can keep thinking this is an insurance, contraception, commerce clause, etc., etc., issue, but it is not, and now 12 separate federal courts will have to hear these cases.

Not as simple as it first appears is it? We will all have to wait and see how it comes out in the end, but it will most assuredly be a Supreme Court Case in the future.

Your religion is free to believe what you want. However, your religion isn't paying for the birth control, the insurance company is.

So it's not a religious freedom issue, it's a contraception issue.

WRONG!

If you understood ANYTHING about how insurance works, you would know that EVERY additional coverage you add, drives up the premium. The insurance company is in the business to make money... (oh i forgot you hate companies for that). They are not going to provide FREE coverage. They are not going to PAY FOR YOUR ADDITIONAL COVERAGE!

NO. The your employer pays for that (or at least a good portion of it) when they provide health coverage as a benefit.

How old are you people any way? Have any of you EVER had a real job?

Have any of you EVER had a real job?

The front lanes at Wal-Mart must qualify then? You should stop being mad.

If you had the faintest idea about how the Constitution works, you'd know that we weren't founded as a Christian nation, and that we can make no law giving special treatment or taking rights away from a specific religious group.

In essence, just giving Catholics an exemption would be unconstitutional.

Eric, you have no concept of how accounting works do you? If the company pays for anything not directly accounted for as a part of the direct good or service it is providing, it is paid out of indirect funds. These funds come from the difference between the price paid for the goods and services across the organization, and the cost of the specific good or service sold.

So in the current example the contributions (premium paid minus cost to insurer) from a catholic institution's premiums (these are the indirect funds) will pay for birth control across the insurance company's offering. It will simply be hidden by the accounting. All the birth control money will be pushed into the big pot with the profit and marketing money and then pulled back out to pay the cost of the birth control.

This doesn't solve the moral problem. It simply reduces the fidelity of the accounting and makes fraud harder to spot.

Ruken,

Wow, you really need to go back and read the Constitution. I have read some of your other posts, and you have some strange interpretations of its contents. Your last post re "exemption" makes no sense. This is a far larger issue than giving Catholics an exemption. This will most likely be argued as a freedom of religion case against government intrusion, so we are talking about something far different and more fundamental than exemptions, engaging in commerce, etc.

Ruken,

Passing the law mandating coverage for contraception is then unconstitutional by your definition as it created a situation that dictated policy to a religious organization.

Why is this so hard to understand liberals... The catholic church is against contraception. It has nothing to do with who pays for it. The Catholic church is against any of its members using contraceptives, having them available to their members, etc...... You know, kinda like atheists are against anything traditional or religious being in a public forum. Same principle. No rubbers, pills, sponges, etc.. for catholics. Get it now. The government should not be forcing catholic institutions to allow access to contraceptives. If people want them outside of the church's domain, they are perfectly within their rights to buy them and keep it to themselves. How about the government mandates Congress and the Senate to stop bickering and work on fixing our broken country and stop spending vile amounts on elections. All the money wasted on elections could go a long way towards fixing what ails america. Jeesh, elections have become the new American Idol. I don't want a rock star president, i want a leader who is smart enought to fix the issues, not pander to their bases.

Catholic members can choose to take contraceptives or not. Stop ramming your religion down my throat.

Eric,

Who is ramming religion down your throat? This is an important issue, which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, ultimately. How exactly is this affecting your life personally? Are you saying the Catholic Church does not have the right to have this issue decided in the courts? If that is what you are saying, that is a dangerous and slippery slope.

Choices and consequences. Go ahead and use contraceptives, abortion etc. Your choices will have consequences in the end when you meet the Big Guy. The reality is that God gave us a way to choose when we want to get pregnant. It is called Natural Family Planning. And as someone who would WRITE all these supposed prescriptions for contraceptives but does not, (I am a Nurse Practitioner and Certified Nurse Midwife in the state of AZ where we are given the right to do so) I can tell you not every Catholic is "using birth control" as someone said.....Bravo to Derek 377-8187 and to Dom 462174 because they get it! Those of you who do not, learn natural family planning. It not only works, it brings partners closer together as a means of reproduction.

This is not a matter of the federal government mandating that a religious organization do something contrary to its teachings within its core institutions. Since the institutions (hospitals and colleges) allow and recruit the general public to work at, attend and use the facilities, they are no longer "catholic" institutions, they are, at best, affiliated organizations. As such, they need to follow the rules which all public organizations must follow, if they are offering health insurance to their members and/or employees.

Since many insurance companies and employers would use the opportunity to offer health insurance which does not cover hardly anything, the government had to regulate what will be mandatory minimum coverage. While everyone can argue all they want about what should/should not be covered, by requiring the same basic items be in all insurance policies, the overall cost of the insurance is less than what if would be if only some people covered all of the items required in a basic policy.

IMO, if these organizations feel so strongly about this, they should cancel their insurance policies, give the employees the additional money as part of their payroll and let them go buy their own individual insurance. In that way, the church does not have to be involved. This is just a bunch of baloney thought up by lawyers to waste time and the resources of our overstretched legal system.

So if my religion says that it is a "mortal sin" to provide certain life-saving medical services to women, it should be ok to withhold those life-saving medical services -- simply BECAUSE it is a "religious choice"? I say BULLSHIITE!

p.s., Betsy Beck Himmes; "Natural Family Planning", wherein the man/woman couple refrains from sex in order to prevent pregnancy, does NOT work 100% of the time. How do I know this? Simple: My ex-wife and I used "Natural Family Planning" when we were married -- and we STILL ended up with two UNPLANNED kids. Oh, and Betsy, I do hope that when you are called to stand before your God to explain why you failed to do all you could to help save the life of any woman who NEEDED certain medical services that you will be able to offer more of an excuse than "I was just doing what the Catholic Church told me to do".

