View Full Version : Birth Control; Help Me Understand Obama?
#1 I love Obama.
#2 I DISLIKE the catholic church A LOT.
and yet.....I am having trouble agreeing that schools, charities, etc. affiliated with the catholic church should be required to offer / help pay for plans that give free birth control.
Is the problem that employers/organizations should not be the ones giving health care and it should all be a government program (which the dems tried to get but failed).
I value religious freedom and even though I do not agree with the catholic church ON ANYTHING, I would not want any religious place to be forced to do something that was against their religion.
This is an election year, the issues should be about the economy, and Obama is pissing a whole lot of people off and igniting the fire against the healthcare laws.
No one is forcing any catholic to take birth control (in fact, many want it and do use it)....but why should a religious affiliated place be required to pay for it for them?
heydude, I agree with you completely. That's all I want to say about that.
They must provide health coverage, all coverage required by the law, simply because they are employers, and employers in the US must follow US law. Rule of law. No one is forcing a 'church' to do anything against it's church stuff. Heck, they are even allowed to discriminate within their church, as in they can refuse to hire, for church secretary, anyone unmarried with children, gay, or black, or whatever. But when they set themselves up as a business who hires non-church affiliated type people, and offer health coverage, such as businesses do, they must follow US law. Think of it like this. Your boss may firmly believe, and is supported in that belief by his religion, that women are less than equal to men, therefore they will be paid half of what men get for the same job. You would expect your government to protect your rights, under US law and not give exception to your employer because his religion says differently. I think were people get confused is they confuse a simple religious group preaching on Sunday to a willing flock, and a huge business organization in the business of hiring and firing, and providing health care, paid holidays, sick days, wage laws, etc...And just because the product they provide is viewed as a good thing, that doesn't change whether they should follow US law or not. McDonald's donates a lot to charity, building Ronald McDonald houses and such, but that doesn't give them free rein to discriminate.
Unfortunately, we don't have single payer health care, which would solve this problem. People must get their health care through their employment. US law trumps religious law. This is why we don't have Sharia law trumping US law. Just because people see Catholics as a kinder, gentler religion, it still holds that this is not a theocracy.
I know some are going to say, well they aren't being forced to work there. Well, no one is forced to work anywhere, are they. No excuse to toss out US law regarding employers/employees. No one is forced to drive on the highway either, but we still expect the others to follow the rules and laws to maintain safety.
thank you peggy. your arguement is refreshing and just very hard to find because all i hear is about forcing religion blah blah blah.
i dislike the excuse "you don't have to work there" especially in this economy where job options are very rare in the first place.
iris lily
2-10-12, 10:42am
... they are even allowed to discriminate within their church, as in they can refuse to hire, for church secretary, anyone unmarried with children, gay, or black, or whatever... ah, no. Employment discrimination against protected classes is illegal regardless of who or what entity is carrying it out.
I don't know if the rest of your argument fails, because I stopped reading.
iris lily
2-10-12, 10:46am
The bigger question is why is Obama el al is involved in dictating this minutia of health care insurance, anyway? Do you like THAT dude?
I do not.
Statism seems to be emerging as the religion of choice for many, however issues such as this will serve to draw a dividing line for those who could go either way. In the long run, I think it's a loser for the statists.
As I understand it the Catholic Church proper (and any other with similar beliefs) is exempt from the requirements calling for contraceptives to be made available through healthcare plans they provide. The gray areas, and thus the debate, concerns affiliates and subordinate entities of the Church. The legal issue seems to be where to draw a line between what is part of the Church and what is simply affiliated with it. It's actually an interesting question because there are other issues that could fall under a freedom of religion argument along with this.
If I were king the Church itself and schools and universities established by it (places specifically set up to teach the doctrine of the Church) would be exempt. Any affiliation looser than that would not be. Then I would let the Supreme Court sort it all out. My real question is why on earth did the President, et al, decide to go after this right now, in an election year? It seems there is everything to lose and very little to gain by pushing this hot button now.
Insurance companies will be making up the difference that Catholic employers didn't want to pay, as per the latest news release. Interesting how the government didn't care how Catholics felt about the last few wars we started (officially and steadfastly against them), or capital punishment (ditto), but where women's reproduction is concerned, it can't cave fast enough.
Interesting how the government didn't care how Catholics felt about the last few wars we started (officially and steadfastly against them), or capital punishment (ditto), but where women's reproduction is concerned, it can't cave fast enough.
Love the observation, Jane..
Religious run hospitals are a big issue. They employ 10s if not 100s of thousands of women. They are so called non-profits that make millions each year and compete against for profit hospitals. Is it a religious issue are a financial issue for the church. For profit hospitals would have an additional expense and religious would not.
Plus the many if not the majority of non-Catholic women working for these hospitals would be discriminated against because of the Pope.
ApatheticNoMore
2-10-12, 2:03pm
Statism seems to be emerging as the religion of choice for many
Supposedly 70% of Americans now support Gitmo, so this does indeed seem to be the case.
Whether Catholic organizations should have to fund birth control is a tricky issue (I do by the way think anyone opposed to all forms of birth control except NFP in the modern era is "nuttier than the fruitpie" (to steal an expression from my dad) but beleiving in nuttier than the fruitpie ideas is not itself a crime). It does annoy me to no end that with EVERYTHING going on the major political issue is fricken birth control! Not even abortion but birth control .... egads.
loosechickens
2-10-12, 2:26pm
It IS an election year. Which is why pretty much everyone (including the Catholic Church) is ignoring that 28, yep, TWENTY-EIGHT states already require religious organizations running hospitals, universities, etc., to provide birth control in their insurance plans. TWENTY-EIGHT states that have required this for years without large amounts of outrage similar to what we are seeing now, from the Catholic Church, Republicans, etc. until some operatives saw this as a "wedge" they could use to try to damage the Obama administration.
But......Obama, being the person he is, with the administration he HAS, (not the one as painted by the right), being a person much interested in compromise, has tweaked the plan to put the burden of supplying birth control in the insurance plans onto the insurance companies, so unless the aim IS just to cause a kerfluffle in an election year, that should solve the problem.
As Peggy so aptly stated.....this is not a religious issue at all, but one more of the many we will have to live through, of kerfluffles that the "world is ending.....Obama is destroying the country" until the election.
One really DOES need to ask where the Catholic Church has been and why we haven't heard about all this for years now, in those TWENTY-EIGHT states that have required exactly the same coverage be offered, and Catholic universities and hospitals have been providing it now in those states for years.
It's especially funny to me, since 98% of Catholic women themselves use birth control. And the "outrage" on the right is pretty much manufactured, since the "religious freedom" argument is bogus, in and of itself.
How far does that go? Don't Jehovah Witness's have issues with transfusions? Christian Scientists with conventional medicine in general? If people can refuse to have their children vaccinated under religious grounds, can religious organizations refuse to cover them? Why should the church as an employer get to do this, but not a Catholic business owner?
One really DOES need to ask where the Catholic Church has been and why we haven't heard about all this for years now, in those TWENTY-EIGHT states that have required exactly the same coverage be offered, and Catholic universities and hospitals have been providing it now in those states for years.
That's the difference between a state and a country. The country's constitution forbids this kind of federal control over religions.
It's especially funny to me, since 98% of Catholic women themselves use birth control. And the "outrage" on the right is pretty much manufactured, since the "religious freedom" argument is bogus, in and of itself.
This isn't a birth control issue, it's an issue of the federal government usurping religious doctrine and beliefs. How is the argument bogus if the government forces a religious institution to violate it's doctrine?
I thought you were in favor of a separation of church and state.
That's the difference between a state and a country. The country's constitution forbids this kind of federal control over religions.
This isn't a birth control issue, it's an issue of the federal government usurping religious doctrine and beliefs. How is the argument bogus if the government forces a religious institution to violate it's doctrine?
I thought you were in favor of a separation of church and state.
Oh, am I ever for separation of church and state! And the minute churches give up their tax exempt status, I'll believe we have separation of church and state.
I am so tired of pandering to religions, who don't deserve special status IMO. No more than anyone else who believes something strongly. We don't let people violate US law based on something they really really believe in. Like magic apples and talking snakes.
But, if you think religious law /beliefs trump US law, well, bring on the Sharia law. Let Mormons marry as many women as they want. Let snake handlers expose their children to baskets full of rattlers.
Religion, all religions, are belief systems not based in facts or reality. There are about 20 major religions in the world today, each believing something different. Are we to allow each to re-write our US law reflecting their views? I don't think so. Obama did not pick this fight. As LC pointed out, conservatives, looking for anything to tar him with, picked this. They are the ones who are pushing it, not him.
And it's not the US government trying to usurp religious doctrine, but religions trying to usurp the federal government with their doctrine. No one is forcing the CHURCH to do anything. They can believe whatever they want. they can't set up a business and pick and choose which laws they will follow.
Oh, am I ever for separation of church and state! And the minute churches give up their tax exempt status, I'll believe we have separation of church and state.
I am so tired of pandering to religions, who don't deserve special status IMO. No more than anyone else who believes something strongly. We don't let people violate US law based on something they really really believe in. Like magic apples and talking snakes.
But, if you think religious law /beliefs trump US law, well, bring on the Sharia law. Let Mormons marry as many women as they want. Let snake handlers expose their children to baskets full of rattlers.
