Birth Control

[delldude]

The bishops understand all this, as they made clear in a NOT WIDELY REPORTED All-Bishops Letter yesterday. Here are some of the concerns expressed in the letter, written by the leading Catholic bishops, which I found in the National Review, but not in the New York Times.

We remain fully committed to the defense of our religious liberty and we strongly protest the violation of our freedom of religion that has not been addressed. We continue to work for the repeal of the mandate . . .

At this point it does not seem that a religiously affiliated health plan (e.g., one run by a Catholic health system) can be offered to the general public and exclude the objectionable services, since most of the public is supposed to have these services included by their insurers automatically.
It remains unclear as to how insurers will be compensated for the cost of these items, with some commentators suggesting that such compensation will ultimately be derived from the premiums paid by the religious employer.
We are presented with a serious dilemma regarding self-insured plans, where a religious organization is both employer and insurer, and regarding student health plans offered by religious colleges and universities. It appears that such plans will be required to offer the objectionable coverage.
Our concern remains strong that the government is creating its own definitions of who is “religious enough” for full protection.
It seems clear there is no exemption for Catholic and other individuals who work for secular employers; for such individuals who own or operate a business; or for employers who have a moral (not religious) objection to some procedures such as the abortifacient drug Ella.
We may not know the final actual details of some aspects of the policy until well into the New Year.

Story

 

[SparrowHawk]

Gingrich to Newsmax: Obama ‘Relentlessly Hostile’ to Religion

Saturday, 11 Feb 2012 11:32 AM

By David Patten and John Bachman

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich blasted President Barack Obama’s policy reversal on coverage of birth control and the morning-after pill saying the new policy “may actually be worse” than the rules that caused the controversy in the first place.

Liberal Catholics have sided with conservatives in opposing the Obama administration’s plan to require faith-based organizations to offer insurance policies that cover procedures the Catholic church finds morally unacceptable. So on Friday the president announced he would instead require all insurance companies to cover the pills and procedures, which include sterilization, free-of-charge and without co-pays.

Aericle

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Gingrich to Newsmax: Obama ‘Relentlessly Hostile’ to Religion

So on Friday the president announced he would instead require all insurance companies to cover the pills and procedures, which include sterilization, free-of-charge and without co-pays.

Aericle

No change in position! Obama has merely shifted the basis for the mandate. Now this Administration will require insurance companies to provide “free” contraception services to the insured who work for Catholic employers. This means that the premiums paid by Catholic employees will still fund contraceptive services.

Apparently “insurance” is not what we will be paying for with Obamacare. My current medical insurance contract is finite and specific and in no way allows me to line up for “free” goodies mandated arbitrary by the government.

If the federal government can step in and arbitrarily require a company to provide things for “free” that were previously elective, premium-based services, then it is no longer an insurance company. We are not buying insurance from it; we are simply participating in a mandatory government program whose features can be changed at any time, regardless of what we or the “insurers” want. There is no contract just one-sided decisions of bureaucrats and future presidents.

This Administration must feel that it will be in power forever. Under Obamacare, future Presidents and Administrations will be able to add mandates to the program as they see fit.

Example:

It’s late January 2016. Newt Gingrich is President. The House of Representatives is solidly Republican, and there’s a slight Republican majority in the Senate. Because Republicans lack a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Affordable Care Act remains on the books. The Act continues to require employer-provided insurance to provide full coverage for all preventive care measures.

Secretary Rick Santorum of the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that conversion therapy for gay males will help prevent all sorts of costly health problems. HIV and related health problems, it seems, are extremely costly to treat and are far more common among gay men than among straight men. HHS has determined that the most modern conversion therapies can cheaply and successfully alter sexual orientation or, at a minimum, reduce homosexual impulses so that they can be managed by homosexually oriented patients who would prefer not to engage in homosexual activity.

