Althouse: Obama relents on contraceptives.

February 10, 2012

Obama relents on contraceptives.

"Seeking to allay the concerns of Catholic leaders,President Obama on Friday announced an adjustment to its health-care rule requiring religiously affiliated employers to provide contraceptive coverage to women."

310 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 310 of 310

Seeing Red said...: And who are you to decide their families are suffering?

There are enuf other places to go once that decision is made, Catholic hospitals don't need to participate.

So, Alex, you want to "minimize" suffering?

Just how far are you willing to give up control of your life so your suffering is minimized? Are you willing to have cameras put in your place of residence to make sure you're not suffering according to the guidelines of the State?

Your mindset is a subject, not a citizen.

You want to give up control so Big Daddy can wipe your fanny, that's your decision and there are a lot of countries which have already tried your vision. It doesn't work.

You are the arbiter of suffering over your life, not mine.; 2/10/12, 1:57 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Alex:

That's exactly the question: what is the point of a life marked by suffering.

Trouble is, there are an awful lot of folks who, in the midst of suffering, choose not to end their life; on the contrary, the fight for life even in that suffering.

Think of folks who are burned terribly in an accident; or folks who have cancer, and choose to undergo yet more treatment. Or -- to take it to the extreme -- those who are in gulags and death camps.

No doubt some, in such circumstances, prefer to die. But even if that's a morally acceptable choice, it's not one you get to make for them.; 2/10/12, 1:59 PM
Seeing Red said...: Off of Drudge - since these people "suffer" Alex, why stop with in-utero? Just make those choices as we go along....

Millions of healthy people - including shy or defiant children, grieving relatives and people with fetishes - may be wrongly labeled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday.

In a damning analysis of an upcoming revision of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health experts said its new categories and "tick-box" diagnosis systems were at best "silly" and at worst "worrying and dangerous."

Some diagnoses - for conditions like "oppositional defiant disorder" and "apathy syndrome" - risk devaluing the seriousness of mental illness and medicalising behaviors most people would consider normal or just mildly eccentric, the experts said.....; 2/10/12, 2:04 PM
DaveW said...: Oh for heaven's sake. This isn't about people that can't afford $9 for birth control pills. This is by definition about people that have jobs - people employed in universities and hospitals by the Church.

The 'what about people that can't afford it' line is a red herring.; 2/10/12, 2:05 PM
Rick Caird said...: Obama did not relent on anything. The new proposal is the insurance company is required to offer, at no cost, contraception insurance. But, if it is at no cost, then the cost has to be rolled into the original policy. So, there is effectively no change in the program.

This administration believes it "subjects" are stupid.; 2/10/12, 2:12 PM
Scott M said...: This administration believes it "subjects" are stupid.

Which is worse? The administration thinking we're all stupid, or the administration thinking that their new proposal addresses the concerns of the Church?; 2/10/12, 2:15 PM
yoobee said...: purplepenguin: "if a group says that their religious beleifs state that inter-racial marriages are immoral then does that mean they can deny insurance coverage to such couples?"

Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent a private company from denying coverage because of this (equal protection only applies against government action). If the company provides coverage completely within one state's border, it is debatable whether Congress could even prevent this.; 2/10/12, 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: "No, the religious organizations will still be paying for it. Luckily for Obama, they seem to be pretty easy to fool."

B.C. is much less expensive then pregnancy, so insurance costs should go down.

B.C. also prevents cysts from forming on ovaries for women with PCOS. Ruptured or aspirating cysts on ovaries are much more expensive for insurance agencies then B.C. costs.; 2/10/12, 2:19 PM
yoobee said...: One other point that I'd like to highlight. Increased "access" to contraception (to use Andy R.'s term) actually results in a higher number of abortions.

The reason for this is that contraception fails. A lot, actually--the best contraceptives are only guaranteed to work 97% of the time, and that's assuming they are used correctly. Also, people are lulled into thinking that they cannot get pregnant while contracepting, so they may have more sex, and they may get careless with how they use it.