Religion, all religions, are belief systems not based in facts or reality. There are about 20 major religions in the world today, each believing something different. Are we to allow each to re-write our US law reflecting their views? I don't think so. Obama did not pick this fight. As LC pointed out, conservatives, looking for anything to tar him with, picked this. They are the ones who are pushing it, not him.
And it's not the US government trying to usurp religious doctrine, but religions trying to usurp the federal government with their doctrine. No one is forcing the CHURCH to do anything. They can believe whatever they want. they can't set up a business and pick and choose which laws they will follow.
Should all charities lose tax exempt status as well, or should it only be organizations you don't like?
I don't think religious law/beliefs trump US law, but I also don't believe US Law trumps religious law/beliefs. You may disagree.
Either you believe in the limits our constitution places on government or you don't. And if you don't, what other rights are you willing to give up in order for the state to have it's way?
That's the difference between a state and a country. The country's constitution forbids this kind of federal control over religions.
This isn't a birth control issue, it's an issue of the federal government usurping religious doctrine and beliefs. How is the argument bogus if the government forces a religious institution to violate it's doctrine?
I thought you were in favor of a separation of church and state.
No, actually that is incorrect. This whole kefluffle is related to how broad a particular exemption should be. The rule is neutral and applies to all employers. There is an exemption for religious institutions. The only issue is how broadly the concept of what a religious institution should be defined. Quasi public institutions that accept public funds, serve the entire community and employ people from all religions and whose primary function is NOT the practice and dissemination of religious doctrine are not religious institutions the way that churches are.
Many religiously neutral laws come up against religious practice. These laws are not in violation of the first amendment. Hence people are not allowed to practice bigamy or possess peyote or kill chickens in their back yards.
This rule only requires employers to cover birth control. It does not require anyone to accept the insurance or to use birth control. Charitable institutions run by churches are also not allowed to give women lower pay or discriminate against them.
jennipurrr
2-10-12, 3:25pm
Looks like the administration has proposed a compromise - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html
Seems to me it would be simpler to just not *force* people to purchase insurance, either for themselves, or for their employees.
Just pay the employees for their work, and let the employees themselves purchase their own insurance products that meet their own needs and conform with their own ethics. Sort of like we do with food, clothing, housing, and cell phones.
ah, no. Employment discrimination against protected classes is illegal regardless of who or what entity is carrying it out.
I don't know if the rest of your argument fails, because I stopped reading.
My mistake. They can discriminate in who they hire to teach religion to the kiddies, or who offers religious instruction. I suppose if the secretary offers religious advise, which I'm sure they could make the case, they can fire her. Upshot, their CEO's don't get protection from the US government. So, if a southern baptist church finds out their minister is half black, well, they can fire him for it.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-upholds-religious-exemption-to-employment-discrimination-laws/
Seems to me it would be simpler to just not *force* people to purchase insurance, either for themselves, or for their employees.
Just pay the employees for their work, and let the employees themselves purchase their own insurance products that meet their own needs and conform with their own ethics. Sort of like we do with food, clothing, housing, and cell phones.
The empirical evidence shows that this just does not work. Health insurance is not a widget.
Should all charities lose tax exempt status as well, or should it only be organizations you don't like?
I don't think religious law/beliefs trump US law, but I also don't believe US Law trumps religious law/beliefs. You may disagree.
Either you believe in the limits our constitution places on government or you don't. And if you don't, what other rights are you willing to give up in order for the state to have it's way?
This has nothing to do with constitutional limits on government. I know you are trying to deflect , but that isn't the question. Yes, US law does trump religious law if there is a question of one over the other. That's not the same as religious beliefs. You can believe anything you want, but you can't make up your own laws, in violation of US laws, because of it. that's the difference. By your reasoning, we should allow Sharia law in the US. Is that how you see it? that's a religious law. How do you stand on that?
But let's get back to this tax exempt status. That IS in violation of the constitution, in that giving them special consideration, blanket special consideration just by virtue of being a 'religion' is a form of establishment of religion. Charities have to apply, with documents and proof in the form of reams of paperwork, to their non-profit status. Each one must prove this. Let churches do this too. Each one should have to prove it, and the minute a church displays even a whiff of politics, which many of them do openly, they should lose their tax exempt status. But, for a charity to gain tax exempt status, they can't discriminate who they serve. Goodwill can't hang a Whites Only sign in the window, and a church should not be able to turn gays away from their services, or not allow the divorcee the sacraments. And yet, even though we grant them tax exempt status, we allow them to get away with all sorts of bad behaviour in the name of religious freedom.
Well, frankly I'm tired of it. Religions don't deserve any more special consideration than anyone else. In anything. If you want to pray at my dinner table, go ahead, but don't expect me to hush and bow my head. Don't expect me to stop what I'm doing while you pray to your Deity. I believe there is a mad hatter living on the moon holding a tea party, but I don't expect special consideration or tax exempt status because I believe it. And that belief is no goofier than many religious beliefs. I can give examples!
Do I respect religious beliefs? Do you respect my mad hatter?
This has nothing to do with constitutional limits on government.
Of course it does, but than again, lots of things this administration has pushed through over the last couple of years violates constitutional limits on government. You've probably just become accoustomed to it.
....and the minute a church displays even a whiff of politics, which many of them do openly, they should lose their tax exempt status.
That is the major reason individual churches do lost their tax exempt status. It happens from time to time.
Do I respect religious beliefs? Do you respect my mad hatter? Sure, I respect your right to believe in whatever you like. I also don't believe anyone should ask you to violate those beliefs, would you agree with that?
Well, frankly I'm tired of it. Religions don't deserve any more special consideration than anyone else. In anything. If you want to pray at my dinner table, go ahead, but don't expect me to hush and bow my head. Don't expect me to stop what I'm doing while you pray to your Deity. I believe there is a mad hatter living on the moon holding a tea party, but I don't expect special consideration or tax exempt status because I believe it. And that belief is no goofier than many religious beliefs. I can give examples!
Do I respect religious beliefs? Do you respect my mad hatter?
+1
Should all charities lose tax exempt status as well, or should it only be organizations you don't like?
IMHO, yes. I believe the separation of church and state was wise 240 years ago and is still wise today. That said, I would like to hear logical arguments to exempt churches and other so called "non-profits" from taxes. The Catholic Church is one of the largest land holders in the world (behind only a few governments, I believe). The organization rivals or exceeds any corporation in terms of resources and influence. With all that going for them why should the fact that God is their business, rather than oil or olives, exempt the Church from supporting the country that supports them? I'm not trying to pick on Catholics (or be blasphemous), they just happen to be at the center of today's controversy.
IMHO, yes. I believe the separation of church and state was wise 240 years ago and is still wise today. That said, I would like to hear logical arguments to exempt churches and other so called "non-profits" from taxes.
There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=397&invol=664).
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. An exemption restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.
ApatheticNoMore
2-10-12, 5:27pm
Of course it does, but than again, lots of things this administration has pushed through over the last couple of years violates constitutional limits on government. You've probably just become accoustomed to it.
Well they only had 8 years of Bush to get accustomed to it!!
Um err ... I mean I'm sure glad this type of stuff never happened before this administration (although almost all of the strong critiques of the Bush administration - and they were much stronger than stuff about birth control, they were actuallly definitive issues like Gitmo - were precisely about constitutional violations). I guess I better just elect a Republican and things will be all better .... I feel all warm and fuzzy already (note a Paul administration actually might be interesting but the rest of them no).
rosebud, can you provide links for that evidence? I would be interested to see it.
i'm inclined to agree with bae about individuals buying their own insurance in a truly free market. . . but I haven't seen anything about whether or not it works.
ApatheticNoMore
2-10-12, 6:25pm
1) the position that all birth control is bad including even barrier methods like condoms and diaphrams is completely ridiculous and insane. So I can't say I have much respect for that as a philosophy!
2) I actually am somewhat sympathetic to a freedom of conscience arguments for what churches should fund, no matter how nutty their ideas, but when churches become MAJOR employers it gets complex like I've said. OTOH birth control isn't even expensive so I don't think it's some great catastrophe if churches don't fund it. I mean bringing up another thread here, couldn't people just go to planned parenthood? Seriously ... So because the consequences of not forcing this on churches are pretty low, I'm going to have to go with not doing it
3) If this is the issue people get most upset about for consitutional reasons, well I can't even fathom those priorities. Just mouth wide open ... not NDAA?
4) I kinda think churches should at times be political :), not so much in terms of "you must vote for ...". But, I mean the Catholic church is given a hard time for being complicit with fascists, what if churches in response to fascism had gone full scale on the offensive: "down with fascism!' (with all the influence they had, a serious fight). But being political is very very very difficult to square with tax exemption ...
5)
"i'm inclined to agree with bae about individuals buying their own insurance in a truly free market. . . but I haven't seen anything about whether or not it works."
Yea how do you even try untried ideas like this( and some comparison to 100 years ago or something really isn't apples to apples)? They can't really be tried on a national level IMO. I mean applying completely experimental ideas on a national level is just very risky IMO. I mean if the alternative is an even worse catastrope fine, but otherwise. I mean I could come up with the most hippy dippy idea in the universe also (and believe me my sympathies are often there), one with no historical precedent (things like socialized medicine actually do have historical precident - they are all over really), but saying it should necessarily be tried instantly on the whole country tommorow hmm ...
by the way, no one has to actually pay to provide birth control to anyone. birth control access actually lowers the cost of an insuranced pool.
rosebud, can you provide links for that evidence? I would be interested to see it.
i'm inclined to agree with bae about individuals buying their own insurance in a truly free market. . . but I haven't seen anything about whether or not it works.