Cinnamon many Catholics use contraception. There is no one correct way to follow a religion; the correct way is the way that you personally want to follow it. You cannot deny the right for someone to obtain something that they want to; this is a contraception and freedom of choice issue. Religion does not control their followers, they have free will and will do what they want regardless of what their religion says if they do not agree with it, most of the time.

Just because you personally think that there is no catholic or Christian on this world that has ever used contraception does not make it true and it actually does make you an idiot.

dirp

Since the institutions (hospitals and colleges) allow and recruit the general public to work at, attend and use the facilities, they are no longer "catholic" institutions, they are, at best, affiliated organizations.

Wrong, they are Catholic institutions because they are funded by donations to the Church. As a contributor to the Catholic Church, why should I be forced to fund something that violates by religious beliefs? This is the core of the issue: according to The Constitution, my religion and myself should not be forced to pay for things that violate our beliefs.

dirp

IMO, if these organizations feel so strongly about this, they should cancel their insurance policies, give the employees the additional money as part of their payroll and let them go buy their own individual insurance. In that way, the church does not have to be involved.

But that would be illegal under the current law and the referenced organization would be subject to a significant fine. Again, not how I wish my donations to be spent.

Geowil

You cannot deny the right for someone to obtain something that they want to

So does that mean you're anti-prohibition and pro-gun? If a convicted terrorist wants to buy a stinger missile, we can't stop them, according to your argument.

The Quacked One

So if my religion says that it is a "mortal sin" to provide certain life-saving medical services to women, it should be ok to withhold those life-saving medical services -- simply BECAUSE it is a "religious choice"? I say BULLSHIITE!

Straw man.

The Quacked One

save the life of any woman who NEEDED certain medical services

Please cite one example of how birth control has saved just one life. (I italicized 'birth control' since I think you're referring to artificial hormones being use to treat certain conditions. The Church does not oppose this type of usage.)

So let me get this straight. The University of Notre Dame is against the use of contraception because of their religion beliefs. Why don't we get to the heart of this and blind survay students of Notre Dame University and see what percentage uses contraceptive's. I went to Catholic school for 8 years, after that never went back. Religion is a crutch for weak minded people who can't think for themselves in life as we know it. Especially the Catholic church. They are still in 100 AD

Hogan's Alley is fun!

strmz

Why don't we get to the heart of this and blind survay students of Notre Dame University and see what percentage uses contraceptive

How would that get to the heart of it? I can't think of a single religion that sets its doctine/dogma by popular vote.

Wrong, they are Catholic institutions because they are funded by donations to the Church. As a contributor to the Catholic Church, why should I be forced to fund something that violates by religious beliefs? This is the core of the issue: according to The Constitution, my religion and myself should not be forced to pay for things that violate our beliefs.

Yeah? Well you're lucky I don't pay my taxes that way because YOUR church which the government hands money to in it's hokey "faith based initiatives" would be hurting.

Don't EVER try to stand on this ground. NEVER. The church gets so many hand outs from ordinary tax payers who have no say in the matter it's absurd. WHY should a church not have to pay taxes? WHY? That right there is not a separation of church and state.

Just like most conservative causes you people don't know when to shut up. You have more than you should rightfully be given and you just keep nagging, like teenagers.

Sit down. Your voodoo witchery has no place in the modern world. You are lucky the educated populace allows to to continue with your ignorant mysticism. Don't ask us to bow to it as well.

mj-1451595 - I actually don't support taxpayer money funding religious-based programs, for the same reason you don't support it: I have no say in how those other religions are using the funding. Anyways, that's a different issue entirely.

because YOUR church which the government hands money to in it's hokey "faith based initiatives" would be hurting.

No, the Catholic Church has thrived for 2000 years without US Federal funding. (The vast majority of the Church is outside the US, anyways.)

WHY should a church not have to pay taxes?

Because they aren't for-profit enterprises and utilize the majority of their funding for charitable programs and facilities. Why would you want to tax a charity?

Don't ask us to bow to it as well.

Nobody is. I just want the right to be able to practice my faith.

You are lucky the educated populace allows to to continue with your ignorant mysticism.

I have a bachelors from an AACSB-accredited business school, so I should assume you have at least an MBA from a similarly accredited institution? Perhaps a professional degree or even a doctorate?

If the church does not allow contraception for women then why does it allow viaga for single men or men who's wives are past child bearing. The argument against contraception is that sex is only for the creation of babies so a man who is not married or married to a woman past child bearing has no need for it.

Lady Cat

Link to quote

Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tells me that many Catholic-based health plans are now adding caveats that such drugs "should be prescribed for a medically identifiable problem to prevent wide abuse."

Vasectomies, on the other hand, are banned by Catholic-sponsored health insurance. "We have the same objection to male sterilization as to the female variety," Doerflinger says.

The Church opposes contraception. Viagra is not contraception.

The argument against contraception is that sex is only for the creation of babies

That's not the Church's teaching at all. Rather, if a couple is of child-bearing age, they should be open to the possibility of life when having sex. It also teaches that sex is to strengthen the marital bond.

man who is not married ... has no need for [sex]

You're absolutely right on that portion, an unmarried man should not be able to receive Viagra under a Catholic-sponsored health plan.

Zupercram.......So when the Polka Padre was having sex with little boys...that was strengthening the marriage.....bond.......How? When Father McDonald was tapping the blonde divorcee in "counseling" that was strengthening the marriage bond....How?

Zupercram....you also write.."Please cite one example of how birth control has saved just one life."

Are you kidding? Are you kidding? Mrs. Baker would have certainly killed me if she found out about Angie and me at the Fair Oaks Motel, etc when in High school. Mrs Baker hit her husband over the head with a metal folding chair for playing the wrong cards in a card game! Hell hath no fury as this woman. I am here today because we used birth control....! If I got Angie pregnant I would have been killed with out a doubt...............Jesus.....

starsailing

Mrs. Baker would have certainly killed me if she found out about Angie and me at the Fair Oaks Motel, etc when in High school

The Church also opposes extramarital sex, so to use the term du jour: epic fail.

