PDA

View Full Version : Looks like Obama blinks first in the fight with the Catholic church.



cleller
2/10/2012, 09:31 AM
Accomodation:

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-announce-accommodation-religious-organizations-contraception-rule-120516299--abc-news.html


Since so many felt the Catholic church was dead wrong, and dangerous in its disregard for the welfare of the people; does this mean Obama is turning his back on what he thinks is best for the masses, or just shrinks from a fight?

Curly Bill
2/10/2012, 09:35 AM
The Muslims finally won out in the Crusades. Maybe Obama felt like he could let the Christians have this one?

badger
2/10/2012, 10:23 AM
This could have been any church on any issue that defied the church's beliefs. The main problem was the government meddling in church affairs that would have forced the church to do something contrary to its belief system.

It could have been forcing Islamic employers to have a less strict dress code for female employees. It could have been forcing Jehovah's Witness insurance companies to fund blood transfusions in what a random doctor deemed a life saving procedure. It could have been Mormon universities disallowed from enforcing an honor code on its students.

It could have been any religion here. I saw it as more of a fight against religious freedom from government intervention than an issue of contraception.

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 10:49 AM
Why hasn't there been this outcry in the 28 states which already mandate religious institutions to offer contraception coverage for their employees?

It seems to me like a nontroversy.

But President Obama once again offers a reasonable solution to mollify the religious zealots.

Now I fully expect them to keep pushing to remove this rule from the 28 states that mandate it already. If you no longer hear the Catholic bishops screaming about the government meddling in their religious freedom, then you know it was nothing but theater.

virginiasooner
2/10/2012, 10:59 AM
The bishops need to sit down and SHUT UP. Right now, they are the LAST PEOPLE ON EARTH I'd listen to when it comes to morality. I believe it was former Governor Frank Keating (who was hired by the RCC to help them investigate their child abuse problem) who said if that group wasn't the RCC, they'd be prosecuted under RICO as a continuing criminal organization. I hope President Obama can finesse this.

Once again President Obama is playing three-dimensional chess by tricking the Republicans to come out AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL. Now that is truly loony.

sappstuf
2/10/2012, 11:01 AM
Why hasn't there been this outcry in the 28 states which already mandate religious institutions to offer contraception coverage for their employees?

It seems to me like a nontroversy.

But President Obama once again offers a reasonable solution to mollify the religious zealots.

Now I fully expect them to keep pushing to remove this rule from the 28 states that mandate it already. If you no longer hear the Catholic bishops screaming about the government meddling in their religious freedom, then you know it was nothing but theater.

Good grief. Even Chris Matthews knows you and the White House talking points are wrong on this..

d59UTGDZ6qI&

KantoSooner
2/10/2012, 11:41 AM
The Muslims finally won out in the Crusades. Maybe Obama felt like he could let the Christians have this one?

Not sure I'd agree with you. The Muslims finally retook the levant and Jerusalem. The Christians shoved them out of Europe, period (they had held the Iberian peninsula and had invaded France, twice; and held the Balkans up to Austria.) Islam was never again a serious influence in Europe until the past decade. Christians should take heart, on the whole, their record against muslims is that of a prime winning team!

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 11:43 AM
Okay... so outrage when the administration does something you didn't like. Now, when he backs off and does something you'd agree with, instead of lauding the fact that he's being reasonable and listening to his credits, you're basically calling him a weakling. Gotta love political zealots.

47straight
2/10/2012, 11:51 AM
The bishops need to sit down and SHUT UP.

No.

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 11:51 AM
Good grief. Even Chris Matthews knows you and the White House talking points are wrong on this..

d59UTGDZ6qI&

Well, not quite.

Here's a Catholic source on the matter...

http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/02/six-things-everyone-should-know-about.html


HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own. That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon). Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law.

So they concede that 28 states mandate equality of prescription coverage to include contraceptives, however, those states do offer the ability to simply not offer a prescription drug card or self insuring the drug coverage. But that technicality doesn't mean that 28 states don't already mandate contraception coverage with no exclusion for religiously affiliated institutions. It just means there is a mechanism in those states to opt out covering ANY prescriptions for all of their employees or self-funding that portion of their health-care plan.

