Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ABORTION: Proposed law is not about choice

Letter by Jack R. Peterson, Tacoma on Feb. 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm with 150 Comments »
February 7, 2012 12:37 pm

Legislation is being considered in Washington state which would require all private health insurers to cover abortion services if they offer maternity care. HB 2330 and SB 6185 would not offer an exemption to employers that are morally opposed to abortion, nor to employees who do not wish to pay premiums to cover abortion services.

If this is the next stage of the “Pro-Choice” movement, it is now clear that it is not about “choice” at all. It is about promoting abortion. When allowing abortion into the third trimester became the law of the land, I could console myself that at least I wouldn’t be violating my own conscience as I went about my life. But this legislation makes clear that there are no ethical shortcuts.

We are all responsible for how we protect or don’t protect human life. In a way, those proposing this legislation are making that clear. I can’t describe the pain I experience at being forced, and having my employer forced, to fund the taking of a human life. I don’t know how I will be able to reconcile living as a citizen of this state should this legislation pass.

I beg our legislators not to take us down this road, if not to protect the unborn, about whose humanity they may harbor doubts, then to protect the right to live according to our own conscience.

Leave a comment Comments → 150
  1. olympicmtn says:

    Talk to Catholic nurses who work for a doctor or clinic who conducts abortion. Then ask the question, why should anyone including pharmacist have to conduct an action that is against their profound beliefs.

    Maybe if others had to view what some of the medical staff views they’d think differently.

  2. ManuelMartini says:

    What’s the next profound belief?

    There is a religion that opposes blood transfusions. Should they be able to make that decision for their employees?

    It’s rather comical that a group of people are claiming their right to their belief, via trying to keep others from exercising their belief.

  3. aasmussen says:

    Jack, Nothing in the proposed legislation forces a woman to use contraception methods, or abortifacient drugs. All that is proposed is that health insurers be required to follow the law. Women who so choose to use such medical contraceptive methods, should be able to afford to do so. The moral issue is between her, and her God, and not with your’s, or the church’s beliefs.

  4. muckibr says:

    Manuel, I DO NOT agree that a religious organization that chooses NOT to pay for abortions or contraceptives in their employee health-care benefit plan is “trying to keep others from exercising their belief.” as you have put it.

    Anyone working for a Catholic church owned organization can still use contraceptives or seek legal abortions just like anyone working for Boeing, Microsoft or Starbucks. The only difference is that Boeing, Microsoft and/or Starbucks may want to subsidize that employee’s choice, whereas the Catholic organization does not want to.

    If the employee of a Catholic, or other Christian owned, organization wants to use contraceptives or get an abortion, that employee just has to realize that the employment agreement they accepted when they went to work for that organization told them up-front that they would have to pay for those expenses on their own. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    It is not so much different than a company saying “If you smoke, you can’t work here.” Which is perfectly legal for companies to do, under the guise of reducing employee health-care costs and lost work hours due to illness.

    In fact, it is even more generous than the smoking prohibition, because the Catholic/Christian organization is simply saying, “If you want to use contraceptives or get an abortion, that is entirely up to you, we will NOT stop you, but we cannot help you pay for it.” What is wrong with that?

  5. jjohnson67 says:

    Well, Jack. You say “We are all responsible for how we protect or don’t protect human life.”

    I completely agree, and can’t express the pain I feel, and some of my co-workers feel, at our tax dollars being used to fund a war that has taken so many lives and have ruined so many more. A war that our then-president got us into with a lie. I do not support the war, I do not bleieve in the war, and I do not want MY tax dollars to go to any war effort.

    If you can opt out of something because you don’t believe in it, so can I. If we all had your attitude, where would our country be?

  6. BigSwingingRichard says:

    Thank-you, Mr Peterson.

    I for one do not want my insurance premiums increased to cover the cost of someone else’s choice to have an abortion and this should be a choice made by me, not for me by the government.

    Besides, there is no need for this legislation.

    Insurance policies can be sold with abortion coverage or sold without abortion coverage. People should be able to choose what coverages they want and want to purchase with their health care premiums.

    The requiring of abortion coverage on all policies creates a legal requirement for all people to pay (especially under ObamaCare), directly or indirectly for abortions, and this is wrong, on many levels.

    This is another example of how the expansion of the role of American government into the lives of Americans decreases a variety of freedoms of all Americans.

  7. oldman4 says:

    The fight is not about abortion or freedom of choice it is about money, it is about the cash cow of the public troff. Take away the money and you take away the fight. Planned parenthood needs the money that’s what makes the decision easy. Look it’s free and you won’t have to worry any longer. Take away the money and pro lifers loose one of their biggest issues. Please don’t make me a part of this decision I think it’s wrong. For the progressives it’s always about who will pay. If you like the idea of controlling the population by removing the pre-born (politically correct) the please be kind enough to those of us that don’t and at least pay for your decision

  8. ManuelMartini says:

    “I for one do not want my insurance premiums increased to cover the cost of someone else’s choice to have an abortion and this should be a choice made by me, not for me by the government.”

    Since your insurance premiums are with a private company, you have no choice as to how and where they come to the premium amount and it definitely has nothing to do with someone else’s choice in health care. Show us where the government has made abortion a mandatory coverage issue. It hasn’t.

    Oh, by the way, I’m betting that Rick Santorum’s wife’s abortion was covered by insurance because it was allegedly a health issue. If she didn’t aborted she would have died.

  9. ManuelMartini says:

    “Manuel, I DO NOT agree that a religious organization that chooses NOT to pay for abortions or contraceptives in their employee health-care benefit plan is “trying to keep others from exercising their belief.” as you have put it”

    Disagree as you’d like, muckibr.

    Their belief is that others shouldn’t be able to exercise THEIR belief. It’s really quite simple.

  10. ManuelMartini says:

    muckibr – more importantly, this issue is about employers, not churches, unless the church is expecting special consideration.

    What happens if a Koch Brothers company decides that they don’t believe in a certain kind of medical procedure?

    Where does this stop, or do we just hand the keys to the hen house over to the fox?

  11. menopaws says:

    Here is the part that always makes me laugh…..We have priests, bishops and this letter writer up in arms over this issue……….Not one uterus in the bunch…..But, hey, we’re too stupid to know what is the right thing to do, correct???? I listened to some pro-life guy on CNN interrupt Donna Brazille today, so loudly she couldn’t finish speaking….Is this truly a matter of profound faith or just a way to bully women???? I wonder………….Generally, I find people of true faith to be reflective, gentle and considerate………….A bunch of men loudly proclaiming what God’s intentions are just make me nervous……..And, I venture to say, I’m willing to bet the Lord feels the same way!!!! Why can’t women have health choices???

  12. muckibr says:

    Does any company in America provide an employee health-care benefits package that covers every single conceivable possible health issue that has ever existed or will exist on Earth?

    If so, how much does that plan cost?

    If so, then why do all company health-care plans come with lists of which procedures are covered and which are not?

    If employer heath-care benefit plans covered everything, then the benefit plan could be described on one page instead of the multiple booklets, pamphlets and legal documents employers and employees have to deal with now.

    A completely UNIVERSAL COVERAGE plan would simply say, “You pay this much, the company pays this much, and every possible health care issue you will ever have is covered no matter what.” But that plan DOES NOT EXIST, does it? No!

    No company provides a plan that covers everything!

    If employers can refuse to cover some procedures and drugs as a cost saving decision, then can they exclude birth control and male sexual enhancements and elective abortions as procedures and drugs they choose not to cover in their plans?

    Thus, there’s no justification for requiring that Catholic churches or any other church to pay for male enhancement, birth control or elective abortion procedures.

    And if Christian churches do not include these procedures in their employee health-care benefits packages, they are still NOT prohibiting any employee from using these procedures, device, drugs, they are simply saying: YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT, YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT AND THAT FREEDOM, BUT THE CHURCH CAN NOT HELP YOU PAY FOR THEM beyond the wages or salary the church is already paying to you the employee to use as you determine for yourself.

  13. ManuelMartini says:

    How far do you want to open the barn door to see if the cattle get out, muckibr?

    If everyone was ethically honest about how they react to the law, maybe there would be a reason for wiggle space. Unfortunately, history demonstrates that if you give a business an inch, they’ll take a mile, especially if they can save a penny for the executive’s golf slush fund.

    It could be said, in reverse, that no one is asking the Catholic church to pay for birth control, they are being made to pay for insurance, and how THAT employee exercises their insurance policy is up to them.

    Remember, it’s just a prescription. Nothing different than a drug to thin your blood so that you won’t have a stroke.

  14. ManuelMartini says:

    Ooops…sorry…I got my thread mixed up. This one is about insurance for abortions.

    I guess the question becomes, should the Santorums not have been able to have insurance coverage for her abortion?

