Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

CONTRACEPTION: Republicans insulting to women

Letter by Bambi Lin Litchman, Tacoma on Feb. 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm with 187 Comments »
February 17, 2012 4:40 pm

One picture is worth a thousand words. This is true of the photo of the House oversight committee hearing wherein Republicans convened a panel on birth control coverage that consisted of five men and no women. The chairman and panel may as well have been Archie Bunker convening a panel on race relations.

The chairman also denied women witnesses who attended in order to support insurance contraceptive coverage. He stated they had no expertise. Huh? Women have no valuable expertise or experience regarding contraceptives and insurance coverage?

An articulate young woman law student was denied the chance to speak about the experience of her fellow Georgetown student who was denied contraceptive prescription coverage by the university although she had a documented medical need unrelated to preventing pregnancy. The student couldn’t afford to purchase the prescription on her own, which resulted in grave medical consequences.

The fact is that women take contraceptives not only for birth control and family planning, but for a wide variety of important medical reasons.

A recent national poll showed that 66 percent of Americans support the federal government requiring that contraceptive medicine be covered by health insurers without a co-pay.

Is there an outcry against insurance coverage of vasectomies or Viagra? No.

A panel of five Republican men exclusively convening to discuss health insurance and birth control coverage is beyond insulting. It illustrates a danger to women and a concerted attempt to turn the clock back on women’s health care and a woman’s right to choose her destiny.

Leave a comment Comments → 187
  1. Well stated Bambi!

  2. Ah yes, the Great Contraception Deflection of 2012!

  3. thoughtful1 says:

    Right on, Bambi. I am a woman who came of age on the cusp of the women’s movement, and as a child of the 60’s, I can remember my grandmothers who came of age before women could even vote. I can also remember the adage: “Nature gave women so much power, that the law had to give them so little.” Sisters, these demagogues will determine your future (or lack thereof) if you don’t vote to stop them. Republicans can’t stop their sanctimonious wailing about evil government regulation of corporations, so why do they feel it is OK to regulate the sanctity of the individual citizens’ lives? Oh, well, when we finally get single-payer health insurance, we probably won’t have to worry about whose Church determines what medications we can take.

  4. took14theteam says:

    Looks like Bambi is regurgitating the latest talking points from the Democratic party. Do whatever you can to smear Republicans and the White male in general.

    The panel of which she speaks was not about birth control coverage, it was a panel about Religious Freedom.

    But the left and the media will do anything they can to destroy the Republicans and prop up the current socialist in chief.

  5. Cardinous says:

    The Catholic Church already provides birth control for employees. It is also in partnership with providers of birth control and abortion.

    They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are trying to deflect.

    Unfortunately, we aren’t dumb enough to buy that. We left that up to the Republicans.

  6. Cardinous says:

    Note the continuous messaging.

    John Boehner on the tax/unemployment/medicare legislation:

    “We were not going to allow Democrats to continue to play games and cause a tax increase for hardworking Americans,” Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We made a decision to bring them to the table so that the games would stop and we would get this worked out.”

    Yeah, Johnboy. We weren’t awake two months ago. We don’t know what happened. We’ll buy your BS.

  7. took14theteam says:

    Nice “Moniker”.

    Time will tell “who” you are….

    ;-)

  8. The Republicans and their hand picked witnesses say it was a panel about “liberty of conscience.” Whereas the Democrats say it should have been about women’s preventative health and contraceptives.

    The real truth is, the panel was a partisan political stunt to try to make the president look bad in an election year. And, it got a lot of press, but who came out looking like the fool on this one?

    If you are really interested in TRUTH, instead of SPIN, read some of the real details here and in context by going to the included link below.

    Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception
    Feb 16, 2012 9:56am

    paragraph 16, “A terse back and forth followed between Issa, Maloney and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C., about what the true purpose of the hearing was and whether a violation of rules existed. Issa pointed out that Democrats barred Republican witnesses when they were in the majority. Two women were featured on the second panel, one a female physician.”

    paragraph 23, “Rep. Gerry Connolly accused the witnesses of “being used for a political agenda” and that the “hearing is a sham.”

    paragraph 24, “I think it taints the value of this panel that could have been a thoughtful discussion,” he said referring to the fact that the minority was denied their requested additional witnesses. “This is a panel designed to embarrass the president of the United states and his administration.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/

  9. Nice “Moniker”.

    Time will tell “who” you are…

    I’ll tell you exactly who he is. He’s that guy who knows everything, and has done everything, and has been almost everywhere, and can’t stop from telling you that.

    When you try to go away from him and do something else he follows you around and keeps reminding you that he knows best because after all he has had a superior life experience. He is the classic bully.

  10. GHTaxPayer says:

    Democrats are insulting to anyone with a brain. Obama pulled another unconstitutional stunt by trying to force religious organizations to go against their teachings. The Supreme Court will right some of Obama’s wrongs when they overturn Obamacare.

    And do you women realize that Obamacare gives any president the sole authority to ban birth control and abortions for all women ? WITHOUT having to go thru congress !! Still happy with Obamacare ??

  11. bobcat1a says:

    Why is this “issue of conscience” suddenly a big deal when the same rules were put in place by a number of Republican state governments starting in 2000 and no one had a problem with it. Could it be because of who is president now?

  12. In a word bobcat1a… yes.

  13. Cardinous says:

    thankyou, took14theteam!

    I’m a big St Louis Cardinals fan! Not only Cardinous but Cardilicious!

    I’d ask about the origin of your moniker but it sounds a bit personal or too much information.

    WOW! Someone has knickers in knots! He is a she.

  14. Cardinous says:

    Maybe GHTaxpayer can explain how said religion has been providing birth control pills to employees for 10 years, and all of a sudden, because Obama is in office, it’s a constitutional issue. I guess they couldn’t find the constitutional argument when Bush was in office from 2001 to 2009.

    It would probably be too embarrassing to talk about the Catholic Church’s relationship with health care providers that sell birth control pills and provide abortion as basic coverage.

  15. aislander says:

    Some states DO force religious organizations to go against their conscience. Doesn’t mean the Federal government should also break the First Amendment…

  16. If the panel was seriously talking about government and religion, then they would have asked the question, “Should businesses and service providers that happen to be owned by a religious group be required to follow state or federal laws, or do they have the right to ignore any law they do not want to abide by?

    That is the real question here. The Catholic Church tried to assert immunity from lawsuits and other consequences from its policies and actions regarding sex abuse using the First Amendment to say government had no right interfering with its decisions on priests and religious workers because the church ahd religious doctrines in place to deal with the issue. It was their contention that they did not have to follow laws requiring immediate reporting of abuse against minors to state authorities.

    The church transferred many priests to Rome to escape prosecution and made secret agreements with victims instead of following state laws on reporting abuse. The did this because they felt they did not have to follow state laws. The Vatican still contends that priests are under religious protection and cannot be prosecuted or sued.

    The Catholic Church and other churches have fought many suits in court on such laws as equal employment, fair housing and non-discrimination saying if the church owns the business, even if it provides public accommodation and services, they do not have to follow these laws. They would love a precedent that said the First Amendment means that church-owned businesses do not have to follow a law.

    That would mean chaos in our society. All businesses would have to do is incorporate as a church, easily enough done, (look at Scientology) and assert they do not have to follow secular laws.

  17. Cardinous says:

    conservatives read the first amendment about as poorly as they do the second

  18. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Tuddo- the question can be asked has govt overreached? Is the law within the Constitution, not the exemption?

    While I personally think Ron Paul goes too far too fast (according to his rhetoric), he has a valid point on where our govt stands in regards to Constirution and our Founder’s intent (as read through the Constitution and the Federalist Papers).

  19. in aislander-speak, “some states” = 56% of all states.

  20. flamotte says:

    Thank you for your brave speaking out. This party is trying to take us back to the 16th Century because they are afraid of independent powerful women. So they hide their attack on women’s rights and women’s equality behind the veneer of religion.

    As Patti Murray said, “The assault on women’s rights never comes unless it is disguised as somethin else.”

    But with brave women like you standing up and speaking out, the Neanderthal Party will be defeated.

  21. aislander, “Some states DO force religious organizations to go against their conscience. Doesn’t mean the Federal government should also break the First Amendment…”

    The Fed, via President Obama, struck the compromise on the HHS rules so that the insurance provider is responsible and not the employer. This compromise, creating new Federal rules, was meant to comply with First Amendment protections specifically regarding religion so as not to force religious organizations to provide birth control in opposition to their core beliefs.

    Federal law normally takes precedence over state law. Example: Laws restricting the purchase, transportation, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana. Even if Washington state voters legalize marijuana use, The Fed still retains legal authority to arrest and prosecute marijuana sellers and users in the state.

    The reverse is usually the case. Thus the Federal Law/Rule can be cited by lawyers representing employers in those 28 states to change the state laws through the courts.

  22. Cardinous says:

    government overreach = vaginal ultrasounds not ordered by physicians

  23. Glad you brought up the vaginal probe ultrasound requirement about to be signed in Virginia. Where is the probe requirement for the perkip*nis pill?

  24. concernedtacoma7 asks: “Tuddo- the question can be asked has govt overreached? Is the law within the Constitution, not the exemption?”

    The issue of whether or not universal mandate is Constitutional is really not an issue here, it is the exemption. If universal mandate goes away, but the laws and regulations state that if a business provides insurance coverage, then it must include contraception, there is still the question of religious exemptions.

    The Supreme Court gave us a large clue to their current understanding of Constitutionality in regards to religious institutions’ exemptions from laws and regulations in court cases this year dealing with the right to bring a suit under non-discrimination laws in employment.

    The Court ruled that religious instructors, not just ordained clergy, were considered exempt from these laws and churches could discriminate for any reason, even in schools, hospitals or other institutions that serve the public in employment practices with teachers who teach religion. However, employees of religious enterprises who did not provide religious instruction or develop, preach or enforce religious dogma are not exempt if they work in a place of public accommodation.

    That is why almost every legal scholar, conservative or liberal, has said that requiring businesses and service providers that are not involved in religious instruction, but provide other services to the public, are not exempt under the Constitution for this law or the regulations stemming from it.

  25. Refrigerator says:

    What a buch of malarky this letter is. The manure coming out of the Democrat lair is harming the entire country. I don’t want the world you envision and refuse all efforts to direct my life to your vision.

  26. SamForeman says:

    Most of these comments are purile in there content and a waste of time to read

  27. Tuddo? Then do you see that the constitutional law is being used as a guise for some other purpose? Why is it that it was on the books with republican support for ten years and all of a sudden some republicans are in a crisis over it? If anything, this makes the case for a single payer system simply due to the fact that for any “religious or moral” objection, any one of us can be denied coverage. Or is it a guise to save money and increase profits??

  28. “they are afraid of independent powerful women.”

    udder nonsense!

  29. Frida, I’m sorry, but I don’t understand hyour question. I do believe that universal coverage is constitutional, but I also believe that the principle of religious immunity to laws and regulatiions is a more general question that is being brought up now by Republicans and making it seem like contraception coverage is some major and different question.

    The long-held constitutional principle in the way almost all of our civil laws have been enforced is that they cannot interfere with religious teachings in any way, but in secular activities of the church that have nothing to do with teaching or spreading dogma, secular, civil laws must be applied the same, no matter who owns or runs the business.

    Nurses, doctors and other non-religious workers have the same rights and freedoms under the laws to be protected from discrimination, harassment, religious interference with their work or denial of benefits of employment. Religious workers do not.

    By not providing contraceptive and other health care to non-religious workers, it is religious harassment by the church and imposing religious dogma on people who do not have to believe the same way to work there. There can be no religious test for non-religious workers in places of public accommodation and there can be no disparate treatment based on religion.