I'm not going to set out specific links but you can peruse the web sites for the alliance for health care reform and the kaiser permanente institute for health care policy.
According to the latest census in 2010 there were fifty million uninsured Americans. Now let's say we go with an even purer market approach and get rid of Medicaid Medicare TriCare and the CHIPS program. Let's eliminate all government regulation and oversight on insurance companies and the medical profession. Do you really believe this approach will lead to more coverage?
Now let's compare our system with other modern industrialized countries. Some of those have universal coverage lower per capita costs and better statistics on things like infant mortality. Not one of those systems has a pure market approach.
I don't think it is a stretch to say that as a matter of pragmatics the market system has failed us in this area.
In my own life I spend over 20 percent of my net income on health care premiums and co pays for my family's coverage. My dh and I both have pre existing conditions and cannot switch our coverage to something cheaper at this time. I have tried.
Also instructive is the PBS Frontline program Sick Around The World.
Of course it does, but than again, lots of things this administration has pushed through over the last couple of years violates constitutional limits on government. You've probably just become accoustomed to it.
That is the major reason individual churches do lost their tax exempt status. It happens from time to time.
Sure, I respect your right to believe in whatever you like. I also don't believe anyone should ask you to violate those beliefs, would you agree with that?
I would like to see a comparison of the violations of constitutional government by this administration compared to the last administration...
You respect my belief in the mad hater, but do I deserve a tax exemption because of it? I think all men are inferior, therefore, they will get half the pay in my business, that employs thousands of men and women. And blue eyed men are even lower on my religious 'value scale', therefore deserve no health care coverage at all, compared to the other men. Do i deserve to re-write US law to fit my religious beliefs? Ignore those that don't jive with my beliefs?
And a real example: Sharia law. How do you stand on that? Do we allow Sharia law in the states? Here is a very real religious law.
You respect my belief in the mad hater, but do I deserve a tax exemption because of it? I think all men are inferior, therefore, they will get half the pay in my business, that employs thousands of men and women. And blue eyed men are even lower on my religious 'value scale', therefore deserve no health care coverage at all, compared to the other men. Do i deserve to re-write US law to fit my religious beliefs? Ignore those that don't jive with my beliefs?
I see no parallel with your examples and real life in the 21st Century so I'll pass on this.
And a real example: Sharia law. How do you stand on that? Do we allow Sharia law in the states? Here is a very real religious law.
I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was limited to those elements of Sharia Law not at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process. Let's say as a form of voluntary mediation outside the U.S. court system.
But what does any of this have to do with the subject?
ApatheticNoMore
2-10-12, 10:04pm
I would like to see a comparison of the violations of constitutional government by this administration compared to the last administration...
Well signed NDAA :( There's more of course, but everyone already is aware of it all, Obama policies are not exactly secret.
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
loosechickens
2-11-12, 1:00am
I heard a rightwing commentator tonight going on and on about how if the insurance companies are required to pay for birth control, premiums will go up, the churches will have to pay bigger premiums and so will be paying for those contraceptives anyway.
Now....the insurance companies were fine with the solution the Obama administration floated today......now why would they WANT to supply contraceptives free of charge to all women under their policies? Why? Heck, they couldn't say, "throw me into that briar patch" fast enough.
Which costs insurance companies far less.....supplying contraceptives to all women of childbearing age who want them, free of charge, or paying for the cost of pregnancies, delivery and all those kids that those women would be having without those contraceptives? hahahahahaha.......giving free birth control to all women saves BUNDLES of money for insurance companies.
What we'd BETTER open our eyes and look at is that the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates look askance at birth control at ALL. Rick Santorum is on record as saying something to the effect that if you allow women to have access to contraceptives, it will lead to "improper" sexual activities.
Are we TRULY looking at Presidential candidates in this day and age who would try to restrict women's access to birth control? Truly? How long before we're all in burkas if this new American Taliban has its way? Geez.........
Funny, rosebud -- due to my FB adventures (see the family sub forum), I spent most of today at those web sites that you mention, and I've seen most of those things.
Will it come to "more coverage?" No, I don't' think so. But I'm not talking about "coverage" at all. I'm talking about the medical system running outside of an insurance system or government support (and lets say bae might be talking about that too).
I don't want to over-romanticize anything. But I do have something comparable (unless I"m misunderstanding the situation here). Dental care in NZ.
From what I can tell, dental care has normal professional standards and related health/safety standards and regulations from the government, but it is not subsidized in any way. Workplaces might offer insurance plans as a bennie, but from what I can gather, a lot of people pass. Or, pass on the dental part.
From there, you can get private insurance -- and it's honestly really cheap. I think (don't quote me on this), that it would be $250 per year for my family, and that included two free cleanings ($125 per cleaning) for each of us (3) per year. It included one dental check-up appointment with x-rays ($85 per appointment) per person per year. It included coverage for anything beyond that, with a deductible of $1000 or so (I think).
So, if you look at my dental care last year, we got (total) two cleanings and two appointments. I needed to get a tooth fixed (filling re-done) which was estimated at $250. It wasn't an emergency, so I haven't had it done yet. I have $125 saved up so far.
Thus, the total amount spent on our care this year was what? $420? Insurance would have been a better choice, right?
Now, as far as I can tell, my insurance is accepted anywhere. Know how the paperwork works? I get an invoice from the dentist, submit it to the insurance company, the company pays the dentist. So, dentists accept any insurance, because they don't have to muck with them.
There are, as well, subsidies for dental care if you really need it through the government welfare program. It's the same as getting a housing or food stipend. You have to apply, demonstrate that you cannot afford the care, and then they might give you the stipend. So, there is a way for you to get dental care if you need it. Also, if your mouth is injured in an accident, ACC coverage (the medical coverage of the government, which is technically a national insurance program) might cover it.
But what is interesting is that -- for the most part -- dentists are in a free market.
Dentists compete for clients and have super-fancy pants offices to facilitate that. I mean, there's a dentist's office above me and it is NICE. The one we go to is REALLY FLASH. And, it was darn good dentistry too. No pressure, no craziness, and just a clear evaluation and explanation of everything the dentist saw.
Now, I assume that they price their various treatments based both on what covers the costs of the business and will create income for the dentist, as well as on what the market will bear. I'm sure, also, that the government stipends and ACC are 'negotiated' with the dentist -- perhaps they get less per person. And usually, they ask the person to pay the "copay" which may actually cover the remaining cost (e.g., you might get a stipend for the $250 filling change, and that stipend may be only $125. The doctor may ask you to pay the remaining $125 -- so they get the same amount no matter what).
For me, I actually love this transparency. It's not like you don't know where your money is going. I feel that the value of a dental appointment must be $85, since that's what pretty much every dentist charges.
Now, what about the poor? Well, there are small, private organizations that offer low-cost dentistry. Dentists usually volunteer here, and the costs are usually the costs of maintaining the facility and supplies. Our dentist works in two of these organizations once a month in each place (for a day). Several other dentists do the same -- it's considered an important thing. Like Lawyers doing pro-bono work at Legal Aid. It's just what you do. With this, the government may provide grants and individuals may still apply for stipends. Most of these organizations have communist/socialist leanings -- and so we haven't joined any ourselves. One is a buddhist community, and I honestly don't feel "needy" enough to utilize the service. The buddhists say "pish-posh use the service" but I just feel like I'm not a charity case.
Anyway, end of the day, it does seem to work to have these insurance companies providing different plans that you can choose from, and have no government support of the dentists in a sort of socialized medical system, but the opportunity for stipends and dentists going to community organizations to help out.
But, I could be completely misunderstanding what the heck is going on.
Even so, it begs the question for me. If each of these places became for-profit or non-profit elements, with the opportunity for people to apply for stipends to cover their care, and the opportunity to choose insurance or not, and the opportunity to simply pay for the service if they want to do that -- I think it might actually create a rather functional system.
And you know what, people will be allowed to do homeopathy if they believe in that, or acupuncture if they believe in that, or allopathic, or home birthing, or not-home-birthing, or whatever. KWIM?
Perhaps it's just a utopian idea, but it seems to work with dentistry.
And for us, like many here, we take good care of our selves (preventative medicine such as taking care of our teeth), and save up to get the care we need when we need it (though we do want to get that dental insurance because we think that would be better for us). And, some people just choose to have nasty teeth.
So the “compromise” is that rather than dictating what coverage church-affiliated employers must provide, the President will decree that insurers must provide it for free? I suppose there’s a certain consistency there. For government to become larger, everything else must get smaller.
There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=397&invol=664).
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. An exemption restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.
A very sound and logical argument Alan (and I'm a sucker for old Arabian proverbs). Since I personally have little to do with most organized religion its pretty easy for me to get trapped thinking we wouldn't be losing much if it faded, or was pushed, into the background. That is, of course, not true on many levels even beyond people having the freedom to choose which God to worship. I think religious freedom vs. the potential to abuse that right (privilege?) and how to deal with religious power centers would make for a fascinating thread. I'm worried about continuing the conversation here and possibly hijacking this thread because the topic here has an immediacy and a good discussion going. If anyone is interested in starting a new thread to do a little SCOTUS worthy debating lets give it a shot.
Back to the topic at hand...
Are we TRULY looking at Presidential candidates in this day and age who would try to restrict women's access to birth control? Truly? How long before we're all in burkas if this new American Taliban has its way? Geez.........