  15. If it goes against your personal “morals” to offer contraception (Plan B) or abortions, then maybe you shouldn’t be in the women’s health care field. Last I checked, these procedures are legal and have been for a long time. That’s like having some one who is a police officer who refuses to shoot, a pilot whose afraid to fly, etc… How long before we have a slippery slope where people can refuse to treat some one for any certain ailment or procedure for any willy nilly moral reason? Or a different religion? Race? Political affiliation? If you are a pro life person, and can’t morally perform what is medically asked of you then by all means become something else, like an adoption agent. Either do your job or get out of the way moral objector and let someone in who will. Nobody forced you to have a career in the medical field!

  16. muckibr says:

    Manuel, If the health-care insurance packages simply said, “You pay this much per month out of your paycheck, which entitles you to have 80% of any and all medical procedures you have done reimbursed to you. No exceptions.” Then that would be fine.

    If the employee decided to use that blanket policy to cover an elective abortion, no problem!

    If the employee decided to use that same blanket policy to have a Voo Doo Preistess pull the cancer cells out of his stomach, without making any incision, also no problem! Some people do consider Voo Doo as medical procedures.

    But, health-care insurance benefits are not blanket coverages. They specify certain procedures, and one of them is elective abortion, and that’s where the Church under the First Amendment should be able to draw the line and say, “No! Not with Church money.”

  17. Nicely said menopaws!

  18. mukbir? Then I believe churches need to lose their tax exempt status and start paying taxes- they want to be political and tell us all what to do? Then pay up!

  19. muckibr says:

    Frida, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people choosing to have abortions. I believe they have a right to make their own decisions within the existing laws. And, currently, abortions are legal, up to a certain trimester.

    What I do have a problem with is the Federal government forcing Catholic Churches to pay for those abortions. That’s wrong.

    That’s just as wrong as if somehow The Pope suddenly had the power to force everyone in the United States to stop having abortions period.

    It’s the same thing. How is one okay, but the other wrong? They are both wrong!

  20. BigSwingingRichard says:

    To ManuelMartini: you wrote…
    “Since your insurance premiums are with a private company, you have no choice as to how and where they come to the premium amount and it definitely has nothing to do with someone else’s choice in health care. Show us where the government has made abortion a mandatory coverage issue. It hasn’t.”

    Read the letter. The law REQUIRES private insurers to include abortion coverage if they insure maternity care.

  21. muckibr says:

    menopaws, Frida, can you just see for a moment that in this situation the Catholic Church is NOT saying: “You women cannot get abortions.”

    The Catholic Church is saying, in effect: “You women do have the right to make up your own minds, and get abortions if you want to, but please do not come and ask the Catholic Church to pay for your abortion. You have the right to an abortion, but not the right to demand it be paid for by with Catholic church money.”

    Or how about the criminal who breaks into your house, holds a gun to your head and says, “I’m going to shoot you, because it’s my right to do that, but I want you to first pay for the bullet, okay?”

  22. muckbir? Can you just see that the Catholic Church does not pay taxes and therefore does not have the right to tell women what medical procedure they can and cannot have. If they don’t like it, then they can go back to Rome OR pay taxes.

  23. menopaws says, “I venture to say, I’m willing to bet the Lord feels the same way!!!! Why can’t women have health choices???”

    I wouldn’t be too quick to lay money on that bet.
    When a woman’s “health choice” (you gotta love euphemisms) are equivalent to murdering an infant, it’s appropriate for the law to step in. Sadly, at this point the law condones homicide in these situations. And we live in a country where people can protest against laws they deem irresponsible.

    I wonder how some of you folks would like it if the pro-life folks decided to “occupy” city parks across the country? Would you give them the same thumbs up you’re willing to give the Wall Street protesters?

    What about war protesters or those protesting the death penalty. Are they okay with you? Just not those protesting the killing of infants, right?

    I asked this on another thread and I’ll ask it here, why do we prosecute a mother who puts her newborn in a dumpster, but protect the woman who has a third trimester abortion? In both situations, the infant is helpless and unable to speak; unable to advocate for himself or herself.

    As for your observation about all those big bad men being out to control your uterus…seriously…see someone about all that pent up toxic waste, please. For your own happiness!

  24. muckibr says:

    Frida, can you just see that in this case The Catholic Church is NOT telling women what medical procedures they can and cannot have. The Catholic Church is just saying, have whatever procedure you want, but don’t ask the Catholic Church to pay for your abortion.

    That’s all The Catholic Church is saying.

    If you can’t see that, then your bigotry has blinded you.

    Your demand to make The Catholic Church pay taxes or go back to Rome is the telltale sign of your bigotry. You are a bigot, by your own admission, that much is obvious.

    bigot
    noun
    she comes off as a naïve, closed-minded bigot: chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist.

  25. ManuelMartini says:

    muckibr – you might want to return to the thread where you called me out to see that I apologized for my failed attempt at humor.

    Meanwhile, you call Frida a “bigot”???? A little heavy handed for someone who displayed such a thin skin with my failed humor attempt.

    The Catholic Church DOESN’T pay for anyone’s abortion, unless they claim the right to tell you how to spend your earnings and the benefits that you take in lieu of wages.

    Why do you feel the need to be so defensive of the Catholic Church? Are you a member?

  26. ManuelMartini says:

    I’ll ask on this thread as I did on another – Is Karen Santorum guilty of something wrong for aborting as opposed to dying and leaving her children motherless?

    We have a lot of rhetorical situations being thrown about here, but the Santorum issue is a real life stuff and no one wants to touch it.

  27. Thank you for using the word infant to describe these kids who are murdered by abortion. You go girl!

  28. menopaws says:

    It is still the huge question of these decisions being pushed by men, who are NOT supposed to have a sex life of any kind………I simply find that VERY disturbing………I was raised in the Catholic church and I left because of their approved reading lists, movie lists and attitudes towards women………..People who work for Catholic Universities as secretaries, teachers, cafeteria personnel and are NOT Catholic are being discriminated against in their health care BECAUSE of their employer……..I might add, I don’t truly believe faith is the issue here……..Most of my Catholic friends ignore the birth control ban………Again, men with NO sex life (or healthy ones anyway) issuing decisions that impact those who do have healthy sex lives. It just seems very, very wrong to give that kind of power to anyone over your life. And, in this case, it seems downright abnormal…..So, it isn’t about abortion or contraception–I truly believe it’s economic……..They don’t want to pay for it and are using their religion as a shield………..Smoke and mirrors…..

  29. bobcat1a says:

    I don’t think I should have helped fund the Vietnam war or the Iraq war. I am morally opposed to killing innocent people in foreign countries. Should I be able to withhold my taxes from those kinds of events?

  30. muckibr says:

    Everybody, pay attention!

    I want to start a business, but it ‘s going to cost $100,000 to get it started.

    So, I want each and every one of you on this blog to give me $10,000 to create my start-up capital.

    What!

    You say you won’t!

    Then YOU are denying me the RIGHT to start my business.

    What!

    You say I DO have a RIGHT to start a business, but YOU don’t have to pay for it!

    How is that ANY DIFFERENT AT ALL, from …

    Women have a right to get abortions, but The Catholic Church doesn’t have an obligation to pay for them?

    Tell me what the difference it!

  31. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Good Lord, what an abortion these bills are. (Seriously intended)

    I’m pro-choice. I’m also with MBR on this one. (I’m frankly thrilled about that, after our last contentious exchange)

    My reasoning may differ from MBR’s though.
    If these proposals pass, (and they have a snowballs chance) then the only logical consequence would be for most small insurance carriers to simply drop maternity coverage. It’s a no brainer.

    Why are people so short sighted? This is so incredibly stupid, it just has to be a political stunt to garner attention.
    They are willing to punish fertile women to prove…..what, exactly?

  32. mukie? Did I hit a nerve? I pay taxes and I don’t harbor pedophiles.

  33. sozo? The Church has a LONG paternal history of burning women at the stake for misbehaving. Menopaws has some valid points. I myself would never get an abortion for MY OWN beliefs, but I do not have the right to tell anyone else what to do, or control and/or manipulate their circumstances so that they conform to my will/ beliefs.

  34. muckibr says:

    Frida, “I myself would never get an abortion for MY OWN beliefs, but I do not have the right to tell anyone else what to do,”

    But that is exactly what you are doing. You are telling the Catholic Church that they must pay for abortions whether they like it or not, whether is it against their core beliefs or not, whether they are protected by the First Amendment or not. You are telling them what they must do, just because you have a personal score to settle with the Catholics. Your bigotry has blinded you to the truth that you refuse to recognize.

    Yes, the Catholic Church has a history, but so does every other church and organization, country, people, and person. Let he, or she, who is without sin cast the first stone.