Also, there have been reported cases of Planned Parenthood (that magnanimous organization) handing out free condoms with pin-sized holes poked in them. That's right--they consider it an investment in their future business.; 2/10/12, 2:23 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: purplepenguin:

if a group says that their religious beleifs state that inter-racial marriages are immoral then does that mean they can deny insurance coverage to such couples?

This keeps coming up--usually in the context of "gay marriage"--but let's get past hypos to reality.

Is there a religious group that teaches this? Who? Where? How many? And do they apply it to insurance coverage, etc.?

We can all sit around and mentally invent religions that might do any number of crazy things, but it's not very meaningful.; 2/10/12, 2:29 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Canuck:

If it's true that health care is cheaper when contraceptives are offered, then...

Why in the world must Obama mandate it?; 2/10/12, 2:30 PM
Michael said...: Dolan is a bullshitter on Obama's level. The press release says all and says nothing, promises compromise, promises nothing. Good for Dolan to keep the heat on by underscoring the real issue at hand.; 2/10/12, 2:33 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Dolan's on the spot.

First, I am not sure they were ready for this. But even if so, the other problem is, he's got 180+ bishops to keep together, and if he's not careful, he'll respond in a way that other bishops won't want to echo. He kept them together on the initial response, and he wants to keep it that way.

Plus if there's another shoe to drop, good to make sure before jumping too soon.; 2/10/12, 2:36 PM
yoobee said...: Also purplepenguin, this is not a case where the Church is refusing treatment to a group of people with whom it disagrees--it is saying that it will not be complicit in an ACTION to which it morally objects. Catholic hospitals do not refuse to treat gay people, or people who have had abortions, or have used contraceptives. The Church refuses to participate in performing gay marriages, abortions, or distributing contraception.

There's a simple phrase--love the sinner, hate the sin. If the action will cause them to be complicit in a sinful act, they must refuse.; 2/10/12, 2:38 PM
Seeing Red said...: One of my friend's fave phrases when negotiating is, "That's good, but we're just not there yet."; 2/10/12, 2:39 PM
Michael said...: I think the Bishops should dig in. The "offer" is an insult to any sentient brain. Dolan should spend some time with the Rabbis and Mullahs and Evangelicals who will understand this at the appropriate levels. Fast. A very secular president has a tin ear for this and is not a good listener in any event.; 2/10/12, 3:03 PM
SBVOR said...: Bob Ellison suggests Obama is "either an idiot or a jerk".

I submit Obama is either an idiot or a tyrant.

With a century of undeniable failure behind it, only an idiot or a tyrant could possibly embrace any aspect of Leftist ideology.

Personally, I have no doubt that Obama is both an idiot AND a tyrant (as are those who admire him).; 2/10/12, 3:06 PM
X said...: This administration believes it "subjects" are stupid.

it seems to have initially worked on a lot of supposedly smart people here. I wonder if they resent the attempt.; 2/10/12, 3:13 PM
Steve Koch said...: Shiloh said this was a non issue yesterday and that it would blow over. Instead Obama was humiliated and forced to back down (less than a day later). Shiloh did not admit that he was wrong and instead pretended that everything went as planned. Is there any point in discussion with such a dishonest person?; 2/10/12, 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/10/12, 3:23 PM
edutcher said...: Even better, not only is the Church telling GodZero to take a flying leap, but apparently the insurance industry has also to him to stick up his nether regions.

The irony here is that people were so fixated on the ghastly economy and the miserable job picture (U3 at 10, according to both the CBO and Gallup) that everyone had forgotten about how much they hated ZeroCare.

This has brought it back front and center.

WV "mices" Pixie and Dixie.; 2/10/12, 3:26 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: garage mahal said...
Out of curiosity, I wonder why the smartest President we have ever had did not figure this out at the beginning?

He more than likely knew the bishops would raise a stink. Now they are out of the equation, what's left? I think it's a rare case where Obama made the perfect play. He steps in and looks all compromising and sensitive to religion, and still gets 100% of what he wanted.

He seems to be learning. Feeling schooled?

Yeah Garage, pissing off all the Catholics is going to be awesome for him come the general election.