The first paragraph of your post is ridiculous. The Church does not condone child molestation, extramarital sex, or priests forsaking their vows.

So transferring these priests to another state , another parrish...was...not condoning? I agree, ridiculous....why did they get away with it? Polka Padre was finally prosecuted.....years later on other cases. One hellofa accordian player though! Mom brought her accordian to church fest to play with him. He was not interested......then again, can't see how dad was interested in mom either!

Ladies and gents, may I present to you the Polka Padre! Playing a new tune near you...because he had counseling. Won't let me post so search Polka Padre.

starsailing - What issue are you debating now? OK, I'll bite--

You'll want to check your verb tenses and subjects--

Subject: I said "The Church," as in, the teachings of Catholicism. Consistently, it has taught that extramarital sex is evil and that child molestation would be an "aggravated" evil, to use a term from modern criminal law. The Catechism is widely available on the internet, if you care to read it. I did not say "bishops" or "church administrators." It's arguable that they condoned it. It's quite possible they were fearful of the situation and handled it the way most organizations did at the time: sweep in under the rug. (I do understand that is a de facto condoning of the situation, but I highly doubt that was the intent.)

Make sure to separate the acts of individuals in an organization from what that particular organization stands for. For example, a high ranking ACLU member could have gone to help with the genocide in Serbia. That wouldn't mean the ACLU supports genocide.

Verb tenses: I used the present tense. The Church has made sweeping reforms in response to the child abuse crisis. As it is, the Church does not (note present tense) condone child molestation. However, this is a moot point, due to the Church always having opposed such an evil act.

zupercram . So what gives? Are you some self appointed expert/moderator on this subject or just an annoyance.

Polka Padre was"counselled" and moved. What the "church" teaches and practices are two different stories. The "church" demands strict compliance of it rules/teachings by its followers while those who preach and enforce the rules break the teachings/rules and get away with it. If a person in a business , say childcare knows about child abuse by one of its members and does not report it because it would deface their business, I would dare say that business would be complicit in breaking the law. Punishable under the law. Allowing the "church" to mend itself so to speak without due process of law for the victim or society is not tolerable anymore. Hence the lawsuits. The church believes it is above the law of the land, but no one else can be above church law. The church story above shows the same behaviour on contraceptives, believing they are above federal laws even when it applies to them.

Mea culpa on the verbs and tenses. I may not be an English Major, but I can smell a fart a mile away with the best of them. Sweeping reforms eh? As in sweeping them under the rug. Read the catechism quite enough in school to know good from evil and learned to sing like a bird from the nuns...or else.

zupercram writes..."No, the Catholic Church has thrived for 2000 years without US Federal funding. (The vast majority of the Church is outside the US, anyways.)

So all that plunder from the crusades still keeping the church afloat huh?

Love those church laws...like not eating meat on fridays "My buddies happen to be fisherman down the bay there, company called Haliburton selling halibut, no conflict of interest there!

Women have to wear hats in church, Church just so happens to own the only hat shop in town, Haliburton hats for the holy, no conflict of interest there.

Zuper stop using lame straw man arguments. If you were not so busy trying to discredit what I said you would be able to form a solid comment I think. I am talking about what people want to buy legally. You can legally buy contraception if you want to and no one should be able to stop you from doing so; personal American freedom trumps Church, State, and Federal freedom as granted by the Constitution. We are supposed to be the stewards of this country we are supposed to be the power behind it. The first three words in the constitution grant us these powers: We the people.

The problem is we have delegated our freedom away to political officials that no longer have our best interests at heart or many that do not. Either way the church cannot restrict the right for someone to legally buy something it is a restriction of personal freedom.

Again...98% of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptives........that says the church is out of touch with reality.

Have to give the church credit, guitars are played during mass now. Can hardly wait for the church to progress to playing banjos in church......someday it will happen. Ave...Ave..Ave...Maria...take it away Tommy!

Before you slam others, check your facts. We were NOT founded as a Christian nation. The authors of the Constitution took great strides to ensure we are a secular nation, thus the whole concept of the separation of church and state. For further reading, look to the Treaty of Tripoli that clearly states that the United States is NOT a Christian nation.

starsailing

If a person in a business , say childcare knows about child abuse by one of its members and does not report it because it would deface their business, I would dare say that business would be complicit in breaking the law. Punishable under the law.

The Church has already paid out millions in settlements/judgments. So yes, what you propose has already happened.

Now, can we steer this conversation back to the topic at hand?

Geowil

I am talking about what people want to buy legally. You can legally buy contraception if you want to and no one should be able to stop you from doing so

For the millionth time: the Catholic Church is not attempting to outlaw contraception. You've demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic at hand.

If I'm an employee at a religious institution, let's say, a Janitor, and they HAVE to give me health insurance, they had better pay for my fking contraceptives if I want it. Otherwise, pay me as a contractor. I'll pay for my own dang health insurance.

These churches want to SUE the government and guess what, if they win, they're gonna get TAX PAYER MONEY! They don't pay taxes!!! Religious clergy get paid more than a person working 80k a year because they don't pay taxes!!!

IF THEY WANT A SAY IN OUR SOCIETY AND OUR POLITICS THEN MAKE THEM PAY TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No taxation, no representation. We will be blind to them and whatever the fk they want our laws to say.

Also, its ironic that they're involving themselves with the Law.... Why aren't they trying to use Scripture?

Geowil

Zuper stop using lame straw man arguments.

I think you're referring to my ACLU example. First, let's look at what a straw man argument is: it is replacing the argument (A) of an opponent with a similar, yet crucially different argument (B). The Quacked One's argument above infringes on the civil rights of women by refusing them life-saving care based upon their gender. However, the Catholic Church opposes contraception for both men and women (no discrimination). Also, contraception is not life-saving care. Those are some pretty glaring differences.

In my opinion, my ACLU argument parallels what has happened in The Church. Yes, it is a hypothetical, but the logic is sound.

