Bishops’ complaint an all-out war on contraception
I think it’s important to understand just what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is demanding in its war against contraception coverage. Here’s USA Today on the matter:
The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,” Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”
“If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” Picarello said.
In other words, the bishops are not merely demanding that church-affiliated organizations be exempted from the requirement that contraception be covered in health insurance. They are insisting that the contraception requirement be abolished altogether.
The proposed legislative fix endorsed by the bishops, HR 1179, makes that explicitly clear. It states that no insurer or employer can be required to provide coverage if paying for such coverage “is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or (if) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.”
Again, that is not a fix limited to churches or church-affliated organizations. It would prohibit the contraception requirement across the board, for every employer and insurer.
If you had any doubts about how political this all is, that ought to resolve them. Twenty-eight states, including conservative Georgia, have had laws on the books for years that require contraceptives be covered, with not a squeak of protest or complaint.
And yet now it becomes a threat to religious liberty?
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,108 comments Add your comment
Josey Whales
February 9th, 2012
12:31 pm
First………What’s up Jay
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:35 pm
Surprise! They are trying to impose their religious will on the rest of the population through law. And yet, they get all upset when the government imposes something that is contrary to their faith by law. HOW DOES IT FEEL?
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
12:36 pm
Jay, I say this with love … but …
WELL, DUH.
stands for decibels
February 9th, 2012
12:38 pm
And yet now it becomes a threat to religious liberty?
Well, Jay, you work in an establishment, mainstream media outlet. Why aren’t you telling the d!ckheads in your midst to start covering this honestly?
Put another way–why did I only learn about GA’s law today? Why wasn’t that the freaking headline last week, when Newt Gingrich was running his fat mouth about it?
getalife
February 9th, 2012
12:38 pm
Tax them.
There is your compromise.
Our President got another 26 billion from the banks for mortgage fraud.
The gop would never get money from big oil or the banks for damages.
They would apologize to them.
Butch Cassidy
February 9th, 2012
12:39 pm
What happened, did Karen Handle get a job with them after leaving Komen?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
February 9th, 2012
12:39 pm
So this “threat to religious liberty” means that the Catholic Church can impose its beliefs on all Americans no matter what religion?
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
12:41 pm
“So this “threat to religious liberty” means that the Catholic Church can impose its beliefs on all Americans no matter what religion?”
TRANSUBSTANTIATION FOR EVERYBODY!!!
Mick
February 9th, 2012
12:42 pm
Sorry to be so down on the catholic bishops, but they just don’t have any credibility left from this past decade. Their priorities are bass ackwards…
Brosephus
February 9th, 2012
12:42 pm
And yet now it becomes a threat to religious liberty?
It’s all good when the state does it. They just don’t want that all-powerful federal government telling them what to do. Have you not heard of the 10th Amendment before?
Aquagirl
February 9th, 2012
12:43 pm
Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”
Sounds like child molestation rates will be dropping.
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:43 pm
Twenty-eight states, including conservative Georgia, have had laws on the books for years that require contraceptives be covered, with not a squeak of protest or complaint.
PRECISELY. It’s another WEDGE issue. Like the whole Ground Zero Mosque non-event.
Jefferson
February 9th, 2012
12:43 pm
The president should call out the nuts and let the real Americans who need these provisions to decide. You would think with all the problems the Bishops have with their own, they would just mind their own business.
Butch Cassidy
February 9th, 2012
12:44 pm
Mick – “Their priorities are bass ackwards…”
Which means they will openly embraced by the Right and will be held up as pillars of all that is good and decent as opposed to the godless, socialist, marxist, kenyan Obama.
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:44 pm
I shall now establish a religion that says it is ok to murder abortion doctors. Now you can’t charge me or lock me up if I murder an abortion doctor because RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
THAT is how stupid the “religious freedom” argument is.
stands for decibels
February 9th, 2012
12:45 pm
More about the individual state requirements here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
12:45 pm
“It would prohibit the contraception requirement across the board, for every employer and insurer.”