Stated a little more... liberally than I would have put it (shock and awe), but I'm right there with ya' LC. Here's the deal for me: birth control has absolutely nothing to do with how I'm going to vote. The economy has everything to do with how I'm going to vote. It's that simple this round.
That being said, I have zero understanding of why birth control is not easily and readily not available to anyone who wants it. I do not feel that it should be the government handing it out, it only raises the controversy we're discussing here. I completely agree with the thought that insurance companies have every reason to promote and distribute it and simply think we should remove any road blocks to them doing so. I also completely understand and respect religious opposition to using birth control. To those people I say "don't use it". To those who somehow think birth control gives teens a free pass to have sex I say it does not. Puberty does. You can't stop that so we might as well teach them how to play safe and not get pregnant until they're ready. Teach abstinence too, but as part of the whole education. And to beat that drum again, start that whole education early and keep it going all the way through school years.
iris lily
2-11-12, 12:12pm
Back to the topic at hand...
Stated a little more... liberally than I would have put it (shock and awe), but I'm right there with ya' LC. Here's the deal for me: birth control has absolutely nothing to do with how I'm going to vote. The economy has everything to do with how I'm going to vote. It's that simple this round.
That being said, I have zero understanding of why birth control is not easily and readily not available to anyone who wants it. I do not feel that it should be the government handing it out, it only raises the controversy we're discussing here. I completely agree with the thought that insurance companies have every reason to promote and distribute it and simply think we should remove any road blocks to them doing so. I also completely understand and respect religious opposition to using birth control. To those people I say "don't use it". To those who somehow think birth control gives teens a free pass to have sex I say it does not. Puberty does. You can't stop that so we might as well teach them how to play safe and not get pregnant until they're ready. Teach abstinence too, but as part of the whole education. And to beat that drum again, start that whole education early and keep it going all the way through school years.
Yes, I'm in agreement 100%. Birth control IS available. Of COURSE the gooberment shouldn't be handing it out.
But I'm sure that you are fine, as am I, with social do-gooders tramping around their communities handing out the non-prescription stuff and herding into cars anyone who needs to go to a clinic (funded by do-gooders) to get the prescription stuff. Community pressure to NOT reproduce until you can fully care for your offspring is necessary and good. Call it education, call it coercion, call it providing opportunity--call it whatever you want, but we need to enforce a basic community standard of only adults reproducing, adults who can raise children to adulthood using their own resources.
Bib Nanny G getting her hands in it is micromanaging at a level I do not want her in.
I am astonished, absolutely amazed, that anyone would not take advantage of the birth control that you stick in your arm and are good to go for 6 months. That would have been heaven for me, back in the day.
What you both said--irresponsibility in general raises my hackles, but reproductive irresponsibility drives me around the bend.
The medical clinic in my village is non-profit. They serve anyone who walks through the door. You pay what you can, when you can. Any shortfall in their operations is covered by donations from the community.
They offer free birth control and reproductive health services. Some of the clinicians also teach sexuality education classes, again for free.
This arrangement is entirely voluntary.
I heard a rightwing commentator tonight going on and on about how if the insurance companies are required to pay for birth control, premiums will go up, the churches will have to pay bigger premiums and so will be paying for those contraceptives anyway.
Now....the insurance companies were fine with the solution the Obama administration floated today......now why would they WANT to supply contraceptives free of charge to all women under their policies? Why? Heck, they couldn't say, "throw me into that briar patch" fast enough.
Which costs insurance companies far less.....supplying contraceptives to all women of childbearing age who want them, free of charge, or paying for the cost of pregnancies, delivery and all those kids that those women would be having without those contraceptives? hahahahahaha.......giving free birth control to all women saves BUNDLES of money for insurance companies.
What we'd BETTER open our eyes and look at is that the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates look askance at birth control at ALL. Rick Santorum is on record as saying something to the effect that if you allow women to have access to contraceptives, it will lead to "improper" sexual activities.
Are we TRULY looking at Presidential candidates in this day and age who would try to restrict women's access to birth control? Truly? How long before we're all in burkas if this new American Taliban has its way? Geez.........
Back when I was on the pill due to my endometriosis (last on it about 10 years ago), even if you were taking it for a medical condition, the insurance company wouldn't cover it (with a copay for me). In the 10 years I was taking it, I was only on one insurance plan that covered it as they would any regular prescribed drug, whether it was for contraception or one of a myriad female conditions that the pill is used to treat. You think the insurance company would rather pay for the pill ($25-30 a month) than the thousands for surgery, hospital stay, etc. Nope!
Funny, rosebud -- due to my FB adventures (see the family sub forum), I spent most of today at those web sites that you mention, and I've seen most of those things.
Will it come to "more coverage?" No, I don't' think so. But I'm not talking about "coverage" at all. I'm talking about the medical system running outside of an insurance system or government support (and lets say bae might be talking about that too).
I don't want to over-romanticize anything. But I do have something comparable (unless I"m misunderstanding the situation here). Dental care in NZ.
From what I can tell, dental care has normal professional standards and related health/safety standards and regulations from the government, but it is not subsidized in any way. Workplaces might offer insurance plans as a bennie, but from what I can gather, a lot of people pass. Or, pass on the dental part.
From there, you can get private insurance -- and it's honestly really cheap. I think (don't quote me on this), that it would be $250 per year for my family, and that included two free cleanings ($125 per cleaning) for each of us (3) per year. It included one dental check-up appointment with x-rays ($85 per appointment) per person per year. It included coverage for anything beyond that, with a deductible of $1000 or so (I think).
So, if you look at my dental care last year, we got (total) two cleanings and two appointments. I needed to get a tooth fixed (filling re-done) which was estimated at $250. It wasn't an emergency, so I haven't had it done yet. I have $125 saved up so far.
Thus, the total amount spent on our care this year was what? $420? Insurance would have been a better choice, right?
Now, as far as I can tell, my insurance is accepted anywhere. Know how the paperwork works? I get an invoice from the dentist, submit it to the insurance company, the company pays the dentist. So, dentists accept any insurance, because they don't have to muck with them.
There are, as well, subsidies for dental care if you really need it through the government welfare program. It's the same as getting a housing or food stipend. You have to apply, demonstrate that you cannot afford the care, and then they might give you the stipend. So, there is a way for you to get dental care if you need it. Also, if your mouth is injured in an accident, ACC coverage (the medical coverage of the government, which is technically a national insurance program) might cover it.
But what is interesting is that -- for the most part -- dentists are in a free market.
Dentists compete for clients and have super-fancy pants offices to facilitate that. I mean, there's a dentist's office above me and it is NICE. The one we go to is REALLY FLASH. And, it was darn good dentistry too. No pressure, no craziness, and just a clear evaluation and explanation of everything the dentist saw.
Now, I assume that they price their various treatments based both on what covers the costs of the business and will create income for the dentist, as well as on what the market will bear. I'm sure, also, that the government stipends and ACC are 'negotiated' with the dentist -- perhaps they get less per person. And usually, they ask the person to pay the "copay" which may actually cover the remaining cost (e.g., you might get a stipend for the $250 filling change, and that stipend may be only $125. The doctor may ask you to pay the remaining $125 -- so they get the same amount no matter what).
For me, I actually love this transparency. It's not like you don't know where your money is going. I feel that the value of a dental appointment must be $85, since that's what pretty much every dentist charges.
Now, what about the poor? Well, there are small, private organizations that offer low-cost dentistry. Dentists usually volunteer here, and the costs are usually the costs of maintaining the facility and supplies. Our dentist works in two of these organizations once a month in each place (for a day). Several other dentists do the same -- it's considered an important thing. Like Lawyers doing pro-bono work at Legal Aid. It's just what you do. With this, the government may provide grants and individuals may still apply for stipends. Most of these organizations have communist/socialist leanings -- and so we haven't joined any ourselves. One is a buddhist community, and I honestly don't feel "needy" enough to utilize the service. The buddhists say "pish-posh use the service" but I just feel like I'm not a charity case.
Anyway, end of the day, it does seem to work to have these insurance companies providing different plans that you can choose from, and have no government support of the dentists in a sort of socialized medical system, but the opportunity for stipends and dentists going to community organizations to help out.
But, I could be completely misunderstanding what the heck is going on.
Even so, it begs the question for me. If each of these places became for-profit or non-profit elements, with the opportunity for people to apply for stipends to cover their care, and the opportunity to choose insurance or not, and the opportunity to simply pay for the service if they want to do that -- I think it might actually create a rather functional system.
And you know what, people will be allowed to do homeopathy if they believe in that, or acupuncture if they believe in that, or allopathic, or home birthing, or not-home-birthing, or whatever. KWIM?
Perhaps it's just a utopian idea, but it seems to work with dentistry.
And for us, like many here, we take good care of our selves (preventative medicine such as taking care of our teeth), and save up to get the care we need when we need it (though we do want to get that dental insurance because we think that would be better for us). And, some people just choose to have nasty teeth.
No offense but I'm really not sure what your point is. We have the same system in place here. You can pay dental insurance or out of pocket. Some dentists charge more than others but there isn't much of a range. You can live with nasty teeth. You cannot live with a brain tumour.
There are no public subsidies as far as I know. The only clinic in my area that serves clients for no or very low cost is connected to a dental school and you get treated by students. I've never heard of a free voluntary clinic for dentistry. There are non in my area. I have no doubt that dentists do volunteer to help with individual cases pro bono.