    You write about something you say you would never do, while you are doing that same thing you say you would never do. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

  35. sandblower says:

    “What I do have a problem with is the Federal government forcing Catholic Churches to pay for those abortions.”
    Nowhere can it be found that this is that what the government proposes.
    It is a ridiculous statement and an example of thoughtlessness beyond belief.
    Remember too that the Catholic Church is living in a era roughly about 400 years ago when the first edition of the King James bible came out. And that is being considerate on my part. They have not begun to catch up to modern thought, the majority of which is based on real science and logical reasoning.
    Denying women the opportunities they require to maintain their health is patriarchal, ignorant and stupid in this day and age.

  36. sandblower, It is a fact that the Federal government, The Obama Administration, is requiring all employers, including religious employers like the Catholic Church, to provide paid healthcare insurance that includes birth control and services tantamount to abortion. Please read…

    “The Obama administration is coming under fire for silencing a Catholic Army chaplains from reading a letter that criticized the Obama administration on its new mandate that forces religious employers to pay for coverage for employees that includes birth control and drugs that can cause abortions.”

    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/07/obama-admin-silenced-catholic-army-chaplain-on-new-mandate/

    There are many news articles on this issue, but this was the one with the most direct description relative to abortions.

    Now, I realize this topic is about proposed state laws that would also require religious employers to provide such insurance, without exemption. This is simply and clearly a violation of First Amendment wall of separation between church and state protections.

    You apparently harbor some grudge against the Catholics too, like others here, but let me just say this again for clarity.

    I do NOT support any religious organization, including The Catholic Church, which intends to deny women the right to get a legal abortion. Abortions, within certain constraints provided by law are legal in this country, and women have a right to choose that option if they wish. However, it is no more just to require a religious employer, such as The Catholic Church, to be required to violate its core beliefs by forcing it to pay for abortions.

    Don’t force women to NOT get abortions.

    Don’t force churches to have to pay for abortions.

    Don’t impose your views on someone else when your views are in contravention of the law, whether the law is Roe v. Wade or The First Amendment.

  37. menopaws says:

    Frida—Wonderful, logical posts……..Even these blogs don’t have many women and this issue, again, being discussed and judged by a bunch of guys feels wrong………We women have spent a lot of time defending our health care….For me, it’s much more about control than matters of conscience……We don’t seem to be having big debates about Viagra panels to screen who gets it, are we?

  38. harleyrider1 says:

    Pro or not, keep passing laws about what health care should or should not do. then complain about rising health care costs.

    In the 50’s and 60’s, no one complained about the cost of going to the doctor or the hospital. Fast forward to having our legislators and our congressmen pass law after law and guess what? No affordable health care.

    Doctors and hospitals alike cannot make changes for free. So every time a law is proposed, understand the increase – and continued increase – to health care costs.

    We need to stop the nonsense, halt the Obama-care, and get back to basics.

  39. beerBoy says:

    Catholic church money.

    And therein lies the rub. Hospitals may be run as for-profit or not-for-profit organizations but they are not Churches even if the Catholic Church owns them.

  40. beerBoy says:

    We need to stop the nonsense, halt the Obama-care, and get back to basics.

    Seriously….you really think that, if we get rid of all laws and regulations regarding health care that have been passed since the 60s we would magically have universally affordable health care??!!

    The thing about wishful thinking that sees paradise in some imagined past that never existed is that….it is impossible to go back and, even if we could, the past isn’t like you have glorified it.

  41. beerBoy says:

    The Obama administration has stated that they see room for compromise for regulations that will not go into effect for over a year.

    How about this – any businesses that, due to religious objections, refuse to pay for insurance benefits provide their employees with increased compensation equivalent to the amount that they are saving by not paying for full coverage?

  42. ManuelMartini says:

    Muckibr – you keep the “don’t make the church pay for it” mantra going, but in reality the church is paying the employee and then trying to tell them what coverage they can get.

    This is a power control issue by the Church

  43. Frida, I have no animosity towards women who have abortions, and I am well aware that it is a complex issue. When I speak of abortion as murder, I am talking about the selfish and willful decision to end a life that you are responsible for starting because it is convenient and easier than following through and seeing to it that the child has a good home.

    Those who use the Santorum case as some sort of “gotcha” are, IMO, petty and misguided. What the Santorums chose to do in that situation is not damned by pro-life folks, at least most of them, for the simple reason that it in no way reflects the selfish choice to end the life of an infant in utero who, in a matter of weeks, will be outside mom’s body and protected by laws against murder.

    menopaws, I can’t be sure but I think there are several women including myself who post here routinely who do NOT see the evils of this society caused by fat white men. IMO, you choose to believe that because it reinforces your pre-established views. There’s a word for pre-judging; it’s prejudice.

    bBoy, The thing about wishful thinking that sees paradise in some imagined utopia wherein the state functions as a supposed benevolent despot is that it fails to take into account the fundamental brokenness of humankind. I personally do not want the state for a daddy. Those of you who make strident cases for freedom of choice are, IMO, naive if you cannot see the long-term writing on the wall should we continue striving for an Obamaesque society.

    Finally muckibr, you’ve done a great job here attempting to make your case. We seldom agree on anything, but I believe you are making an important point here, and I especially appreciate that you recognize the failings of the RC church without condemning it altogether.

  44. muckibr says:

    Thank you sozo. I appreciate your comments. All of them for the other folks, as well as those you directed to me. Thanks.

    I would just like to go back to one thing for everyone to think about for a moment on this issue:

    Do unto others, AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM do unto you.

    You do not want others, like The Catholic Church, to impose its rules concerning abortion and birth control upon you, and it is not. The Catholic Church provides guidance to Catholics to say this is what The Church believes is right and wrong. You have the choice to decide for yourself, and be responsible for your actions.

    What then gives you, or the Obama Administration, or the Washington State Legislature the right to impose your or their rules on The Catholic Church, when there is no compelling need to do so?

    NO COMPELLING NEED!

    If The Catholic Church does NOT pay for contraceptives or abortions that does not mean people who want them can not get that by some other means. The Catholic Church is not telling anyone “YOU CAN’T DO THAT!” The Catholic Church is simply saying, if you want that, then please don’t ask this church to pay for it, because it is against the core beliefs and canons of The Church. To force The Catholic Church to pay for contraception and/or abortion would be forcing The Church to commit sin. What gives anyone the right to do that?

    Do unto others, AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM do unto YOU!

    Do you want someone to force YOU to COMMIT SIN?

  45. ManuelMartini says:

    Uh…muckibr….sozo….

    You’ll both have to keep the “sin” and scripture stuff in your own backyard. I don’t subscribe to either.

    Back to the subject. The employees are most likely paying a portion of the health care premium. Why should the employer get to say how they use it, if the insurance company is OK with it?

    on the sidebar – “When I speak of abortion as murder, I am talking about the selfish and willful decision to end a life that you are responsible for starting because it is convenient and easier than following through and seeing to it that the child has a good home.”

    Let’s avoid rhetorical situations and go directly for a REAL LIFE case. Did the Santorum’s “murder their child”?

  46. ManuelMartini says:

    “What then gives you, or the Obama Administration, or the Washington State Legislature the right to impose your or their rules on The Catholic Church, when there is no compelling need to do so?”

    What gives the Catholic Church the right to decide the business transaction between an insurance company and an employee?

  47. muckibr says:

    Manuel, this is NOT a “power control issue.”

    This is a matter of choice. Allowing The Catholic Church the choice to pay for some services and benefits or not. It’s not about telling employees what coverage they can get. It’s about The Church telling employees, this is what we have to offer, and as new-hires, potential employees have a choice whether to accept it or not.

    Even if The Catholic Church does NOT offer health-care benefits that pay for contraception and/or abortion, the employee still has a CHOICE to use those services or not. The Catholic Church is not prohibiting that CHOICE to anyone in any way.

    This entire issue is about CHOICE. And, in this case I am PRO-CHOICE, in giving The Catholic Church the opportunity to make a CHOICE and offer a CHOICE. Aren’t you PRO-CHOICE too?

  48. ManuelMartini says:

    As could be predicted, the GOP has started piling on, which tells you much about what the motive behind all of this is – “Lets get Obama”.

    Here’s another issue. Woman X can’t live through a pregnancy, thus her doctor prescribed birth control. What difference is that to a prescription for insulin? Is the employer going to be liable for her possible death by not allowing certain Rx coverage?

  49. ManuelMartini says:

    muckibr – if it’s about “choice”, why doen’t the employee have a choice in coverage, without the loss of their livelihood?

  50. ManuelMartini says:

    If the Catholic church takes over a hospital that employed people before their takeover, why do the employees have to subjugate their benefits to the whims of a religion?

  51. ManuelMartini says:

    If it’s about “choice”, maybe the Catholic Church should get out of all businesses other than running churches, thus a fair place to make employee requirements.