The fact is that in these states these institutions already covering contraceptives for their employees.

And no one from the Catholic church is arguing that they don't.

47straight
2/10/2012, 11:57 AM
Why hasn't there been this outcry in the 28 states which already mandate religious institutions to offer contraception coverage for their employees?

It seems to me like a nontroversy.

But President Obama once again offers a reasonable solution to mollify the religious zealots.

Now I fully expect them to keep pushing to remove this rule from the 28 states that mandate it already. If you no longer hear the Catholic bishops screaming about the government meddling in their religious freedom, then you know it was nothing but theater.

More lies, talking points and spin. Any attempt to reasonably discuss this with you just goes ignored. So, in short, the outcry has been there, the rules are different in those 28 states, and you're a hypocrite for calling accusing anyone else of "theater."

47straight
2/10/2012, 11:58 AM
Okay... so outrage when the administration does something you didn't like. Now, when he backs off and does something you'd agree with, instead of lauding the fact that he's being reasonable and listening to his credits, you're basically calling him a weakling. Gotta love political zealots.

Are you sad that this sets back your counselor position at theocrat-reeduction-camp?

47straight
2/10/2012, 12:04 PM
Well, not quite.

Here's a Catholic source on the matter...

http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/02/six-things-everyone-should-know-about.html



So they concede that 28 states mandate equality of prescription coverage to include contraceptives, however, those states do offer the ability to simply not offer a prescription drug card or self insuring the drug coverage. But that technicality doesn't mean that 28 states don't already mandate contraception coverage with no exclusion for religiously affiliated institutions. It just means there is a mechanism in those states to opt out covering ANY prescriptions for all of their employees or self-funding that portion of their health-care plan.

The fact is that in these states these institutions already covering contraceptives for their employees.

And no one from the Catholic church is arguing that they don't.

What's interesting is that you missed the three cited available ways of getting out of it for those 28 states. Was that because you lack reading comprehension, or because you're willfully dishonest? I think because you failed to finish the quote, "The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief" I'm voting dishonest.

Further, in each of those other states, they've not been silent at all.

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 12:07 PM
More lies, talking points and spin. Any attempt to reasonably discuss this with you just goes ignored. So, in short, the outcry has been there, the rules are different in those 28 states, and you're a hypocrite for calling accusing anyone else of "theater."

OK, I plead ignorance on the controversy in the other states which mandate equality of prescription coverage.

Please link me to some of the outcry over it and the outcome of that debate.

Thank you in advance.

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 12:08 PM
What's interesting is that you missed the three cited available ways of getting out of it for those 28 states. Was that because you lack reading comprehension, or because you're willfully dishonest? I think because you failed to finish the quote, "The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief" I'm voting dishonest.

Further, in each of those other states, they've not been silent at all.

I specifically quote the 3 ways they can get around offering Rx equality.

Stop being daft.

cleller
2/10/2012, 01:06 PM
Nothing to worry about, the government knows what's best for you, and will handle it all for you. This model has been proven most effective repeatedly in the last century, as we all know.

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 01:09 PM
Nothing to worry about, the government knows what's best for you, and will handle it all for you. This model has been proven most effective repeatedly in the last century, as we all know.

At least in 28 states that is right.

Sooner5030
2/10/2012, 01:27 PM
Maybe I am in the minority but this issue to me was never about religion.

I was upset that .gov actually mandates insurance companies to cover selective drugs (birth control/viagra). I could see "you must cover broken arm from fall" mandated.....so it's not that I think regulations should not exist. I just think this is too much. Big Pharma wins.

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 01:47 PM
Okay... so outrage when the administration does something you didn't like. Now, when he backs off and does something you'd agree with, instead of lauding the fact that he's being reasonable and listening to his credits, you're basically calling him a weakling. Gotta love political zealots.

It's the same thing with the economy. Blame President Obama when it is not going well and give zero credit if it gets better.

Kind of like our D coordinators. :playful:

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 01:50 PM
Are you sad that this sets back your counselor position at theocrat-reeduction-camp?

Why would you even say this?