@Dom: No Catholic has to use birth control. Nobody is forcing any Catholic person to use birth control. The Church is not being forced to preach in favor of birth control. The Church can tell all of it's members that they shouldn't use birth control, and there is no legal issue there at all. This is simply so that non-Catholics employed by Catholics aren't forced to forgo birth control because their insurance won't cover it.

kimposibl

they had better pay for my fking contraceptives if I want it

Why?

Religious clergy get paid more than a person working 80k a year because they don't pay taxes!!!

Utterly false. You think religious clergy don't pay taxes? Read this link. It's the organization that has tax-exempt status. Do you honestly think that Catholic clergy is paid 80K/yr??? Because that's how much you would need to earn to outearn someone else making that same amt (assuming they really don't pay taxes, which I've just disproven). How do you people explain your ignorance? We're all on the internet. Look something up before you type!

Geowil-

How in the world did you deduce that nonsense from what I wrote? I am simply stating that no one on here has the answer, and it will be decided by the courts. That's not really hard to understand. I did not make any conclusions about catholics using contraception, etc. Comprehension does not appear to be your strong suit my friend, and calling people names at the end of your post is a great way to get your point across. Makes you look so intelligent!

zupercram,

Why? because it is well within my legal right to receive contraception at a subsidized cost because I am an employee of an institution that provides me with health insurance benefits through a health insurance company regulated by the laws of the United States of America.

Secondly, after taxes, a person making 80K a year only brings home about 40k after taxes, state and fed (assuming single, HoH, no dependants, no house, etc. just your avg single person) I know a pastor who brings in just a little over 40K a year who doesn't pay taxes. So no, you're wrong. You think that what a person makes on paper is what they take home. YOU are the ignorant person, my friend.

kimposibl

because it is well within my legal right to receive contraception at a subsidized cost

They must have skipped over that part of the Bill of Rights in my HS gov't and university poli-sci courses. OR... you just made that up.

Secondly, after taxes, a person making 80K a year only brings home about 40k after taxes, state and fed

Wrong again. Click this link and go to page 83. These are the IRS tax tables. For someone making 80K, the maximum possible tax is 16,442. For a single filer, 16,131, and for HoH, it's 14,774. And no state has a roughly 30% tax rate to net 50% take home.

I know a pastor who brings in just a little over 40K a year who doesn't pay taxes.

I've already cited the tax code that states that clergy have to pay taxes. If that's the case, this individual is a tax evader. Feel free to report him. Regardless, I've caught you in three lies. Why should I believe you now?

Read carefully: I work in finance and see people's tax returns everyday. Lying to me about tax code is a bad idea.

You are so right !! zupercram!!

That's why Walker is being recalled!!!

i guess the goverment should have just allowed all those altar boys to be molested. freedom of religion catholic style.

Yeah I won't vote for Romney the dictator.

If Catholic can do this, does that mean Muslim can treat their women as slaves in US as well?

I smell Double Standard here, Catholic condemn others religions and yet they want exempt from it.

eric 913730 -- yeah you probably voted obama in in 2008..kinda short sighted feommy point of view. Romney is definately the better choice.

That's why Walker will win the recall. Check out his poll numbers idiot. he will squash the dems and this will tell all the union backed zealots that a new time is upon us and Unions are a thing of the past. Perhaps if Unions weren;t so designed to protect the worst workers people would have more compassion but Unions are no longer the protectors of the working class, more like the raiders of the countries coffers. America can no longer afford unions if we are to battle on the global stage. We need to get leaner and unions are all about living fat, off someone else's hard earned dollar.

@msj765

I have yet to see anything come out of Rommey. What was his plan? Nothing, just general outline.

Don't forget his line along with 2 others "God told me to do it".

Cuong,

But I bet you voted for Obama just because of his "Hope and Change" right? What was his plan? Whatever it was...epic fail

elliot-3020456 said

Not everyone wants a dictator in chief.

That's right, not everyone wants to be told when they can join a Labor Union, or even whether they can marry someone they happen to love.

watt75, I bet YOU voted for the Bush clone, McCain/Palin, who would have only continued the failed policies of George W. Bush. Eight years of FAILED Republican policies which led directly to massive unemployment and TWO wars. Talk about an epic fail.

Those who sit back and do nothing to help make things better are every bit as guilty as those who actively work to make things worse. Did YOU just sit back and watch, watt75?

I guess the church would rather preach "abstinence" than do something about it, aka contraceptives. Its ok, they reject all science and act as if we're still in the Stone Age. I know of huge Catholic families that don't believe in contraceptives and have 6+ kids whom they cannot sustain. Then conservatives want to cut spending on safety net programs.... Can anybody say WTF??

Next, the church will be telling their employees who to vote for.

Is there a "Separation of STATE and WAL-MART"? Get real. When that happens your argument will hold. Untill then you know what? Don't you.

That's right, Job 1. It's about time and it won't be Obama!! This situation should teach the Catholic Bishops the facts of political life. They support ObamaCare and now they are being doublecrossed and, by Catholics, no less -- Biden, Sebelious, Pelosi, to name a few. This has the potential of getting real ugly, real fast. It's lovely to watch, but in the end the Obama Administration will find away out of this, or the courts will. Every nonprofit run by a religious organization has the right to discriminate. It's not like any other business, as some posters seem to believe. Read the rules, folks!!

Get ugly you're way behind. Some b--tch in re Huffington Post says my 3rd generation citizenship should be revoked and I and every other Catholic should be deported. I unsubscribed from that online rag and it took more than 3 days before the hate mail stopped coming to my e-mail box.

Every nonprofit run by a religious organization has the right to discriminate. It's not like any other business, as some posters seem to believe. Read the rules, folks!!

False, there is no blanket exception for religious non-profits. Rather the "ministerial exception" applies to employees of a religious organization who are in a "leadership" or "religious teaching" role.