  30. menopaws says:

    Once again–a bunch of WHITE males……..I am sick of the “talking points” crowd. This letter is about women and their needs, their questions not being addressed by a Congressional panel. Pure and simple. It is NOT about the “evil” Obama, it is NOT about religious freedom. It is a letter that addresses women being kept out of the discussion—whether it is about religion or health care. Period. so save your other crap for a therapists office and deal with this singular, important issue. If you have daughters, do you want them to have choices in their health care?? Why were no women clergy included in this panel? I myself have a female relative who is a minister—-there are plenty of women serving their churches…….Let’s discuss what this writer is talking about……..Her voice speaks to several important issues worth examining.

  31. menopaws, I respect and agree with you on most counts of your post above, but, unfortunately, you are using the same logic that the Republicans on the committee are using in their little stage show. You are saying the discussion here should not be about constitutional issues of religious freedom, but only about the issues this letter writer brings up.

    The Republicans used that same logic and said that the minority witness the Dems had offered was not allowed to speak because she was addressing issues other than those set forth by the committee.

    Whether or not females were on the panel or not is a minor issue to me, since one female cannot speak for all females just like one male does not speak for all males. I think it was bad political theater on the Republican side not to include woman supporting the far-right side, and good political theater for Dems to choose a female, but it doesn’t impact the underlying discussiion at all.

    What is alarming is that the committee chose not to let anyone, no matter their gender, speak about the medical role of contraception in women’s health. They did not allow anyone to present a position based on legal issues about applicability of civil law to non-religious activities.

    It is frankly insulting for a woman to say that only a woman can discuss the medical issues around contraception, just as insulting as saying only a man can talk about insurance or other serious issues.

    My argument is that, unless we look at the broad consequences of whether or not we exempt from civil laws all businesses run by religious organizations in the public arena, then we can not understand the context of this particular narrow decision on contraception. That is why a discussion of religious freedom is necessary.

  32. aislander says:

    Just as routing ill-gotten money through a secondary entity to cause it to appear to be obtained legally is money laundering, routing this mandate on religious institutions through other entities is “mandate laundering.”

  33. GHTaxPayer says:

    I see that none of the liberals have answered my question about Obamacare giving any president the sole authority to ban birth control pills and abortions for all women.

    Do you lib women really want any president having that much authority over your personal health decisions ? Really ?

  34. GHTaxPayer, you first have to make a coherent and factual argument to ahve anyone comment on it. Your statement is ludicrous on its surface.

    If you are talking about implementation of regulations, then almost all laws give the executive branch (the President) authority to develop and implement regulations that carry out the law. Congress can change the laws to make clearer their intent on how regulations must apply, so your statement that Congress has no say is just false.

  35. it was a panel about Religious Freedom.

    Yah, sure, ya betcha……

    my question about Obamacare giving any president the sole authority to ban birth control pills and abortions for all women.

    Please cite where, exactly, does the law provide that sole authority to the President.

    udder nonsense
    funny pun that could work on either side of the aisle on this issue….though it would fit better if the issue had to do with breast feeding.

  36. Republicans=rich Anglo saxon everybody else is insignificant

  37. Herman Cain = Republican former candidate for GOP Nomination

    Bobby Jindal = Republican Governor

    Michael Steele = Republican for GOP Chairman

    Anh “Joseph” Quang Cao = Republican former Congressman

    Alberto Gonzales = Republican former United States Attorney General

    =

    Romulan postulation proven invalid

  38. Muckibr as with all hypotheses; minor errors, the majority of the experiment is true

  39. Cardinous says:

    speaking of disgusting, there is woman using cow references to other women and a foul mouthed male that complains about others’ posts, declaring first ammendment in one thread and trying to silence the opposition on another.

    hypocrisy as usual

  40. menopaws says:

    Listen, I am really tired of being on the receiving end of “Concerned” .You have some SERIOUS anger management issues. If you speak to the women in your life the way you speak to me or Frida—you are an abuser. Get some help and learn to control your anger……..Next posting with that kind of vicious stuff and I’ll make a bigger issue with those who allow us to post. Mind your manners!!!!!! This is a discussion of ideas—–a civil interchange and discussion. If you can’t be civilized—don’t post.

  41. concernedtacoma7 says:

    You angry old hag, I have not spoken harsh to Frida. But when you stereotype and act like a bigot, I will not side on the sidelines.

    Honest debate is not hate or anger, something I would figure you learned in your advanced age.

  42. Pacman33 says:

    menopaws and other anti-American and anti-Constitution radical leftist’s re-definition of : “a civil interchange and discussion”
    =
    ‘Concern for the poor’ is redefined as support for this or that government program, while ‘religious liberty’ is redefined as hatred for women or gays or perhaps even just simple intolerance.

    – A principled stand on reducing the deficit and reforming entitlements is redefined as “pushing Granny over a cliff”.

    – A concern about the implications for the institution of marriage is redefined as “homophobic” or “bigotry”.

    – If you want to keep our borders safe and prevent illegal immigration, you are redefined as “anti-Hispanic”, “anti-immigration” and “racist”.

    – If you support a woman’s right to choose her own destiny (i.e., contraception, abortion etc.) but suggest that it isn’t the government’s place to pay for it with YOUR money, or the money of people who might oppose abortion or certain types of contraception; they you are redefined as “anti-woman”, “sexist”, “anti-birth control”, “religious-fanatic”, etc.

    Notice how every “redefinition” of a principled opposition to a leftist policy has been transformed into an ad hominem , or personal attack?

    The use of ad hominem attacks has become the preferred method to deal with Republicans and conservatives who make the argument that *Freedom* is preferable to *Government Control*. This is how a wacko like Maxine Waters, can effortlessly determine and proclaim to all R’s as, “DEMONS!!”.

    Since they are unable to counter the ideas or principles which underlie those who oppose their policies, the left instead focus on trying to destroy them on a personal level and redefining the stance they cannot defend. Instead of doing “good” and promoting “justice”, instead of working toward peace and harmony among people; they are promoting hate, class warfare, envy, and the worst aspects of human nature.

  43. Your commentary is insulting to both men and women, menopaws. First of all you don’t even come close to speaking for or advocating for all women– and second, your appalling bigotry towards men is far more worthy of therapeutic attention than anything else I’ve seen her. Tuddo is absolutely correct when he points out that… “It is frankly insulting for a woman to say that only a woman can discuss the medical issues around contraception, just as insulting as saying only a man can talk about insurance or other serious issues.”

    Further, you ask “If you have daughters, do you want them to have choices in their health care??”

    I have beautiful granddaughters and I want them to live in a country that allows them to worship as they see fit and follow their consciences with regard to issues such as contraception and abortion.
    I want them to live in a country where they are still protected by the constitution, a country where the state can never dictate that they do something contrary to their moral code. You are obtuse and in denial if you cannot see down the road regarding where this might take us.

    Those of you here who suggest that conservatives want the state to be in control of women miss an essential point.

    It IS the government’s job to protect us. Where life and limb are involved, it is perfectly right and reasonable for the state to govern behavior. For those who believe life begins at conception, the life and limb of infants is at stake.

    Menopaws you are sick of what you’re sick of, fine. And I’m sick of people viewing infanticide as a woman’s health care issue. Frankly I am sick of the Banshee shreak of angry women, period. Plenty of bright and capable women are speaking on both sides of this issue. Find a shrink for crying out loud.

  44. sozo, I appreciate your support of one of my comments, but please, please, contraception has nothing to do with infanticide, even the Plan B morning after prevents conception.

    Your feeble try at victimhood just doesn’t cut any logical muster. Nothing in the health care regulations would make any woman violate her own moral code about whether or not to use contraceptives. That is a big red herring.

    Conservatives want the government to deny those women who do want contraception and the medical benefits provided by prescription hormones that stop conception the chance to have it provided in their insurance . So yes, it is conservatives who want control over women, not people in support of the health care regulations.

  45. aislander says:

    When gametes join to create a zygote, tuddo, it becomes a matter of personal definition regarding whether a drug is a contraceptive or an abortifacient, just as it is a matter of personal conscience regarding the point at which human life begins. The regulations you endorse are, therefore, capable of forcing people to go against their consciences.

    Your side is about forcing religious organizations to submit on matters of conscience, and the First Amendment is there to prevent that from happening. The so-called compromise about forcing insurance companies to pay is the ruse…

    Nobody is trying to outlaw contraception–we just don’t wish to be forced to provide it or pay for it.

    Besides, in a FREE country, two people should be able to contract with each other to buy and supply medical insurance without the government’s dictating what is to be covered and what isn’t…

  46. aislander, the First amendment has everything to do with religion, not businesses that serve the public in non-religious ways. All a church has to do is quit providing competitive non-religious services in the public marketplace and they can do anything they want.

    If the service or product that is provided is non-religious, provided by people who do not have to follow any particular religious dogma, then it is not religion, it is business.

    Churches are exempt and have been from almost every civil law. Businesses have never been exempt from any civil law before, even if they were owned by a church. This is a political stunt based on religious leaders trying to enforce their will on people by using secular laws.

    I know Catholic bishops are upset that a huge majority of Catholics thumb their nose at the church leaders’ teachings on this, but attacking non-religious workers in the marketplace and denying them equal protection under the law is no way to enforce your dogma.

  47. aislander says:

    tuddo writes: “All a church has to do is quit providing competitive non-religious services in the public marketplace and they can do anything they want.”

    All a person seeking free contraception has to do is seek out an organization that provides it.

    Let’s see…which is more reasonable (Jeopardy music here): for an individual to go online and find a suitable provider, or for a long-standing health-care provider, operating under religious auspices, to get out of the field?

    Again, though: in a free country, people should be able to contract for the coverage they deem suitable. Government stay out of it!

  48. menopaws says:

    Okay boys—bully each other for awhile……..I’ll save my power, along with Michael Steele who said on MSNBC, that the polls for Republicans and women are a major source of concern—the private ones that are done within the party…..Numbers don’t lie Last gasp for the “good ole boy” network……buy your viagra and be verbally abusive to the ladies in your life……..We’ll still outvote you……..Have fun playing your macho games—-class always beats bullies……..Takes a bit longer, but it is always more decisive………..The lady who wrote this letter was right and sorry you don’t realize the implications of silencing women on this subject……..But, I’ll vote, I’ll attend meetings and most important, I’m done walking around the septic with you guys…….It has been an education to me on how low the Republican vote goes: mean doesn’t cover how it truly is—see you on election day….I’m done—-I always forget when I do this blog how many of you live in that septic….good luck Frida—-I should buy you a shovel…….

  49. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Meno- what do you know about class? After a couple years here, I have yet to see you show one bit of class.

    This is about freedom and te Constitution, not health care. I have seen zero evidence to the contrary.

    Meno hates white males. I should have ignored here old bottom

  50. aislander says:

    Some people can certainly dish it out, but when it comes to getting back what they toss out there…well, not so much.

    So, go ahead, menopaws and play the victim. What’s that I hear? Why, it’s a tiny violin…

  51. took14theteam says:

    When you come back Menopaws, I hope you discover the RETURN KEY on your keyboard.

  52. Gee concernedtac, its saturday night and you are still ranting? Women outnumber men and when it comes to issues that concern us, we will be heard. Come voting day boys, women will speak with their votes. And concerned? My dear hubby is a white male, so I myself don’t hate white males. You say its about freedom and the constitution, well that “freedom” is trumping more than half the population’s rights because its setting a DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE. How long will it be before employers morally object to paying coverage for a kid with cancer?- With the reason being, “Its God’s Will.”?? Its not as big as a slippery slope as you may think. And Tuddo? You answered my question, thank you. I hope that you guys can play nice when and if menopaws comes back-

  53. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Frida- I truly think you can see the difference between today’s debate and women’s care. We both want to see our side lead te country, but the rhetoric coming out of the left does not make sense.

    The slippery slope is Obamacare. As of today, we are already over regulated and deal with more govt then is good for us (ref the current Economist).

    As to the how and when of my posts, I have a smart phone and travel often. Sorry if you cannot time your posts.