God you are fucking stupid.; 2/10/12, 3:27 PM
maherlaw said...: Obama hasn't "relented" at all! The religious institution, which is opposed to birth control, is still paying for it. Its health plan is now required to provide it at "no cost"; which means the cost will be built in to the premium charged the religious institution. So they are still end up paying for it against their will. Am I missing something here?; 2/10/12, 3:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like Obama played this well.; 2/10/12, 3:32 PM
Michael said...: 36 You think it is playing it well when you offer again what has been rejected? You are thinking politics. The church is thinking morality. I believe you will find which of the two has the more staying power.

For the record, I jumped the fence from Catholicism to the Episcopal Church which would not only support the giving away of condoms but would offer them on the communion plate. I am a supporter of contraception but am against abortion.

Any person of faith and any believer in liberty should be on the side of the Church in this matter.; 2/10/12, 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael said...

“36 You think it is playing it well when you offer again what has been rejected? You are thinking politics. The church is thinking morality. I believe you will find which of the two has the more staying power.

For the record, I jumped the fence from Catholicism to the Episcopal Church which would not only support the giving away of condoms but would offer them on the communion plate. I am a supporter of contraception but am against abortion.

Any person of faith and any believer in liberty should be on the side of the Church in this matter.”

Michael,

Well Obama just got some TV time for a full-throated endorsement of contraception, Catholic opposition now appears split between the bishops and Sister Carol Keenan from the Catholic Health Association who supports the compromise, Republicans who oppose this plan will have to come out as opponents of birth control instead of the smoke screen of religious freedom and those women who work at these religious institutions and who desire contraceptive services will still have insurance coverage made available to them.; 2/10/12, 3:39 PM
Rob said...: Nonsense. I am not anti contraception. In fact, back in the day when you could be against abortion and still be pro Planned Parenthood I was on the board of directors of a local Planned Parenthood. This "compromise" is the most Orwellian of Orwellian moves. Nothing has changed. The government is requiring a benefit be provided by an employer and requiring the employer to pay for it.; 2/10/12, 3:45 PM
shiloh said...: "Shiloh said this was a non issue yesterday and that it would blow over.

Is there any point in discussion with such a dishonest person?"

Again, (2) weeks tops as Americans have the attention span of a peanut.

SK took the time to reply re: our brief discussion yesterday, so hopefully he's made his "point" and will ignore me.

btw, no Obama plan, just religious reality ie this is a winner politically re: the Catholic voter, as again, contraception, paid for or otherwise is not a big deal w/a majority of Catholics.

Apologies to peanuts ...; 2/10/12, 3:49 PM
Seeing Red said...: Republicans will just have to read the statute and ask for clarification of abortifacients

what are they and how does that apply.

That's the left hand.

Go into the pew and explain it's aiming a dagger right to the heart of Catholicism.; 2/10/12, 3:49 PM
Seeing Red said...: They need to define "contraceptive services", will the Church cover the morning after pill?; 2/10/12, 3:50 PM
Seeing Red said...: And the State/King controls the religion because it will dictate what a Catholic is.; 2/10/12, 3:56 PM
madAsHell said...: another unforced error; 2/10/12, 4:10 PM
Seeing Red said...: Again, (2) weeks tops as Americans have the attention span of a peanut.

It's those that sit in the pews, and they who talk to their friends and explain it and it's a long time until November, and it's not just the Catholics..........; 2/10/12, 4:32 PM
Michael said...: 36as i said you look at this as politics. I believe you miss the point.; 2/10/12, 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael said...

“36as i said you look at this as politics. I believe you miss the point.”

Mike,

The point for me is allowing women to have access to insurance that covers contraception if they desire, including those women who work in religious affiliated institutions that are not members of the faith in question.

If would be interesting to see how many Catholic woman take advantage of this new provision of the health care law.; 2/10/12, 5:03 PM
Seeing Red said...: If having birth control pills is the most important thing to them, why would they take a job with a company which doesn't provide that option?

wv: pukism - this entire topic.....; 2/10/12, 5:13 PM
Prosqtor said...: How can you find these two things equivalent?

1. Access to something.

2. Someone else being required to pay for it for you.; 2/10/12, 5:14 PM
Seeing Red said...: I had insurance and didn't have that option and it didn't stop me from being responsible...