President Gingrich and Secretary Santorum have therefore mandated that employer-provided health insurance policies cover gay conversion therapies. Claiming to be sensitive to the concerns of gay groups, they have included a narrow exemption for employers who don’t employ or serve significant numbers of straight people. In reality, though, none of the major gay and lesbian advocacy groups or publishing organizations could qualify for this exemption because all employ a great many gay-affirming straight people and include outreach to heterosexuals as one of their objectives.

Forcing gay groups to pay for a procedure that so deeply offends their core principles would be beyond the pale in a liberal society that respects personal conscience and the right of individuals to associate in groups that share their values, a right that can exist only if groups are allowed to express those values.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Perhaps the SCOTUS will rule in the 26 states favor and rule the individual mandate unconstitutional and solve the problem for everyone.

 

[Ms Tree]

What confuses me about this entire BS charade is that I do not recall the RC complaining about vasectomies and Viagra being covered by insurance and all health care programs. Personally I find the entire RC argument very disingenuous given that men are crying about womens health care is being protested (birth control is used for quite a bit more than just contraception) but have no issues with mens birth control or sex aids. Given the fact that only men are in power in the RC and that 98% of women have used/are using/or will use birth control it just seems like another example of the RC trying desperately to hold on to control over womens sexuality. Given that women have absolutely no say in the power structure of the RC, the RC's actions are not surprising.

If the RC get out of the birth controlo because it goes against what they believe in then we might as well all stop paying any taxes at all. Everyone is going to object to something. I object to all the wars and the bloated defense budget so I have no interest in paying any more than 10% of what normally goes to the military. I don't have kids so the schools can go pound sand.

Such a joke.

Yea yea Sparrow, I know. I am a Christian hating bigot.... blahg blah blah. Try addressing the issue.

 

[Ms Tree]

Just freaking lovely. Republicans are the most sexist bunch of neanderthals around.

McConnell: Any employer should be able to deny birth control

Never mind thaqt birth control pills are used for countless other treatments. Never mind that vasectomies and Vigra are covered. Women need t9o get out to polls and not vote against their own self interest. McConnell is a sexist pig.

 

[delldude]

What confuses me about this entire BS charade is that I do not recall the RC complaining about vasectomies and Viagra being covered by insurance and all health care programs. Personally I find the entire RC argument very disingenuous given that men are crying about womens health care is being protested (birth control is used for quite a bit more than just contraception) but have no issues with mens birth control or sex aids. Given the fact that only men are in power in the RC and that 98% of women have used/are using/or will use birth control it just seems like another example of the RC trying desperately to hold on to control over womens sexuality. Given that women have absolutely no say in the power structure of the RC, the RC's actions are not surprising.

If the RC get out of the birth controlo because it goes against what they believe in then we might as well all stop paying any taxes at all. Everyone is going to object to something. I object to all the wars and the bloated defense budget so I have no interest in paying any more than 10% of what normally goes to the military. I don't have kids so the schools can go pound sand.

Such a joke.

Yea yea Sparrow, I know. I am a Christian hating bigot.... blahg blah blah. Try addressing the issue.

Your favorite religion isn't bitching about all healthcare, only the ones they are paying for.
If the body of the church chooses to go against Catholic doctrine, there isn't much they can do other than preach abstinence.
Viagara? You got to be kidding. Someone tell him Viagara isn't birth control.

SparrowHawk, this guy got a hardon for you......

 

[eolesen]

What confuses me about this entire BS charade is that I do not recall the RC complaining about vasectomies and Viagra being covered by insurance and all health care programs.

From what I've read, Catholic funded health plans do not cover tubal ligations or vasectomies, however in addition to Viagra, fertility treatments are also covered.

If indeed true, where's the inconsistency with their pulpit positions??

It's a slippery slope. First it will be birth control, next it will be abortions & gender reassignment.