    Can you imagine how much money is in health care at Catholic Hospitals?

  52. muckibr says:

    “if it’s about “choice”, why doen’t the employee have a choice in coverage,”

    I have stated over and over and over again, the employee DOES have a CHOICE. When the benefits package is presented to the employee before he or she is hired, he or she has a choice to accept it and accept the job, or reject it and find a different employer.

    THE POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE ALWAYS HAS A CHOICE!

    I don’t know of any case where a Catholic Church took over a non-Catholic Hospital or other business, so I can’t speak to that issue. I am not a spokesman for The Catholic Church, so I will not speculate as to how The Church would handle such a situation.

    Now you want to limit The Catholic Church in what missions it chooses to pursue for the good of humankind. You want to tell The Church to get out of business because YOU don’t like the choices they offer. Well, I don’t like that Starbuck stopped making Almond Latte’s, so Starbucks should get out of the coffee business.

    There is a lot of money in hospitals, Catholic or otherwise. There is NOT a lot of profit in them, except perhaps for huge medical conglomerates like MultiCare. (I once worked for MultiCare as well. So trust me on this.)

  53. ManuelMartini says:

    The employer has a choice to cease doing business in a country where they disagree with the law.

    When will the Catholics get out of the business of health care?

    If there is so little profit in this business, why do they fight nationalized health care so fervently.

    (trust me, I consulted to a Catholic Hospital)

    The Catholic Church is not known for making bad business decisions.

  54. ManuelMartini says:

    So…my final stand is nationalize all health care and make everything available to all people. Those who don’t want abortion or birth control don’t have to get either.

    Get religion out of the government.

  55. ManuelMartini says:

    I should add that ALL EMPLOYERS would have to pay taxes to support nationalized health care.

  56. Bandito says:

    “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

  57. Murigen says:

    This should not be tied to just maternity care. It should be tied to human sexual and reproductive health care. In other words if abortion is not covered then treatments for male sexual issues wouldn’t be cover either.

  58. Get the government out of religion as is prescribed by The First Amendment!

    Thus endeth the lesson!

  59. sandblower says:

    muck wrote: “It is a fact that the Federal government, The Obama Administration, is requiring all employers, including religious employers like the Catholic Church, to provide paid healthcare insurance that includes birth control and services tantamount to abortion.”

    “Services tantamount to abortion” is the problem here and it is the extreme view coming from some that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, which happens naturally and regularly, is “tantamount to abortion.” What you and all the rest are saying is that people cannot have sex unless they intend to procreate and that is total and complete nonsense. It is a fairy tale that does not belong in rational discourse and it does not deserve consideration beyond an immediate dump into the trash can of ideological obsolescence.

  60. ManuelMartini says:

    I love these Amendment lessons. A chance to revisit the exact text.

    “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.”

    In this case, Congress IS NOT making a law about establishment of religion, nor stopping any individual from practice there of. I have not seen anyone say “Catholicism cannot be practiced”.

    With that fact, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to government health care mandates.

  61. ManuelMartini says:

    Much like the 2nd Amendment arguments, stick to the written text, not the “interpretations”.

    After all, this is law, not a Bible.

  62. menopaws says:

    Sozo—Here is the most important part of this argument. Many of us are pro-choice women. I happen to respect pro-life women. I respect their beliefs and have no intention of forcing my views on their moral code. Returning that favor, by the pro-life movement seldom happens. I hear one blogger on another website refer to the women who use Planned Parenthood as “Hoes”, “baby killers” is another popular choice. And, as far as fat, white men—not only is that accurate (Newt), but frankly many pro-life believers get used for an agenda that has nothing to do with THEIR moral code. And, that is manipulation of the most callous variety. In this case, you have NINETY EIGHT% of Catholic women who do NOT adhere to the birth control ban……..So, I am asking whose religious sensibilities are we protecting here? Again, it involves CELIBATE men………And, frankly, that is NOT any reason for this church not to pony up their fair share of these costs. So, base your argument in hard logic and recognize that this church is denying women the equality of good health care.

  63. ManuelMartini says:

    menopaws…as a fat white man that supports your cause, I think you can do better in coming up with a description. :)

    I think, if all was transparent, you’d find that this hubub is driven by the Republican Party in cooperation with the conservative side of the Catholic Church.

  64. Pacman33 says:

    Same story different topic.

    Leftist’s forcing their ideology down other’s throats, using their massive and growing central government to impose their beliefs on the American people. Per the typical script, singling out the most influential opposition for vilification in the effort to distort the issue by decrying their fabricated villain as the oppressor.

    Where else in the United States, except in the perverted mind of the far left, could a mandate Forcing citizens to do anything be just under our Constitution. Even worse, a Forced mandate Forcing citizens to abridge on American’s right to free practice of religion.

    The left attempts to frame the issue as if it was the anti-American mandate that has always existed. That it is the Constitutional rights of the religious population of this nation that is new and being forced on others. That American have always been forced to fund practices and activities directly against their religion.

    Same story different topic.

    Leftist’s devious, radical tactics to deceive Americans and force their will on our society by any means necessary, no matter how shameless their methods are, have cost the American people invaluable freedoms.

  65. Pacman33 says:

    The left wonders why they are met with laughter for their attempts of disassociation with a certain band of National Socialists. Absurdly, suggesting their brothers derived from the right side of the political spectrum. Yet, their deplorable behavior is consistent with their extremist ancestors … step for high step.

  66. fbergford says:

    If this is forced upon the Catholic Church expect them to start closing down all the hospitals, care facilites and whatever they are involved in. What do you think that will happen to our healthcare system? It’s going to be a lot worse than it already is.

  67. fbergford says:

    Forgot to add…seperation of church and state works both ways

  68. muckibr says:

    sandblower, “What you and all the rest are saying is that people cannot have sex unless they intend to procreate and that is total and complete nonsense.”

    NO! That is NOT at all what I am saying sandblower, and I have NEVER said anything like that and you know it. I cannot and do not speak for “all the rest” but I guarantee you I have NEVER EVER said such a thing as that in these blogs. If you would read MY comments objectively and with honesty you would see clearly that I am only saying that The Catholic Church should not be “forced” to pay for contraception and/or abortion. That’s all I am saying, and thus your misleading comment is really the “total and complete nonsense” here.

    .

    ManuelMartini, “I have not seen anyone say “Catholicism cannot be practiced”.”

    YES! I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT Manuel! I have been saying that all along. I have been saying that The Catholic Church is being required by the federal government, and potentially even Washington state government if these laws are passed, to stop practicing their religious prohibition against abortion and contraception. Practicing The Catholic Faith means adhering to its canons. If the Catholics are DENIED the right, protected by The First Amendment, to adhere to their religious beliefs concerning abortion and contraception then they are, in fact, being denied the right to practice their faith. I have said that in so many different ways over and over on these threads.

    .

    menopaws, I know you addressed your comments to sozo, but if you don’t mind I would also like to weigh-in on these two comments of yours.

    menopaws, “I happen to respect pro-life women. I respect their beliefs and have no intention of forcing my views on their moral code. Returning that favor, by the pro-life movement seldom happens.”

    BUT! You are not respecting the right of The Catholic Church to exercise its religious CHOICE to not pay, promote or promulgate contraception and abortion. Thus, you are “forcing” your views on The Catholic Church. You are only being PRO-CHOICE when it comes to YOUR CHOICES, but according to you The Catholic Church does NOT get to make a CHOICE based on their religious beliefs.

    menopaws, “So, base your argument in hard logic and recognize that this church is denying women the equality of good health care.”

    I have provided HARD LOGIC time and time again in these threads and you, among others, have ignored that logic and instead defaulted simply to your prejudicial preconceived notions on this issue. My statement above is LOGIC, HARD LOGIC that you may not want to accept, but LOGIC just the same.

    I have said that: Everyone should have the CHOICE to use contraceptives. I believe that. Women should have a CHOICE to have an abortion, within the limits of the law. I believe that and I have said that before on these blogs. The Catholic Church and other religious organizations should also have the CHOICE to say that they will not pay for contraception or abortion, because to do so would cause them to since and thus be unable to practice their faith. Why can’t they have that CHOICE? Why are you allowed to choose, but they are not?

    The Catholic Church is NOT denying anyone access to birth control, contraceptives or abortions. The Catholic Church is simply asking not to have to commit a sin against its religious practice, faith and laws by being “forced” to pay for those services.

    If people want those services The Catholic Church is NOT stopping them. No one, no woman, is being denied these services by The Catholic Church by simply choosing not to pay for such services. Do you not see that?

  69. beerBoy says:

    muckibr – you are getting rather hysterical about this. Seriously…you are supported by pacman’s Nazi statements…..