It's like these women are silent have no voice at all, it's like they're being raped because they can't get free birth control. The pill will save them!

I have a headache or it's that time can work.; 2/10/12, 5:17 PM
Seeing Red said...: It's also like if you work for a religious entity, you work and live in a bubble and there's no other services or stores which provide what you desire.....; 2/10/12, 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Seeing Red said...

“If having birth control pills is the most important thing to them, why would they take a job with a company which doesn't provide that option?”

Seeing Red,

Well, first of all this is a new benefit, so it wasn’t even a consideration when women were taking these jobs, yes?

Second, why should non-Catholic women be denied the benefits of this new law simply because of where they work?; 2/10/12, 5:25 PM
Michael said...: 36. I suppose we will never agree. I am sorry that we have become so secular, so dedicated to having the gvt solve our problems. So willing to relieve people of responsibility to take care of themselves that we are morbidly obese and think ourselves slim, so empty and think ourselves brimming with goodness that free contraception is vital to feeling good about ourselves. Sick. Sick beyond the reach of medicine.; 2/10/12, 5:37 PM
Michael said...: 36. Ps. It is not a new law. It is a regulation being made up for the law.; 2/10/12, 5:38 PM
Brian Brown said...: Republicans who oppose this plan will have to come out as opponents of birth control instead of the smoke screen of religious freedom

Why, because you say so?

Um, again, nobody is preventing any woman, Catholic or otherwise, from going to a doctor and obtaining birth control.

How did you become so obtuse?; 2/10/12, 5:43 PM
Brian Brown said...: Well, first of all this is a new benefit, so it wasn’t even a consideration when women were taking these jobs, yes?

Um, no.

Because this issue has been going on at the state level for years now.; 2/10/12, 5:44 PM
Brian Brown said...: 36fsfiend said...
Looks like Obama played this well.

Hysterical.

What are you drinking?

I suggest you read this letter and familiarize yourself with the issue.; 2/10/12, 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael said...

“36. I suppose we will never agree. I am sorry that we have become so secular, so dedicated to having the gvt solve our problems. So willing to relieve people of responsibility to take care of themselves that we are morbidly obese and think ourselves slim, so empty and think ourselves brimming with goodness that free contraception is vital to feeling good about ourselves. Sick. Sick beyond the reach of medicine.”

Mike,

Well, from what I’ve read contraception is beneficial to the health of women so I wouldn’t lump it in with health issues such morbid obesity. As far as becoming so dedicated to having the government solve our problems, when I see the billions of dollars in subsidies stripped from multi-billion dollar corporations like the oil companies, then I might agree with you about not providing insurance coverage to help women with family planning.

“36. Ps. It is not a new law. It is a regulation being made up for the law.”

Concur.; 2/10/12, 5:55 PM
Michael said...: 36. Well we do know that liberals see pregancy as a disease to be prevented. That part is clear.; 2/10/12, 6:06 PM
Seeing Red said...: I worked for Jews, I didn't get their holidays off. Why should I have been denied? Simply where they work?

It's like women have no voice, no choice in the matter, just what are these Catholic institutions doing to force these people to work for them?; 2/10/12, 6:14 PM
Seeing Red said...: I cannot believe how infantilizing this is.; 2/10/12, 6:15 PM
Seeing Red said...: Ohh, this is gonna be a toughy - women's birth control or the environment? All those hormones into the water supply, not good.; 2/10/12, 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael said...

“36. Well we do know that liberals see pregnancy as a disease to be prevented. That part is clear.”

Mike,

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. How many Catholic women use birth control? Again, back in the 1960s and 1970s Catholic families used to have 5, 6, 7 or even 12 children. Today it’s what, 2 or 3 max? Do you really believe that millions of Catholic women are not having sex?; 2/10/12, 6:18 PM
Seeing Red said...: All those women managed to take birth control without the Church paying for it?

However did they manage?; 2/10/12, 6:27 PM
kimsch said...: It doesn't matter if 100% of Catholic women are using birth control. The Church does not have to pay for it. Either directly or through higher premiums. The government for sure doesn't have the power to force them to under the constitution.