  54. No matter what your political affiliation, we can all agree that uncovered healthcare can lead a family from zero to bankruptcy in a couple of months. Concerned? You are right, there is a slippery slope in obamacare. I for one would rather see a single payer system. Then this debate over ‘religious freedom’ wouldn’t exist. What is constitutional freedom to you is a loss of needed meds for millions of women. Its not going to be cost effective for the company.

  55. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Let the companies worry about themselves. Not your (or my) business.

    And as to bankruptcy, the difference between $10 and $20 for someone already employed is not that great. Please place this debate in perspective

  56. You forgot the costs associated with getting a prescription. There is an office visit, exams and tests- all if not covered will reach quite a few hundred dollars

  57. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Nope, do not move the goal posts. We (and the national discussion) are not talking about an end to OBGYN care. We are talking about BC.

    Come on Frida. Let’s keep this debate rational.

  58. Pacman33 says:

    Frida amazingly quotes the shameless Barbra Boxer’s delusional projection –
    ” well that “freedom” is trumping more than half the population’s rights because its setting a DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE”

    The right to free contraception trumps the very core of The First Amendment; the free exercise of religion? What is wrong with you?

    Hey genius ……. the only “DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE” attempting to be set here is the power of a president to unilaterally dictate church doctrine. Preventing the empowerment of the government to “grant” us or “take away” our priceless 1st Amendment rights and liberties, religious or not, obviously trumps the contrived “right” to free birth control, ella and Plan B pill that is already nearly free if not 100% free. To suggest otherwise is irrational lunacy.

    If this mandate is allowed to stand, the relationship between the Federal Government and Religion will be permanently altered.

    In America, liberty should be the starting point, not a begrudged afterthought, in every context of law and public policy. This is government by presidential fiat. Today, it’s the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, who knows what tomorrow will hold?

    Frida and other leftist extremists might be mandated to fund the church?

  59. Lots of hysteria on this thread – mostly from those who have declared that a regulation placed upon the Insurance Industry is somehow infringing upon the Church’s business practices.

    But….the letter is commenting upon how the Republicans convened a hearing about this issue and dis-invited any and all women.

    sozo – The language you employ: “bitchy”, “udderly”, “girls”, “Banshee”, etc., is insulting to many women and it seems calculated to inflame passionate responses from women posters who have attitudes that are not reflective of the Donna Reed Show. The more you post on these issues the more you are coming across as one of those women who hate women.

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

  61. beeboy? Nobody seems to want to comment on the very fact that the letter brings up. Where were the women? And concernedtac? My argument is valid, the very fact that this will have financial hardships and medical consequences that impact women. Where were the women in the meeting? And Pac? I and many other women are so flattered that what we do with OUR bodies impacts your very existence so much to infringe upon your rights?

  62. I’m chuckling, bBoy. I am NO Donna Reed. I use that language because I am so tired of pseudo intellectual women posing as superior to both me and other women who do not share their outrage. They represent a Lifetime Movie Channel stereotype of women that I abhor, and resent, given that I am a woman myself. I love women, and I’m embarrassed by the conduct of women like menopaws.

    And for the record, my “udder nonsense” joke was just that, a joke. A pun. A bad pun perhaps….but–it doesn’t belong in your list of my crimes against women.

  63. Cardinous says:

    if anyone used those terms directed at sozo the TNT’s phone would explode from overload

  64. Cardinous says:

    hypocrisy, as usual

  65. Cardinous says:

    don’t like the terminology? Look at the panel picture

  66. rockers1 says:

    Being an Africian American man who had a loving grandmother, mother and having 2 sisters, exclusively convening a panel of men to discuss health insurance for women and birth control is appalling. We cannot let a sector of our society to try and turn back the clock to a darker time in our history in our country.

    Dixon

  67. Cardinous says:

    to say you “don’t want your grandaughter’s growing up in a country that calls infanticide health care” and to then provide a pass to Karen Santorum for her abortion is one more example of hypocrisy

  68. Frida, It is my opinion that if women focus so much on the fact that there were no women at the meeting instead of the underlying threat to women’s health care itself, then the real message is lost.

    Me, I am a woman’s rights advocate all the way, but the focus on gender of people testifying dilutes the focus away from the horrifying power grab that religious institutions are making in our secular business world and the lack of health care options for women as well as men.

    If the panel were all women who supported the Republican’s claim that requiring insurance companies to have a basic level of health care for women in all of their plans somehow infringed on religious worship, would that have made you feel better. If it were three nuns, a female religious worker and a female evangelical leader, would that have made you feel better?

    Is gender really the problem, or is the stifling of reasonable discourse the real issue?

  69. Cardinous says:

    tuddo – I’m with Frida.

    To deny the make up of the panel as being part of the problem, in playing into the hand that seeks to stop you from your freedom.

    Look at the way the pull the faux religious issue to deflect

  70. Cardinous, so you would have been happier with three nuns, and two female religious right leaders espousing the same nonsense the men did, just to have women on the panel? That way it would have been all women’s voices and the argument about the gender of the panel goes completely away.

  71. BlaineCGarver says:

    People are going to do whatever they want. The issue is a bunch of peeps, mostly women, *itching about not getting to be *aid with the benefit of free, entitlement stuff.

  72. ReadNLearn says:

    This isn’t a complicated issue. To prevent an unwanted pregnancy a woman need only do absolutely nothing. Just don’t have vaginal sex. How hard is that?

  73. On 2/17 @ 6:45 PM I posted a comment that started with these two paragraphs including this question:

    “The Republicans and their hand picked witnesses say it was a panel about “liberty of conscience.” Whereas the Democrats say it should have been about women’s preventative health and contraceptives.”

    “The real truth is, the panel was a partisan political stunt to try to make the president look bad in an election year. And, it got a lot of press, but who came out looking like the fool on this one?”

    I included clips from the article and a link to the original article itself. Seems like most of you ignored all of it.

    Anyone interested in the answer to the question above? “… who came out looking like the fool on this one?”

    If you’re here arguing about women not being called as witnesses (they purposely did not invite women so as to cause the controversy and get the press coverage, and it worked), or the cost of birth control passed on to women (which is $0 because the Obama Compromise makes it FREE to women), then go look in the mirror. They fooled you!

  74. wildcelticrose says:

    If churches don’t want to follow the same law as every other employer, then they should get out of the (highly profitable; don’t let anyone fool you) business of running hospitals and universities.

    One need only look at the obscene wealth of the vatican to understand why the GOP is partnering up with the Catholics in this war on women’s healthcare and rights.

  75. I am so tired of pseudo intellectual women posing as superior to both me

    Therein is the crux of the biscuit, a theme that has been repeated by you many, many times, your feeling of resentment towards a certain class of individuals (to simplify – we’ll just use the term “liberals”) who do not share your values because you feel that they feel superior to you.

    Frankly sozo, I feel that you embrace your feeling of being put-down and being a persecuted minority because it provides a rationale for your bitter resentment at the rest of the world who doesn’t share your world view.

    I’m absolutely fine with, and completely supportive of you choosing to live your life as you choose but you projecting that others are “posing as superior” says a lot more about that chip on your shoulder than what they have actually written.

  76. muckibr, the Republican party ahs been much better at “sound bite” deception and fooling a lot of people in their arguments on what the topic really is. I think Dems are slowly losing this argument, even though a huge majority is on their side, because they do not frame it correctly.

    Fighting about whther or not women were on the panel is a side show that allows Republicans to continue to frame the issue as an attack on religious freedom.

    This is an issue about what basic health plan should regulators insist upon in universal health coverage. Should it include women’s reproductive and hormonal health as well as men’s reproductive health or not?

    The regulations apply to insurance companies, not religious institutions. No religion is being required to teach anything differently than they teach now, no religious worker is being asked to provide any service they don’t now, no minister or priest is required to support birth control. No person who does not believe in taking hormones to regulate menstrual cycles is being forced to take them and no man who has a religious objection to Viagra is being forced to take it.

    The CEO of a hospital that is owned by a Catholic church knows that they have to abide by all civil and criminal laws when they are doing business in the public arena. If a stagte has standards on what must be included in basic health plans if they are offered, then the hospital figures out a way to do that. In our local area, Catholic hospitals provide birth control insurance coverage to their staff.

    This attack on religious freedom is a non-issue that the Dems are not discussing enough, because they are trying out this sound bite of “no women on the panel” as their main message.

    Patty Murray, listen up. Start talking about the real issue, should health plans be required to cover doctor-prescribed medications or should employers get to override what doctors say their patients need?

  77. Like I said tuddo, it was a stunt by Darrell Issa (R) and it’s working. He and his Republican controlled committee are fooling a lot of people, and the proof of his success is demonstrated right here in this blog.

    President Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have resolved the matter by making a rule change at HHS.

    1. Birth Control will be provided to women for FREE. Gratis! No Charge!

    2. The Catholic Church, or any other religious organization that owns a business, will NOT be required to pay for Birth Control and so will not violate their core religious beliefs.

    3. Insurance companies will pay for the cost of providing Birth Control, and are okay with that, because they know that Birth Control does reduce the costs associated with more chronic or catastrophic medical problems that Birth Control helps to prevent and/or control. That means fewer pay-outs for medical expenses, and more profits for them.

    Everybody who matters has been satisfied with the Obama Compromise, but still there are people yelling and screaming about this issue. Why? Because The Republicans want them to. They are being USED by The Republicans for a political purpose over a non issue. They are fools!

  78. P.S. The Republicans are not just being insulting to women on this issue. They are being insulting to every American who they are treating like fools on this and other non-issue issues they hope to use in the upcoming election campaign. You should be thoroughly insulted by the Republicans who are treating you like a fool.

  79. You are walking through this world with your eyes closed, bBoy. What you hear in my voice is not bitterness, and I do not feel victimized.
    I am simply tired of a handful of outspoken women presuming to speak for all women. Just as I am tired of Hollywood presuming to speak for all of America on various social hot topics, from gay marriage to abstinence. The have control of the mike and the camera, but they don’t speak for people in the heartland.

    This is not a statement about persecution. It’s an observation about what is. See it for what it is, or don’t. That’s up to you.

  80. Cardinous, I will reply to you one time and only to say I will not spend any time on your commentary. I’ve already seen enough to know that you and Kardnos and Martini have no interest in anything even resembling dialogue. Time is precious. I haven’t enough of it for you.

  81. Cardinous says:

    great sozo! I’ll expect no snarky retorts when I expose your hypocrisy.

    Tuddo – sorry but your question was taking the aubject from the sublime to the ridiculous. All men on the panel was wrong.

  82. Cardinous says:

    “Just as I am tired of Hollywood presuming to speak for all of America on various social hot topics”

    more ridiculous claptrap. Many ouside Hollywood speak against consevative abuse of women

  83. concernedtacoma7 says:

    ‘abuse of women’? If that was the case Kard, you would be singing our praises.

    60% of America identifies themselves as conservative. You are the hateful, bigoted, anti-American fringe left that BHO has given a voice in today’s politics. It is terrible for our great Country.

  84. Cardinous says:

    60% of America identifies themselves as conservative. You are the hateful, bigoted, anti-American fringe left that BHO has given a voice in today’s politics. It is terrible for our great Country./i

    60% identified and you can’t get over 50% for a presidential election? Aside from your namecalling on this thread, your obvious distain for females in general, also displayed on this thread, demonstrates how you are either reading comprehension challenged, or just lying to yourself and hoping that everyone reading is as challenged as you.

    You have mastered the art of “if I say something, it’s true, regardless of proof to the contrary”. Congrats!

  85. concerned, so is that why the huge majority agree with Obama on the contraception coverage issue? The NYT/CBS News poll 4 days ago found:

    “On contraceptive coverage, 65 percent of voters in the poll said they supported the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, and 59 percent, said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control”.