And that’s what pisses me off most of all about the “new entitlement” …
the right la-la-LOVES to talk about how the left feels “entitled”, but they don’t want to acknowledge their own issues of the same. They seem to think that they are entitled to inflict their beliefs on others – their employees, their neighbors, their government. You don’t believe in contraception? then feel free to not use it. but you do not have the right to dictate that belief to your employees.
nor do you have the right to say “I don’t want MY TAX DOLLARS to funde X,Y,Z” – we all have stuff that we don’t want / like / agree with. However, because this is a great big world with great big problems and a great big population, there is a little thing called COMPROMISE … it’s what GROWN-UPs do …
so suck it up, pull on your big-boy pants and get over yourself.
Peadawg
February 9th, 2012
12:45 pm
So, like a lot of things in politics, compromise means “my way or the highway”.
Proud to be me!
February 9th, 2012
12:46 pm
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:35 pm
ADAM
“. . . . They are trying to impose their religious will on the rest of the population through law.” And what is it when it is turned around the other way . . and the socialists are imposing their will on the rest of the population. At least where religion is involved . . . the Constitution should stand!!
stands for decibels
February 9th, 2012
12:46 pm
Can’t wait to hear what Reichsmarshall Limbaugh has told his listeners to think about this…
Josey Whales
February 9th, 2012
12:46 pm
Jay, it’s only an issue for the elite or catholic right. Members that have an agenda against President Obama. 28 states already have this law on their books and never a word until now.
Mick
February 9th, 2012
12:47 pm
**TRANSUBSTANTIATION FOR EVERYBODY!!!
I’m in or is it out?
Peadawg
February 9th, 2012
12:48 pm
“THAT is how stupid the “religious freedom” argument is.”
So the 1st amendment or stupid?
stands for decibels
February 9th, 2012
12:48 pm
Eight of those 28 states (GA included) have *no* refusal provisions whatsoever.
Kamchak
February 9th, 2012
12:48 pm
“When contraceptives are outlawed, only outlaws will have contraceptives”
– Thomas Jefferson
Brosephus
February 9th, 2012
12:49 pm
dB
Thanks for that link. The highlights tab gave me far more insight than what I knew before all this blowup started.
Brosephus
February 9th, 2012
12:50 pm
getalife
That’s just plain ugly… way, way low…
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
12:51 pm
Kam – “you can have my condom when you pry it from my cold, dead hand” – Thomas Jefferson
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:51 pm
Proud to be me: The Constitution does stand. Remember, this has BEEN in the law from the beginning. Only NOW people are yelling “unconstitutional”? It’s NOT unconstitutional,, or a challenge to the STATE laws would have already been presented.
Either A) You guys do not bother to read these laws even when they are bills or B) you’re just making up an issue like you did in 2010 with the Ground Zero Mosque. In either case, WHY should I trust anyone who is making an issue out of this NOW?
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
12:51 pm
Peadawg – “So the 1st amendment or stupid?”
that’s not what he’s saying … not even close.
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:52 pm
stands: Can’t wait to hear what Reichsmarshall Limbaugh has told his listeners to think about this
You are already. All you have to do is read just about any regular conservative poster’s response and you can bet Rush prodded them.
ragnar danneskjold
February 9th, 2012
12:52 pm
ObamaCare says that I, as an employer, may not choose to not fund abortion pills. That is manifestly a threat to my right to worship, to live my right as close to the Godly example as I can. Leftists are the threat.
Butch Cassidy
February 9th, 2012
12:52 pm
Josey Wales – “28 states already have this law on their books and never a word until now.”
Well, Obama wasn’t President when those states passed those regulations. It’s a whole different story now.
stands for decibels
February 9th, 2012
12:52 pm
The highlights tab gave me far more insight than what I knew before all this blowup started.
it’s a pretty short document–make sure you go to the chart on Page 3.
I am torn between saying “The mainstream media has totally blown this” and saying “The mainstream media knows that 2012 is shaping up to be a rout by Obama and a horrible defeat for the GOP, thus they’ll seize upon any poutrage and inflate it to keep things more competitive.”
Or put more concisely–are the mainstream media stupid, or lying?
Fedup
February 9th, 2012
12:53 pm
Me thinks more child molestation news may be coming put. Preemptive strike to cover their collective a$$.