  70. Surely you recognize that for every toxic epithet you’ve heard referring to women who use PP services, there is an equally offensive term used to describe women who protest abortion, even though you, menopaws, and many others in your political camp would fight to the death for the rights of anti-war protesters to be permitted to march, or anti-death penalty folks to be permitted to hold candlelight vigils to demonstrate their disapproval of these actions.

    And further, how is calling an imaginary woman a hoe any different than you lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a collection of an fat white men. You have even managed to offend one of your cohorts on this thread!

    In this instance, you are living, breathing example of the double standard that exists in these politically hot discussions.

    The constitution should protect our rights to choose, and yet you want to deny said right to those who serve via the church and hold deep convictions about abortion.

    What you call good health care services, others view as homicide. You don’t get to decide that your view of this is the correct one. You deserve the right to choose and so do others.

  71. muckibr says:

    beerBoy, I am FAR from hysterical. I remain the logical voice of this issue. As far as pacman goes, I don’t read his comments, so have no idea what your reference is to.

  72. ManuelMartini says:

    “The Catholic Church is simply asking not to have to commit a sin against its religious practice, faith and laws by being “forced” to pay for those services.”

    They are not paying for said services. They are paying for insurance benefits as negotiated by labor contracts.

    The emotional statement is false and being used as a tool against President Obama.

  73. ManuelMartini says:

    “If this is forced upon the Catholic Church expect them to start closing down all the hospitals, care facilites and whatever they are involved in.”

    Yeah, and I’ll start performing brain surgery next week. Give me a break. The Catholic church LOVES the revenue from hospitals.

    Where will they come up with the replacement revenue?

    You have to love all the fear factor crappola that is being thrown around, coupled with the emotional “how dare they?” statements about religion.

    Of course, religion is fear based anyway, so I guess I should expect nothing less.

  74. sandblower says:

    I’ll say it again Muck, just in case you failed to read for comprehension the first time, which seems evident. When women have sex and do not intend to procreate, they need to have access to birth control products either before or after. Denying them those options leads to my careful conclusion about your position. You don’t have to say the exact words to reach the same intent. Businesses are being required to provide insurance coverage. That’s all. It is then up to the woman whether she uses it or not. And we are talking about reducing abortions here, not increasing them. That is waht birth control is about.
    Some of this is so obvious. It amazes me that it needs to be explained as though there are only 11 year old children out there. Blinders anyone?
    muck wrote: “It is a fact that the Federal government, The Obama Administration, is requiring all employers, including religious employers like the Catholic Church, to provide paid healthcare insurance that includes birth control and services tantamount to abortion.”
    “Services tantamount to abortion” is the problem here and it is the extreme view coming from some that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, which happens naturally and regularly, is “tantamount to abortion.” What you and all the rest are saying is that people cannot have sex unless they intend to procreate and that is total and complete nonsense. It is a fairy tale that does not belong in rational discourse and it does not deserve consideration beyond an immediate dump into the trash can of ideological obsolescence.

  75. sandblower says:

    “beerBoy, I am FAR from hysterical. I remain the logical voice of this issue.”
    Oh boy! You must be joking.

  76. ManuelMartini says:

    sozo, if I’m said “cohort”, don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not offended. I suggested menopaws could come up with a different term.

    I’ll leave the “offended” stuff to you.

  77. ManuelMartini says:

    sandblower – I’m glad muckibr wasn’t hysterical when calling me a bigot for not wanting the church involved in politics. I guess that makes me a law bigot in his world of “logic” since the law is on my side on that issue.

    I’m certain I’ll be accused of namecalling soon. Last night I allegedly made “nasty comments”.

  78. muckibr says:

    sandblower, you are acting the 11 year old who can’t read, because I have repeatedly pointed out over and over again that The Catholic Church is NOT DENYING WOMEN BIRTH CONTROL. They are simply saying if you want birth control, contraception or abortion, fine, but get it with your own money. Women can still get whatever they want. NOBODY IS BEING DENIED BIRTH CONTROL.

    Manuel, your BIGOTRY came through loud and clear when you could no longer argue with logic and so defaulted to demanding that The Catholic Church START PAYING TAXES. That revealed your true personal animosity toward the church which has little to do with the issue at hand.

    Argue the issues if you can. Try to stay adult and leave the personal insults off the blog. Calling you a bigot is simply and observation Manuel. At least I didn’t call you an 11 year old. Time to grow up fellas.

  79. “The left wonders why they are met with laughter for their attempts of disassociation with a certain band of National Socialists”

    Correction: The right wonders why they are met with laughter for their attempts of disassociation with a certain band of National Socialists.

    You’re welcome.

  80. Pacman33 says:

    muckibr said –
    ” Time to grow up fellas.”

    Minutes Later ……

    ehill said –
    ” Dah no …. no. Daht’s what you are. I sure showed him”

    Like father like son.

  81. sandblower says:

    Muck is wrong again. Her is the quote: “They are simply saying if you want birth control, contraception or abortion, fine, but get it with your own money. Women can still get whatever they want. NOBODY IS BEING DENIED BIRTH CONTROL.”

    Muck, it is about POOR WOMEN who cannot afford birth control. That is why the the rules are as they are. Poor women are denied birth control because they are poor. Does that mean the Catholic Church does not need to care about poor women because what they need runs counter to a dark age’s Church policy? The Current administration is trying to right a terrible wrong where poor women are forgotten in the name of some specious religious belief that is morally unsustainable from nearly any reasonable point of view.

  82. “Muck, it is about POOR WOMEN who cannot afford birth control.”

    NO IT IS NOT!

    sandblower, it is about Catholic and other religions’ owned affiliate organizations, who the proposed state laws would be required to provide their EMPLOYEES with birth control and abortion benefits tied to maternity benefits in their Employee Health-Care Benefits Package. These are NOT POOR WOMEN, these are EMPLOYED WOMEN.

    This issue has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with POOR WOMEN. It is about employees who are employed and are wage earners working for Catholic and other religiouns’ affiliated organizations such as churches, hospitals, colleges, schools, charities, adoption agencies, etc.

    sandblower, you REALLY REALLY must try to read more carefully! You are totally and completely wrong. And, now I understand why your previous comments made very little sense.

    Start by reading the original letter at the top of this thread before you make another foolish comment, okay? Please note the words “employer” and “employee” in the above letter. That should give you a clue that this has nothing to do with POOR WOMEN.

  83. ManuelMartini says:

    muckibr – you are sounding strangly familiar….”concernedish”.

    You are ignoring everything that is said and screaming your mantra over and over and over.

    Anyone reading the threads KNOWS that I said ALL CHURCHES should be held to the same law about political affiliation. Why do you pretend that I didn’t say it? Just because it’s on a different thread? Watch this:

    “Since you’ve thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll let you know that as far as I’m concerned ALL churches should pay taxes and any church regardless of denomination, that gets involved in politics should have their non-profit status pulled in a heartbeat.”
    Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2012/02/07/republicans-love-to-spin/#comments#storylink=cpy

  84. ManuelMartini says:

    “These are NOT POOR WOMEN, these are EMPLOYED WOMEN.”

    As if there are no working poor ::::::shakes head in disgust:::::

    Yeah…those CNA’s are really making a fortune, as are the “Environmental Services” people.

    muckibr – it your attempt to defend the Catholic Church, you have said some amazing things that denigrate men, women and now working women. Is the Church so important that you’ll denigrate anyone? I feel like I’m watching Frank Burns on an episode of “MASH”

  85. sandblower, here is a little preview of what you really should have already read in the letter above, before commenting on this topic.

    “HB 2330 and SB 6185 would not offer an exemption to employers that are morally opposed to abortion, nor to employees who do not wish to pay premiums to cover abortion services.”

    Please note the word “employers” and the word “employees”. Please read the entire letter now, before you make your next comment. I don’t believe there’s much more I can do to help you at this point. But, at least I tried.

  86. ManuelMartini says:

    I’m wondering how muckibr is going to try to say that the Church’s stand on birth control affects ONLY working women and not the dirt poor women of countries around the world (not to mention the poor Catholic women of the US).

    Even this bigot could figure out what sandblower was saying.

  87. If I have “denigrated”anyone or any group of people in this or the other topic associated to this, please point it out specifically.

    denigrate |ˈdeniˌgrāt|
    verb [ trans. ]
    criticize unfairly; disparage : there is a tendency to denigrate the poor.

    If I have “unfairly criticized” anyone, show me exactly where and how and I will offer an apology. Please be specific.

  88. ManuelMartini says:

    Pacman – have you seen American History X?

    You remind me of the character “Stacy” (played menacingly by Fairuza Balk).

  89. ManuelMartini says:

    Let’s see…..from your definition:

    “there is a tendency to denigrate the poor.”

    Naw….this one’s too easy.