 

[xUT]

What confuses me about this entire BS charade is that I do not recall the RC complaining about vasectomies and Viagra being covered by insurance and all health care programs. Personally I find the entire RC argument very disingenuous given that men are crying about womens health care is being protested (birth control is used for quite a bit more than just contraception) but have no issues with mens birth control or sex aids. Given the fact that only men are in power in the RC and that 98% of women have used/are using/or will use birth control it just seems like another example of the RC trying desperately to hold on to control over womens sexuality. Given that women have absolutely no say in the power structure of the RC, the RC's actions are not surprising.

If the RC get out of the birth controlo because it goes against what they believe in then we might as well all stop paying any taxes at all. Everyone is going to object to something. I object to all the wars and the bloated defense budget so I have no interest in paying any more than 10% of what normally goes to the military. I don't have kids so the schools can go pound sand.

Such a joke.

Yea yea Sparrow, I know. I am a Christian hating bigot.... blahg blah blah. Try addressing the issue.

IMHO, you are getting nuttier every day.
You do know the difference between vasectomy, Viagra, birth control, eh? Or does your confusing obstification somehow prove an elusive point?
JMHO,
B) xUT

 

[Ms Tree]

From what I have read they do cover it, but even taking your statement as true, why is it that the RCC only speaks out against womens birth control and not mens?

The slippery slope is if the RCC can get out of paying for necessary womens health care, then any employer should be able to get out of anything they do not want to pay for. That is the slope that McConnell seems top be skiing down quite obliviously.

By the way. Not sure what you mean by funded but I do not believe that the RCC has their own insurance company. They use someone else to underwrite the insurance plan.

 

[delldude]

From what I have read they do cover it, but even taking your statement as true, why is it that the RCC only speaks out against womens birth control and not mens?

The slippery slope is if the RCC can get out of paying for necessary womens health care, then any employer should be able to get out of anything they do not want to pay for. That is the slope that McConnell seems top be skiing down quite obliviously.

OMG, where's the fourteenth when you need it?

Gay's don't worry about birth control do they?

 

[Ms Tree]

IMHO, you are getting nuttier every day.
You do know the difference between vasectomy, Viagra, birth control, eh? Or does your confusing obstification somehow prove an elusive point?
JMHO,
B) xUT

Given that your opinion does not amount to a warm bucket of spit I really could not care less about your opinion. Your responses are identical in content to Dell and Dapoes, in other words they are entirely lacking in any unsubstantial content. If you have the ability try to address the issues. If you disagree fine, then present your argument.

Do you know the similarities between the items I mentioned?

 

[Ms Tree]

Interesting. The church hierarchy overwhelmingly wanted to lift the ban but the pope decided that being consistent was more important than doing the right thing.

Yet by the first half of the 20th century, change seemed to be in the air. In 1930, Pius XII issued the encyclical (papal letter) Casti Connubii ("on chaste wedlock"), which acknowledged that couples could seek pleasure in their sexual relations, so long as the act was still linked to procreation. Then, in 1966, Paul VI's birth control commission presented its preliminary report to the pope. It held big news: The body had overwhelmingly voted to recommend lifting the prohibition on contraceptives. (The former Archbishop of Brussels, Cardinal Leo Suenens, went so far as to say the church needed to confront reality and avoid another "Galileo case.")

Catholics rejoiced, and many began using the pill at once. But their hopes were dashed when, in July 1968, Paul VI released an encyclical titled Humanae Vitae ("on human life"), reaffirming the contraceptive ban. It turned out that three dissenting bishops on the commission had privately gone to plead with the pope: If the position on contraceptives was changed, they said, the teaching authority of the church would be questioned—the faithful could no longer trust the hierarchy.

How the Vatican Almost Embraced Birth Control

 

[xUT]

Given that your opinion does not amount to a warm bucket of spit I really could not care less about your opinion. Your responses are identical in content to Dell and Dapoes, in other words they are entirely lacking in any unsubstantial content. If you have the ability try to address the issues. If you disagree fine, then present your argument.

Do you know the similarities between the items I mentioned?

Do you know what a double negative is?

 

[Ms Tree]

Do you know what a double negative is?

Still no argument to support your position? 😱