Aquagirl
February 9th, 2012
12:53 pm
Eight of those 28 states (GA included) have *no* refusal provisions whatsoever.
OMG! What about the BAY-BEEEEZ!!!!111!!
I am shocked our conservative friends have been fighting these fascist states quietly, right under our noses, without saying a word. How modest of them.
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:53 pm
No, Peadawg, the idea that employers of secular institutions should provide health insurance that covers contraception as being somehow an assault on “religious freedom” is what is stupid.
Finn McCool
February 9th, 2012
12:53 pm
Seriously, if we wanted to limit religious freedom we would surely start with banning burning at the stake inflicted on those who don’t fully accept the Catholic spiel.
getalife
February 9th, 2012
12:54 pm
It is harsh but they still try to cover it up.
I would ask them.
Butch Cassidy
February 9th, 2012
12:54 pm
ragnar – ObamaCare says that I, as an employer, may not choose to not fund abortion pills.”
So does RomneyCare, when will you sending in your pledge for Santorum?
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:55 pm
ragnar: Leftists are a threat to what, exactly? Homes full of wanted (as opposed to unwanted) children? Upward mobility for poor people who do not want to have children right away? Equality for women?
Jay
February 9th, 2012
12:55 pm
Getalife, I pulled that comment down.
If you feel it’s necessary to bring the child-abuse controversy into this, let’s do it with some dignity.
CJ
February 9th, 2012
12:56 pm
What’s next? Will the Church will demand that “good Catholic business people” shouldn’t have to promote women to leadership positions or allow homosexual customers into their place of business?
I was born and raised in the Church, and as an adult, I couldn’t get away fast enough (I attend a different church). The Church hierarchy has been off the rails for centuries, and their activities of late have not put me at ease. There’s no reason to support their nuttiness by putting my dollars into their collection plate.
june
February 9th, 2012
12:56 pm
I’d like to put a condom on dogma.
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
12:56 pm
“ObamaCare says that I, as an employer, may not choose to not fund abortion pills.”
abortion pills???
seriously???
if you’re talking about the pill, considering it prevents ovulation, there is no egg to fertilize – ergo, no abortion.
thanks for playing Dr. Rags …
Mick
February 9th, 2012
12:56 pm
Just wait until israel attacks iran, this issue will be relegated to the dustbin pronto…
stands for decibels
February 9th, 2012
12:56 pm
If you feel it’s necessary to bring the child-abuse controversy into this, let’s do it with some dignity.
Dang, there goes my “How do you separate the men from the boys at the Vatican?” closer.
getalife
February 9th, 2012
12:57 pm
OK Jay.
Finn McCool
February 9th, 2012
12:57 pm
don’t just pull the comment down, Jay.
Burn him!
Adam
February 9th, 2012
12:57 pm
I think the focus on this particular issue needs to be squarely where Jay put it – on the overall goal of legalizing their religious viewpoint. The child abuse stuff need not even enter into it. Kind of like how all the Republican candidates suck because of POLICY, not how many wives or affairs or how little taxes etc.
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
12:58 pm
Finn – 12:57 – he turned me into a newt, you know …
ty webb
February 9th, 2012
12:58 pm
sheep eating out of kettles bemoaning the fact that other sheep eat out of kettles…all the while shouting “Black”…ah yes, Irony…or is it Hypocrisy…either way, it’s enteratining.
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
12:59 pm
Adam – “Kind of like how all the Republican candidates suck because of POLICY, not how many wives or affairs or how little taxes etc.”
yeah … but the taxes and tawdry sex lives are a bonus
TaxPayer
February 9th, 2012
12:59 pm
Perhaps Picarello needs to be having these heart to hearts with the Catholic congregation rather than trying to violate our nation’s sacred belief in separation of church and state. We don’t want no steenking theocracy. He could start by telling them that if they use contraceptives, then they are not welcome in the Catholic Church. Then he could tell them that the Church and all its affiliates will no longer offer insurance in order to comply with his beliefs. Then maybe open up the floor to comments.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 9th, 2012
12:59 pm
This was really too good not to repost in this thread.