  90. ManuelMartini says:

    Another issue that is conveniently ignored is that employees pay part of their health care premiums from wages (even if you want to ignore that benefits ARE compensation, as well).

    So now, the Church is going to tell them how they can spend their money and what kind of coverage they can buy for their money?

  91. ManuelMartini says:

    Night all!

  92. ManuelMartini writes on FEB. 8, 2012 AT 10:24 PM:  

    “muckibr – you are sounding strangly familiar….”concernedish”.”

    “You are ignoring everything that is said and screaming your mantra over and over and over.
    Anyone reading the threads KNOWS that I said ALL CHURCHES should be held to the same law about political affiliation. Why do you pretend that I didn’t say it? Just because it’s on a different thread?”

    .

    MY REPLY: Manuel I know what you said. It’s right there under the topic: HEALTH: Church promotes ‘siege’ women. Here, I will quote it for you.

    ManuelMartini wrote on FEB. 8, 2012 AT 6:10 PM:  

    “Well, Muckibr, your thin skinned act is over, I see.”

    “Since you’ve thrown down the gauntlet, I’ll let you know that as far as I’m concerned ALL churches should pay taxes and any church regardless of denomination, that gets involved in politics should have their non-profit status pulled in a heartbeat.”

    .

    MY REPLY: But 32 minute BEFORE you posted that comment, you posted this comment on the same thread:

    ManuelMartini wrote on FEB. 8, 2012 AT 5:38 PM:
     
    “muckibr – exactly what the GOP wants. Why do you think this came to fruition?”

    “This is a political issue and if the Catholic Church is going to continue participating in political efforts, they need to start paying taxes.”

    .

    MY REPLY: So you really kind of LIED didn’t you Manuel? And I once believed that you had some integrity. But instead, you are attempting to denigrate me here with your lie. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

    Don’t take this personally, but I have consistently argued THE FACTS on these topics. Whereas, when you could no longer argue against me on a factual basis you took the predictable low road and started with the personal attacks.

    And you accuse me of denigrating people or groups of people, but you can’t provide a single example of this.

    Therefore, my facts and arguments stand on their own merits, and yours fail.

    This is not an issue of DENYING WOMEN their CHOICE to use birth control or abortion. This issue is about DENYING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH the RIGHT to PRACTICE ITS RELIGION as guaranteed by The First Amendment of The U.S. Constitution.

  93. Bandito says:

    Glorified chat room.

  94. ManuelMartini says:

    I’ll make sure to hold you to one comment, muckibr and not all of your comments. That’s “context” – right?

  95. fbergford says:

    “Religion is not something we only do on Sunday morning and do amongst ourselves. And those who have been castigating the big, bad, bishops on this score need to be reminded of the scores of decisions made by scores of bishops to keep inner city schools open even when the Catholics they were built to serve had fled for the suburbs because, as Catholics, we believe helping the poor is part of our religious mission. Those who fret about Catholic hospitals operating in a pluralistic society should ask themselves why NARAL and Emily’s List have not opened any hospitals. The administration’s logic seems to be that when a poor person comes to a Catholic soup kitchen, we should not ask if he is hungry, we should ask if he is Catholic. Sorry, but that is not how we conceive of our Catholic mission.”

  96. fbergford says:

    I thank Vice President Joe Biden for visiting Ohio today.

    The Sisters of Charity Health System is a Cleveland-based Catholic health-care organization which, in collaboration with other Catholic health ministries, actively promoted the passage of the Affordable Care Act. We are dedicated to increased health-care coverage and access and are supportive of the law’s efforts to improve quality of care and patient outcomes.

    I ask the vice president to help Catholic and other faith-based employers with a recent federal action. We are very disappointed with the Health and Human Services rule on women’s preventive services that requires the inclusion of contraceptive coverage and sterilization in employer-based employee-benefits plans. The regulation denies adequate conscience protections for religious employers like us.

    Our faith motivates us; we carry out the healing mission because of God’s call. And we are blessed to be joined in our ministry by a diverse and inclusive work force.

    We urge President Barack Obama to be consistent with existing provider conscience-protection laws and allow us to exercise our First Amendment rights to conscience protection as faith-based employers. Please fix this discriminatory rule.

    SISTER JUDITH ANN KARAM

    President and chief executive officer

    Sisters of Charity Health System

  97. ManuelMartini says:

    fberg – how wonderful..You can copy and paste PR information for the Catholic Church.

    Meanwhile, the employees pay part of their insurance premiums and many get these benefits via labor contracts. The Church cannot legally impose their will on everyone as they see fit. Many of the employees are not Catholic, too boot.

    I’ll wait for the Catholic Church to get out of the hospital business. Something tells me that there will be snowcones in Hell first.

  98. ManuelMartini says:

    Maybe one of you Catholics can tell me why this is all about “Barack Obama” and not all of the Congressional reps that voted for Health Care Reform.

    A thinly veiled political attack.

  99. ManuelMartini says:

    I have a great idea – let’s poll Congress and see just exactly who really wants to go public against the wishes of the women of America, who, by overwhelming majority, will support equal access to all.

    Then the Catholic Conservatives (funny how Santorum suddenly sprung to the forefront) will spend the rest of their time running in circles trying to decide who to attack next.

  100. fbergford says:

    dude you are a whack job!

    The church can do whatever they want…1st Ammendmant! If you don’t like who your employer is, leave and get a new job! It’s that easy! But those employees who work for the Catholic health system already know they can’t get contraceptives through their benefit package but they still want to work for them because it’s a lot better than working for multicare!

    The first one is written by a buddy of mine who is studying to become a Jesuit who lives in Rome at the moment, got it off his fb page and the other is a letter i came across from the Sisters or Charity Health Systems! Everything I post on here is the same thing the muck has been posting…this is a violation of our first ammendmant…seperation of church and state d*ckhead!

    And yes you want me to start personally attacking you I will cause you are an absolute a$$ along with all your super liberal governmetn depending morons that keep posting the same cr*p over and over again when you don’t agree with someones opinion!

    Our federal govt is out of control and it’s been out of control since Bush was in there! Our own civil liberties are being taken away from us because big brother is effing scared of everything right now!

    I’m over this, said what i wanted to say and now i’ll let you and all your homies keep posting stupid cr*p on the tnt website!

  101. “We urge President Barack Obama to be consistent with existing provider conscience-protection laws and allow us to exercise our First Amendment rights to conscience protection as faith-based employers. Please fix this discriminatory rule.”

    SISTER JUDITH ANN KARAM

    I’m really interested in seeing how the president wriggles out of this one given that it’s an election year. And when he does, I wonder if all of you who have been so supportive of him over this will feel.

    As for focusing on him in this situation rather than the collective who put sanctioned this health care proposal, it’s because it was his “baby” and folks pretty much understand that. If he’s gonna wear it as his badge of honor, then he has to wear it when things start to go south.

  102. Separation of church and state, designed to protect the church from government…just in case some of us have forgotten.

  103. ManuelMartini wrote FEB. 9, 2012 AT 9:25 AM  
    “Maybe one of you Catholics can tell me why this is all about “Barack Obama” and not all of the Congressional reps that voted for Health Care Reform. A thinly veiled political attack.”

    Maybe this lapsed-Catholic can provide some objective clarification to CORRECT your woefully misguided perception.

    1. The Dept. of Health & Human Services, which is part of The Obama Administration’s Cabinet and headed by an Obama appointee. (BTW, The Secretary of HHS is Kathleen Sebelius, former Governor of Kansas, who is also a Catholic.) Watch the PBS video Manuel. Just watch it! It is not that long and you might learn something.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june12/catholics_02-06.html

    2. “The Obama administration is coming under fire for silencing a Catholic Army chaplains from reading a letter that criticized the Obama administration on its new mandate that forces religious employers to pay for coverage for employees that includes birth control and drugs that can cause abortions.”

    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/07/obama-admin-silenced-catholic-army-chaplain-on-new-mandate/

    3. FACT: The Affordable Health Care for America Act was passed by The House vote which included ONLY one (1) Republican vote. You just cannot point the finger at the Republicans for this controversy.

    “The newly amended bill eventually passed the House of Representatives at 11:19 PM EST on Saturday, November 7, 2009 by a vote of 220-215. The bill passed with support of the majority of Democrats, together with one Republican who voted only after the necessary 218 votes had already been cast. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill. All members of the House voted, and none voted “present”.[24]”

    “The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, as engrossed or passed by the House of Representatives, was received in the Senate, read into the record and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 210, Nov. 16, 2009).”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act

    UNLESS, Manuel, YOU want to put the entire blame for all of this on the one lone Republican Congressman who voted for this law. Are you really THAT petty?

    OH! And By The Way, that one lone Republican who voted for ObamaCare is..