    White men with extreme-right views keep thinking they are the voice for all conservatives. Not so, and especially not so on this issue.

  86. Cardinous says:

    pardon my typing on a bad laptop didn’t close the ital

  87. Cardinous says:

    tuddo – concerned has no substance behind anything he says. It’s all baseless assertions and bluff.

    Thanks for reminding us about the polling on this issue. It is truly the conservative foot in mouth

  88. Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her health, right?

    But there’s another principle at stake here – and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. As Christian and an American citizen I cherish this right.

    Do you?

  89. Cardinous says:

    “[The] Heritage [Foundation] and the Media Research Center provide material, as does Media Matters, to networks about alleged factual inaccuracies,” Gray said. “That’s completely fair game and everybody does that. But I don’t think any of these other ones target individuals or engages in what is political training.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/15/media-matters-tax-exempt-status-may-face-new-scrutiny-from-congress/#ixzz1msLZlB8B

  90. Cardinous says:

    crap wrong thread

  91. Cardinous says:

    there is a difference between religious belief and manipulation of the law to suit your political affiliations

  92. Which Insurance Companies are complaining about the extra business or have refused to offer birth control coverage?

    Don’t know where CT7 gets his 60% figure but my research puts the number at 41 – 42%.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/Political-Ideology-Stable-Conservatives-Leading.aspx

    http://washingtonindependent.com/88453/a-plurality-of-americans-self-identify-as-conservative-whats-new

  93. muckibr, no one has told me how this vipolates religious freedom. This is a regulation for insurance providers, not religious institutions. Not one person has to do anything that they are not already doing. The religious parts of religious institutions do not have to abide by this. The business entities under the umbrella of religious institutions that are in the business of providing non-religious services to the public don’t have to spend a dime on this, thanks to Obama, but even if they did, it would come out of money not dedicated for religious purposes.

    No government entity will interfere with any religious activity or belief. No worship service will be changed, no building used for worship will be changed, no one from the government will be auditing tithes or donations for religion.

    Running hotels, like LDS does all over the nation, or running hospitals, like catholics do all over do not have anything to do with freedom of religion or religious dogma or beliefs. That is why government can require audits of those businesses just like they do with the same businesses owned and run by non-religious bodies.

    Not one person must violate their religious dogma under this act or any other act of Congress that regulates business activities that are non-religious in nature or employment that is non-religious in nature.

  94. Final_Analysis says:

    There is no war on “women’s healthcare” This is purely a made up crisis conceived by the Democrat party to distract us from their lack of interest in solving the real problems faced by this country.

  95. Objective says:

    This story sounds like a personal problem. If I feel the need for a viagara, cialis or something like that, are people in here are going to pick up the cost for me? I doubt it, again that would be a personal problem.

  96. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Xring- I am stuck on my phone and could not find the source of the data or a more current survey.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_biggest_missing_story_in_p.html

    As to why people agree with BHO on the issue, most people do not understand the problem. These letters show the power of rhetoric vs truth. The issue here is govt forcing the Church to pay for BC against their will and beliefs. It is not about women’s care.

    And we are talking about more people getting something for ‘free’. It is not really free, insurance companies will just add it to the cost of everyone’s policy. Since the govt pays for so much healthcare, in the end of the day the taxpayers get a higher bill too.

  97. sandblower says:

    Ms. Litchman’s letter is an accurate depiction of the Right Wing mindset.
    And for all those who question whether religious freedom is being challenged or not, the answer is not. The rule proposed by the Administration does not limit the Catholic Church’s beliefs, but it does challenge the Church’s practices and that could easily be upheld by the Supremes for all the obvious reasons. One cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater and one cannot deny medical care for women.

  98. insurance companies will just add it to the cost of everyone’s policy.

    When one considers the costs of pre-natal, neo-natal and early childhood benefits paid out by insurers, the reduced birth rate connected to contraceptive benefits creates large savings for the insurers. Bottom line – REDUCED COSTS through providing contraceptive benefits.

    The issue here is govt forcing the Church to pay for BC against their will and beliefs.

    Nope, the compromise position allows the Church to not pay anything for those benefits.

    The issue here is that the economy is improving (ever so slowly) and Obama has been extremely hawkish (and successfully so) in his policies – the Republicans have nothing to run on as the polling demonstrates that the public think the ‘pubs are awful on almost everything that matters so the only thing they can do is run on a manufactured “war on Christianity” which invokes that whole “Obama is a Kenyan raised by Indonesian Muslims” claptrap.

    It is truly pathetic that, at weak as Obama’s polling has been, the ‘pubs are reduced to clutching at the straws of a manufactured culture war.

  99. Bambi – the Republicans’ choice to exclude all women is appropriate if one considers that this little stunt was meant for their base. Women who are impressed by the culture war rhetoric tend to be fundamentalists who adhere to rigid gender roles with the male being the dominant decision maker. Including women in this hearing would risk their message being contradicted and excluding women would do little harm to their intent of firing up their social conservative base.

  100. Cardinous says:

    “Don’t know where CT7 gets his 60% figure but my research puts the number at 41 – 42%”

    a place where the sun don’t shine

  101. aislander says:

    Frida writes: “…we can all agree that uncovered healthcare can lead a family from zero to bankruptcy in a couple of months.”

    We can also agree, from the obvious example of Europe, that trying to cover health care for all can take a nation from zero to bankruptcy in a scant few years.

    We’re close to bankruptcy right this minute, and Obamacare has barely begun to bite…

  102. BlaineCGarver says:

    If this was a Democrat issue, we would never hear about it. Men, and Women: Go buy your OWN birth control. If you screw up, take care of the child without taxpayer help. I don’t want your hand in my pocket anymore…I have my own expenses to take care of.

  103. Cardinous says:

    We can also agree, from the obvious example of Europe, that trying to cover health care for all can take a nation from zero to bankruptcy in a scant few years.

    Oh really???? How long have the civilized nations of the world had national health care? When is Canada going broke? How about China? Japan?

    I think aislander gets his information from the same place as ct7.

    Despite their efforts, demonizing health care reform just hasn’t worked out the way that conservatives would have liked.

  104. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Banned one_nos, we are not those countries. We are America, the land of individual freedom and responsibility.

    This issue is about BHO and the over reaching of his failed policies. The BC issue was brought up to him a year ago and he let is fester. Repubs did not make this issue, the Drama in Chief did.

  105. “We can also agree, from the obvious example of Europe, that trying to cover health care for all can take a nation from zero to bankruptcy in a scant few years.”

    Obviously there’s more to the story. Could you explain why some of the world’s most successful economies, (Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Singapore, Malaysia, Austrailia, Taiwan, UAE, Israel, and others) have universal health care and have not been taken to bankrupcy?

  106. MarksonofDarwin says:

    What a tempest in a teapot.
    This wasn’t started by Democrats from my recollection, but by one of the Republican candidates…I could be wrong, but it doesn’t really matter.

    When Bambi writes:
    “Is there an outcry against insurance coverage of vasectomies or Viagra? No.”

    She is not being fully honest. Vasectomies and Viagra are covered by insurance with a co-pay just like contraception has been traditionally. From what I gather, the kerfluffle isn’t about forbidding contraception to anybody, but that it now must be “free” for women.
    This narrative of pitting Republicans against women is dishonest.

    Is this about religious freedom? Is the president and Democrats going after their first amendment rights?
    I don’t believe that either, but that’s just my opinion.

    This has everything to do with government mandating what is covered by insurance. Period. Full stop.
    And anyone who believes the insurance companies hate this, need to take a second look at how well positioned the largest insurance companies are, and how cozy their relationship is to government.
    When the government is in the position of picking winners and losers in any industry, you can bet the largest 1% (intended) will always win.

  107. This is just another “War on Christmas” issue that has a nice soundbite, but no substance.

    When Americans look at employees of hotels and employees of trinket shops and employees of day care centers or hospitals, they want them to have equal employment benefits under the same rules and regulations as everyone else no matter what organization is the parent owner.

    When they look at priests and nuns and religion teachers and people who carry out the dogma and religious beliefs or a religion, then they want those people exempted from anything that would make them go against their teachings.

    If this principle is not upheld and exemptions are granted for non-religious activities, then this will give a green light for such non-religious businesses to ignore any civil law it wants to in the name of religious freedom.

    Since the Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, then isn’t it against their freedom to require them not to discriminate against divorced people in their hospitals, or even to serve divorced people?

    Why should day care centers owned by a church have to abide by minimum wage laws or health care standards? Why should restaurants owned by a church operating in a hotel owned by a church have to have health inspections or neet fire safety standards or hire based on qualifications. Why can’t they exclude people they think are marked by the devil, like blacks or people with disabilities both as customers and workers?

    Isn’t that what the Catholic Church is asking for? Isn’t that what the far right is trying to institute? Exemptions such as these for non-religious activities like insurance for non-religious workers is a step toward chaos.

  108. Its worth noting that no one has yet pointed to any Canon Law, Papal pronouncement or anything else that dictates Catholic teachings regarding the purchase of health insurance coverage by a business owned by the Church.

    Most likely because none exist.

    ALL businesses have to follow Government regulations – even those owned by religious entities. Even without the Obama compromise this had nothing to do with the “establishment of a religion” or “the free exercise thereof”. Buying insurance is not covered in any theological treatise by any Catholic scholar because it is not part of the exercise of the religion.

  109. Cardinous says:

    ct7 – for someone that blatantly violates the TNT rules with namecalling and diatribe directed at the opposite sex, you are certainly hypocritical even suggesting that I’m “banned”, which, as everyone can see, I’m not.

    I created this name, especially for those that are obsessed with personal issues and can’t work with the subject matter and the discussion. It appears my attempt was a total success.

    Yes, we are not “those countries” and nor is everyone in Europe failing as you and your cohorts would love to baselessly generalize. Nationalized health care has been a part of the civilized world for a long, long time and has worked well for countries.

    Funny, you don’t find people filing bankrupsy because they got sick in Canada. I guess the “freedom” you seek is for people to get sick and lose everything they have. Wonderful concept.

  110. Cardinous says:

    Strange how we find people talking about “Obama overreaching” but they ignore the legislation in Florida and Virginia that totally violates personal privacy and adds labor and costs to governments in the quest for “smaller government”.

  111. Cardinous says:

    “the land of individual freedom and responsibility”

    UNLESS, you are a religion running a business that competes in the private sector, then you want exclusions for you, based, allegedly on “beliefs”

  112. Obama Says Contraception Compromise Protects Religious Liberty
    By Lillian Kwon , Christian Post Reporter
    February 10, 2012|12:49 pm

    “Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her health. Period,” Obama asserted.

    But he added, “We’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here – and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution.”

    “As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right,” he affirmed

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/obama-says-contraception-compromise-protects-religious-liberty-69203/

  113. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Once again, we are not those big govt countries. They all would be speaking German or Japanese if not for our differences.

    Muslim groups, Amish, and Sciencetologists are exempt from Obamacare, but I guess the left here does not care. They only care about the Catholic Church because of their numbers?

    A private institution should have a right to operate as they see fit. We are drifting farther and farther from what made us great. Transforming into the failed Europe state is silly. They, and the Chinese, look at America’s past for the keys to success and we look at Europe today?

  114. concernedtacoma7, so you were a segregationist in the South in the 1950’s? They used the same argument about “private institutions” to mean any non-governmental entity that is not owned publically.

    That did not fly with our sense of justice and equal protection guarantees, so we coined a concept called “places of public accommodation.” It doesn’t matter who owns a place of public accommodation, whether aa very private reclusive individual, a small family or a big institution, if it serves the public and the public is invited to trasact business or other activities, then civil laws apply.

    Churches are like private clubs with an added benefit of the First Amendment. Places of public accommodation are neither private clubs nor churches so do not qualify for exemptions under civil anti-discrimination laws or any First Amendment religious protection, unless the specific service being provided is religious in nature, like a Catholic chaplain hired by a hospital for religious counseling.

