I
ishii
Guest
Sorry to hear that. Do you think the federal govt. needs to force private organizations to include contraception coverage? Should people buy their own contraceptives or should the taxpayer provide them?
Ishii
- Status
Ishii
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The government must respect the conscience of religious institutions, such as Catholic Universities and such.
That being said, not all contraception and sterilization procedures are done for preventing conception of children.
Often, these things are used for medical necessisty of the woman’s health, which I believe is why Carole Keehen of the CHA, accepted the compromise of the administration.
The nuns are women after all, and probably have been prescribed birth control pills for medical thearputic reasons. I wonder if the Bishops understand this?
Jim
B
bellasbane
Guest
Your choice is a false one.
Most 501(c)3 organizations do not have a religious mission and should therefore be required to comply with the HHS mandate. If they don’t - they should be fined.
Religious institutions or charities are different. Their mission is an extension of their faith - that is why Obama compromised by allowing them an exemption.
The HHS mandate does not require any employer to provide their employees with birth control. It only requires that they provide ACCESS to birth control - leaving it up to the individual employee to decide for herself whether she wants to use it or not.
Nobody’s conscience is being threatened.
I
ishii
Guest
So since some contraceptives are occasionally prescribed for legitimate health reasons then religiouis institutions should be forced to provide them for all reasons? It seems to me that it would be pretty easy to have insurance that recognizes the occasional need for medically necessary contraception while not providing contraception in all situations for all people. I also take issue with your implication that the bishops, being men, do not understand the simple issue of medically necessary contraception but liberal nuns, being women, are somehow the authority on the issue.
Ishii
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
I
ishii
Guest
But doesn’t that “exemption” require the insurance provider to give “free” contraception to those who want it? And since nothing is free, won’t the insurance providers just charge the religious institutions more for other services - as others have pointed out? So the religious institutions are still paying for contraceptives for their employees, just indirectly. Why should anyone have to pay for someone else’s contraceptives at all?
I disagree that the govt. should be able to force religious organizations to provide acess or fund contraception, but let’s take this a step further - if the issue was abortion, would you say the same thing - that its okay because HHS doesn’t require the employee to provide their employees with abortion, just access to abortion? And would you be in favor of forcing Catholic organizations to provide access to abortions, for instance? If Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama administration required access to abortions - “for the common good” - (which is not a stretch given the pro-abortion nature of Sebelius and Obama) would you still support them?
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Oh, I understood the first part okay, but then you implied that you support the compromise offered by Obama on the issue-which is really just trickery since all it does is make catholic organizations pay for contraceptions in a roundabout way by encouraging the provider to increase charges for other services. Are you for the HHS mandate (including the “compromise”) or not?
Ishii
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Where were all the pro-life Democrats in this?
P
ProVobis
Guest
You mean the “bluedog” Democrats?Where were all the pro-life Democrats in this?
They were all voted out last election, remember?
I
ishii
Guest
I
ishii
Guest
And replaced by Republicans who won’t bow under political pressure from Obama to support abortion.
Ishii
L
L_piperatus
Guest
And where was Republican Senator Olympia Snowe on this?
Oh, she just announced she is not running for re-election!
The roll-over Blue Dog Democrats and RINOs are feeling the wrath of the people! We the People are cleaning house and throwing them out!
Oh, she just announced she is not running for re-election!
The roll-over Blue Dog Democrats and RINOs are feeling the wrath of the people! We the People are cleaning house and throwing them out!
B
bellasbane
Guest
Because like blood transfusions, most people believe contraception is part of women’s health care. There is no objective criteria for saying its not.
Your hypothetical doomsday scenario is totally unrealistic.
Abortion is highly controversial - contraception is not. Most people outside the Catholic Church (and quite a few within it) believe that contraception is a good thing. Many who oppose abortion believe increasing access to contraception will substantially decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies - which in turn will reduce the number of abortions.
Obama is not running for “dictator for life” - but for a four year presidential term. If he proves false, then there will be a backlash in 2016. That’s how the system works. Personally, I find him much less frightening than a GOP administration given how far to the right the party has gone.
I see what is happening in states like Virginia, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin, where the GOP is attacking union rights, women’s rights, and voter’s rights. That is not some “hypothetical doomsday scenario” but real policies that are having a real impact on real people. No way am I going to vote for that on a federal level.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
They’re not women who work in the health field and understand need for birth control pills and tubal ligations, for medical reasons.
Also, I believe the Bishops have an issue with not being able to self-insure, because the requirements, outside of contraception, will force the institutions to use private insurers for their employees, which they don’t want to do.
Also, I believe this is pay back for Obama not keeping his promiss to Archbishop Dolan.
In all, it makes no sense to continue the opposition to this part of the health care bill.
Jim
B
bellasbane
Guest
You are making a whole lot of sense.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Birth control pills are $9 for a month’s supply at Walmart, Target and Kroger, $8 for 90 days supply. In some states Target sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for $4. If somebody needs birth control pills for health reasons or otherwise I am sure they can afford them at those prices.
If somebody can not afford that and wants birth control pills in their insurance coverage that should be a discussion between the employer and the employee but there should be no federal mandate that issues contraception must be included and paid for by the employer who may have moral objections.
J
JimG
Guest
The HHS has given Catholic organizations the choice of betraying their Catholicism–i.e., ceasing to be Catholic–or incurring heavy fines, or going out of business.
So much for the free exercise of religion.
What’s next–“you have freedom of speech, but here are the things that you are mandated to say.”?
So much for the free exercise of religion.
What’s next–“you have freedom of speech, but here are the things that you are mandated to say.”?
B
bellasbane
Guest
Catholic hospitals and charities are exempt from the HHS mandate under the compromise provided by President Obama.
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Yeah, that’s exactly how communist dictatorships work. In Ceausescu’s Romania, there were “elections” every 5 years, with the caveat that there was one (1) single presidential candidate on the ballot - Nicolae Ceausescu! :bigyikes:
Somehow the Romanian people always managed to re-elect Ceausescu with a unanimous decision - can you imagine it?
So, now, President Obama gives us free choice - we can choose from among several insurance packages, but all of them, somehow, include mandatory coverage of chemical abortion and contraception!
What a farce!
- Status