    “Anh “Joseph” Quang Cao (Vietnamese: Cao Quang Ánh; English pronunciation: /ˈɡaʊ/ gow;[3] born March 13, 1967 in Saigon, South Vietnam) is the former U.S. Representative for Louisiana’s 2nd congressional district, serving from 2009 until 2011.”

    “Cao was the only Republican to vote for the draft Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) on November 7, 2009.[52][53] ”

    “A devout Roman Catholic, Cao served as a board member for Mary Queen of Vietnam Catholic Church’s Community Development Corporation[84] which assists Vietnamese-Americans with hurricane relief,[85] and is a member of the National Advisory Council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.[86]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cao

    Those dang Catholics!!! Right Manuel?

  104. ManuelMartini says:

    “I’m really interested in seeing how the president wriggles out of this one given that it’s an election year”

    I’m really interested how the Church gets to participate in politics, since it’s a violation of their non-profit status.

    I’m really interested how this became a “Barack Obama” issue, when over 200 other people supported the legislation.

    Again. Thinly veiled politics….from the pulpit.

  105. Look above Manuel. Look above and read.

  106. ManuelMartini says:

    Only the truly mind washed can’t see past the obvious partisanism and political issues.

    I’m reminded that religion plays on the ignorance of people.

  107. ManuelMartini says:

    “The federal tax law is very strict on the issue of political campaigning: A 501(c)(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Violation of this prohibition could lead the IRS to completely revoke your organization’s tax-exempt status or impose excise taxes on your organization.”

    Ouch!

  108. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)

    “PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against.[8] It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.[9]”

    “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)[1][2] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

    And that’s “why this is all about “Barack Obama” and not all of the Congressional reps that voted for Health Care Reform.” Because ONLY 1 Republican voted FOR it Manuel. Now do you get it?

    And just to remind you, I am NOT a Republican. I am not a Democrat, I am an Independent, and The FACTS are just The FACTS.

    And that’s the way it is, February 9th, two-thousand-twelve! This is Walter Crankcase with the news, signing off!

  109. P.S. Manuel, stop DEFLECTING!

  110. The church can do whatever they want…1st Ammendmant!

    Nope. That’s not what the 1st Amendment states.

    The moral of this story is one that runs all through American religious history, manifest in such instances as the Mormon church having to give up polygamy or fundamentalist Bob Jones University ending its ban on interracial dating on pain of losing its tax exemption. Religious freedom is not the only right at stake in the crowded public square. And a religion cannot reasonably expect the public and the law to respect its idiosyncratic ways when it fails to live up to the community’s well-considered standards
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-03-28-column28_ST_N.htm

  111. ManuelMartini says:

    Citing the law about political campaigns and non-profits is “deflecting”?

    Oh my!

    beerBoy, once I realized that all of this emotional minutia is related to childhood indoctrination, I’ve thown in the towel on educating.

    I can’t wait for the reponse to your post as “this is not about racial equality”

    The more I watch this dialog, the more I’m convinced of the political attack on Obama being the primary objective.

  112. ManuelMartini says:

    Did I say “Republican” congressional reps?

    I said “Congressional Reps”. Someone added “Republican” on their own.

  113. Manuel, now you are quibbling! Your attempt to shift blame from President Obama to congress was a thinly veiled attempt to tag the Republicans who voted for ObamaCare, which you apparently assumed it took at least a few Republicans to break the tie, but it turns out you were wrong. You should have checked the facts, BEFORE you threw up the facetious argument.

    You asked: “tell me why this is all about “Barack Obama” and not all of the Congressional reps that voted for Health Care Reform.”

    I answered with FACTS you cannot dispute. Sorry, you lost that one. ObamaCare is Obama’s issue, because the rules to the religious organizations were directed by The Obama Administration. Those are the FACTS.

    Throw in the towel. I think you should. You have lost this debate, further proven by your repeated failed attempts to deflect to church tax exemption which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with this topic.

    beerBoy, this issue is NOT yet a Church Tax-Exemption issue. It might well evolve to that, but it is NOT now, and to try to turn this discussion that way is simply a desperate attempt at deflection of exactly the same type as others who you have opposed in previous topics who attempted to DEFLECT the discussion in the same way when they were losing too. I expect better than that from you!

  114. ManuelMartini says:

    “lost the debate”

    yeah…I didn’t do nearly enough namecalling and rambling comments spewing religious mantra over and over.

    I’ll work on that. LOL

  115. As far as name-calling, rambling comments and spewing unrelated comments in your attempts to deflect, you did a lot more than I did! I can say that for sure, because I did none of that. You did lose. You can’t win them all Manuel. And you just did not win this one. Sorry about that old chum!

  116. The facts all show that this is just another election year attack and has nothing to do with principles. All of the major Republican candidates have moved far to the right on this issue from their previous positions to try to appease the evangelicals and to match Santorum’s view that all birth control should be outlawed.

    The fact that almost every major Catholic University and many Catholic hospitals already require birth control services in their insurance plans proves that it is not a religious mandate that must be observed. Catholic Bishops are trying to get the Federal government to enforce a religious point of view that they don’t even enforce among their own institutions.

    More than half of all states (28 as of 2010) already require insurance plans to include birth control services.

    Programs that train or educate religious leaders, teachers, churches and clerics are all exempt if their purpose is religious instruction or services. The law does not mandate anyone to violate their conscience and use birth control.

    A large majority of people in the US approve of the mandate (55%)and an even larger majority of Catholics approve (58%) of the requirement.
    http://publicreligion.org/

  117. menopaws says:

    Again, a bunch of celibate (let us pray!!!) men deciding health care policy for women…………And, hiding behind the shield of religion to do it………We are tired of this and as women, feel we are at war to protect our healthcare, our freedom and our dignity…..It’s women being forced out of making their own decisions……….All by a bunch of celibate men and politicians, who are desperate to find another issue than the economy to demonize the President about. And, the women stuck in the middle of this exercise in “potency” are left, once again, with no options………I saw the women of Congress standing in front of the mikes, pleading for equality in health care options…….But, here’s the rub—it’s not about us—it NEVER is……

  118. beerBoy says:

    More than half of all states (28 as of 2010) already require insurance plans to include birth control services.

    Repeated in bold for emphasis.

  119. muckibr says:

    How the heck do you make text bold? I have tried and it doesn’t stay bold when I post the comment!

  120. menopaws you do not speak for all women. I would appreciate it very much if you stopped implying that you do.

  121. ManuelMartini says:

    “As far as name-calling, rambling comments and spewing unrelated comments in your attempts to deflect, you did a lot more than I did! I can say that for sure, because I did none of that.”

    Absolutely delusional – not to mention not paying attention to the several commenters that noted your hysterial rants and namecalling

    Very “concernedish” behavior.

  122. ManuelMartini says:

    sozo, you don’t speak for me, but that didn’t stop you from doing such.

  123. ManuelMartini says:

    You know. I’m really dumb. Two days of this argument and I never thought to call my daughter in law and ask her if her employer (A Catholic Hospital) had an insurance coverage for birth control pills.

    And the answer (as I just got off the phone with her) is…..

    YES. She gets birth control pills via her insurance coverage just like any other Rx.

    As I figured, the Catholic Church is running a scam to attack Obama. Now, it would be fun to find out who is behind the scam, other than some Church officials (that the parishioners are too scared to confront).

    The one thing I can always depend on from religion is hypocrisy.

  124. ManuelMartini says:

    Oh….before too long, muckibr will add “liar” to his list of names he has called me, which is fine, because I know I just had the conversation with her and I’m glad I thought enough to ask her.

    It confirmed my suspicions. This is a political ploy.

    Additionally her plan (with Group Health) which has abortion as part of it’s basic coverage. Again, her employer is a Catholic Hospital and Medical Care Group. She pays a portion of the premium as to they.

    I wonder why they aren’t complaining about “First Amendment Rights”?

  125. ManuelMartini says:

    Why does this not surprise me?

    John Boehner – Catholic
    Rick Santorum – ditto

  126. muckibr – the bold command is (without the period or the spaces). Be sure to close the bold (and italics!) with

  127. Wow…. my instructions disappear….that html stuff is so magic! Trying again “<" with the correct letter "b" inside of the bracket followed by the other bracket

  128. Now that President Obama has devised a compromise that will preserve the First Amendment Rights and Protections for Catholic and other Religious organizations, and still provide women with birth control at little or no cost to them, we can hope that the state legislators can do the same with these proposed bills.

    On the federal level the issue seems to be resolved, and The First Amendment was mention specifically as a prime motivator to devise this solution.

    Thank you Mr. President!!! Now, Washington state, your job is to do something similar to be fair to all.

  129. ManuelMartini says:

    Notice that muckibr totally ignores the point that the Catholic Church was lying and running a bluff to attack Obama?

    The Catholic Church is providing health care benefits that pay for birth control and abortion, right here in the Puget Sound.