Also, when did it become so important to force any employer to provide "contraceptive service" coverage to anyone free of charge?; 2/10/12, 6:28 PM
Seeing Red said...: Thank you for clarifying why we're talking at cross-purposes or past each other.

You're talking about the flock, we're talking about The Church and its position, not what goes on between the individual and God.

So it's OK for the State to play God.

Some might actually suggest be God.; 2/10/12, 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: kimsch said...

It doesn't matter if 100% of Catholic women are using birth control. The Church does not have to pay for it. Either directly or through higher premiums. The government for sure doesn't have the power to force them to under the constitution.

Also, when did it become so important to force any employer to provide "contraceptive service" coverage to anyone free of charge?”

kimsch,

I would agree with you 100 percent about the government not having the power to force these religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives if these institutions were not taking taxpayer money. That is not the case.

Covering contraceptives was part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to follow the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations intended to fill important gaps in three existing sets of services that were already covered without cost-sharing under a provision of the 2010 health reform legislation.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/08/01/index.html; 2/10/12, 6:41 PM
Brian Brown said...: Well, from what I’ve read contraception is beneficial to the health of women

It is?

How?

And given:

Researchers have long known that taking a combination hormone birth control pill — which contains estrogen and a progestin hormone — can increase the risk of stroke and blood clots in the legs and lungs. That is because estrogen can play a role in blood coagulation. Indeed, since the introduction of oral contraceptives in the 1960s, drug companies have greatly reduced estrogen doses to decrease the risk of thrombosis, the medical term for blood clots.

How could you possibly say what you're saying?

You realize your political opinions are formed by ignorance, right?; 2/10/12, 6:41 PM
Brian Brown said...: when I see the billions of dollars in subsidies stripped from multi-billion dollar corporations like the oil companies, then I might agree with you about not providing insurance coverage to help women with family planning.

Except oil companies don't receive billions of dollars in subsidies.

You realize your political opinions are formed by ignorance, right?; 2/10/12, 6:43 PM
Brian Brown said...: when I see the billions of dollars in subsidies stripped from multi-billion dollar corporations like the oil companies

PS, the oil industry faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500.

I think you should bring up another topic on which you know absolutely nothing. You're kind of like Obama in that way...; 2/10/12, 6:46 PM
kimsch said...: 36 said: if these institutions were not taking taxpayer money.

Does any church, synagogue, mosque or any religious institution lose their First Amendment rights if they take taxpayer money?

Where in the US Constitution does it say that one gives up one's rights if one "takes" taxpayer money?

Planned Parenthood takes taxpayer money. Should they have to provide "contraceptive services" to one and all without charge? If so, then why force any employer or insurer to cover "contraceptive services"?

wv: consub; 2/10/12, 7:05 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You know, let's go all out. How about free sterilization of liberals? If you are a self described liberal you get a free vasectomy or tube tie courtesy of Uncle Sam.

Hell I would support a 15% raise in cap gains tax to pay for it. The ROI is worth it.; 2/10/12, 7:07 PM
Michael said...: 36. I see liberals having only two articles of faith. Abortion. Contraception.

Sure there are other things that matter to liberals but none are more sacred than abortion and contraception.; 2/10/12, 7:10 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: ".. I jumped the fence from Catholicism to the Episcopal Church which would not only support the giving away of condoms but would offer them on the communion plate..."

You know, I'm no prude by any stretch and pretty much a lapsed Catholic but unless that is some kind of metaphor, that's fucking pathetic.

Really if you can't see the tastelessness of that I'm embarrased to share citizenship with people like that.; 2/10/12, 7:14 PM
DADvocate said...: Liberals are trying to create a position where women's rights, especially the "right" to abortion and birth control, trump all other rights. From there they can build their totalitarian dream state. Obama just went a little too far this time. But, incrementally, the left will keep trying. It's for our own good.; 2/10/12, 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: kimsch said...

“36 said: if these institutions were not taking taxpayer money.

Does any church, synagogue, mosque or any religious institution lose their First Amendment rights if they take taxpayer money?

Where in the US Constitution does it say that one gives up one's rights if one "takes" taxpayer money?