“The standard for determining if a regulation burdened the free exercise of a religious adherent or organization was whether the law was neutral toward religion and generally applicable, lacking any pretext designed to obscure a hostility toward religious practice. The court even stated that to permit otherwise under the First Amendment “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
“The author of this religion-destroying opinion? Noted Catholic Antonin Scalia.”
“And you know what? This makes perfect sense. If a private citizen or organization can escape laws that incidentally burden their religious practices, religion becomes a literal “Get Out of Jail Free” card. The purpose of the Constitution wasn’t to subsume the rest of society to the wishes and whims of religious practitioners, it was to provide those practitioners a safe space to practice their faith free from direct government interference or mandates.”
“The burden on the Catholic Church is incidental, at best. The Church is required to provide health insurance coverage to their employees in the same manner as any other employer hiring the same people to perform the same jobs. That it offends them to do so is not unconstitutional.”
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/thank-scalia-for-your-birth-control-seriously
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
1:00 pm
“sheep eating out of kettles bemoaning the fact that other sheep eat out of kettles…all the while shouting “Black””
with their mouths full???
how rude.
Catholics Are Religious Hypocrites Who Protect Pedophiles
February 9th, 2012
1:00 pm
The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise?
Catholics are NOTORIOUS hypocrites.
They DO NEED to stop their priests from MOLESTING CHILDREN and own up to it when it happens.
The world would be a better place if they did.
barking frog
February 9th, 2012
1:01 pm
the constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof’
nothing about Church(Christian term) or State or separation thereof.
Thyra
February 9th, 2012
1:01 pm
Just to make it crystal clear:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Brosephus
February 9th, 2012
1:01 pm
Or put more concisely–are the mainstream media stupid, or lying?
Are you saying the Lamestream Liberal Media are complicit in hiding information that would actually support that Keynesian, Kenyan Colonial, Marxist, Socialist, Half-Breed President that they helped install?
Adam
February 9th, 2012
1:02 pm
Joe: A much better way of putting how I feel about it. Thank you for this article.
getalife
February 9th, 2012
1:03 pm
I am Catholic and left the church so I better take a break on this one.
Rebar
February 9th, 2012
1:04 pm
I think they are forgetting what Christ said, “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars’”
Peadawg
February 9th, 2012
1:06 pm
Rebar
February 9th, 2012
1:04 pm
He also said “do unto others before they do it to you”…or something like that
.
Aquagirl
February 9th, 2012
1:07 pm
The child abuse stuff need not even enter into it.
Why not? That’s why the Newtonian crowd gets no quarter from me. People who want to use force against you while wallowing in their own mire are dangerous. Why shouldn’t we call them out? They’re trying to argue it’s “not moral.” Well, forgive me if I deny them the woe-is-I vapors.
“You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Mr_B
February 9th, 2012
1:07 pm
“ObamaCare says that I, as an employer, may not choose to not fund abortion pills. That is manifestly a threat to my right to worship, to live my right as close to the Godly example as I can. Leftists are the threat.”
That’s exactly right, Rags, just as you as an employer cannot refuse to hire someone based on their skin color or gender simply because your personal belief is that those folks are in some way inferior. You can however choose not to offer your service to the public, IF it’s that big an issue with you.
No one’s religion is being trampled on until and unless the state requires that YOU use contraseptive or abortion services that you don’t want.
Recon 2533 1811
February 9th, 2012
1:08 pm
Obama can run from this but he can’t hide. The administration is attempting to back peddle but they know as they back peddle that if they go too far back the left is right behind them with their pitch forks at the ready. Incompetence is what put the administration into this position. Even the democrats are split on this issue. Maybe now on second thought the 012 national election may not be all that close.
Finn McCool
February 9th, 2012
1:08 pm
During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: … But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed,
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/
funny how that happens so frequently…
stands for decibels
February 9th, 2012
1:08 pm
I think they are forgetting what Christ said, “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars’”
I think He also mentioned a tip for the driver/delivery-guy.
Kentucky Jacket
February 9th, 2012
1:10 pm
I am misunderstanding this? I read the above to mean that the Catholic Biships are prohibiting that contraception be publically funded, not that it be prohibited…
Thulsa Doom
February 9th, 2012
1:10 pm
getalife
February 9th, 2012
11:44 am
“This is what happens when the economy improves .”
