General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA bunch of grumpy old perverts want to deny women the right to contraception
New York Times:
Bishops Were Prepared for Battle Over Birth Control Coverage
Seven months earlier, they had started laying the groundwork for a major new campaign to combat what they saw as the growing threat to religious liberty, including the legalization of same-sex marriage. But the birth control mandate, issued on Jan. 20, was their Pearl Harbor.
Hours after President Obama phoned to share his decision with Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, who is president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the bishops headquarters in Washington posted on its Web site a video of Archbishop Dolan, which had been recorded the day before.
Never before, Archbishop Dolan said, setting the tone, has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldnt happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/bishops-planned-battle-on-birth-control-coverage-rule.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
I suppose calling the Bishops perverts is sacrilegious since I have nothing to prove they are child molesters themsleves.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)After all, if the Trinity can't overcome a little birth control in order to bring about the next immaculate conception, what good are they?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)A single-payer plan would have avoided this problem. The government certainly can force people to pay taxes. Then, under a single-payer system, the government can make the services and needed medications available to everyone. It is then up to the choice of the individual whether she or he wishes to take advantage of the services offered. Problem solved.
Ultimately the Archbishop is right. Never before, Archbishop Dolan said, setting the tone, has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product." That's true, and it's offensive to the Constitution.
-Laelth
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)It isn't forcing the groups to provide insurance.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It's just saying that if, as an employer, you choose to provide health insurance to your employees, then you must purchase insurance that provides certain services and medications that you find morally objectionable. The employer could choose to simply not provide health insurance. The employer does have that option, but is that what we want?
Besides, my point was that a single-payer system would avoid this mess.
And I maintain that forcing people to buy insurance is a bad idea and hostile to the Constitution.
-Laelth
sinkingfeeling
(51,444 posts)birth control, as the 98% of women want? If so, then what's the difference? The Catholic Church would have to object to that as well.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Those Catholics who were opposed to contraception could choose to simply not get it.
It's much more offensive to tell the Bishops that they must buy it even though they believe it to be immoral.
-Laelth
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Pay the fine and let their employees but insurance on the market.
Either that close their doors. Nowhere is it written that they have to do these things.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)have single payer. But guess what? we don't live in France or Germany or Sweden. We live here and must deal with this. I think we'll eventually get there but right now we have to stand up and fight this, not sit and sniffle about how awful it is that we don't have single payer....
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in the US to offer birth control.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)And I find the health insurance company enrichment act utterly offensive.
-Laelth