Planned Parenthood takes taxpayer money. Should they have to provide "contraceptive services" to one and all without charge? If so, then why force any employer or insurer to cover "contraceptive services"?”

kimsch,

If a religious organization is going to take federal taxpayer money, then I believe they need to be prepared to follow any and all federal laws. How about the non-Catholic women at these institutions and their religious freedoms? If their religion (or lack of religion) permits them to use birth control then why should they be denied the benefits provided by a U.S. law? Why must they lose this privilege because of their employer’s religious belief?

Concerning your comment about where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that one gives up one's rights if one takes taxpayer money, as a taxpayer, I consider it a separation of church of state issue. I don’t want to subsidize any religion with federal money. The followers of the faith can support their own beliefs.

Planned Parenthood will be required to provide contraceptive services to their employees. This is not an issue about providing contraceptive services to one and all without charge.; 2/10/12, 7:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Michael said...

“36. I see liberals having only two articles of faith. Abortion. Contraception.

Sure there are other things that matter to liberals but none are more sacred than abortion and contraception.”

Mike,

Not sure what you’re basing that assessment on. If you peruse a left-wing blog, you’ll see many issues being discussed. Granted, women’s reproductive rights and health is a big issue for them given they feel these rights are constantly under attack. Listening to Santorum’s rhetoric on abortion and contraception, I would agree.; 2/10/12, 7:31 PM
Brian Brown said...: Planned Parenthood takes taxpayer money. Should they have to provide "contraceptive services" to one and all without charge?

I think since PP takes taxpayer money they should be forced to recite the words similar to this each day:

Eternal God, we give You thanks for giving us another day.

We thank You once again that we, Your creatures, can come before You and ask guidance for the men and women of this assembly.

Send Your spirit of wisdom as they enter into a long weekend for constituent visits. May their ears and hearts be open to listen to the hopes and needs of those whom they represent.

Please keep all the Members of this Congress and all who work for the people's House in good health, that they might faithfully fulfill the great responsibility given them by the people of this great Nation.

Bless us this day and every day. May all that is done here this day be for Your greater honor and glory.

Amen.

That's how the House opened their session yesterday.; 2/10/12, 7:32 PM
Brian Brown said...: I don’t want to subsidize any religion with federal money.

Nobody is subsidizing any religion.

At all.; 2/10/12, 7:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, it looks like some conservatives do support contraception after all:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/09/422452/fox-pundit-shamefully-tells-cpac-crowd-that-rachel-maddow-is-the-best-argument-in-favor-of-her-parents-using-contraception/?mobile=nc; 2/10/12, 7:45 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... Well, it looks like some conservatives do support contraception after all:.."

Man you liberals just don't get it.; 2/10/12, 7:51 PM
DADvocate said...: I don’t want to subsidize any religion with federal money.

If you haven't noticed, the Catholic church supports itself quite well, much better than the federal government. The Catholic church takes a catholic (universal) position on aiding humans in need, and provides a plethora of services to help people all over the world in many ways regardless of race, religion, etc.

However, you want to force a religious position upon them that is contrary to their well established beliefs because they get partially reimbursed with taxpayer funds. You're endorsing a violation of freedom of religion. There's a principle described as majority rule, minority rights. This is why we have rights detailed in the Constitution, so people like you can't take them away on a whimsy.; 2/10/12, 7:52 PM
Bender said...: It doesn't matter if 100% of Catholic women are using birth control. The Church does not have to pay for it

Meanwhile, with respect to those contracepting Catholics, what place does government have in interjecting itself between a citizen and her Church?

How is it government's place to help the member of a given religion to violate the tenets of her Church?; 2/10/12, 8:04 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/10/12, 8:04 PM
Bender said...: Oh, and by the way, this mandate for free contraceptives does not apply only to women.

It also applies to little girls. Little 12-year-old girls, little 11-year-old girls.

Any female that is covered by a family member's employee health plan. Any.; 2/10/12, 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...: DADvocate said...

“If you haven't noticed, the Catholic church supports itself quite well, much better than the federal government. The Catholic church takes a catholic (universal) position on aiding humans in need, and provides a plethora of services to help people all over the world in many ways regardless of race, religion, etc.