  115. aislander says:

    I’m willing to stipulate that some sort of national health insurance in and of itself will not necessarily bankrupt a nation, but given certain conditions, it inevitably WILL have that result.

    The nations of Europe that are in economic trouble decided, since they don’t have to worry about their own national defense–we have taken that on, but more about that later–that they could, along with their nationalized health-care systems–afford the entire smorgasbord of social welfare goodies (something our own lefties envy with deep longing), including having more than half their labor force working for government, and about twenty percent not working at all.

    Turns out they CAN’T afford those things–you need someone to create the wealth the politician and bureaucrats wish to distribute.

    So, are we going to choose to return to being a nation that celebrates freedom and opportunity, or go the way of Europe and choose “fairness” and the equality of diminished horizons?

  116. Cardinous says:

    “Muslim groups, Amish, and Sciencetologists are exempt from Obamacare”

    Obviously, someone read the FOX version of the snopes write up on this.

    When a person uses the term “Obamacare” you can usually figure they are fairly undereducated on the subject matter from the beginning.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

    Again, it would be tough for the Catholic Church to say they oppose health care insurance, considering that they sell it via the Providence Group.

    So far, they have gotten by on saying the oppose birth control for their employees while supplying it for the past 10 years. I guess they might as well try to say they oppose health care insurance, as a selling agent of such.

  117. Cardinous says:

    What aislander won’t tell you is that European countries have an unemployment program that funds a company 50% of an unemployed worker’s wage if they will participate by hiring the worker. Who wins? Everyone. Worker, Government, Company. Damned socialists!!!

    What would the conservatives have to rail about if Greece hadn’t fallen on bad times? Funny how European countries have existed centuries longer than the US without US help. Do we see Scandavavian countries enlisting the help of the US miliary, or do they just mind their own business and not try to police the world?

    Look at Germany, with its conservative leadership endorsing unions.

    Yeah, it’s not quite the way the US conservatives try to picture it.

  118. RLangdon says:

    commented at 1:25 pm “Its worth noting that no one has yet pointed to any Canon Law, Papal pronouncement or anything else that dictates Catholic teachings regarding the purchase of health insurance coverage by a business owned by the Church.”
    “Most likely because none exist.”

    It does exist. Anything promoting the use of birth control, which includes the purchase of insurance to pay for it, is against Catholic canon law and Church infallibility.

    The following is excerpted from: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

    Birth Control
    In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. 
    * * *
    Wishful Thinking
    Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their “individual conscience.” Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. 
    There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.” 
    * * *
    Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract. 
    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

  119. Pacman33 says:

    The Bambist spews –
    “The chairman and panel may as well have been Archie Bunker … ”
    ———————————–
    “Faith is something you believe, that no one in their right mind would believe.”
    – Archie Bunker –

    Which is why our founders wrote a hands-off policy into the Constitution. It’s why we have a tradition of not charging taxes on religious organizations, so that churches never have to pay for activities they find abhorrent.
    ___________________________________

    This is a fine example of the arrogance of government stooges like Litchman, who have Faith that ‘educated’ bureaucrats need to make important decisions for the ignorant religious people. The Obama Administration and it’s flock of boot-licking sycophants and lackeys, like Bambi, believe they are smarter than all the silly primitive savages who worship a God who isn’t named Marx.

  120. aislander says:

    Other nations HAVE existed longer than we have, but we have the most enduring government of any nation of consequence. There may be some monarchy in an obscure nation that has existed longer, but I don’t know about it because it really doesn’t matter.

    WE matter, and if we wish to continue to matter, we had better return to the governing philosophy that got us this far, and not complete the transition to a politico-economic model that has not only failed every time it has been tried, but is without peer in creating human misery and oppression…

    The Scandinavian nations had a little problem with some socialist countries around the time of World War II. That’s where the words “Finlandization” and “quisling” originated. Seems we may have had something to do with pulling Scandinavian chestnuts from the collectivist fire. Not sure if they “enlisted” our help, but they certainly received it…

  121. Cardinous says:

    WWII – how many years ago?

    No, this is the same mentality that wants to ignore George Bush because he left the White House in 2009. LOL

    Pacman is quoting Archie Bunker, not realizing that the humor of Bunker was how hypocritical he was.

    RLangdon – The Catholic Church and its members are not being required to participate in birth control. As to providing coverage for employees, of their businesses, they’ve been doing it for 10 years. To say NOW, that it is a religious issue is just plain intellectually dishonest.

  122. If aislander is “only” going back to WWII that is quite a chronological step forward for him…

  123. aislander says:

    Those who ignore (or are ignorant of) history, etc…

    The serious answer is that European nations–Scandinavian and otherwise–have not had to think about (or pay for) defense since WWII, giving them ample opportunity to indulge in political and economic onanism…

  124. And…since the break-up of the Soviet Union was exacerbated by the extreme and ultimately unsupportable demand upon their budget due to Cold War spending – we have both a positive (Scandinavian countries’ economies flourishing without military expenditures) and negative (the fall of USSR due to their overextended military expenditures).

    Perhaps the U.S. should seriously rethink just how many hundreds of foreign bases are needed for defense of the homeland…

  125. aislander says:

    I don’t believe the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a negative, beerBoy, but I agree that we need to rethink the mission of our military.

    We missed a huge opportunity after WWII by diverting resources from our economy to policing the world and toward counterproductive social programs. Had those resources been reinvested in productive directions, we could have dominated the world economically without firing a shot. Any economic sanctions we imposed on mischievous regimes would have had teeth–peace through economic hegemony. Our missing that opportunity was the true negative.

    Otherwise, economically speaking: Laissez bon temps roullez!

  126. RLangdon says:

    It would appear as if someone is purposely ignoring the “Papal pronouncement” and “Canon law” he presumed did not exist.

  127. This letter is getting very old. We need fresh letters.

  128. sandblower says:

    I knew about the Papal Pronouncement of 1968. It makes no difference.
    What is did neglect is to say that FREE SPEECH does not include yelling “fire” in a crowded theater and RELIGIOUS FREEDOM does not include denying women medical care. Only narrow minded men could find that wise, for women will continue to have sex at the urging of their male companions whose bodily functions will never be compromised by said sex.
    God help those who cannot understand a simple concept.

  129. Pacman33 says:

    Bambi Lin Litchman’s attempt to incite division and hate with her pathetic groveling is insulting to Americans. Fabricating oppression and victimhood is insulting to the individuals being deceived by left’s campaign of division. Instead of doing “good” and promoting “justice”; instead of working toward peace and harmony among people; she is promoting hate, class warfare, gender warfare and the worst aspects of human nature.

    Regressive thugs of the left who have taken over the Democratic Party and deformed it so that it is unrecognizable and no longer stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness The left has made it their mission to spread the propaganda that the source of all the oppression and victimization is from the right. Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.

    After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?

  130. TSkidmore says:

    Has anyone else noticed the total lack of coverage to this anti-woman war being carried out by the Republican Party in the pages of the TNT?

    The Republicans are not “Conservatives” they are reactionaries and they are proving it more and more everyday. I don’t like Obama and was going to go 3rd Party but no more…I will vote against every Republican on the ballot this year!!!

    Those Republican loons in Virginia passed a law that would require doctors to “rape” their female patients. Unbelievable!

  131. RLangdon says:

    sandblower, I should have been more precise, and identified beerBoy as the person who seems to be ignoring the Papal pronouncement and Catholic canon which I have provided information on. It was his initial comment that spurred me to respond.

  132. sandblower says:

    Pac33 = ridiculous.
    The definition of today’s conservative is that of reactionary.
    pac33 made it a truism for anyone who had doubts.

  133. I’d like to chime-in on the Papal Pronouncement/Catholic Canon issue, but am waiting for beerBoy to comment first.

    In the meantime, I am wondering why there hasn’t been any comment on my 1/20 @ 1:57 PM comment above where I quoted President Obama from the linked article.

    I thought President Obama’s quotes were right-on and perfect for this and the other CONTRACEPTION blogs, but there hasn’t been a lot of reaction to them. Does that mean the president is correct and that nobody disagrees with him? I hope so. At least, until I read different, that’s what I will take from the deafening silence.

    P.S. Very surprised that WWII was brought up and so far nobody is calling anyone else a Nazi yet! That’s a good sign, I think.

  134. Pacman33 says:

    Kardonist, following an ignorant and revealing cheering of Socialism, erroneously claims –

    “Look at Germany, with its conservative leadership endorsing unions.
    Yeah, it’s not quite the way the US conservatives try to picture it.”

    It’s not quite the way the US leftists try to lie and misinform, fabricating to be. Naturally, when principles themselves are composed of falsehoods, truth, fact and logic is irrelevant to the left. (ie; sandsniffer)

    Germany is the largest and most powerful economy of Europe, thanks in part to its low wages and measures taken over the past ten years to make the labour market more ‘flexible’. Germany lacks a general minimum wage. Unions in Germany are unable to take a stand against the employers on their own, without political support.

    Germany isn’t in the same shape as the rest of Europe because of it’s conservative leadership and it’s embracing of capitalistic principles. In some ways Germany is more capitalistic than the U.S. is today.

  135. David1964 says:

    There is no war on “religion” This is purely a made up crisis conceived by the Republican party to distract us from their lack of interest in solving the real problems faced by this country.

  136. Pacman33 says:

    “I am wondering why there hasn’t been any comment on my 1/20 @ 1:57 PM comment above where I quoted President Obama from the linked article.”

    Nobody else is naive enough to believe what he says except for you. Even many of his most loyal supporters are hesitant to trust the entirety of his rhetoric.

    That dumb poll you were blabbing about after the the SOTU speech is a perfect example. Despite being ran through the shredder by FactCheck, the content of the speech had a high approval rating. But, when asked if they thought Obama would follow through, that number dropped by almost half.

  137. CT7,
    1. The BC requirement applies on to church owned business and institutions (hospitals, schools, etc). The churches and their direct employees are exempt from the BC requirement.

    2. The insurance companies already cover birth control and stand to make money by reducing the amount they would have to pay out for a pregnancy.

    3. As far as I know the only healthcare governments pay for are for their own employees and (surprise surprise) already cover BC.

  138. sandblower says:

    President Obama tells the truth. The right’s philosphy is to deny the truth to those who deserve to know it. Pac33 is the poster person for them.

  139. sandblower says:

    xring, give it up. They will never believe you even after it has been stated with proof time after time.
    Denial in this case is not unlike denial in the global warming arena for them. It is a religion for them all by itself.

  140. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Nobody is being denied medical care.

    Are you people saying that with a straight face? Or are you really just winking at anyone else who spouts that lie? Or do you really live in such an ignorant trance that you can’t see that you’re telling a lie?

    It’s rather frustrating to see grown adults not able to comprehend the simplest thing.
    For the last time….
    Requiring a co-pay for contraception pills is not the same as denying women medical care.
    Sheesh

  141. Cardinous says:

    Pacman sees “Cardinous” and posts “Kardonist”.

    Not amazing for someone that confuses his name when he creates an email address.
    ——————————————–
    I know that “MOD” doesn’t respond to me, so I’ll just post this for everyone else to read. The “denial” of medical care is the denial of birth control pills as they are a prescription used for many other health care issues than just contraception. Now, in my mind, contraception IS a medical issue, but I’m not a Neaderthal-like male.

    If I was denied a blood pressure medication, would that be denial of health care? Why, of course it is!

    Some contraceptives are used to treat endometriosis – a very painful and dibilitating uterine condition. endometriosis.org

    The Catholic Church was not arguing about copays, it was refusing to provide coverage for employees in need of this pharmaceutical product. That decision should be made by the woman, her doctor, the insurance company and the pharmacy.

    Meanwhile, the Catholic Church as provided birth control insurance coverage for female employees for over 10 years. Why do they NOW protest?