Dental insurance is cheaper than health insurance. I already told you I spend 20 percent of my income on health insurance and have zero bargaining power in the market. This is a far far cry from dental insurance.
I also have never been offered a lower price if I balked at a price. There are a lot of dentists here and as often happens in the medical field that actually results in higher costs. Doctors and dentists with fewer patients actually charge more. They don't compete much on price but on amenities and stuff like weekend hours.
You said yourself that public subsidies are available to the poor in NZ. That means you do not have a purely market approach even for dental care.
In terms of prevention it is a lot simpler to take care of teeth. People who take care of their teeth very well have fewer problems and surprises. The ways that teeth can go bad are not nearly as varied as the ways bodies can get sick or injured.
You do realize that BAE et al propose to take ALL public funds in the form of taxes away from our health care system. They believe that eliminating regulation on insurance will make it more affordable, that if you take proper care of yourself you won't need much medical care, that anyone who is too poor to afford insurance or out of pocket costs can turn to private charities. We will all be responsible for figuring out which insurance plans are best for us and the insurance companies that are bad and don't honor their contracts will go out of business. We should trust insurance companies and the kindness of strangers but not nanny government. People who make bad choices by not buying insurance or buying the wrong insurance can bankrupt themselves, beg or suffer and die.
When was the last time you went shopping around for bargain basement chemo? It just ain't the same as buying a car.
Please point to one country that has a well functioning medical care system (by that I mean quality universal care) that is based on a combo of unregulated private insurance zero tax dollars and charity?
It does not exist and using dental care as a model does't work.
You do realize that BAE et al propose to ...
Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.
http://www.whats-on-in-cardiff.co.uk/images/st-fagans/wicker-man-burning.jpg
...In my own life I spend over 20 percent of my net income on health care premiums and co pays for my family's coverage. My dh and I both have pre existing conditions and cannot switch our coverage to something cheaper at this time...
How much should you pay of your income for health care? Percentage? Not for insurance, but for health care? Assuming current health of your family, I'd like to know what number you think you should pay.
rosebud,
for me, this is a mental exercise. obviously, for you, it's a massive, personal issue.
please note that i'm not taking "any" side. I, personally, think that the health care situation in the US is terrible, but I'm also not certain that the current process of "Obamacare" is going to solve those problems. I identify those problems that you identify -- lack of choice, lack of negotiating power, etc.
I cannot name a country where what you describe works because -- as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. But, that would also indicate that there isn't any empirical evidence to say that it won't work.
Perhaps a better comparison would be vet care in the US. The insurance programs that exist aren't really insurance (from what I can tell), but it's an interesting process with vet care.
I chose, for example, to go out of pocket for my son's medical care after his birth because I was willing to pay out of pocket for the doctor whom I preferred when I was getting my pet rabbit care. It just made sense to do this.
So, we paid about $300/mo for insurance we didn't use, and insurance that had a high deductible. They never reimbursed us (though the plan said that they would -- simply, they kept loosing our paper work until we gave up). So, in addition to the $3100 or so we paid out of pocket, we also paid, what? $3600 in addition for the insurance.
Had we simply kept that $300 in our pockets, we would have been ok, but wouldn't have the 'safety net' of coverage in case of extreme circumstance. And, as you know, even if we did have that safety net, it doesn't mean that we would get the coverage that we would actively choose, but rather, get the coverage that they give us.
For me, this was a great frustration. I chose to have an unassisted birth for a lot of reasons, but it's really damn frustrating to have a company that you pay each month to help off set your costs of care tell you that you cannot have a home birth. At this point, we'd paid $36,000 to the insurance company, and over that same time, we'd used only about $500 per year for the two of us (assuming physicals, eye exams, and basic dental care). When I wanted to see if I could get a midwife to attend my home birth, the insurance company said no. And, in fact, told me which doctors and midwives I could use, and which hospitals as well. Which is fine in an emergency, but not at all fine if it's non-emergent.
So, part of what Im considering (as a thought problem) is whether or not paying out of pocket and a free-market process would be better.
That begin said, I live in a good universal health care state. I'm comfortable with this process here -- and it's nice because you don't have to "worry." Home birth midwives are the standard here because they are cheaper, though a lot of women near the city actually choose hospital births with their midwives. For more rural woman, this may not be an option.
I find that universal health care systems attempt to be "lean and efficient" so that everyone's basic care is met. And in a small community like NZ (size of RI in population; size of CA in land mass), the community can use the government to decide "yes, this is what we are going to do for ALL NZrs." I don't see why RI couldn't choose to do the same.
And from what I gather, MA has been functioning on a similar method to "Obamacare" -- but I can't tell if it's "worked" Or not -- or solved the problems of basic health care availability, costs and efficiency, free markets, etc.
I see no parallel with your examples and real life in the 21st Century so I'll pass on this.
I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as it was limited to those elements of Sharia Law not at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process. Let's say as a form of voluntary mediation outside the U.S. court system.
But what does any of this have to do with the subject?
What do you mean? The parallel is exactly what is going on right now. The law of the land, with the affordable health care plan, is that women will have access to birth control from their health care insurance with no co-pay. These affiliated hospitals say they don't think women (blue eyed men) should be taking birth control so they aren't going to pay for it. They aren't going to offer this access.
Equal protection and due process is what our lawmakers say it is. That principal is the basis of every law in the land, and deciding those laws is the lawful right of our government under the constitution. Whether you like it or not, the affordable care act is law of the land, and religions can not simply decide they don't like it. It's rule of law, not rule of Ayatollah.
This is not an issue of mediation. It is a question of law.
Women can't drive.
Women must wear a burka.
Women can't control their reproductive health.
Why is it women always bear the burden of 'religion'?
What do you mean? The parallel is exactly what is going on right now. The law of the land, with the affordable health care plan, is that women will have access to birth control from their health care insurance with no co-pay. These affiliated hospitals say they don't think women (blue eyed men) should be taking birth control so they aren't going to pay for it. They aren't going to offer this access.
Equal protection and due process is what our lawmakers say it is. That principal is the basis of every law in the land, and deciding those laws is the lawful right of our government under the constitution. Whether you like it or not, the affordable care act is law of the land, and religions can not simply decide they don't like it. It's rule of law, not rule of Ayatollah.
This is not an issue of mediation. It is a question of law.
Women can't drive.
Women must wear a burka.
Women can't control their reproductive health.
Why is it women always bear the burden of 'religion'?
The thing that I think is odd (correct me if I'm wrong) is I haven't heard anything about church's trying to restrict insurance coverage of viagra to single men. But I'm not surprised.
The thing that I think is odd (correct me if I'm wrong) is I haven't heard anything about church's trying to restrict insurance coverage of viagra to single men. But I'm not surprised.
I don't understand why you think that would be an issue with the Catholic church.
I don't understand why you think that would be an issue with the Catholic church.
I thought the whole point was abstinence before marriage - or have they loosened up on that? How would a single man use Viagra in a manner that would be acceptable to the Catholic church?
Ah, misread, I thought you were proposing only allowing unmarried men Viagra :-)
There is a bit of a difference between "grave" and "mortal" sin in the fine print, might have something to do with that.
loosechickens
2-12-12, 12:42am
To me, the point might be that the Catholic Church doesn't seem to have a problem with men having access to Viagra, just to make sex more pleasureable to them, but women, having access to birth control, thereby avoiding the dangers and problems of large numbers of unwanted pregnancies, which certainly would make sex much more pleasurable for them, are to be denied.
And Rick Santorum wants to make sure that women can't have birth control because it would lead to improper sexual behavior, but Viagra WOULDN'T? HAH.......ask some retired ladies about the old goat men pressuring all and sundry for sex because for the first time in years, they've got a "workable" member.........
Since Viagra doesn't even answer a medical need, why should ANY insurance company cover it? I wonder how many people making decisions about what to cover are men? hahahaha
Hey, I don't have a dog in this hunt....nobody is going to be able to make ME preggers these days. But I think women should be very wary of this new twist in Republican candidate outlook, because before we know it, we'll be being fitted for those burkas.
Fundamentalist thinking is fundamentalist thinking, whether it is Muslim, Christian, Jewish or anything else. And in fundamentalist thinking, women seem to always get the short end of the stick. We should beware, because there's not a whole lot of difference between Rick Santorum thinking women shouldn't have access to birth control because then they will be tempted to engage in improper sex and the Saudi, Muslim outlook in Saudi Arabia that women should not be allowed to drive, because if they have the freedom to go where they like, they will not be able to be trusted not to engage in improper sexual behaviors.
You might want to actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Paul VI's Humanae Vitae for some understanding of their position, fun though it is to caricature.
As to healthy sexual activity not being a "medical need", I think some more reading might be in order. Regular sexual activity seems to confer all sorts of health benefits.
iris lily
2-12-12, 12:57am
I never understand the equating of viagra for men and birth control for women. They don't have similar effects on the sexes despite LC's tortured logic to prove it so.
You might want to actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Paul VI's Humanae Vitae for some understanding of their position, fun though it is to caricature.
As to healthy sexual activity not being a "medical need", I think some more reading might be in order. Regular sexual activity seems to confer all sorts of health benefits.
It doesn't need to be caricatured. It's really overdue for a rewrite.
loosechickens
2-12-12, 1:33am
yeah, they really ARE dissimilar. Viagra is pretty much a recreational drug, and contraceptives for women prevent pregnancy, or many pregnancies, with their attendant health issues. It's no accident that back in the day before reliable contraceptives, when women had many pregnancies, that many men went through several wives in their lifetime, having lost a few because of excessive pregnancies, one of which ended the woman's life.