Are you 12?

cleller
2/10/2012, 01:52 PM
Okay... so outrage when the administration does something you didn't like. Now, when he backs off and does something you'd agree with, instead of lauding the fact that he's being reasonable and listening to his credits, you're basically calling him a weakling. Gotta love political zealots.

Weakling is a pretty good description, alright. He's had plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter with the parties concerned, but didn't. He said it was too important that the people have this coverage. Now that the dust up comes to close to his re-election bid, he turns his back on these people he claims he wants to help, much like the XL Pipeline.
Wait until its too late, then walk away.

I actually don't think Obama is all bad. He's a pleasant, smart, caring guy. I believe he truly wants to help. His main faults are:
He does not recognize that people should create for themselves vs the government doing it for them.

He cannot admit that the economic crisis requires deep cuts to social programs as well as tax hikes.

When backed into a corner, he's weak.

47straight
2/10/2012, 03:04 PM
Why would you even say this?

Are you 12?

Why would you accuse me of proposing a Christian theocracy?

If you don't want words put in your mouth, don't put words in mine, hypocrite. Is that too hard for your "tolerant" "progressive" mind to figure out?

47straight
2/10/2012, 03:07 PM
I specifically quote the 3 ways they can get around offering Rx equality.

Stop being daft.

Are you that dishonest? If they can get out of it in those 28 states, why would they need to complain?

RLIMC copy and pastes, but at least comprehends what he pastes.

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 03:17 PM
Why would you accuse me of proposing a Christian theocracy?

If you don't want words put in your mouth, don't put words in mine, hypocrite. Is that too hard for your "tolerant" "progressive" mind to figure out?

Well, wanting your country's laws to be based on religious authority is by definition theocracy. If you're for it, you are a theocrat. If you are a theocrat, you are against everything this country stands for and are really not much better than the Ayatollah over in Iran.

And as far as my mind goes, I am neither progressive nor tolerant.

Midtowner
2/10/2012, 03:20 PM
Weakling is a pretty good description, alright. He's had plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter with the parties concerned, but didn't. He said it was too important that the people have this coverage. Now that the dust up comes to close to his re-election bid, he turns his back on these people he claims he wants to help, much like the XL Pipeline.
Wait until its too late, then walk away.

The XL Pipeline is a pretty bad comparison. The issue is being studied. He just didn't blink when faced with a totally arbitrary Republican-set deadline. They wanted to play political games and he didn't play.

The XL will be approved, maybe not on the previously suggested route, but a pipeline from Canada to Louisiana is in the cards.


He does not recognize that people should create for themselves vs the government doing it for them.

So would the rescue of GM be a good example of this principle of yours at work?


He cannot admit that the economic crisis requires deep cuts to social programs as well as tax hikes.

Well if you're proposing those two concepts in the conjunctive, neither party believes both of those things are required. I'm not sure the President actually believes that either. The Democratic Congress? Sure. But the President has been much more of a centrist than the Senate.

SoonerPride
2/10/2012, 03:20 PM
Are you that dishonest? If they can get out of it in those 28 states, why would they need to complain?

RLIMC copy and pastes, but at least comprehends what he pastes.

They admit they CAN get out of it in 28 states, but the point is THEY DON'T opt out. They DO offer contraceptive coverage for their female employees.

Thus, this was a nontroversy. A trumped up theater of the absurd.

Besides, the administration has capitulated and offer them an out in an attempt to appease the zealots. But I bet they'll still whine about the big bad mean government.

badger
2/10/2012, 03:22 PM
Weakling is a pretty good description, alright. He's had plenty of opportunity to discuss the matter with the parties concerned, but didn't. He said it was too important that the people have this coverage. Now that the dust up comes to close to his re-election bid, he turns his back on these people he claims he wants to help, much like the XL Pipeline.
Wait until its too late, then walk away.

I actually don't think Obama is all bad. He's a pleasant, smart, caring guy. I believe he truly wants to help. His main faults are:
He does not recognize that people should create for themselves vs the government doing it for them.

He cannot admit that the economic crisis requires deep cuts to social programs as well as tax hikes.

When backed into a corner, he's weak.

Meh, it's a strategy I have used in the past myself. This is basically how it goes

1- Present the worst-case scenario.

2- The worst-case scenario is immediately deemed unacceptable.