“They can’t beat him on the economy or national security so all that is left is social issues.”
I needed a good laugh. Thanks getalife. Soooo this is what happens when the economy improves? Are we talking about the economy that grew an embarrassingly paltry 1.7% last year? That economy? My God you guys are funny. One month of good hiring 257,000 and you act like we’ve had the kind of economic growth we had under Reagan.
“The CBO study also predicts modest economic growth of 2 percent this year and forecasts that the unemployment rate will be 8.9 percent on Election Day. That is based on an assumption that President Barack Obama will fail to win renewal of payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits by the end of next month.”
An economic forecast of a whopping 2% and the libs think we are in a goldilocks economy or something? Bizarre. Dear God these people can be brainwashed so easily. Lemme guess- in the world of the Obamabots 2.5-3% economic growth would be considered phenomenal growth under Obama. God help us from the buffoonery of the mindless minions of the kook left.
HDB
February 9th, 2012
1:11 pm
Do the Bishops expect ALL of the nation to believe as they do as Catholics: can’t get nun….can’t see nun…..can’t be nun…..won’t get nun…….:)
Mant think the Catholic Church is still caught looking for the holy grail….and they’re making this argument into another quest!! If the Church is acting as an employer, shouldn’t they have to follow employment LAW?? 28 states….including Georgia….have this as a part of employment law…and not a peep! Many Catholic institutions, like Georgetown University, are following this aspect of employment law….so is there another omnious reason that the Bishops are screaming….and is anyone afraid to call the Bishops out on it????
reeses pieces
February 9th, 2012
1:11 pm
You got your sexual chocolate in my dogma, no you got your dogma in my sexual chocolate….
barking frog
February 9th, 2012
1:11 pm
the Bishops and all religions who are fundamentally opposed
to birth control should quit trying to hide behind the religious
constitutional amendment and just lobby the Congress like
the other lobbyists, you know a free trip to somewhere, maybe
forever…
Fred (I need a pill)
February 9th, 2012
1:11 pm
So what is being said that is new from the last thread? Anything? Bueller?
Finn McCool
February 9th, 2012
1:11 pm
“you can have my condom when you pry it from my cold, dead hand”
LOL
Jefferson
February 9th, 2012
1:12 pm
Rag I think the gov’t is out to get you, do you ?
Fred (I need a pill)
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
Whoops. I used a typo’ed email.
Kamchak
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
“Nobody puts Baby in a corner.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
Well, seems to me this is all overblown. Everybody knows the SC is going to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. Then we can go back to saying I got mine and if you don’t have yours it’s because of your Bad Choices and you should go out and find a job that offers health insurance. So this Bishop needs to relax and give the SC a few more months. We’ve got five godly Republican judges up there and only four heathen librul judges. Five beats four every time.
Whatever
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
The people who are angry that the Catholics (of which I’m not one) want no contraception in the bill because they are ‘pushing their beliefs’ (they are) are the same people who want to push their beliefs on the Catholics and make them provide this coverage at their hospitals and such.
It’s funny really.
Brosephus
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: … But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed,
I’d answer that by saying that, since Obama took office, I don’t recall a single detainee transfer INTO Guantanamo. I don’t recall any significant captures on the battlefield either. If Congress wouldn’t allow Guantanamo to be closed down, Obama’s drone policy has pretty much shut down the admissions desk anyway.
Fred (I need a pill)
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
Jefferson
February 9th, 2012
1:12 pm
Rag I think the gov’t is out to get you, do you ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Holy Christ on a crutch, why would they WANT him? Do YOU?
TBone
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
Intrusions on any segment of our society equal a control-freak nature demonstrated by this administration. Those willing to sacrifice their liberties for their security will soon find they have neither. If your security is tied to making as many babies scarce then God help you.