If healthy sexual activity does have measurable health benefits, then women should be able to engage in it, have their pleasure, and not run the risk of unwanted pregnancies and all the health dangers of too many children shortening their lives.
Let's hear it for men to be able to have their Viagra and women to be allowed to have that "medically helpful" recreational sex as well, without fear of pregnancy. Hey, those old bishops never had to worry about whether their period was late, yet again. No wonder they have their rigid views....they don't have any dog in the hunt at all. Presumably, they don't even need Viagra.
g'nite........ ;-)
loosechickens
2-12-12, 1:40am
one more thing....just came on this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/obama_birth_control_battle_when_did_catholics_ban_ contraception_.html
never knew some of this, and found this little excerpt especially interesting.....
"But as late as the turn of the 20th century, the Catholic Church worried that denouncing contraception would have the unintended consequence of informing people of what it was. Better, the thinking went, to leave them ignorant."
Ye Gods........my mouth is hanging open.
Perhaps the moderators could start a "Bash the Catholics" Forum.
ApatheticNoMore
2-12-12, 3:09am
Viagra is pretty much a recreational drug, and contraceptives for women prevent pregnancy, or many pregnancies, with their attendant health issues. It's no accident that back in the day before reliable contraceptives, when women had many pregnancies, that many men went through several wives in their lifetime, having lost a few because of excessive pregnancies, one of which ended the woman's life.
The preganancy with the greatest possibility of ending a woman's life was most likely to be the first (because a womans bones had stretched less). It was PREGNANCY AS SUCH that was killing women and not just "excessive" pregnancy. Killing 1 in 14 before modern medicine.
So if one wants to go back to the garden .... they'll need to go back a long way, back to before man was man. Apes have easy death free deliveries, not humans! Not until recently anyway. The punishment for sex in or out of marriage was death for 1 in 14 (well provided it led to conception and wasn't miscarried or aborted (guess early abortions always had a good "life of the mother" rationale!)) .
I'm not Catholic so anyone who is, or has particular insight, can correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the anti-contraceptive stance had something to do with interrupting a natural process (contraception) in so much as it is God's will. Using that same point of view Viagra would tend to enhance that process, so to speak.
Viagra is not a "recreational drug" for thousands of men.
Gregg, you are right. Contraception is a sanctity of life issue, as you said. Viagra is a whole different thing--not related at all. The Catholic church maintains that the divine purpose of sex is for PROcreation, not RECreation. You can have fun while attempting to procreate, but the fun can't be its own end.
BTW, the Catholic church is not the only religious entity that believes that. It's in the Gita too, at least according to Gandhi.
loosechickens
2-12-12, 3:59pm
Oh, boy......get your burkas ready, ladies.......these guys aren't going to be satisfied until they have
women back "where they belong", barefoot and pregnant. JMHO
Please note how EASILY these guys segue from "no abortion" to "no birth control"....it's scary......we've got our own American Taliban trying to take power. Again, JMHO, but judge for yourself.
"Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation that permits any employer to deny contraception coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says."
loosechickens
2-12-12, 4:04pm
So I guess older guys who can't get it up and need Viagra, and who have wives past childbearing age, would be forbidden by the Catholic Church to not only use it, but shouldn't attempt to have sex anyway?
If people are married and unable to have children, such as a woman who has had cancer and removal of her "lady parts", then the Catholic Church would consider that any sex she and her husband had was "recreational" and not for procreation?
No wonder 98% of Catholics ignore these bishops and do as they please regarding contraception, etc. It's unreal.
I truly don't get it. I'm married to someone who was raised Catholic, and he doesn't get it either. Maybe, we're just both old reprobates who are sliding on a greased skid down to the hot place.....somehow I'm not all that worried.
And it's not just Catholics, we have friends who are fundamentalist Christians and the husband believed they should not have sex without intending to have children, so she's had five kids, and probably an equal number of miscarriages, and quite a few health problems from successive pregnancies.....Him? He's just fine.........
Why is it in most all these religious things, that it is MEN making decisions that affect WOMEN, yet in those religions, women usually do not have an equal voice, cannot assume positions of authority in the church, etc.? No wonder things stay like this. Why do women accept it? I'd have left such a church as fast as my little feet could have taken me. Why do women stand for this stuff? I'd honestly like to know, because, believe me, I've known quite a few who lives were greyed down by constant childbearing and the resultant financial and other difficulties of trying to care for a large family, yet continued to accept such teachings.
I find it very sad. Both that men make decisions that have such adverse effects on women and their health and reproductive freedom, AND that women accept those decisions and submit. Again, JMHO.
Viagra is not a "recreational drug" for thousands of men.
Really? Do all men using it intend to procreate? Viagra is analagous to birth control in that it points to the fact that people have sex for reasons other than procreation. If the sexually related health of men is important then it is for women as well.
Really? Do all men using it intend to procreate? Viagra is analagous to birth control in that it points to the fact that people have sex for reasons other than procreation. If the sexually related health of men is important then it is for women as well.
Well, we're in the process of establishing a precedent. While we're at it, how about free Viagra for everyone?
I'd encourage you to actual read the real Catholic positions on these matters, rather than making stuff up to fit your preconceptions...
For instance, sex without possibility of producing offspring is just fine for Catholics. It's not even in the fine print.
Don't put words in my mouth, thanks.
http://www.whats-on-in-cardiff.co.uk/images/st-fagans/wicker-man-burning.jpg
Then what do you propose exactly. Fine let's change it from "bae et al" to "free market fundamentalist libertarian leaning folks who think taxation in the service of helping other people obtain medical care is tantamount to slavery."
Well, we're in the process of establishing a precedent. While we're at it, how about free Viagra for everyone?
I have no problem with Viagra being covered. I think the Viagra analogy does not work as well in this context where we are talking about the church. But it does come into play when discussing parity for men and women under anti discrimmination laws.
Actually, to be specific, the catholic church teaches that sex in marriage has two aspects: 1. unifying and 2. procreational -- and it's in that order. (Catechism (http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/catechism/catechism_18.pdf), page 2, section Purpose of Marriage)
It is not to say that one aspect is more important than the other, but that the first aspect is emphasized to allow for the fact that some couples do not have children. This may be due to fertility issues, or using the natural methods of birth control available to people. This is to allow that the marriage is still covenant, and that the couple is still moral. For many, it is the presence of children that would indicate the health of the marriage, for example, but this process of defining 1, then 2, was a method of getting the cultural burden of childlessness off of women.
That being said, this is also why Natural Family Planning is allowed. Personally, I fall in alignment with this opinion piece (http://www.memoryhole.net/kyle/2005/08/natural_family_planning.html), which outlines NFP in the catechism. The catechism is quoted, so you can see that NFP and in fact -- the concept of birth control -- is considered appropriate in certain circumstances that only the individual couple can discern.
It is merely the method of birth control that is under contention, and I have often questioned for myself *why* the method is questioned, but not the actual construct of birth control itself. I think there is a denial that NFP is a form of birth control, really.
But, here is another interesting aspect. This religious rule is for catholics and catholics only. It doesn't apply to anyone else. It is true that a catholic organization that provides free services for women's reproductive health would likely not offer services in antithesis of the religious law. A women's clinic may provide basic health care (pap smears, breast exams), and they may teach NFP as a method of birth control, and they may provide prenatal care and counseling, and perhaps even have doctors who attend births in hospitals. They might facilitate the options for adoption, for example, or help a mother take care of her child after birth. They would also counsel on the moral aspects of their religion and their beliefs therein.
But, as peggy points out, this religious law doesn't mean that basic standards of secular law wouldn't be met, or that they would be released from it. Equal Opportunities and Employment Act -- for example -- comes to mind. An organization looking to hire cannot base the hiring on the individuals race, religion, etc. Right? Even if that is antithesis of a catholic belief. The catholic church, for example, is quite clear on homosexuality. Should homosexuals become a protected class under the EOEA, then guess what? Catholic organizations cannot consider -- in the hiring -- the person's sexual orientation. Though, from what I can tell in the US, they don't anyway (meaning, I know several openly gay men and women who work for catholic organizations such as hospitals).
It is also relevant, as peggy pointed out, that this is already 'in play' in several (28) states. In fact, in 8 states there is no religious exemption. All employers who are providing insurance must provide the same basic care as outlined by that state. In these 8 states, that includes providing prescription birth control. Any catholic organization in these states is subject to this law. And, unless and until it has been brought to the supreme court (actively contested), it is considered per-se constitutional. If it has been contested, and the law still exists, then we can assume that it is constitutional.
[QUOTE=Iris lily;66723]How much should you pay of your income for health care? Percentage? Not for insurance, but for health care? Assuming current health of your family, I'd like to know what number you think you should pay.[/
My income last year was quite healthy. In immediate years past the percentage has come close to forty percent of my net income. We are one catastrophic illness or accident away from financial catastrophe.
That is the case for too many people in the country. That's the problem. I have always had health insurance. Yet its protection is limited. If I get sick and my income goes down and my co pays go way up I could see health care costs going above 50 percent at which point I lose everything even though I have always had health insurance but I'm screwed if I actually have to use it. The point is even people who try to be responsible are on shaky ground.
I have no problem with Viagra being covered. I think the Viagra analogy does not work as well in this context where we are talking about the church. But it does come into play when discussing parity for men and women under anti discrimmination laws.