3- Suggest a friendlier alternative that you were seeking in the first place.

4- This is accepted as a better solution to the problem, even if it isn't the most desirable solution.

It's pretty much how he got the Democratic nominee, isn't it?

Democrats: Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States

Voters: SCARY WOMAN! PANTS SUIT! CREEPY HUSBAND! AHHHH!

Democrats: We have a second candidate, who despite having little political experience and may not fit the "old white guy" mold of the previous 41 presidents is a likable, upbeat fellow who has energy, a nice family and not a lot of political baggage.

Voters: Well, we don't know much about this guy, but he's NOT HILLARY?!

Democrats: That's right, he's not.

Voters: Sold! Reluctantly.

soonercruiser
2/10/2012, 09:51 PM
The bishops need to sit down and SHUT UP.

NO!
The Bishops of the American Catholic Chrurch (and the local clergy for that matter) need to start doing their jobs!
That is....teach the tennants of the Roman Catholic Church.....without FEAR!
Not to be afraid that teaching the responsibities given to Catholics might somehow be construed as taking political sides!
Better that the Church lose its tax-exempot status, so we can teach & speak freely!

soonercruiser
2/10/2012, 09:54 PM
The XL Pipeline is a pretty bad comparison. The issue is being studied. He just didn't blink when faced with a totally arbitrary Republican-set deadline. They wanted to play political games and he didn't play.


Sure! Like Obama had an important deadline in mind delaying the decision....
AFTER THE COMING ELECTION!
But, fortunately, he can't seem to hide his colors..."RED "!
Evil red!

soonercruiser
2/10/2012, 10:01 PM
Meh, it's a strategy I have used in the past myself. This is basically how it goes

1- Present the worst-case scenario.

2- The worst-case scenario is immediately deemed unacceptable.

3- Suggest a friendlier alternative that you were seeking in the first place.

4- This is accepted as a better solution to the problem, even if it isn't the most desirable solution.

It's pretty much how he got the Democratic nominee, isn't it?

Democrats: Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States

Voters: SCARY WOMAN! PANTS SUIT! CREEPY HUSBAND! AHHHH!

Democrats: We have a second candidate, who despite having little political experience and may not fit the "old white guy" mold of the previous 41 presidents is a likable, upbeat fellow who has energy, a nice family and not a lot of political baggage.

Voters: Well, we don't know much about this guy, but he's NOT HILLARY?!

Democrats: That's right, he's not.

Voters: Sold! Reluctantly.

Good post Badger.
It's a "step at a time" for regressives.
"Steady as she goes, Captain".

Chuck Bao
2/10/2012, 11:05 PM
Ha! This just makes me laugh. It is really funny how the GOP and its "leading lights" got suckered in on this one.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_l ike_blogpost&fb_source=home_oneline



Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception
By Amanda Marcotte
Posted Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, at 1:04 PM ET

After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access under the banner of "religous freedom," Obama finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible.

That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.

My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.

Sooner5030
2/10/2012, 11:09 PM
Ha! This just makes me laugh. It is really funny how the GOP and its "leading lights" got suckered in on this one.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_l ike_blogpost&fb_source=home_oneline

I still can't believe we require insurance companies to cover birth control. No wonder that industry sucks donkey balls.....it's no longer insurance....it's a middle man collecting for preventive, routine and catastrophic events. This will not work.

Seriously, pay for your own birth control. conception is not a disease...the preventive treatment should not be pooled under a insurance model.

WTF is wrong with our society? Probably just more free shiat wanted by the mob.

LiveLaughLove
2/10/2012, 11:35 PM
Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception
By Amanda Marcotte

Amanda Marie Marcotte (born September 2, 1977) is an American blogger best known for her writing on feminism and politics. Time magazine described her as "an outspoken voice of the left"

On January 30, 2007, the John Edwards 2008 presidential campaign hired Marcotte to act as the campaign's blogmaster. Soon afterward, many bloggers began to quote Marcotte's blog, especially posts in which she attacked the Catholic Church's position on birth control and access to abortion. One Marcotte blog post that was criticized included:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Reason contributing editor Cathy Young has described Marcotte as a "leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax". In "Marcotte's eyes, the real crime of the independent feminists is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault."
Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the accused Duke students were "rape-loving scum"


I google stuff.