  142. Cardinous says:

    “It’s rather frustrating to see grown adults not able to comprehend the simplest thing.”

    As you say, MOD – you agree with me more frequently than I know.

    I also find it “rather frustrating to see grown adults not able to comprehend the simplest thing.”

    Of course, I think I’m coming from the position that says there is a computer in front of each of us and for anyone to not know that birth control pills are used for things other than contraception….

    ….well…”the simplest thing” definitely comes to mind.

  143. Here’s an article with good clear description of the original issue, how it was changed/resolved by the Obama Compromise, and the predictable ensuing political football it has been made into by the religious conservatives since this article was published on February 10th.

    Interesting to note is the description in the 3rd paragraph (“Women who use…”), which basically describes how Catholic organizations will be able to make birth control available to their employees without having to deal with it administratively themselves or pay for it with Catholic Church funds. Thus, birth control will still be available to Catholic employees, but The Church will not be violating its core beliefs.

    I imagine this is very much like the way The Catholic Church has been providing birth control to current employees for, oh lets say the past ten years or more, without violating their core religious beliefs.

    No one has yet proven, on these blogs, that any Catholic organization has paid for birth control services provided to any of their employees for the last 10 days, much less the last ten years. (Remember: opinion and repetition do not constitute proof.)

    You should really check out the article, as it is very very informative, and quite well written.

    Obama Birth Control Compromise Defuses Religion Issue
    Feb 10, 2012 3:55 PM EST

    “The new compromise is that religious employers themselves will have no responsibility to either pay for this coverage or to communicate with employees about it; instead, those burdens will shift to insurance companies, at no additional cost to consumers.”

    “Women who use birth control and work for religious-affiliated employers, such as Catholic hospitals, can expect coverage to be “seamless,” says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health. “If a religiously affiliated employer objects, they won’t have to deal with it administratively, talk to their enrollees about it, or communicate that they are covering contraception. Instead, the insurance company will be communicating with the enrollee.”

    “There’s nothing more predictable in American politics than hard-core religious conservative opposition to common-sense policies on women’s sexual health.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/10/obama-birth-control-compromise-defuses-religion-issue.html

  144. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Card:

    We do agree on many issues.
    We also agree that denying blood pressure medication for anyone would in fact, be a denial of health care.
    For the same reason, denying women birth control medication for any reason, would also be a denial of health care.

    But paying a co-pay is not denial of health care. In the least. Not even close.

    The truth is, nobody…not one person, whether Republican, conservative, or far right whack job has come close to denying women access to birth control pills.

    The only thing this regulation does is to mandate that birth control pills are fully covered with zero co-pay. Some may have a problem with it for religious reasons, but I happen to think it is a simple over-reach and a pander to a certain segment of the population.

    There are many cancer drugs and treatments that are needed to save lives.

    Each one of those treatments requires a deductible and a co-pay. Most “cadillac” insurance policies generally require an “out of pocket” maximum of around $2,000 per year before even cancer treatment is covered at 100%.

    If this was really about insurance covering truly life saving treatments, then that’s what our conversation would be about. As it is, this is all for show.

    Obama, or any other president can’t mandate costly, truly life saving treatments to be paid for 100% by insurance companies because of the prohibitive cost, so instead we’re talking about this tiny fraction of a $10-$20 per month co-pay for birth control pills.

    This is political theatre, and that is all it is….

  145. concernedtacoma7 says:

    MOD, great post. Kard does not care for reason, he is only around to start trouble. Ironically, on this issue he places women vs Church an takes the side of women, but for the last few months has been bashing all women at every turn.

    Truth is this is NOT about denying care. Far left does not care about facts, just rhetoric to back up their bigotry.

  146. I don’t believe the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a negative,

    You misinterpret my post.

    I do not opine on whether I believe the success or collapse of specific countries’ economies is positive or negative. I provide positive and negative examples of how military overspending positively or negatively impacts national economies.

    The positive example is an (Swedish) economy flourishing, in part, because it is unencumbered by massive military spending.

    The negative example is an (Soviet) economy collapsing, in part, because it is encumbered by massive military spending

    Two sides of the same coin which leads to the inescapable conclusion – the massive overspending on the military/industrial complex poses huge risks to our economic health.

  147. Reread my post – it does not challenge the Church’s position on the USE of contraceptions (which is ignored by 98% of Catholics). It questions whether or not there is any statement coming out of the Vatican that supports the idea that Catholics cannot in any way be connected with an Insurance policy that provides material support for the purchase of contraception.

    Because….if there is such a document then good practicing Catholics could not, in good faith, become pharmacists, nurses, doctors, or even clerks in drug stores. And then they should enjoy exemptions from having to have anything to do with the sales, stocking, inventory, manufacture of such items.

    But….since I have no recollection of a Supreme Court case where a Catholic successfully sued for wrongful termination after being fired from his job as a sales clerk at the local Walgreens because he refuse to sell, inventory, stock or have anything to do with condoms.

    And let’s take this a little further….couldn’t a fully practicing Mormon or Muslim apply for work at a liquor store and – after being refused the job because they stated they would not do anything that aided in the sale of liquor – was able to sue the liquor store for religious descrimination?

    Again – until someone can demonstrate that running a Hospital or a University is the practice of a religion and that, to practice that religion, one must not, not only not pay for contraceptive benefits within a Health Insurance plan, but have any association at all with an Insurance plan that offers those benefits – the compromise regulations in no way compromises the 1st Amendment “rights” of the corporate entity run by a foreign nation known as the Roman Catholic Church.

  148. discrimination – “i” not “e”

    MoD….it appears that the folks whose sole reason to be here is to go snipe hunting…errr…kardy hunting…..really, really want you to make that your primary focus.

  149. “Women who are impressed by the culture war rhetoric tend to be fundamentalists who adhere to rigid gender roles with the male being the dominant decision maker. bBoy

    There you go again, bBoy…and then you wonder why socially conservative women, many with medical degrees and law degrees and all sorts of other cool degrees and interesting careers; intelligent, thoughtful women– dare to suggest that there’s a negative and false stereotype out there about conservatives…and Christians.

    I wish there had been some of THOSE women on the panel just to put an end to nonsense like what you said above.

  150. Cardinous says:

    MOD – can you point to the quote from someone that says “copaying is denying women health care”. I seem to have missed that. At least on this thread.

    Obama’s announcement about free coverage was probably welcomed by the insurance companies who know that pills are cheaper than pre-natal care and birth. By the time insurance companies get done negotiating the price of pills down, their share of cost will be insignificant.

    ct7 – my stand on women’s issues has never changed. Your reading comprehension and baseless assertions change from hour to hour. For the (at least) 50th time – the FACT is that the Catholic Church has provided birth control coverage for employees for over 10 years. There have been news stories quoted several times. I’ll not post the links again. You’ll have to do your own homework. Try to avoid American Thinker on this one.

  151. Cardinous says:

    “socially conservative women, many with medical degrees and law degrees and all sorts of other cool degrees and interesting careers”

    Regardless of women or men, I have a problem taking medical advise from someone whose bottom line basis is “God said so”.

    All I’ve seen on the social conservative side, as to women’s representation is the Palin Family, Malkin and Coulture… and others similar, none of which impress me.

  152. Cardinous says:

    “No one has yet proven, on these blogs, that any Catholic organization has paid for birth control services provided to any of their employees for the last 10 days, much less the last ten years. (Remember: opinion and repetition do not constitute proof.)”

    The link has been posted so many times the bandwidth is permanently burned into the website. Just because you deny it, doesn’t make it go away.

    Additionally, whether you like it or not, Providence Hospital provides Group Health Cooperative to their employees in SW Washington. Birth Control and abortion is covered. For GHC’s basic coverage see http://www.ghc.org and you’ll have to call Providence Hospital’s HR Department and ask what health care coverage they provide (their own and GHC). Every employer over 50 employees must provide an HMO by law in WA state. Providence partners with GHC….in many ways.

  153. Cardinous, I have looked at all 33 of your posts to this blog, and not one of them has any link to Providence Hospitals employee benefit plans. There are only 3 links in all your messages on this blog in fact; one at 2/19 @ 4:03 PM for Media Matters and another at 2/20 @ 3:04 PM for Snopes, and then this one above at 7:37 AM for Group Health Cooperative which is NOT Providence Hospitals, and BTW GHC is NOT even a religious based medical organization.

    You try to tie Group Health to Providence, to prove that means Providence is providing employees with birth control benefits, but it is NOT.

    What that situation really is, is exactly what President Obama came up with in his Compromise. The Obama Compromise is just exactly the same as the situation that the religious-based health care organization, Providence Hospitals, which provides it’s employees its own Providence health benefits plan, but its Providence plan does NOT cover birth control in the form of contraceptives or abortions.

    So, in accordance with the Obama Compromise, in order for employees to have access to birth control, Providence has suggested that its employees seek those services from Group Health, a non-affiliated, non-religious health-care insurer. That is EXACTLY what President Obama’s Compromise is all about.

    Your example, Cardinous, proves beyond a doubt that The Obama Compromise does work!!!

    Providence does NOT provide its employees with birth control, and so does not violate it’s core religious beliefs at all. Group Health provides Providence employees with birth control, but it is a completely separate administrative process, not financially or philosophically linked at all to Providence.

    If you can prove differently, then please do so. Tell us where we can find that link that you supposedly “burned into the website” because it ain’t nowhere to be found on this blog!

    But until you do that, the fact stands that the Providence Hospitals and Group Health Cooperative benefit plans made available to Providence Hospitals employees, PROVE THAT THE OBAMA COMPROMISE WORKS!!!

  154. Objective says:

    “A panel of five Republican men exclusively convening to discuss health insurance and birth control coverage is beyond insulting. It illustrates a danger to women and a concerted attempt to turn the clock back on women’s health care and a woman’s right to choose her destiny.”

    Yes a woman has a Choice to chose her destiny. I am not going to deny that at all, just don’t expect people like myself to support their choice or pay for it.

  155. Objective, you are not require to do anything against your will in this issue. The regulations apply to insurance providers. Employees and employers purchase insurance, usually through a joint pay situation. These regulations just state what the basic lowest level insurance cov erage must cover.

    Every state that has such regulatons (28) has found that costs of insurance coverage either stayed the same or went down. There is no difference in policy costs in other states where it is optional.

    So, breathe easy, you won’t be paying for anyone else’s hormones or Viagra.

  156. sozo – are you maintaining that socially conservative women who base much of their life’s decisions upon the Bible don’t adhere to the traditional roles assigned to men and women by the Bible?

    Timothy 2:12-14 states, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

    Ephesians 5:22-24, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

  157. beerBoy, I take it that your comment at 6:13 AM was your answer to RLangdon, so I hope it’s okay for me to jump in now. I’m interested to see his/her response to you, but I have another somewhat related observation to make.

    I went to the site link in the RLangdon post, and as regards the issue on Birth Control I really have to agree with RLangdon on all points. The Catholic Church has a long standing Papal Pronouncement/Catholic Church Canon (at least since 1968) that I really don’t see how anyone can dispute. And that is what you asked for someone to show you in your post up-thread. If The Catholic Church is against birth control, it can’t very well stay true to its convictions and then go ahead and pay for BC or distribute BC to people, even if they are or are not employees of the church’s organization. (I think you are wrong in your answer beerBoy, but that’s kinda besides the point as my comment here is concerned.)

    I searched around the Catholic Answers site and found this about The Church’s stand on homosexuality:

    “Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner. ”

    But my Bible states that Jesus said, “But I say: Anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28)

    So, the same must be true if any man looks at another man with homosexual lust in his eye, so forth and so on.

    But, in this “tract” in Catholic Answers is says none of that, neither homosexual or heterosexual desire, is a sin until one actually acts upon it. There is a disconnect here is there not? That’s not what I was taught in Catechism classes. It was always, “If you think about committing sin, then you have already sinned without even doing it.”