But there is no disparity. No one is being denied birth control if they want it. It's a matter of who pays for it, and it would appear that our government insists that it be anyone other than the person using it.
But there is no disparity. No one is being denied birth control if they want it. It's a matter of who pays for it, and it would appear that our government insists that it be anyone other than the person using it.
No. It's a question of whether insurance companies and employers should be able to discrimminate against women.
rosebud,
exactly. But I'm not sure that PPACA is going to solve those problems.
what I like about the system here -- which essentially one national insurance system -- is that the basic care is provided for everyone. doctors appointments, emergency care of any kind, pregnancy and birth, health care for children, etc. If you have cancer, you get covered. type 1 diabetes discovered, covered. No extra out-of-pocket expenses.
I find that most people like ACC and are proud of it. It's a working and efficient system. It provides what the people wanted to provide to each other through the government. It makes sense. And, people are loathe to use it, and usually happy with it when they do. That is, people do a lot to take care of themselves (really a lot of health nuts!), and from there, when they do use it, they are happy with the care. It is interesting.
I do think that a socialized system would work in the US, but I'm not sure how it would be formulated to best meet the unique needs of the country itself. And, it does have unique needs.
No. It's a question of whether insurance companies and employers should be able to discrimminate against women.
You may have a different definition of discrimination than I do.
If an insurance company or employer or government forbade women from using birth control, that would be discrimination in my world. But that is not the case.
The real question here is whether or not the government has the authority to force a religious institution to violate it's doctrine. Despite the so-called "compromise", which is simply an accounting trick, this administration has overstepped it's authority. Now we'll see what price it pays for doing so.
ApatheticNoMore
2-12-12, 6:34pm
The Catholic church maintains that the divine purpose of sex is for PROcreation, not RECreation. You can have fun while attempting to procreate, but the fun can't be its own end.
I don't see how you can possibly have fun if the consequence is an 18 year sentence of responsibilty for a kid you never wanted to have.
The question is, does providing insurance that includes coverage for hormonal birth control or other FDA-approved prescription medications (such as abortificants) violate the church's doctrine?
First, we have to know what that doctrine is. I have provided two links above.
Then, we have to determine if the doctrine applies in this instance.
And from there, whether the church has already made claims against the 8 states where this has already been required. If so, then the logical argument to the second would be found there. And if it has not, then obviously the church (at least in those states and thereby in general) is probably not making a stink about it. and in not doing so, that says that it would not be against the doctrine.
loosechickens
2-12-12, 11:42pm
What I want to know is WHERE was the uproar in all these years past when the 28 states, including some "red states" had these laws where all employers had to supply this coverage in their plans, and even EIGHT states that didn't even give an exemption for actual Catholic churches, so the housekeepers at the rectory, for example, who presumably were probably themselve Catholic, had to be provided this coverage.
These Catholic hospitals, universities (and in eight states, the actual churches themselves) have had to provide this coverage for years, but NOW that it is an election year, and all of a sudden that banner has been picked up and that bloody shirt waved all around in the service of politics?
Why hasn't this been a huge problem that should have been shouted from the rooftops, with Bishops sending out letters to parishioners in those twenty-eight states, for years now? Why now?
Now? Because conservatives think they have something they can use to motivate their very conservative base to go out there and vote, because hatred of "libruls" is not reliably enough, and folks can be ridden to a fever pitch on social issues like abortion, birth control, gun control, etc. That's why.
If this was such a "religious freedom" question, it should have been fought loudly and out there in public and all over our media, just as it is now, for years and years.....yet.....up until now, pretty much "sound of crickets". Sure, there may have been protests against these laws in some states, and people against them, but Fox News, the rightwing blogosphere, Rush Limbaugh and company and all these conservative Catholic leaders sure weren't making the noises in past years in all those states that they are making about this.
Could it be that there is an election coming up???????????
And since there is, I, for one, would like ALL women to see plainly which side it is that would, if it could, not only take away women's right to choice, but would, if they could, deny contraceptives and birth control to women altogether.
ApatheticNoMore
2-13-12, 12:20am
And since there is, I, for one, would like ALL women to see plainly which side it is that would, if it could, not only take away women's right to choice, but would, if they could, deny contraceptives and birth control to women altogether.
Yes and I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the libertarian argument for freedom of conscience for the church on this matter etc.. But I don't think secular libertarians ultimately drive this as a political issue (people I don't agree with entirely but have some real sympathy with), I think theocrats do, and no amount of birth control makes me feel right laying down with them. ;)
I think the actual danger of rights to birth control being taken away are very low though. The chances of me not being able to afford birth control are basically non-existent. It's really not that expensive (depending on brand etc.). It's not as if it's massively expensive cancer pills or something. And poor women do have Planned Parenthood as mentioned.
But I have already seen which party has taken away my right to trial. The answer is: BOTH! And that means much much more to me than the right to cheap birth control. Not because I'm inclined to a life of crime (not at all, but I have known people in the prison system). If I get arrested it is going to be for protesting someday, when I can stand no more, take my word on that one :). But just because I absolutely know from history and feel in the core of my being how crucial that right is. So no very few presidential candidates I could in good conscience vote for regardless of "side".
I'm hearing you ANM.
I keep bringing that up as well. No one seems to notice, they're too excited about the emotion of it.
[QUOTE=loosechickens;66958]Could it be that there is an election coming up??????????? [QUOTE]
That is what makes it curiouser and curiouser. Why on earth would the administration pick right now to fight this fight? Politically speaking, its a no win deal. The rallying cry on the right was one of the more predictable reactions of modern times. For all the rhetoric, I really don't believe the conservative opposition is anti-woman. That argument doesn't hold much water simply because there are several options through which a woman can acquire birth control at no charge and there is no cry from the mainstream to limit those options. More in the light of day (for me anyway) is that I simply don't know any conservatives with such antiquated notions of how women should be treated. I'm wondering if anyone here has actually heard authentic arguments in favor of repressing women anytime in this century? Seriously, is there anyone in any kind of elected position, or any other for that matter, who really touts a barefoot & pregnant position or is it just more of a slogan on the left side of the topic? That may sound a little snarky. I promise it isn't meant that way. I'm really just curious where that angle is coming from because I don't ever hear it...anywhere.
Someone, somewhere pointed out that if you take government money, it's expected that you pay by government rules. Unless you're a religious institution, apparently. Personally, I'd like to see an end to taxpayer-subsidized religion entirely.
"Seriously, is there anyone in any kind of elected position, or any other for that matter, who really touts a barefoot & pregnant position or is it just more of a slogan on the left side of the topic?"
Rick ("Don't Google Me") Santorum maintained in an interview with ABC that states should be able to make birth control illegal--apparently because he doesn't believe in it, and he's widely quoted as having said
"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 hope this election cycle is theocracy's last stand. Really.
I'm wondering if anyone here has actually heard authentic arguments in favor of repressing women anytime in this century? Seriously, is there anyone in any kind of elected position, or any other for that matter, who really touts a barefoot & pregnant position or is it just more of a slogan on the left side of the topic? That may sound a little snarky. I promise it isn't meant that way. I'm really just curious where that angle is coming from because I don't ever hear it...anywhere.
Other than here and on my occasional forays onto Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/), I've never heard it in real life.
Someone, somewhere pointed out that if you take government money, it's expected that you pay by government rules. Unless you're a religious institution, apparently. Personally, I'd like to see an end to taxpayer-subsidized religion entirely.
Doesn't this view require you to believe that any income that isn't paid in taxes (i.e. anything you get to keep for yourself) amounts to a government subsidy? That the simple act of leaving a religious institution, or anyone else, alone is a form of support?
I don't look at it that way, but I don't feel it all oppressed by our historically low federal tax rates, either.
Rick ("Don't Google Me") Santorum maintained in an interview with ABC that states should be able to make birth control illegal--apparently because he doesn't believe in it, and he's widely quoted as having said
"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've always thought this undercurrent of pregnancy as some sort of moral punishment for having sex was kind of weird.
I don't look at it that way, but I don't feel it all oppressed by our historically low federal tax rates, either.
So you have no problem taxing any non-profits, whether they are faith-based or not? Planned Parenthood for instance?
And until that happy day, the president can go Henry VIII on religious institutions because "its expected you play by government rules"? Does government supremacy apply to other conflicts with belief? Such as conscientious objection?
What I want to know is WHERE was the uproar in all these years past when the 28 states, including some "red states" had these laws where all employers had to supply this coverage in their plans, and even EIGHT states that didn't even give an exemption for actual Catholic churches, so the housekeepers at the rectory, for example, who presumably were probably themselve Catholic, had to be provided this coverage.
These Catholic hospitals, universities (and in eight states, the actual churches themselves) have had to provide this coverage for years, but NOW that it is an election year, and all of a sudden that banner has been picked up and that bloody shirt waved all around in the service of politics?
Why hasn't this been a huge problem that should have been shouted from the rooftops, with Bishops sending out letters to parishioners in those twenty-eight states, for years now? Why now?
Now? Because conservatives think they have something they can use to motivate their very conservative base to go out there and vote, because hatred of "libruls" is not reliably enough, and folks can be ridden to a fever pitch on social issues like abortion, birth control, gun control, etc. That's why.
If this was such a "religious freedom" question, it should have been fought loudly and out there in public and all over our media, just as it is now, for years and years.....yet.....up until now, pretty much "sound of crickets". Sure, there may have been protests against these laws in some states, and people against them, but Fox News, the rightwing blogosphere, Rush Limbaugh and company and all these conservative Catholic leaders sure weren't making the noises in past years in all those states that they are making about this.