In the landmake case on this subject Justice Alito noted that the ministerial exception should be applied to “who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”

Run of the mill, non-religious people (like a nurse, doctor or janitor) would not be exempted from anti-discrimination laws.

Job1 they are sheeple!

Next, the church will be telling their employees who to vote for.

The Mormon church already does this, and since they have become a political congregation, must have their tax exempt status removed.

My faith requires me to use natural healing, does this mean I no longer need to pay health insurance for the workers?

Muslim doesn't see women on the same stand, does that mean they don't need to pay women as well?

you dont have to provide health insurance for workers as it is today.

Rule #1) Pay the womenz

Yes you are correct. Government by religion is an unpleasant thought. As a catholic school graduate, I have had plenty of disgust with the hypocritical view of my fellow Catholics...

RevDevPS, that's a load of baloney. I'm LDS and no one's told me a darn thing about who to vote for. If you knew anything about the "Mormon church" you might've heard they're big on something they call "agency" which, in a nutshell, translates as "personal freedom" and "responsibility for one's own actions." Anyone voting for (or against) Romney based solely on religious affiliation is an ignorant fool.

The Catholic Church must be afraid that their *good Catholic* employees might just use contraceptive health care if it were coverd in the medical plan.

I have relatives who are *good catholics* and they had their 16 year old daughter on that norplant birth control implant rod thing....back when that stuff was still considered safe. Didn't want the 16 year old getting pregnant by her 22 year old high school drop out ex-convict of a boyfriend.

Tony - if the Mormon Church doesn't spend resources and/or time pushing political causes/candidates, how is it they were fined for failing to report financial activity doing just that.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/mormon-church-to-be-fined-by-state-political-commission-over-proposition-8.html

And more from this site:

"When we accused them of contributing more money [than was reported], they stated publicly that our claims were false, but that turned out to be a lie - one of many," said Karger, who was in Sacramento attending the FPPC meeting to make sure the fine was assessed. "It's unbelievable, their arrogance, blatantly violating California election laws and lying repeatedly about their involvement in prop 8. http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/mormons-found-guilty-13-counts-prop-8-malfeasance-fined-fppc

Shall we also talk about the fliers/petitions to members urging them to also contribute to this cause?

Honor all church laws huh? Every religion, not just Catholics then. Getting stoned will have that old time meaning then, genital mutilation, sacraficing children on an alter....where does it end?

RedDevPS

Ah, but you were saying that the Mormon church tells their employees who to vote for; your original statement said nothing about it pushing causes -- that's an entirely different argument -- but suffice it to say that your original statement was and still is baloney, and I'll address your secondary issue regarding the Mormon church "pushing causes" for you as well:

I read your 2 year-old article and do not dispute the fact that the Mormon church stuck its nose where it didn't belong -- or at least it did so via a sanctioned arm that was not part of the church proper. If it had been the church proper, your point above about revoking its tax-exempt status would absolutely apply. It's splitting hairs -- I readily grant you that because I'm not one to defend a mistake (more about that below) -- but the Mormon church did nothing illegal. The only lawbreaking that occured, as the article pointed out, was a failure to disclose on time some of the expenditures made toward the tail-end of the whole Prop 8 campaign -- a whopping $37K, which was a drop in the proverbial bucket from what little I know about it -- and simply an administrative oversight... hardly a grand conspiracy. The article also hinted heavily that there was more dirt to come. Given that there were no other articles in the 2 years since then -- and I looked all over that site for one -- I'm guessing there wasn't any more dirt to be had, let alone enough to turn this molehill into the mountain it was made out to be. As for the church itself, a number of its members spoke out about their views (mostly pro), and some pushed their fellow members to vote "Yes" on Prop 8 -- some went so far as to produce signs and post them in their yards and the yards of anyone who'd allow them to post them there -- but that was it. No marching orders. No conspiracy. Nada.

That said, and speaking strictly personally, I and many of my LDS friends strongly disagreed with the church getting involved in Prop 8. We voted "No" on it, too, much to the consternation of some of our peers, a few of which even spoke amongst themselves that we will surely go to hell for doing so. Tough cookies; it's my agency and I'll use it how I wish.

Again, just to clarify: the bottom line is the Mormon church doesn't tell its members who to vote for, nor does it directly fund political agendas. To suppose that it or any other religious organization has no impact whatsoever or does not function legally within the political process somehow through "ordinary" (i.e. non-church) entities -- or to expect it to -- is naive.

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES! Insurance pays for VIAGRA you sexist PIGS! What about the thousand of lives that have been because the catholic church chose to lie and bury their head in the sand. HOW DARE THEY TRY AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT FOR A WOMAN TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE HER BODY!

John Doing:

That roar you hear is the point...going way over your head.

Religious institutions also function as secular employers. If churches want to avoid these dilemmas, they should ONLY hire people who agree with the beliefs espoused.

@ForePlinger

The Church isn't telling the employees to follow their religion. It is just saying that these Catholic organizations don't want to provide something that is against its teachings. It would be one thing if they were denying it to everyone, and you couldn't get contraceptives any way else. This is a place where buisness and religion overlap. It isn't saying the workers can't have contraceptives. The Church is just saying they won't provide it.

The Catholic Church is making a political vailed threat.

nomoresameo... that is the most sensible thing I have ever heard from you.

BRAVO!

All I will say is this, the Church needs to start paying taxes NOW!

Enough with this sham they've run for years...

If I start a church run business and I say paying my employees is against my beliefs would that be ok? Or that I don't believe in a safe working environment, would that be fine?

I would also agree with Churches having to pay taxes Feisty. Churches have been enjoying the benefits of not paying taxes far too long. Let each and every church pay property and gift taxes (on all donations paid by the parishioners).

Beisty.

Would that be all the Denominations or just the Catholic one? There are plenty of Nominations that benefit from taxes. Muslims for one and lets not forget the rev Wright.