    That, kind of again, supports the ban ob birth control by The Catholic Church though, because even if they seriously thought about paying for or distributing BC, then they would have sinned according to Matthew 5:28. Thus, they cannot even think about providing or paying for birth control through any of their affiliated organizations, because that might be sinful to think about, but certainly would be sinful if they actually did it.

    The Catholic Church can be confusing to understand. This is why I no longer practice Catholicism, and just stick to The Four Gospels and what Jesus is reported to have said himself. Much less confusing and more helpful that way I have found.

  158. Cardinous says:

    “Providence does NOT provide its employees with birth control, and so does not violate it’s core religious beliefs at all. Group Health provides Providence employees with birth control, but it is a completely separate administrative process, not financially or philosophically linked at all to Providence.”

    You’re half way to honesty.

    By an insurance company being the intermediary between a Catholic business and the supply of birth control to employees, they have the “get out of hell free” card. Providence pays for GHC coverage for employees as a benefit.

    The original proviso of the Health Care Reform act, did not require a Catholic busines to directly provide birth control pills, but to provide insurance coverage. This is what set off the chaos that Obama handled by making the issue “stupid free”. How in hell can you keep dancing around the truth of the issue? One of your diversions was to question whether I had a daughter in law that worked at Providence. Pure childish behavior.

    “Cardinous, I have looked at all 33 of your posts to this blog, and not one of them has any link to Providence Hospitals employee benefit plans. There are only 3 links in all your messages on this blog in fact; one at 2/19 @ 4:03 PM for Media Matters and another at 2/20 @ 3:04 PM for Snopes, and then this one above at 7:37 AM for Group Health Cooperative which is NOT Providence Hospitals, and BTW GHC is NOT even a religious based medical organization.”

    For cripes sake, muckibr – you went off on one of your long winded dissertations on the link from the Buffalo Newspaper and now you choose to ignore that it was posted – not once, but probably 10 times in several threads on this subject????????? You are the master of diversion of the subject matter.

    SO…..one more time…..

    http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article727121.ece

    “Updated: February 10, 2012, 11:03 AM

    Catholic bishops in New York say their dioceses won’t abide by a new federal regulation requiring Catholic hospitals, charities and schools to provide birth control coverage in their health insurance plans.

    But many Catholic institutions in New York — and in more than two dozen other states — already are complying with similar state mandates.

    New York began requiring prescription contraception coverage in 2002, over the objections of Catholic groups, which sued and lost in the state’s highest court.

    In Western New York, that means prominent Catholic institutions such as Baker Victory Services, Catholic Charities of Buffalo and St. Bonaventure University have been providing prescription birth control coverage for employees for nearly a decade.”

    Now….I can’t say it much more clearly than that.

  159. aislander says:

    beerBoy: You are conflating members of the Church with the Church itself. They have different obligations.

    A Catholic lay person may have no conflict working for a pharmacy and dispensing, say, birth-control pills. If he did have such a conflict, he would probably seek other work.

    Some conflicts DID arise with the advent of abortifacients a couple of years ago, when Catholic pharmacists were advising people who wanted such drugs to go elsewhere or else to find a non-Catholic person to assist them. But those conflicts were a matter of personal conscience and did not involve the Church and the First Amendment.

    If the Catholic Church operated a chain of non-profit general pharmacies and government forced those outlets to stock and provide birth control and abortifacients, THAT would be a conflict involving the Church itself. But it doesn’t, so far as I know, except within its own system of hospitals.

    Similarly, if the Church got into the area of health insurance, forcing coverage of those items would be in direct conflict with doctrine. (That’s actually not a bad idea, except for the looming imposition of Obamacare. Could the regime force a Catholic Church-run insurance company to contradict the Church? Interesting…)

    Forcing the Church, not to provide those items, but to pay for them is also in conflict with Church doctrine, and should be proscribed by the First Amendment.

    Does laundering the mandate by forcing insurance companies (who are paid by the Church) to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients for Church employees constitute an actual difference from having the Church pay directly for those things?

    To say that it does is sophistry, to use one of your favorite words, beerBoy…

  160. The Catholic Church can be confusing to understand.

    Especially when one cherry-picks certain statements without a full understanding of the Church’s dogma.

    At the risk of being accused of cherry-picking, here are some very pertinent quotes:

    Church teachings on moral decision-making and abortion are complex. In Catholic theology there is room for the acceptance of policies that favor access to the full range of reproductive health options, including contraception and abortion.

    At the heart of church teachings on moral matters is a deep regard for an individual’s conscience. The Catechism states that “a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” The church takes conscience so seriously that Richard McBrien, in his essential study Catholicism, explained that even in cases of a conflict with the moral teachings of the church, Catholics “not only may but must follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the Church.”
    [...]
    Despite what many think, the Vatican may not impose teachings on an unwilling faithful. Through the concept of reception, Catholics have a role to play in the establishment of church law.

    The popular notion that whatever the pope says on a serious topic is infallible is an exaggeration of the principle of infallibility. While some ultra-conservative groups claim that the teaching on abortion is infallible, it does not in fact meet the definition of an infallible teaching. Since the doctrine of papal infallibility was first declared in 1870, only three teachings have been declared infallible: the Immaculate Conception of Mary; the Assumption of Mary; and the declaration on infallibility itself.
    http://catholicsinpubliclife.org/page28/page31/files/657046181b1af784e3a1cf4d43bcccbe-7.html

  161. btw aislander – since you weren’t raised Catholic and are only interested in this from a stance that sees this as a good issue to attack “Obamacare”, your opinions on what is Church teaching is not really of much interest.

    muckibr disagrees very strongly with me on this issue but he has much more authority in his statements than you as he, like me, was raised Catholic and, though we both are no longer practicing members of the Church, has – like me – a deep respect for the institution. We both received training in the teachings of the Church and I suspect that he, like me, did considerable reading about the theology of the Church before deciding to leave it.

  162. And, again, Church teaching (which has been clearly rejected by vast majority of the Church) regarding contraception is about the USE of contraception to prevent childbirth.

    To link that to a doctrine regarding the purchase of Insurance – without paying for contraceptive coverage – that provides contraceptive coverage is seeing far more there than is actually there.

    Both muckibr and aislander are going beyond the actual teaching to what they believe the teaching implies without stating explicitly.

  163. Cardinous
    FEB. 21, 2012 AT 10:03 AM  
    “One of your diversions was to question whether I had a daughter in law that worked at Providence. Pure childish behavior.”

    ManuelMartini
    FEB. 10, 2012 AT 11:40 AM  
    “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.”

    So, now we have an absolute admission that YOU are in fact the reincarnation of ManuelMartini with the new moniker Cadinous, because…

    I never questioned Cardinous about his daughter-in-law, only ManuelMartini.

    Why the moniker change Cardinous? Did ManuelMartini get blocked?

  164. beerBoy, all I’ve really been saying is that I think RLangdon probably does have a good point and some justification on his/her side to make the claim that The Catholic Church is justified in its stance on Catholic Canon and Papal Pronouncements and how all that relates to being protected by the First Amendment of The U.S. Constitution in the contraception controversy.

    I’ve also said that, as with many things The Catholic Church teaches, there’s a considerable amount of confusion and possible contradiction, as I tried to point out with the homosexual sin/not sin passages from RLangdon’s own source.

    That confusion and contradiction is what led me, personally, to seek a more consistent and direct source of religious guidance, which I have found in The Four Gospels. Sorry if you think I was disagreeing with you or cherry-picking, that was not my intent. Just referring to the sources presented to me, that’s all.

    I doubt either one of us, or even both of us combined, could claim to have “a full understanding of the Church’s dogma.”

    There’s a lot of dogma in The Catholic Church, and unfortunately …

    … my karma ran over my dogma!

  165. I will attempt again to clarify my point:

    The make the claim that the 1st Amendment protects Catholic organizations from the regulations requiring health insurance to provide contraceptive benefits one must demonstrate that not paying for these benefits is part of the practice of the religion.

    Church teachings are specific in banning the use of contraception by individuals which – supporters of the above argument believe must also be extended to any support of others using contraception. And argument that has its logic BUT is not stated explicitly in any Church teaching.

    To keep pointing to Church teachings banning the USE of contraception sidesteps what I have pointed out – that your interpretation of those teachings and just what they entail are based in INTERPRETATION not a literalist read of what the words actually are.

  166. It is possible, utilizing the Church’s teaching regarding individual conscience, the lack of infallible status of the teachings on contraception and the vast rejection of the Church’s teaching to build a pretty strong case that the Church’s teaching on contraception are not valid except for a tiny minority of the Church.

  167. beerBoy, I think you’re splitting hairs here, by requiring a specific policy document from The Catholic Church specifically “prohibiting the purchase of Health-Care Insurance Policies that include contraception.” That Papal Pronouncement from Pope Paul VI seems like it pretty well covered that issue in spades.

  168. aislander says:

    So…beerBoy…are you saying that the obligations of Church members are the same as those of Church hierarchy?

    I may not have been raised Catholic, but I was raised American and I know that the First Amendment applies to the institution, not to the individual members with respect to this issue.

    Otherwise, you lose points for attempting to dismiss an opposing viewpoint without addressing that viewpoint…

  169. I don’t really care whether the church has an official pronouncement binding all members to a particular interpretation. What I do care about is that Santorum does not believe in separation of church and state, raked JFK over the coals for telling people that he was not bound by the dictates of the church, and announced in 2010 that he (Santorum) was morally bound in all decisions to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    He criticized Gov Cuomo for signing a bill about abortion and said he would not sign any bill that allowed even one abortion if he were in that psoition, because of his religious beliefs.

    That is truly scary.

  170. Cardinous says:

    “So, now we have an absolute admission that YOU are in fact the reincarnation of ManuelMartini with the new moniker Cadinous, because…”

    Well THERE is a way to avoid the topic! Big surprise.

  171. Cardinous says:

    There is a difference between a church owning a business and the practices of a church.

  172. Cardinous says:

    “I may not have been raised Catholic, but I was raised American and I know that the First Amendment applies to the institution, not to the individual members with respect to this issue.”

    So, a business owned by a Muslim would be allowed to require all women to wear their traditional dress? For that matter, could the business say “no, I won’t hire you, it’s against my beliefs”? Of course not

    As I said earlier, conservatives misread the First Ammendment as much as they misread the Second.

  173. MarksonofDarwin says:

    ***My apologies if this is a repeat post***

    Card,

    The letter writer claims that a woman was ready to testify that she was out and out denied birth control pills…yet there isn’t a name or link attached to it in order to verify the truthfulness of that story. Here’s just a smattering from this very long thread:

    tuddo
    FEB. 18, 2012 AT 9:52 AM

    “By not providing contraceptive and other health care to non-religious workers, it is religious harassment by the church and imposing religious dogma on people who do not have to believe the same way to work there.”

    Frida
    FEB. 18, 2012 AT 10:34 PM
    “What is constitutional freedom to you is a loss of needed meds for millions of women”

    And again:
    Frida
    FEB. 18, 2012 AT 9:03 PM

    “How long will it be before employers morally object to paying coverage for a kid with cancer?- With the reason being, “Its God’s Will.”??”

    sandblower
    FEB. 20, 2012 AT 9:33 AM

    “One cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater and one cannot deny medical care for women.”

    Like I said before, it’s possible that everyone really does believe that Republicans want to ban prescription coverage for birth control, because that’s how this issue has been carefully manipulated throughout.

    bB,

    There may be some on here who hold grudges longer than I do. They also have been the brunt of much more of the back and forth monkey sling than I have I suspect, so it’s hard to forgive. Anyway, there was a tacit admission as to who Card is, (we all knew anyway) and a much more refined style. Every day is a new one, and if we could start fresh, I’m all for it. I don’t want anyone to necessarily go away, but I will call out dishonesty and thread jacking every time.