Could you not find any more of a biased opinion to post?

How about Satan? Can you get a direct quote from him about the Catholic Church and contraception? Not sure you would be able to tell the difference if you could.

Chuck Bao
2/10/2012, 11:43 PM
I still can't believe we require insurance companies to cover birth control. No wonder that industry sucks donkey balls.....it's no longer insurance....it's a middle man collecting for preventive, routine and catastrophic events. This will not work.

Seriously, pay for your own birth control. conception is not a disease...the preventive treatment should not be pooled under a insurance model.

WTF is wrong with our society? Probably just more free shiat wanted by the mob.

That was my first impression as well. I wouldn't want my employer knowing if I am taking contraceptives or not. Urgh!

But I changed my mind after reading the above quoted article which states that insurance companies are quite willing to contact employees directly and pay for contraception because it is far less expensive than a pregnancy or other alternatives. So preventive or routine to avoid catastrophic (pregnancy) is a win-win for everyone.

Chuck Bao
2/10/2012, 11:56 PM
Amanda Marie Marcotte (born September 2, 1977) is an American blogger best known for her writing on feminism and politics. Time magazine described her as "an outspoken voice of the left"

On January 30, 2007, the John Edwards 2008 presidential campaign hired Marcotte to act as the campaign's blogmaster. Soon afterward, many bloggers began to quote Marcotte's blog, especially posts in which she attacked the Catholic Church's position on birth control and access to abortion. One Marcotte blog post that was criticized included:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Reason contributing editor Cathy Young has described Marcotte as a "leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax". In "Marcotte's eyes, the real crime of the independent feminists is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault."
Marcotte declared on her blog that people who defended the accused Duke students were "rape-loving scum"


I google stuff.

Could you not find any more of a biased opinion to post?

How about Satan? Can you get a direct quote from him about the Catholic Church and contraception? Not sure you would be able to tell the difference if you could.

Did Ms Marcotte misstate anything that you want to highlight? Did some republican candidates actually speak out against birth control? Were they blindsided by this obvious and practical solution?

It is scary to me how the republican candidates are becoming increasingly entangled in the religious right of the party.

LiveLaughLove
2/11/2012, 12:02 AM
Did Ms Marcotte misstate anything that you want to highlight? Did some republican candidates actually speak out against birth control? Were they blindsided by this obvious and practical solution?

It is scary to me how the republican candidates are becoming increasingly entangled in the religious right of the party.

Oooh, there is nothing more scary than a Christian! eeek! Run for the hills, the Christians are coming!

Seriously, how has this country survived all of this time with a majority Christian population? Unfathomable that we managed.

Thank God, er, goodness, that we have you enlightened folks now to bring us out of the dark ages finally.

Yes, a lot of what she says there is vitriolic spin. Obama was hurt by this escapade. He made an error in thinking he gets to be dictator in chief and it blew up in his face.

You can go on thinking it was some grand scheme to hurt Republicans if that makes you feel better. We'll see who is right in November.

Chuck Bao
2/11/2012, 12:14 AM
Oooh, there is nothing more scary than a Christian! eeek! Run for the hills, the Christians are coming!

Seriously, how has this country survived all of this time with a majority Christian population? Unfathomable that we managed.

Thank God, er, goodness, that we have you enlightened folks now to bring us out of the dark ages finally.

Yes, a lot of what she says there is vitriolic spin. Obama was hurt by this escapade. He made an error in thinking he gets to be dictator in chief and it blew up in his face.

You can go on thinking it was some grand scheme to hurt Republicans if that makes you feel better. We'll see who is right in November.

In my opinion, you make several wrong assumptions:

1) The religious right does not speak for all Christians. I know because I am a Christian.
2) The soundbytes of the republican candidates speaking out against birth control will be re-played during the election campaign and it WILL sway many women voters.

But you are right, we will see.

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 12:23 AM
Voters: Sold! Reluctantly.

By Voters....you mean GOP and Dems?

I mean...he reluctantly beat John McCains A$$ by 365 Electoral Votes to McCains 173 and 53 to 46% in the Popular Vote.