I would go for that if we all payed taxes including the 99%.

nomoresameo - Your first post in on target. I say if you want religion out of government, then get government out of religion. As far as taxing the church? Why would they no longer be considered non-profit? What about other non-profits? Pick on the church then you better pick on ALL non-profit organizations. Abuse is rampant in that department. If donations to a church are taxable, then all donations ought to be taxable. (and I don't advocate that at all)

To those of you on here who believe the Catholic Church should be forced to provide access to something it has long held to be inconsistent with its beliefs, be careful what you wish for... someday the government will get to something like this and it WILL be something you care about. And for those of you who think religious organizations should pay taxes... problem with that is the same as the problem with this very issue: the government will take that money and do things that are contrary to the beliefs of that religion. Read the bill of rights, folks. It doesn't say what you are saying it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In this case, the president IS trying to make a law that will prohibit the free exercise of a religious group. You don't like the way they think? Don't be one. You don't like the rules of the work place they espouse? Don't work there. EVERY workplace in one way or another limits individual rights, from our use of the internet to what we can wear to how we are expected to act. If you don't like the limitations, get a different job. Otherwise, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Churches have been enjoying the benefits of not paying taxes far too long

Hi Brian,

It was only a couple of weeks ago, a Catholic Bishop in Peoria, IL was comparing President Obama to Hitler from the alter one fine Sunday!

Hope they have at least hidden the alter boys!

Hi Feisty,

You have once again made some astute and enlightening comments.

I find it nauseating everytime I hear about another priest or other member of the Catholic church that has abused some young man.

I hadn't heard about the Bishop's comments you mentioned, but no one in any church has the right to compare our president to Hitler in my opinion. Obviously this is not a truthful statement in any way. Furthermore, if the church wants separation from state, make it a complete separation in all manner. If anyone fails to adhere to that principal, they should be removed by the church as expeditiously as humanly possible.

Satanick and who besides yourself would be working for you under those conditions. Certainly not me. Your arguement proves my point. If you don't give people the package they want they go elsewhere. That is why non-union plants in right to work states read the union contract and match it. They are much smarter than you are.

I hadn't heard about the Bishop's comments you mentioned

I was trying to post the link when I made the comment (gremlins are living high off the hog here @ FR these days) anyway;

Last Saturday, Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky delivered a homily in which he claimed that President Obama “now seems intent on following a similar path” to Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Yesterday, Jenky attempted to walk back some of this claim:

“Based upon the current government’s threatened infringement upon the Church’s religious exercise of its ministry, Bishop Jenky offered historical context and comparisons as a means to prevent a repetition of historical attacks upon the Catholic Church and other religions,” said Patricia Gibson, chancellor of the Peoria Diocese.

“Bishop Jenky gave several examples of times in history in which religious groups were persecuted because of what they believed,” Gibson said. “We certainly have not reached the same level of persecution. However, history teaches us to be cautious once we start down the path of limiting religious liberty.”

Needless to say, Jenky’s initial suggestion that Obama in any way resembles two of the greatest mass murders in human history has not sat well with Jewish groups. Earlier this week, Chicago’s Anti-Defamation League demanded an apology from Jenky, noting that “there are few, if any, parallels in history to the religious intolerance and anti-Semitism fostered in society by Stalin, and especially Hitler, who under his regime perpetuated the open persecution and ultimate genocide of Jews, Catholics and many other minorities

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/issue/

Separation of church and state would be nice, very nice. Problem is, those damn republicans KEEP bringing church into state and voting for various limiting laws/bills that are obviously religion related... Time after time after time.

nomoresameo----we're liberals--it is ok to have a difference of opinion.

I would point out that the separation of church & state has been a difficult concept throughout our history. The Obama administration is in my view saying to religious organizations---IF you are going to accept government dollars (through Medicare funds or education grants) then you have to play by our rules. The religious organizations are free to not accpet that funding. Seems to me they want to have it both ways.

I fail to see the logic in the argument that allowing employees to CHOOSE whether they want contraceptive coverage as part of the health care insurance they at least partially pay for is "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

If they accept public funds (my tax money) in the form of Medicare repayments or Federal Student Loans then how can they possibly claim to be exempt from Federal Law?

Feisty,

So the Bishop was making a pro Obama sermon to his satanic worshiping congregation. What is wrong with that FR. He wasn't out there telling them to vote for Romney, he was pumping them up on the benefits of Obama. Just because you don't like the truth about him to be used to help him get votes doesn't mean his admirers shouldn't.

So you're cool with the Federal government telling the Catholic church what to do, but not cool with what the Bishop said? I would bet that the Bishop would never said those comments if Obama didn't try to tell the church what to do.

For paying taxes, yes have the church pay taxes and also those 47-49% that don't pay too. Biden says, it's unpatriotic not to pay your taxes. Pay something, the free ride train needs to stop!!

Feisty, thanks for posting the article regarding the statements made by Bishop Jenky. Very enlightening to say the least. Comments such as those made by Jenky have no place in a church or for that matter, any public gathering. The initial remarks were defamatory to say the least. The fact that the comment was very far from the truth makes it even more disgusting.

I would point out that the separation of church & state has been a difficult concept throughout our history. The Obama administration is in my view saying to religious organizations---IF you are going to accept government dollars (through Medicare funds or education grants) then you have to play by our rules. The religious organizations are free to not accpet that funding. Seems to me they want to have it both ways.

You are mistaken - it has NOTHING to do with accepting Medicare dollars. Below is a statement issued from HHS:

News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 20, 2012

Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343

A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.

Nowhere in the statement is there ANYTHING about Medicare dollars - it's all about insurance policies. Remember, ObamaCare does NOT require employers to provide insurance at all; hence the decision by some organizations to completely drop employee health insurance. You can expect more Catholic-affiliated orgs to do so IF Obama doesn't back off of this - and then Obama will get hammered by all the 1st amendment lawsuits (serves him right, IMO).