USinUK
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
“Rag I think the gov’t is out to get you, do you ?”
heehee
and tin foil sales SKYROCKET
Thulsa Doom
February 9th, 2012
1:14 pm
“You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
–Thomas Jefferson
I further predict that this future epidemic of lame quotes on my behalf can be attributed to liberal sheeple – Thomas Jefferson
Fred (I need a pill)
February 9th, 2012
1:15 pm
Whatever
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
The people who are angry that the Catholics (of which I’m not one) want no contraception in the bill because they are ‘pushing their beliefs’ (they are) are the same people who want to push their beliefs on the Catholics and make them provide this coverage at their hospitals and such.
It’s funny really.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you trying to tell me that Catholic hospitals get ZERO Government money?
barking frog
February 9th, 2012
1:15 pm
USinUK, you don’t need to wear a condom on your hand…unless
it’s for disease protection
Whatever
February 9th, 2012
1:15 pm
Don’t tell me what to do with my body BUT let me tell you who you have to provide abortifants to…..
Jay
February 9th, 2012
1:16 pm
Kentucky, the issue is not about funding, but about whether contraceptives ought to be part of required health-insurance coverage along with mammograms, prostate tests, etc.
Granny Godzilla
February 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
As Catholic with 55 years of experience dealing with the RCC, I feel comfortable telling the US Conference of Bishops to bite me.
30 years ago this week, they attempted to prevent me from having a tubal ligation after the birth of Zillette #2.
Seems two life threatening C-sections were under their minimum.
They required 3.
Told them to bite me then and am doing it again now.
We all know the Roman Catholic Church is not without sin – and they are
using this as a distraction.
frank burnsf
February 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
What sort of religious freedom is involved here? The freedom of bishops to make their employees’ health choices? There is no issue of conscience here — the bishops provide a pay package, which the workers earn through their work — it includes both money and insurance — and then the workers (adults) make their own moral choices how to spend the money or use the insurance. These bishops are vastly overblowing the issue. They are concerned about a hypothetical mote in their eye, when there are actually real planks in there (and that’s not me who is saying that).
Jay
February 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
And Fred, it was new to me at least that the bishops aren’t just insisting that church-related agencies be exempted, but that the requirement be abolished for everybody, regardless of church affiliation.
Thulsa Doom
February 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
Kamchak
February 9th, 2012
1:13 pm
“Nobody puts Baby in a corner.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Once the first lemming goes over the cliff the rest follow suit.
Once the first sheep is led to the slaughterhouse the rest follow suit.
Once a lib makes the first silly Thomas Jefferson quote the rest of the sheeple follow suit
Whatever
February 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
Fred,
I’m not making any claim of the sort. Just providing some humor to my day.
I have no idea if Catholic hospitals get federal funds or not. However, I do find it humorous that the high and mighty will push their beliefs on the Catholics but don’t want any push back ever, anytime.
If Obama hadn’t pushed this on them then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
JohnnyReb
February 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
Let me see; Obama started this mess but Conservatives were waiting to use it to abolish insurance provided contraceptives. Right.
barking frog
February 9th, 2012
1:17 pm
Seems to me conservatives do not like to quote Thomas
Jefferson or allow anyone else to quote him.
Bruno
February 9th, 2012
1:18 pm
You don’t believe in contraception? then feel free to not use it. but you do not have the right to dictate that belief to your employees.
And if that was what was happening, then I’d be on your side, USinUK. No one is being denied the right to purchase contraception on their own. The issue is employers being forced to pay for it. Although this is being framed as a religious issue since the Catholic Church is involved, the larger point has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with free commerce. Aas a free individual, I should have the right to offer whatever insurance coverage I thought was best for my emloyees. If the employees don’t like it, they can purchase their own policy.
Finn McCool
February 9th, 2012
1:18 pm
Chris said “turn the other cheek…
…so that I may kiss it, too.”
scrappy
February 9th, 2012
1:18 pm
Kentucky Jacket
February 9th, 2012
1:10 pm
I am misunderstanding this? I read the above to mean that the Catholic Biships are prohibiting that contraception be publically funded, not that it be prohibited…
Yes, you are. It has nothing to do with public funds.
They want BC to not be a required coverage by all insurance entities.
True, it would not prohibit it, it would just make it so that women have to pay out of their own pocket instead of it being covered by insurance.