Seems like the voters were a bit more scared of the creepy old white guy and the Alaskan Woman with ZERO Experience and a overfunded Wardrobe.....

sappstuf
2/11/2012, 12:45 AM
Ha! This just makes me laugh. It is really funny how the GOP and its "leading lights" got suckered in on this one.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_l ike_blogpost&fb_source=home_oneline

The GOP didn't get suckered and the Catholic Church will not accept this "compromise", because it isn't a compromise. From your article:


In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer.

There is no such thing as free.. Birth control doesn't fall like manna from heaven. Employers pay premiums. From those premiums the insurance company gives benefits. If there were no premiums, then there would be no benefits. So the church would still be paying for birth control even if it isn't listed.

I'm sure if you are faculty at Notre Dame, for example, you get paid pretty good. And even if you pay for your own birth control, you probably come out ahead financially. But if you don't, you have the freedom to look for another job and Notre Dame maintains the freedom to not pay into plans that provide birth control. I don't know why Obama and the Dems want to disrupt such basic and easy to understand freedoms.

But any premise that starts with something is going to be provided "free" doesn't understand how the system works.

FYI: In general, preventative care in medicine is not cheaper. Regardless of what Obama says, study after study has proven him false. Politifact already called him out on his statement.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/10/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-preventive-care-saves-money/

Chuck Bao
2/11/2012, 01:29 AM
The GOP didn't get suckered and the Catholic Church will not accept this "compromise", because it isn't a compromise. From your article:



There is no such thing as free.. Birth control doesn't fall like manna from heaven. Employers pay premiums. From those premiums the insurance company gives benefits. If there were no premiums, then there would be no benefits. So the church would still be paying for birth control even if it isn't listed.

I'm sure if you are faculty at Notre Dame, for example, you get paid pretty good. And even if you pay for your own birth control, you probably come out ahead financially. But if you don't, you have the freedom to look for another job and Notre Dame maintains the freedom to not pay into plans that provide birth control. I don't know why Obama and the Dems want to disrupt such basic and easy to understand freedoms.

But any premise that starts with something is going to be provided "free" doesn't understand how the system works.

FYI: In general, preventative care in medicine is not cheaper. Regardless of what Obama says, study after study has proven him false. Politifact already called him out on his statement.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/10/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-preventive-care-saves-money/

I honestly don't know how much birth control pills costs. I've never felt the need to buy any, so I don't know if it is $10 or $100 per month. Whatever, it would still be far cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy and adding another dependent on the family coverage plan.

The article you linked to about disproving that preventative measures save costs is not only inapplicable for birth control but also a bit misleading because it certainly doesn't disprove that preventative measures, such as free check-ups, mammograms, immunizations and other basic services, do in fact save lives. I sincerely hope that our society has not turned to the sole argument of costs.

Thirdly, I would be surprised if employment at Notre Dame University is primarily made up of faculty. I would assume that many of the employees are maintenance, clerical, service who are not on lecturers salaries.

But you're right: nothing is for free. Premiums still have to be paid. I'm not sure how Notre Dame could stop its insurance company from serving its own interest in paying for birth control pills to university employees.

But seriously, who is so opposed to birth control pills?

How many of you guys out there think that planning for kids is a pretty good idea?

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 02:57 AM
I honestly don't know how much birth control pills costs. I've never felt the need to buy any, so I don't know if it is $10 or $100 per month. Whatever, it would still be far cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy and adding another dependent on the family coverage plan.

The article you linked to about disproving that preventative measures save costs is not only inapplicable for birth control but also a bit misleading because it certainly doesn't disprove that preventative measures, such as free check-ups, mammograms, immunizations and other basic services, do in fact save lives. I sincerely hope that our society has not turned to the sole argument of costs.

Thirdly, I would be surprised if employment at Notre Dame University is primarily made up of faculty. I would assume that many of the employees are maintenance, clerical, service who are not on lecturers salaries.

But you're right: nothing is for free. Premiums still have to be paid. I'm not sure how Notre Dame could stop its insurance company from serving its own interest in paying for birth control pills to university employees.

But seriously, who is so opposed to birth control pills?

How many of you guys out there think that planning for kids is a pretty good idea?