However, you want to force a religious position upon them that is contrary to their well established beliefs because they get partially reimbursed with taxpayer funds. You're endorsing a violation of freedom of religion. There's a principle described as majority rule, minority rights. This is why we have rights detailed in the Constitution, so people like you can't take them away on a whimsy.”

DADvocate,

Yes, the church does support itself quite well with the tax exempt status it enjoys. So much so that it was able to pay out over $2 billion in settlements and legal costs from the child sex abuse scandal. Yes, they do some much good in the world. Think of all the starving children that could have been helped with that $2 billion.

I don’t want to force any position on them. Get off the government teat and they can have all the exemptions they want. But they want to have it both ways – taxpayer money and the right to deny the benefits of U.S. laws from others who are not even members of the church.; 2/10/12, 8:07 PM
Bender said...: Does a woman employee who does not want this contraception coverage have the right to bar her 11-year-old daughter from getting the Pill for free on her health plan?

Or will mom be forced to help pay for her pre-teen to get on the Pill through her employee contributions to the health plan?; 2/10/12, 8:10 PM
themightypuck said...: I think the rich should have to pay 1000 times what the poor pay for contraception.; 2/10/12, 8:56 PM
Rabel said...: Aside from the question of whether the cost will be passed through to the employer/employee, what gives the executive branch the power to order a private company to provide a free service/product to consumers? The "fact sheet" HHS put out today said this explicitly.

Serious question. Where does that authority come from?; 2/10/12, 9:52 PM
Bender said...: what gives the executive branch the power to order a private company to provide a free service/product to consumers?
Serious question. Where does that authority come from?

Not the Fifth Amendment, which specifically prohibits it --

"No person shall . . . be deprived of . . . property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"; 2/10/12, 9:59 PM
Unknown said...: ------- focusing on the real problem here? Most pharmacies require ID to verify that the buyer is the person for whom the Rx was written.

We all know that poor people don't have access to photo IDs. ------

Bravo!!! Encore!!!; 2/10/12, 10:42 PM
Known Unknown said...: Yes, the church does support itself quite well with the tax exempt status it enjoys. So much so that it was able to pay out over $2 billion in settlements and legal costs from the child sex abuse scandal. Yes, they do some much good in the world. Think of all the starving children that could have been helped with that $2 billion.

Misdirection, anyone?; 2/10/12, 10:49 PM
Ctmom4 said...: "Do you not understand that there are women who can't afford contraception?"

Andy - both Walmart and Target sell generic birth control pills for $4 a month. If there are women who can't afford $4 a month, I suspect they are eligible for Medicaid. Your argument doesn't hold water.; 2/10/12, 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/10/12, 11:26 PM
Anonymous said...: EMD said...

“Yes, the church does support itself quite well with the tax exempt status it enjoys. So much so that it was able to pay out over $2 billion in settlements and legal costs from the child sex abuse scandal. Yes, they do some much good in the world. Think of all the starving children that could have been helped with that $2 billion.”

Misdirection, anyone?”

EMD,

Why misdirection? Shouldn’t the bishops’ handling of the sex abuse scandal be factored into their credibility on moral issues?

While the debate this week focused on the issue of contraception and women’s health, with leaders of the Catholic Church and others making allegations that the Church’s “religious freedom” was under attack by the president, these other events took place:

- Retired Cardinal Edward Egan Faces Criticism for Taking Back Abuse Apology
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/cardinal-egan-child-abuse_n_1260367.html

- 8,000 Instances of Abuse Alleged In Archdiocese Bankruptcy Hearing
http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/archdiocese-bankruptcy-judge-allows-two-claims-to-stand-me44pue-139044534.html

- Priest Abuse Verdict: Jury Finds Archdiocese Negligent and Reckless; $1 Million for Victim
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-priest-abuse-verdict-0211-20120210,0,1752074.story?page=1&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed%253A%2520Courantcom-GreaterMiddletown%252FShoreline%2520%2528Courant.com%2520-%2520Greater%2520Middletown%2520%252F%2520Shoreline%2529&utm_source=feedburner

I would hope that if a nationwide private child care industry had this level of child sexual abuse going on, the CEO and other officers of the business would be in prison.