TBourlon: thanks for posting this...hopefully, a lot more people will take some time to really understand the issues involved in this....the implications of this are a lot larger and scarier than most people can evidently conceive of...another huge threat to our freedoms.

This means all insured will take the brunt of the cost for women on this. We all know that any coverage is passed on to the insured....always.

I do not want the government telling healthcare what they will cover. What is next that the gov't mandates that we must have? It sets precedence that is scary given the size of gov't now...IMO

TBourlon -

Except for the fact that if the employer does not provide insurance then they are fined under Obamacare. It's a catch-22 for the churches.

The Church does, in fact recognize that not all Catholics follow the teachings on a great number of things. However, the Church is not a democracy which molds itself to the whim of the people. The Church is the promulgator of God's truth whether everyone or no one likes it. They cannot contravene the Word of God no matter how many Catholics fail to follow, no matter how many priest fall into sin, no matter what America votes, The Catholic Church MUST abide in faith. I encourage all Catholics who exercise lukewarm faith to evaluate your faith and rededicate yourself to a true Catholic life.

Well said, Bill... Well said!

"I encourage all Catholics who exercise lukewarm faith to evaluate your faith and rededicate yourself to a true Catholic life."

Many of us, who were raised Catholics, abandoned the religion because were couldn't tolerate the hypocrisy they were promoting.

Bill..perhaps you could enlighten me as to where in the Bible contraception is mentioned.

Ace first rule in dealing with the Catholic church it is NOT a democracy. It doesn't vote on matters of faith and morals. That comes from the guy with the white beanie in Rome. When it makes a rule it doesn't change it because it is unpopular. They ruled against divorce 500 years ago and the whole English church left. The rule still stands today. Second major rule check your American ego at the door. American Catholics are about 1% of the worldwide membership of the Catholic church. I doubt they would notice if we left.

I am so grateful that i left the "church" at such an early age, but even so - I stayed friends with the pastor there, and he lent me some very old books about the knights of the round table. Did you know most of the rules from the Code of Chilvalry have nothing to do with combat?

It took said church 400 years to ease up on Galileo because he supposedly contradicted the Bible by saying and scientifically demonstrating that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe that it (gasp!) revolves around the sun. At the time the church members did not ask questions, because they had God on their side. Lot of that going around today.

@Mugtech

It also took the church 1500 years to finally admit a simple fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Let's also not forget about the Earth being flat...

Ace Diamond: like many people posting here, you have totally missed the point of why these entities are challenging this Obama inspired ruling.

@Minan

Pardon me for saying this, but doesn't that seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You don't like the people, so you abandon the faith all together.

@Terry

I don't know about you, but I don't think contraceptives were widely used in Jesus' time. If it was not an issue, there would be no reason to speak of it. However, God say that He knew us and planned us long before we even conceived. Once that process is initiated, who are we to choose to stop it. We may have the power, but I don't think we have the authority.

@MUGTECH and Cuong

The Church is a human instituation that makes human mistakes. Expecting perfection is insanity. Not saying it was right, but dwelling on those problems doesn't fix anything now.

Sorry for my rant, I needed to get it out. Best wishes.

Excellent point, Marv.

Inane point marv. What would you have, that the Church abandon it's hospitals and universities? Who would provide the endless hours of volunteer work? Who would provide the lifetime of dedication to education and care for the sick that so many thousands of religious do? YOU? Would you do it on a for profit basis subject to the America tax code and the mandates of a liberal government? If the answer is yes, then by all means, start you a hospital. Go ahead big boy.

Could you imagine the cost of hospital care then?!?

Bill Deacon,

I would think you should ask your guy Gov Scott in Florida if it is acceptable for publicly/privately owned hospitals have to pay taxes while "Catholic" hospitals have no taxes and are exempt from many other laws. These hospitals have to follow the laws of many states that make it mandatory for certain health care coverage to be offered but your feelings are that Catholic hospitals are more equal. Also, as for the abandonment of it's hospitals and universities one only has to look at the Catholic schools in Chicago, and at the number of hospitals that have been closed around the country by various Catholic orders when they were not making the money that the Church desired. Had nothing to do with a dedication to education and care for the sick. It all came down to DOLLARS. So while I do understand your single vision that the Church can do no wrong and that all Americans should pay the price to let the Church do only what it wants I for one disagree. Also, I have been a practicing Catholic all my life and this move by the Church in becoming a part of the Republicon party is quite disheartening.

Yes, it is about dollars. How can you give the church money knowing that $2 billion has been spent on defending and paying settlements to cover the sexual abuse? How about the fact that priests cannot marry because 900 years ago married priests were costing the church property and other riches?

You're delusional.

job 1,,oh dribble, what a false hood.

Job1 - There is no "war on women". What you simply have are different groups of people with different views. One group does not believe in contraception; one group does. Neither group is right and neither is wrong. They believe what they believe. Same with abortion. It's not about having control over a woman's body. Some believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Others believe that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy at will. If one believes abortion is murder then there is no way to reconcile that to a woman's "right to choose". These types of issues generate a lot of emotion and fierce support whichever side you stand on. But the constant need to frame these things as a "war on women" and such is nonsense. It's typical liberal-based fear-mongering.

Sorry WUA, but there has been an overwhelming roll-back of women's rights in the last year and a half. The Teabaggers took over and have been attacking women from DAY ONE. That's a War on Women if I've ever seen one.

A "war on women" is one way to describe biblical teachings, actually.

Calm down Toasty. Neither contraception nor abortion is anything new, so I assume you are referring to some other "attacks". I'm certainly willing to hear the specific examples of this War if you care to share them.

They've tried to redefine rape. They've made it legal for a doctor to lie to female patients. They've cut child care and food stamps for low-income women. They've been slashing away pre-school funding. They've been issuing unconstitutional bills of attainder to defund womens' health clinics. They've been passing laws forcing doctors to molest teenage girls with ultrasound probes. They've been attacking and threatening to filibuster the Violence Against Women Act. How many more examples do you need? Personally, I think that's enough for my point.