You might understand the Catholic position a bit better if you were to take a Pre Cana Class and discuss the many topics they cover over the six weekly Sessions that couples who wish to marry in the Church are asked to take. I think there are many folks who might feel that they are interfering with two people who are in love and others who might feel that it's good that some things are discussed prior to getting married.

Me? I think it's a great idea especially for older couples. I'd agree that it might be good for some young couples except that I think youth tend to just shine on the folks requiring it so they can say they got married within the Church. Then they just on doing whatever the heck they want and maybe later wondering if maybe they should have listened a bit closer. Such is life and such is maturity.

Here is a link to wiki, I think it has a fairly decent although maybe not a Catholic approved explanation of Pre-Cana.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Cana

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 03:02 AM
Also I don't think just reading "Natural Family Planning" will really get a person to understand what the Catholic position is. I think it really takes a deeper devotion and commitment to really understand why many of the Clergy are getting involved.

sappstuf
2/11/2012, 04:21 AM
I honestly don't know how much birth control pills costs. I've never felt the need to buy any, so I don't know if it is $10 or $100 per month. Whatever, it would still be far cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy and adding another dependent on the family coverage plan.

The article you linked to about disproving that preventative measures save costs is not only inapplicable for birth control but also a bit misleading because it certainly doesn't disprove that preventative measures, such as free check-ups, mammograms, immunizations and other basic services, do in fact save lives. I sincerely hope that our society has not turned to the sole argument of costs.

Thirdly, I would be surprised if employment at Notre Dame University is primarily made up of faculty. I would assume that many of the employees are maintenance, clerical, service who are not on lecturers salaries.

But you're right: nothing is for free. Premiums still have to be paid. I'm not sure how Notre Dame could stop its insurance company from serving its own interest in paying for birth control pills to university employees.

But seriously, who is so opposed to birth control pills?

How many of you guys out there think that planning for kids is a pretty good idea?

Of course it is about cost. We could spend our nations GDP on weekly health physicals.. It would undoubtedly save lives. But it is cost prohibitive and will never happen. So of course it comes down to the sole argument of cost.

And saving individual lives doesn't necessarily mean that you are increasing average life spans either. The stats on that are very complicated. Suffice to say if everyone started eating healthier and exercising regularly, that would have a much greater impact and would cost nothing.

I'm not opposed to birth control. My wife, who is Catholic, is not opposed to birth control. But I will tell you that she is fighting mad that the government is trying to force the church to do something it has always been against. It isn't like the Catholic church's stance on birth control has changed recently.. It has always been their stance that birth control is wrong. Regardless if you agree or disagree with their stance or think that planning for kids is a good idea, the question is do they have the right to freely exercise their religion. The Constitution is pretty clear on that point:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Chuck Bao
2/11/2012, 05:33 AM
I still cannot believe that you guys feel so strongly against birth control pills, especially for lower income families who cannot afford additional children. Why is that exactly?

sappstuf
2/11/2012, 05:55 AM
Me:


I'm not opposed to birth control.

You:


I still cannot believe that you guys feel so strongly against birth control pills, especially for lower income families who cannot afford additional children. Why is that exactly?

Me: Huh?

okie52
2/11/2012, 08:40 AM
I still cannot believe that you guys feel so strongly against birth control pills, especially for lower income families who cannot afford additional children. Why is that exactly?

He11, I support giving BC to all families, not just lower income families. I would give free vasectomies and tubals, too (and make this mandatory for anyone on welfare).

SanJoaquinSooner
2/11/2012, 09:44 AM
He11, I support giving BC to all families, not just lower income families. I would give free vasectomies and tubals, too (and make this mandatory for anyone on welfare).

Why do you support gov't welfare?

yermom
2/11/2012, 10:22 AM
NO!
The Bishops of the American Catholic Chrurch (and the local clergy for that matter) need to start doing their jobs!
That is....teach the tennants of the Roman Catholic Church.....without FEAR!
Not to be afraid that teaching the responsibities given to Catholics might somehow be construed as taking political sides!
Better that the Church lose its tax-exempot status, so we can teach & speak freely!

doing their jobs of protecting little boys from diddlers in their ranks? i guess you don't need birth control for that.

i guess they like making the news for other reasons

dwarthog
2/11/2012, 10:42 AM
I still cannot believe that you guys feel so strongly against birth control pills, especially for lower income families who cannot afford additional children. Why is that exactly?