  130. I don’t believe that The Catholic Church lied at any point during this controversy. I do not recall reading about any documented lies The Catholic Church was directly charged with telling on this matter.

    Until someone who has charged The Catholic Church with lying can prove it with documented evidence, then

    I have to assume that person who is charging The Catholic Church with lying, and has provided no proof, is the real liar.

    That’s just logic.

  131. P.S. The biggest winners here are The American People, all women and men, who have had their First Amendment Rights upheld by the common sense solution and decision of The President of The United States of America.

    God Bless America!

  132. ManuelMartini says:

    “Washington state passed an abortion reform bill in 1970, and Group Health’s Board voted to include abortion in its basic coverage.”

    Providence St Peter offers Group Health as an employee benefit option.

    The Catholic Church does not universally oppose abortion coverage, as they have tried to tell us with this political campaigning.

  133. ManuelMartini says:

    I knew that muckibr would resort to questioning the truth of my conversation with my daugher in law, and the subsequent jingoism.

    I’m glad I finally thought to call her. I get to know the truth.

  134. ManuelMartini says:

    To take it a step further, Providence provides health care for Group Health members who don’t have a facility nearby. They are partners in business with the “abortion providers”. Money cures a lot of guilt.

    More truths the Church doesn’t talk about during politicking.

  135. “Until someone who has charged The Catholic Church with lying can prove it with documented evidence, then… I have to assume that person who is charging The Catholic Church with lying, and has provided no proof, is the real liar.”

    You haven’t even proven you have a daughter, and even if she does exist her words relayed by you are not documented evidence and prove nothing.

    Your recent posts seem to make even less sense than those by Pacman33.

  136. ManuelMartini says:

    https://provider.ghc.org/open/render.jhtml;jsessionid=5N2RQY1TLRO5HJCISQ3SGWQ?item=/open/PM-index.xml

    Proof of partnership with Group Health. (just enter a Thurston County zip code)

    Maybe you’d better pay attention, muckibr – I said “daughter in law”. Regardless, the issue is that the hospital is in partnership with Group Health, who stipulates that they provide abortion services.

    Your argument grows weaker and more child-like as you go.

    How about your proof that Providence DOES NOT offer Group Health as of of the benefit options? How about proving you are not the local priest pretending to be a reader of the TNT? I can require ridiculous scenarios just like you.

    I’ll be waiting. Meanwhile, I’ll post more connections between Providence and Group Health

  137. ManuelMartini says:

    The Providence website is acting up so I’ll have to access their information later.

    Meanwhile, I’m confident in my sources.

  138. I had NO PROBLEM navigating around the PROVIDENCE HEALTH PLANS web pages, and this is what I found:

    Please first note the definition of: Exclusions

    exclusion |ikˈskloō zh ən|
    noun
    the process or state of excluding or being excluded : drug users are subject to exclusion from the military.
    an item or risk specifically not covered by an insurance policy or other contract : exclusions can be added to your policy.

    PROVIDENCE HEALTH PLANS
    Individual & Family Plan Exclusions

    Exclusions that apply to Reproductive Services
    • All Services related to sexual disorders or dysfunctions regardless of gender, including all Services related to a sex-change operation, including evaluation, surgery and follow-up Services;
    • All Services for the treatment of infertility, including all Services related to surrogate parenting. For the purpose of this exclusion, infertility is defined as the inability to become pregnant after a year of unprotected intercourse or the inability to carry a pregnancy to term as evidenced by three (3) consecutive spontaneous abortions;
    Termination of pregnancy, unless there is a severe threat to the mother, or if the life of the fetus cannot be sustained;
    Sterilization (tubal ligation and vasectomy) Services;
    • Reversal of voluntary sterilization;
    Condoms and other over-the-counter birth control products;and
    • Home births and all related Services.

    http://www.providence.org/healthplans/getcoverage/individualplans/planoverview/exclusions.aspx#rs

  139. So sorry if this shakes your confidence in your “sources”.

    Take care!

  140. Also sorry about getting this thread stuck on bold text.

  141. ManuelMartini says:

    No muckibr. It shakes my confidence in you having the ability to know the difference between what services “Providence Health Plans” sells and the benefit options of Group Health Cooperative for the hospital employees. LMAO

    Maybe you needed to know the difference between the website you provided and the hospital website. Try looking at the top left hand corner of the page. Look at the option that says “Buy Insurance”. Look at the link to click to contact the sales department for the Insurance company.

    Start with the website address:

    http://www2.providence.org/southwest-washington/facilities/providence-st-peter-hospital/Pages/default.aspx

    versus

    http://www.providence.org/healthplans/getcoverage/individualplans/planoverview/exclusions.aspx#rs

    You’ve been making a fool of yourself on this subject to date, no reason to change now, I guess. Just don’t expect me to be ignorant enough to fall for your misrepresentations.

    Don’t worry, my daughter in law has no reason to lie to me about her medical coverage through her employer. Nor does my son, who is married to her and gets the same coverage.

    Now, the one thing I learned is that the Catholic Church is ALSO in the insurance business. Plenty of money to be made there, especially in the cases where you are providing the care AND the coverage.

    Why don’t you just admit that the Church isn’t being honest about their misdirected complaint with Obama and that this is nothing short of a poltical campaign to smear the President?

    It’s OK to be wrong. Sorry….. I forgot that you think there is a “winner” and “loser” to this discussion.

  142. ManuelMartini says:

    Oh…now the “bold” is locked.

  143. Right Manny, Providence is going to pay for a medical service to its employees that it will not even offer to its patients. Doesn’t make sense. Your own logic is foolish Manny, the Group Health Policy is an additional policy employees can opt for because Provident itself will NOT provide the EXCLUSIONS to its employees that it EXCLUDES from its patients.

    I’m done with you kardnos!

    God Bless you!

  144. Do menopaws, any comments today on the president’s atutely political decision regarding the protection of religious liberty. I say astutely political because I predicted that he, given that this is an election year, would do what he could to appease the Catholic vote, and I was right.

    Seems angry women aren’t the only ones in the U.S. with the power to effect change.

  145. sozo, you could be right. This could have been a very carefully planned political play by President Obama from the very start, to appear to appease one group, without first overly angering the other, and then coming up with a compromise to satisfy the majority of both sides. If so, I would have to give the president kudos for a well played gambit.

  146. ManuelMartini says:

    I knew that muckibr was going to pull the ploy that if Providence provided medical insurance there would be no reason for Group Health Cooperative,etc, etc, etc

    This is getting quite predictable.

    I don’t know of a major employer that doesn’t offer a choice of coverage – insurance companies as well – not to mention that I believe there is a state that that stipulates that companies over a certain number of employees are required to offer an HMO – thus Group Health. (checked with Commissioner’s office – there is a law – RCW 48.46.180)

    When an employer offers Group Health, there are about 8 choices of programs, none of which are “pick and choose” on the part of the employer. They don’t run the programs, Group Health does.

    You pulled up their insurance program, which has absolutely nothing to do with how someone else runs their organization, regardless of the Catholic Church.

    Nice try, muckibr, but another failure. I’m certain you are done with me. I’m debunking you left and right.

    sozo – the president isn’t appeasing the Catholic vote, considering that the majority of Catholic women ignore the rules on birth control. What the President did was take away the big stick that the Conservative leaders of the Church and the Republicans were going to beat him with, regardless of the facts and truth in the matter. It was an excellent political play on his part.

    I can’t wait to hear the statement that Boehner and Santorum won’t make about Obama’s actions.

  147. ManuelMartini says:

    Just to cut the crap quickly –

    (2) “Each employer, public or private, having more than fifty employees in this state which offers its employees a health benefits plan, and each employee benefits fund in this state having more than fifty members which offers its members any form of health benefits shall make available to and inform its employees or members of the option to enroll in at least one health maintenance organization holding a valid certificate of authority which provides health care services in the geographic areas in which a substantial number of such employees or members reside” (RCW 48.46.180)

    Providence Hospital has far more than 50 employees and since they have an establish partnership with Group Health, their campuses are within two blocks of each other AND…..Group Health is popular in Thurston County because of the State Employees, GHC is the choice offered Providence employees.

    Birth control pills are just like any other Rx – prescribed by a GHC physician and purchased at their pharmacy with a copay. Abortion is offer as a basic service to all Group Health subscribers and their dependents.

    As Elvis used to say…..thankyouverymuch.

  148. All bold is only slightly less annoying than all italics.

  149. Even though legal scholars at four universities were contacted by Obama’s staff before his original decision and said this wasn’t a 1st Amendment issue and had been tested in courts in the states, Obama found a compromise that worked for the benefit of women and churches.

    Unfortunately, right-wing politicians don’t have the slightest clue about the need for compromise for the benefit of the American people.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0