    Here’s to a much more pleasant ride on these threads.
    Cheers!
    ::clink::

  174. I know that the First Amendment applies to the institution, not to the individual members

    So then you believe that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t provide individual rights?

  175. muckibr – your response to my point proves my point:
    You assume that the Papal condemnation of the personal use of contraception extends automatically, without question, to Catholic Hospitals refusing to pay insurance premiums that pay contraceptive benefits.

    I don’t. The Papal letter was about individual use of condoms, not corporate insurance policies for employees. I see why you believe as you do that the extrapolation from personal morality to corporate action is implied but I don’t see that it automatically follows.

  176. Cardinous says:

    “Anyway, there was a tacit admission as to who Card is, (we all knew anyway) and a much more refined style.”

    Card is doing nothing different than Card has ever done, but if it makes anyone feel better to think so, who am I to change their mind?

    That being said, MOD and I read the comments differently also, but I will still refer to the original argument by the Catholic Church – wanting to not provide insurance coverage (although they already have).

    Now, THAT being said, MOD and I agree heartily that this is all political theater.

  177. Here’s my issue with Cardinous, and it has nothing to do with carrying a grudge.

    It is simply that he is DISHONEST.

    He comes on this topic with a new name, and took14theteam calls him out 2/17 @ 6:41 PM with “Time will tell who you are…”

    at 9:10 PM Cardinous makes up and posts a lie about who he is.

    This is the same thing he did when he first came up with the moniker ManuelMartini on a past topic, making up and posting the lie about how he had been “reading and not posting” comments for months before he decided to post his first comment.

    Many knew at that time he was real the reincarnation of X6 and before that RW98512. Just as took14theteam knew that this time Cardinous was really ManuelMartini.

    Then TODAY at 10:03 AM he slips-up, gives himself away in making a reference to his “daughter in law” who I only commented about when he was posting comments under the name of ManuelMartini.

    The problem with all this is, when you debate on these blogs you hope to be debating against people who are honestly expressing their views as you are. How can you do that with Cardinous/ManuelMartini when he cannot even be HONEST about WHO HE REALLY IS?

    He has lied to us all about WHO HE IS. How can you trust him to be truthful about anything? What’s the point of debating issues with a person who lies from the very start?

    And then at 1:35 PM above he even posts, “Card is doing nothing different than Card has ever done, but if it makes anyone feel better to think so, who am I to change their mind?”

    Card, for once be HONEST and openly admit to us all who you are. Admit to us all that you are ManuelMartini, CuzEyewanna, X6, RW98512 all many more all the way back to KARDNOS.

    That’s all I am asking here. Just be honest with us. Can you do that?

  178. MarksonofDarwin says:

    I completely agree MBR.
    Using the word “grudge” was probably not the best choice. My only meaning was that as he already knows, I don’t generally respond to anything he has to say, so I haven’t received much of his venom. Many others on here have, and usually that’s when I get bored and annoyed with his dishonesty. I generally like everyone here, and don’t like to see them be abused by someone who clearly has many issues. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree on the subject, but rather the lack of common decency.

    You’re right. He’s dishonest, and a tool. I tried to give him an opening and the benefit of the doubt that things could change. His response that you highlighted shows that it just won’t ever happen.

  179. I fear that would spoil his fun muckibr. We have all given him endless recreation by trying to respectfully engage him in dialogue only to learn that his only real desire, or so it seems, is to spill his guts which appear to be endless.

    Put him on your scroll-by list and carry on.

  180. MarkSoD, you state: “Like I said before, it’s possible that everyone really does believe that Republicans want to ban prescription coverage for birth control, because that’s how this issue has been carefully manipulated throughout.”

    This from the 2008 Republican Platform:

    “No health care professional – doctor, nurse, or pharmacist – or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, or refer for a health care service against their conscience for any reason. This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s health care, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities.”

    Note that Republicans agree that a “major portion” of America’s health care system, should be able to deny women services because of the religious beliefs of the organization, not because of the beliefs of the woman receiving the care or her physician working together. That is dead wrong.

    We have the frontrunner for the presidency saying about contraception:

    “I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”

    He also has said that he will veto any legislation that does not follow his religious beliefs. He said he would defund any federal program that pays for contraception, arguing that birth control devalues the act of procreation. “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”.

    I haven’t seen anyone on this thread or any thread make the claim that Republicans want to ban prescription contraception as you claim. However, they do not see it as part of a decision that people who rely on insurance coverage through their employer or people who rely on federal programs for their healthcare could make and have the availability to pay for it. And Santorum has pledged a vendetta against it altogether as a social evil.

  181. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Tuddo,

    I was simply pointing out that being against the mandate that birth control pills are covered 100% is not the same as out and out denying women access to birth control pills.

    Many are opposed for religious reasons, and there really are others who oppose it as an imposition of their own morality onto others….but I have not read anywhere that those in opposition want to deny coverage entirely.

    I also noted in my first post on this that I thought it was a Republican candidate who started this whole kerfluffle. Santorum is wrong on this issue, as he is on so many other social issues. If the Republicans choose him as their candidate, then they will lose bigger than they are going to lose already.

  182. Objective says:

    Objective, you are not require to do anything against your will in this issue. The regulations apply to insurance providers. Employees and employers purchase insurance, usually through a joint pay situation. These regulations just state what the basic lowest level insurance cov erage must cover.

    Every state that has such regulatons (28) has found that costs of insurance coverage either stayed the same or went down. There is no difference in policy costs in other states where it is optional.

    So, breathe easy, you won’t be paying for anyone else’s hormones or Viagra.
    _____________________________________________________________

    You are stating that the government is not requiring me to pay for this? So, it is really “Free”? I would really like to see that one, by this mandate applying to insurance companies. Yes, we will be paying for it. I like how you mention it is optional? Sorry, but I have yet to see that when dealing with something especially at this state level.

    Breathe Easy you say, you have not been keeping up with some of the current so-called health care bills in Olympia. We will all be paying for it whether we like it or not. There is nothing in there giving me a chance to opt out of that, so much for the options you mentioned above. Why do you think gregoire is supporting this stuff? She has already stated she is NOT going for another term. Therefore not having to worry about losing another election.

    Sorry, but if I see the slightest increase in cost to my business related to this issue. I will lay off a few people, close down the business and let the state give them this “Free” stuff.

  183. RLangdon says:

    To beerBoy: I have reread your post of Feb 20 at 1:25 pm as you recommended this morning at 6:13 am. As to the commentary on Catholics who become pharmacists, nurses, doctors, and Mormons or Muslims who work in liquor stores, those are much different issues than what was originally brought up for discussion. (Additionally, I must question the 98% statistic without some sort of annotation giving it credence.)

    Allow me to address the original issue.

    Your concept that the church does not have a specific policy statement prohibiting the purchase of health insurance which includes contraception coverage, for all of its varied employees, thus somehow proves the church is not religiously opposed to this concept, is terribly short-sighted and very flawed.

    The Catholic Church may indeed have such a specific written policy, but we may never see it, as most internal policies of most major organizations are never seen outside the confines of the organization itself. What we do know, as previously commented, is the Papal Pronouncement of Pope Paul VI.

    To draw a parallel to a need you see for a policy on contraception insurance prohibition, let us suppose that the church also has a general policy against murdering people, which I assure you it does, and I am equally sure you would agree. And let us say that neither of us is aware of any specific detailed policy that prohibits the church from purchasing guns and ammunition, and supplying such to its followers and employees, for the purpose of carrying out murders. Simply because there may be no known policy against providing guns and ammunition to people, are you saying that the church must supply guns and ammunition to people if a country or state passes a law requiring that all people, including its Catholic citizens, must own guns and ammunition?

    The Catholic Church cannot support or promote birth control based on its canons as pronounced by The Pope. This categorically prohibits the church from including birth control in any benefits plan it pays for, or administers to its employees either direct or affiliated. Just as the Commandment, one of God’s Policy Pronouncements supported by The Pope, “Thou Shalt Not Murder” prohibits The Catholic Church from purchasing and distributing guns and ammunition.

    I will give your new issues some thought, and respond to them when I can.

  184. aislander says:

    C’mon beerBoy: if you’re going to quote me, quote the entire sentence. The part you left out addressed your…er…cavil with the part you did cite.

    Dishonest, or just sloppy?

  185. RLangdon says:

    To muckibr: I am sad to read that your dogma has been run over by your karma. However, as to your confusion of the question, if one has already committed a sin by merely thinking about committing a sin, may I offer this explanation?

    As you point out, Jesus did say, “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” [Matthew 5:28]. Such an admonition as this would apply equally to homosexual desires as it does heterosexual desires.

    The ‘Catholic Answers’ tract explains that a thought by itself is not a sin. Otherwise there would be no temptation — only sin. Satan has to get us to think about sin to lure us into it. What should happen is that we should immediately follow the thought with “No way!” and then purge the thought from our mind and go on about our day. But, what sometimes happens is we continue to think about it and even consider the possibilities associated with the act. We dwell on it, thinking: “Well, maybe; but only if I can do it without being caught.” Thus we are tempted, and on the verge of giving-in to our temptation.

    When we cross the line of rejecting an idea, to accepting an idea that is sinful, then our thoughts can become sin. That is because all sins first start with thoughts of finding excuses for sinful behavior – temptations.

    The point that Jesus makes is that sin is not restricted to just the physical action of breaking God’s law. When a person strongly wants to do something that breaks God’s law, that is just as much a sin as actually doing it. That is why we are warned that God judges us by what we do, and our motives behind what we do, and also by what we do not do.

    And so, Paul says, “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God” [I Corinthians 4:5].

    When does the sin actually begin? Jesus said it starts when you seriously give thought to breaking God’s law. The difference between thinking about committing a sin and actually doing it is the difference between seriously contemplating the opportunity and the outcome, or casting out the thought altogether. If you are tempted by thoughts of committing sin, but resist such temptation, then you may have not sinned. You will only know ‘for sure’ when your judgement day arrives.

  186. RLangdon – the Catholic Church also has a very clear policy against capital punishment and the requirement for a “Just War”. The same logic that allows Catholic-run businesses to withhold payments to Insurance companies due to contraceptive coverage should be applied on every level.

    Therefore, Catholics should be able to cite the 1st Amendment and not pay taxes (or at least a portion of their taxes) in any state that supports capital punishment and federal taxes if the country is involved military in a conflict that the Vatican has declared does not meet the standards of a “Just War”.

    Correct?

  187. RLangdon says:

    beerBoy – Your tangent to The Catholic Church stand on capital punishment and the Just War Doctrine is a departure from the subject above, but I did re-familiarize myself with those issues, though it really was not necessary.

    Individual Catholics would not be able to cite the First Amendment as a ploy to avoid paying even a portion of their taxes in defiance of capital punishment laws or U.S. wars. Individual Catholic laymen do not make policy for the church, nor do they implement policy actions in the name of the church.

    If The Catholic Church determines that a government is at odds with church canon or decree, then the hierarchy of the church could take some coordinated action to address those issues, just as The Catholic Bishops have recently taken up the issue of contraceptive payment and distribution that is the topic of this discussion.

    Currently, as I understand it, The Catholic Church has no serious issue with The United States, or its varied state stands, on the issue of capital punishment. As I have read, it was Pope John Paul II who wrote that even though the need for or use of capital punishment may be extremely rare, there may be rare cases when it is justified. Furthermore, as regards the Just War Doctrine, since Vietnam, I do not believe The Catholic Church has any significant issues with The United States on any of the wars or conflicts it has engaged in.

    The Catholic Church is hierarchical in its organization. Some may see it as monarchical with The Pope, other oligarchical under The Pope and College of Cardinals, but either way it is not governed in any way by democratic representation from the layman level. The leadership of The Catholic Church determines what the fellowship of Catholic laypeople should do in reaction to what may be determined a contravention to church teachings.

    To answer your question: No, you are actually incorrect.

*
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