Why is it that a pill somebody else pays for is the answer? There are other side effects a well which no doubt result in additional prescription requirements.

How about wrapping that rascal?

How about learning natural birth control methods and not send large sums of money to big pharma that is so widely despised by progressives?

Bourbon St Sooner
2/11/2012, 12:52 PM
Ha! This just makes me laugh. It is really funny how the GOP and its "leading lights" got suckered in on this one.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_l ike_blogpost&fb_source=home_oneline

That's one spin on it. I think the more likely perception in the public mind is that the Obama administration tried to overreach and finally backed down.

I applaud President Obama for making this compromise. Our republic has a well established history of religious freedom and conscientious objection. We should not impinge on that.

StoopTroup
2/11/2012, 05:00 PM
doing their jobs of protecting little boys from diddlers in their ranks? i guess you don't need birth control for that.

i guess they like making the news for other reasons

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience.

soonercruiser
2/12/2012, 04:45 PM
doing their jobs of protecting little boys from diddlers in their ranks? i guess you don't need birth control for that.

i guess they like making the news for other reasons

Stupid post, yermon!
You argue like one of Obama's surrogates on the TV.
And OBama has lied and done many bad things just since elected. Are you holding him accountable for Eric Holder?

soonercruiser
2/12/2012, 04:48 PM
Obama is (unfortunately) President.
But, he now wants to be Pope!

http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=PopeObama.jpg
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=PopeObama.jpg

What's the deal with imbeded photos lately?
What has changed?

StoopTroup
2/13/2012, 12:11 AM
A little something that comes close to how I feel about things and why some folks might call you a liberal or a conservative. It's why I'm not always cool with every issue that comes up.

I found Msgr Charles Pope's Quotes interesting and as a Christian pretty thought provoking.

What political party is the Catholic Church?* Neither of course. But depending on what is in the news you can count on labels being applied. If the issue is abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual “marriage” detractors will say the Church and bishops are “in bed” with the Republicans. But if the issue is immigration reform, capital punishment, concerns about war, or care for the poor, then they’re all “just a bunch of Democrats …”

The fact is that the real goal for the Church is to be Catholic, across the board:*vigorously pro-life and clear on the sexual and life issues, working to strengthen marriage and the family,* vigorously advocating for the poor and immigrants, aware of and advocating all the social teachings, fully embracing subsidiarity, solidarity and justice, standing four-square against the violence that so permeates our culture, generous, merciful and forgiving; and willing to work in communion with those who authentically advocate these Catholic Principles, even if they focus on* some of them in particular. Pro-life Catholics should rejoice that others work for and advocate for the poor, and advocates for the poor should rejoice that some fight for life and to end abortion. Together we can cover all the bases …


Is the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat?*And what are you? As for me:

I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!… dyed in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”
Hmm, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party as currently defined …

In the end we are called to be those who are “simply Catholic.”*Every other party affiliation, membership, alliance, or connection must yield to the Faith and be judged by it. No worldly thought should ever trump the Faith which God has revealed through the Church. And, even in some matters (e.g. how best to care for the poor) that are prudential in nature, our alliance to the Church founded by Jesus Christ ought to win the day when it comes giving the benefit of any doubt.* And while staying in a dialogue with our Bishops, we must also accept their leadership and respect their insights as those designated to teach, govern and sanctify. In the end we should be simply, plainly and essentially Catholic.

soonercruiser
2/13/2012, 12:01 PM
Nice find Stoop.
I hadn'd seen that one.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/14/2012, 10:02 PM
The Catholic Bishops Organization still not happy with the Obama compromise on contraception. Can't make celibate men happy until you end ALL contraception access for as many women as possible. The Church's long war on women continues anon. The Republican pandering to the celibate curates and their support for defunding Planned Parenthood will ultimately cost them a boatload of women's votes in November. The Donks get the best of this issue.

sappstuf
2/14/2012, 10:19 PM
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ramirez-mandate-lg.jpg