How and where has rape been redefined; by whom, and what are the specific statutes that do so? Ditto for your other assertions. I'm not saying they are not true, I just want to see the specifics. I have a daughter and I want to know if she is going to be forcibly molested with a probe by her doctor because, according to your claims, there is a law requiring doctors to do so. Frankly that seems a little far out to me.

Redefining rape.

Lying to female patients.

The budget cuts I think are pretty self-explanatory, and frankly far too numerous to post without boring you to death.

The dismantling of the Violence Against Women Act.

And finally, the infamous Mandatory Vaginal Probe. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't heard of it yet.

Got it Toasty. There are, in deed, some questionable issues there. However, I see that these are fairly narrowly defined, and I would characterize them as attacks on abortion, not attacks on women. I understand that's a fine line and many probably do not even acknowledge a line. I would argue that there is inded a war on abortion. I think those that stand firmly against abortion will do all they can to limit abortions because they feel so strongly. Likewise, pro-abortionists will do all they can to protect the ability of a woman to have an abortion. It's a tough issue. But let's stick with the issue and not create some conspiracy theory that there is a movement out there against women.

Taken individually, they probably wouldn't be. But taken on the whole, especially considering the massive influx of so many of these attacks, it's pretty hard to not see a War on Women being waged. And it certainly isn't a conspiracy. There doesn't appear have to been a central plan to any of this. This is just what happens when you elect extremist religious conservatives into office.

WakeUp it does become a"war on Women/Men/Contraception" when you try to force someone that does not share your view point to follow your point of view. Not all Catholics or Christians do not use contraception, and they are a good portion out of both religions. Religion is not an entity in and of itself, it only exists because of its followers. If everyone abandoned Christianity tomorrow do you think the Vatican would matter anymore? The answer is no.

The followers make the religion and by extension make the seat of the religion. If the followers want a variable system whereby if you want to use contraception if you want to the religion will either evolve on this point or it will lose it's free thinking followers.

God game people free will, if you believe that God created us which these religions do, to make our own choices regardless of the consequences. The Churches are now saying that even if you want contraceptives we are not going to provide them to you and we are going to teach you forcefully that you should be against using them either through peer pressure or harassment. The Churches are on the wrong side of this argument.

This is not even counting that they are breaking commerce laws for equal opportunities when they deny healthcare coverage to their employees based on the Churches personal beliefs even though their employees may not subscribe to that belief. They are restricting the right of a person to obtain medical services that they want to because they themselves view said medical services as wrong. It does not matter what the church thinks, if even one of their employees is seeking contraception they must cover it, if only for that one employee, in their medical coverage.

When religious institutions stray into the realm of business management they have to play by a different set of rules, they are not exempt just because they are a religious institution and even if they somehow manage to become exempt they will start losing employees because they will feel discriminated against.

And when you elect extremist liberals into office you get a society where unplanned pregnancies increase and the government ends up funding abortions or welfare for the moms/parents that can't take care of their children.

I am more concerned about the War on Hardworkers - you might might recognize that as welfare, tax increases, excessive debt spending and non-social security/medicare "entitlement" spending.

toaster complete bullsh*t as usual from you. The only war on women is in your head.

Justreddy64,

Republicans Murkowski, Snow and Collins disagree with you.

And yet you couldn't disprove a single thing I said, Redd. Why don't you go play with your toys while the grown-ups talk?

This goes both ways..

If you want the Church out of Gvmnt ( which I agree it should be ) then the Gvmnt should stay out of the business of the Church. Forcing the Church to go against their tennants is wrong.

Obams compromise is not a compromise. The Insurance company the Church uses has to supply everything mandated. Who do you think is going to pay for it? The insurance companies?? hell no they are going to pass the costs onto the Church. SO the Church is still paying for it.

Ignore the social justice issues??? Why do you think they're opening hospitals in the first place??? All they're asking is to not have to pay, either directly or through insurance premiums, for contraceptive devices when those devices go against their faith.

So you want them to have no standing but you would have them pay taxes? Sounds socialist to me

If a church is running a business then it should have to follow the same rules as all other businesses (or even non-profits). Personally I think they should pay taxes and offer insurance that includes contraceptives.

Best think through the idea of churches paying taxes... you open yourself up to a TON of things you aren't thinking about. What about getting tax money for religious based educational institutions? It's no secret in this country that Catholic schools provide an education that is light years beyond that given in public schools. But parents who want to send their kids there do so by paying over and above the taxes they already pay. Public schools in that district get to keep the money that was paid in taxes by those parents, even though their kids aren't in that school. So, if the church has to pay taxes, won't they have a real right to ask that the money that public schools get (and now keep) since they are now a tax paying institution like everything else? I bet most of you folks who are advocating that the churh pay taxes would also be totally against church based schools getting any money from public schools...

Bill, sounds like you want them to have standing and pay no taxes. Sounds Feudalist to me.

Steve you are totally wrong, I have no issues with vouchers and other methods of private schools getting funded through taxes for education. If you look at most school districts 70 percent of the people that pay property taxes do not have children in the schools.

Steve,

I disagree with your assessment that Catholic school education is light years ahead of public schools. Simply not true and very dependent on which schools you are talking about.

@blearyeyed

It does depend but in general, they are better. They often teach more rigourous curriculums. They average higher ACT and SAT scores. If the budget falls, they aren't affected.

As I said, this doesn't apply to every Catholic School, but as a whole, it does.

Oh please. Christian Scientists have to cover blood transfusions. Get over it.

No, he's just forcing them to obey labor laws.

@terriels

As far as I know, only Jehovah's Witness has issues with blood transfusions.

@Toasty

Labor laws is rather broad. As a whole, they are a good thing, but this part of the labor laws puts Catholic institutions in the position of doing something against its religious beliefs and foundations.

So if these universities and hospitals decided they could break the law and stop paying their employees in the name of "religious liberty?"