Could it be that there is an election coming up???????????
And since there is, I, for one, would like ALL women to see plainly which side it is that would, if it could, not only take away women's right to choice, but would, if they could, deny contraceptives and birth control to women altogether.
That is exactly right. And in fact the SCOTUS has denied cert on the challenge of the NY law which has been upheld by its state courts.
What is going on is the fabrication of a faux controversy a la "the war onChristmas" The right is trying to shape this into the narrative that Obama is taking away religious liberty and/or that Obama is meddling with the free market and telling peoe what to do against their will. However nothing in this rule prevents anyone at all from the free exercise of religion which is the constitutional standard. No Catholic person is forced to use birth control. That's the bottom line and the rest of it is a lot of noise. The Catholic Bishops need to turn their attention to why so many women in their flock use birth control and leave the rest of us alone. When you enter the public square as an employer you are agreeing to conform to the rules of the larger society.
Mitch McConnell now wants to double down and allow all employers to deny parts of insurance coverage they find religiously objectionable. So that privately held companies could deny anything at all they could justify. So it would be a crap shoot for employees whether the treatments they need are covered.
It is simply not a good policy if we are trying to expand coverage of health care access. And frankly women are sick of being political punching bags. Pro-choice activists always warned that birth control is also under attack and now we see that's true.
Other than here and on my occasional forays onto Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/), I've never heard it in real life.
Well here you go Alan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo
He also thinks scientist are amoral.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjv0ZEdi8ss&feature=related
and here's Rep. Joe Pitts on the value of a woman's life:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php
and here is what Texas thinks of women, and their intelligence:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/politics/texas.abortion.sonogram_1_sonogram-procedure-abortion?_s=PM:POLITICS
this is what the catholic church thinks of women...ordaining them is as sinful as pedophilia, which, of course, how they handled that, not so bad!
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2004702,00.html
and we know what Mormon think of women:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm
These are but a very few of the 'keep them barefoot and pregnant' brigade in these here modern times. So, there is a regular doctrine of keeping women second class. Now, considering how our government allows very wealthy churches to be tax exempt, and those churches not only discriminate against women, they actively pursue the discrimination of women as a part of their teaching, I think this tax exempt status so squarely goes against the constitution and separation of church and state. In effect, our government is enabling the discrimination of women by supporting the tax exempt status of these archaic systems.
Doesn't this view require you to believe that any income that isn't paid in taxes (i.e. anything you get to keep for yourself) amounts to a government subsidy? That the simple act of leaving a religious institution, or anyone else, alone is a form of support?
Governments have traditionally encouraged charitable activities by various means, but I don't see any reason to encourage religion by subsidizing church properties, or proselytizing (which I understand is rampant in the military), or any other manifestation of frank dogma.
I've always thought this undercurrent of pregnancy as some sort of moral punishment for having sex was kind of weird.
I could not agree more! So bizarre. Maybe the folks with that inkling will just come up with a pill that takes all the pleasure out of orgasms (aka, reduce sex to the utilitarian purpose of procreation) then team up with the government to insure distribution. Between those two groups no one has more experience taking the pleasure out of things.
(Now, time to start checking out peggy's links...)
Governments have traditionally encouraged charitable activities by various means, but I don't see any reason to encourage religion by subsidizing church properties, or proselytizing (which I understand is rampant in the military), or any other manifestation of frank dogma.
+1
that's partly what circumcision is about, actually -- destroying physical pleasure. Except that we do it to males rather than females. And, it affects female sexuality/pleasure as well -- according to the science.
the fact that MGM isn't outlawed is beyond me. FGM is only a recent development -- you can go back to Playgirl magazines in the 70s and early 80s extolling the virtues of female circumcision and why adult women should have it done "for their own sexual health and pleasure."
so, it is there, culturally, as part of the undercurrent.
I have to revive this one. I just read almost all 10 pages of arguments, and I am surprised at how little of it was a) logical and b) had a clue as to what's really going on here. So let me widen your gaze:
1) Birth control is HEALTH CARE. Either an employer provides insurance for health care or they don't. I'm happy to argue against mandates, but no employer should be able to dictate what an employee does with their health, even and especially if it has no negative (and actually a positive) impact on employer costs. No priest should be sanctioned to deny health care access for his parishioners. No "pro-life" logic would support letting a woman die (and I might add, her unborn child) in a hospital waiting room because it's a Catholic hospital and they won't provide an abortion even to save her life. Alan's analogy about a camel's nose in a tent is applicable here -- but it's more like other people's nose's sticking up a woman's ___ is the first step to them taking over her whole body.
2) Think this isn't about controlling women? Note that the Catholic institutional insurance often pays for vasectomies, and no crying from the bishops has been heard. Check out the Stupak-Pitts Amendment (http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/stupak_acluopposition20091202.pdf) for just how bills are being written (and passed) to deny due process to one gender. Catholic institutions have been dealing with/paying for birth control, sterilizations, and yes, even abortions (I once worked in a Catholic hospital run by nuns, not priests) for decades. They do this because the majority of Catholics are capable of nuance, something this new pope and these latest "small-government" pols seem to lack.
4) This pope has decided to go on a rampage about sex, in order to try to regain a “moral standing” after being shown to be blatantly complicit in the wide-scale perpetration of pedophilia. But it really started back when he became chief inquisitor in the early 80s. Read 1993's Holy Seige (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-03-06/local/me-272_1_american-church); this article has a list of radical totalitarian actions after he was appointed to guard the Doctrine of the Faith. He has been organizing a witch hunt (historical references intentional) to not only attack women and gays, but to destroy anyone or any organization that does not get in lockstep with his orthodoxy, even if the institutions aren't Catholic!
e.g. Church Fathers are defunding charitable organizations where leaders express PERSONAL, free speech in support of the attacked groups. (e.g. women's homeless shelter in Sacramento) and especially if the organization tries to support the attacked groups (e.g. homeless group in Maine). Or the group has some loose affiliation with a group that advocates for women's health. (e.g has suddenly decided to de-fund Komen for its funding of the mammogram programs at Planned Parenthood, despite the fact they've been funding Komen, and Komen has been funding Planned Parenthood for YEARS – they've even sent letters to parishioners telling them they shouldn't make personal donations to Komen!) In states with gay marriage issues, all priests have been ordered to make sure their entire congregation marches in lockstep. The acquiesence to this even amongst liberal priests in pro-gay dioceses where gay parishioners give LOTS of money indicates the level of pressure being exerted from on high. If priests don't comply, their funding will be cut. This is a new inquisition, make no bones about it, and this Pope is getting pretty darn close to Leo XII.
5) It's not “the Church's” money. God didn't drop it into those men's coffers like mana. Except for its corporate profits, this is money given by parishioners to support the administration of the church and it's charitable works. I don't think bashing women and gays is anyone's definition of charitable works. Benedict's attempts to deflect from his own moral decay will fail, most especially because, rather than deal with critically serious issues of violence, greed, corruption and environmental degradation, he has chosen to pick on two groups that his parishioners actually support. American Catholics overwhelmingly support the human rights of homosexuals, much more than other Christian groups. They are predominantly pro-life, and they certainly believe in using birth control.
6) As an Arkansas church leader stated, "it won't hurt women if priests tell parishioners not to donate to Komen, because they'll donate to the hospitals directly." Indeed, it is time for Catholics who believe differently than the hierarchy – ESPECIALLY WOMEN -- to stop putting money in the collection plate, and give it directly to the non-Catholic non-bigoted charities who are doing good non-political work! (There are plenty of Christian denominated agencies out there that foot the bill: Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Quakers... and that's just in my small community.)
7) and one more thing... those of you who say "it's okay, poor women have Planned Parenthood" should wake up and see that Conservatives are stopping at nothing to destroy services for poor women - PP is practically the only agency left and it is under severe attack by powerful people, not just to defund it federally, but to SHUT IT DOWN. (Hello! Georgian Sec. of State, anyone?) And again, see Stupak-Pitts Amendment (http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/stupak_acluopposition20091202.pdf) regarding denying ALL women access to (anti-)reproductive health care.
Regarding HeyDude's original question, I imagine Obama is aware of all the above, especially #1 and #7.
Maxamillion
3-25-12, 4:36pm
7) and one more thing... those of you who say "it's okay, poor women have Planned Parenthood" should wake up and see that Conservatives are stopping at nothing to destroy services for poor women - PP is practically the only agency left and it is under severe attack by powerful people, not just to defund it federally, but to SHUT IT DOWN. (Hello! Georgian Sec. of State, anyone?) And again, see Stupak-Pitts Amendment (http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/stupak_acluopposition20091202.pdf) regarding denying ALL women access to (anti-)reproductive health care.
.
There's also the fact that not all women have access to a Planned Parenthood. There's only one located in Mississippi. How is a low-income woman, perhaps with no reliable transportation (and possibly no transportation at all) suppose to drive two to four hours to get there? Especially considering the cost of gas. I don't know how often you have to see a doctor when pregnant but I can imagine the cost of trips adds up pretty quickly.
ah, no. Employment discrimination against protected classes is illegal regardless of who or what entity is carrying it out.
Actually, that's no longer true. The Supreme Court decided just this year that church employers may violate the ADA and (possibly) other anti-discrimination laws if they so choose. They can now fire you if you become disabled, or they even think you've become disabled, without repercussion. Religious freedom, you know.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.