By the way, on the other tread about this issue I mentioned that there was a bigger agenda going on here. Folks said it wasn’t so. Well, straight from the horse’s mouth:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/10/4254989/bishops-renew-call-to-legislative.html

The bishops want a ban on the insurance coverage of contraception nationwide, not just for religious institutions.; 2/11/12, 12:28 AM
yoobee said...: 36,

Your argument about the Church denying workers the benefit of federal laws is a red herring. The federal government can enact all sorts of laws, but those can be struck down as unconstitutional. That is, federal laws are limited by the Constitution.

So here, even though the Executive branch publishes a set of rules, these rules cannot supersede the Constitution. In particular, it cannot supersede the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. That is the fundamental right here, and it supersedes any rule to provide health care. This rule isn't even statutory--it's executive rule making, which falls below legislation. Not all federal laws are created equal, and they are invalid to the extent they violate the Constitution.

Also, in regard to something you said earlier about this not being a part of the workers' decision because it is a new regulation: Catholic employers have never offered this coverage, so anyone working for them would not have had any kind of expectation that magically their employer would suddenly start providing it. That's why it's not unfair to them.; 2/11/12, 1:02 AM
yoobee said...: Again, I will re-iterate my request that you separate the validity of the teaching from the religious leader preaching it. As in the previous thread on this topic, the bad physics teacher does not invalidate the laws of physics. Here, what a religious leader says or how well they express has no bearing on the validity of the idea. This also applies to the Catholic who fails to understand and apply Catholic teaching to their life. Stop using these deflections as a proxy for dismissing religious beliefs.; 2/11/12, 1:07 AM
yoobee said...: 36,

If you are upset about federal money going to religious institutions, then you should be petitioning to have that stopped. If you believe that this is a violation, argue against it. This is more intellectually honest than arguing, "well the government started it by wrongly giving money to religious institutions, so the government is warranted in committing a second wrong by infringing their free exercise rights."

There is no justification in arguing that because an institution accepts federal money they forfeit constitutional rights which prevent the government from interfering in the practice of their religion.; 2/11/12, 1:12 AM
yoobee said...: Rabel,

The power of the executive branch to enact rules for its individual departments (in this case, HHS) comes from Congress through enacted legislation. That is, executive agencies enact rules pursuant to the power given to them by Congress. When the Patriot Act was passed, NSA and CIA then created new rules regarding surveillance practices. When Congress changes the tax code, the IRS changes its rules to carry out the new law.

So really the question is what gives Congress the right to require a private actor to do something. The only way Congress can exert this power is through the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article 1 of the Constitution. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, Congress argued that healthcare transactions occur across state lines and are therefore part of interstate commerce. So this is the basis of their authority to regulate these transactions, and hence for the Executive (HHS) to create these rules.; 2/11/12, 1:21 AM
yoobee said...: A further point on the last couple of posts:

The hierarchy of laws in the U.S. is as follows:

Constitution > Statutory law (Congress) > Agency Rule-making (President)

To the extent that a lower-tiered law violates a higher-tiered law, the lower-tiered law is invalid.; 2/11/12, 1:23 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/11/12, 2:18 AM
Anonymous said...: yoobee said...

“Again, I will re-iterate my request that you separate the validity of the teaching from the religious leader preaching it. As in the previous thread on this topic, the bad physics teacher does not invalidate the laws of physics. Here, what a religious leader says or how well they express has no bearing on the validity of the idea. This also applies to the Catholic who fails to understand and apply Catholic teaching to their life. Stop using these deflections as a proxy for dismissing religious beliefs.”

yoobee,

Is this in response to the comments regarding child sex abuse in the Church? If so, to use your analogy, a bad physics teacher will result in students not properly understanding or applying the laws of physics and his credibility on matters regarding physics should be brought into question. Indeed, he may be disqualified from teaching because of his lack of credibility.

One of my points about the sex abuse scandal is that the bishops wanted an immediate reversal on the decision regarding the exemption to the new law, throwing around inflammatory comments like this was a war on religious freedom. However, the sex abuse scandal continue to fester below the surface and yet there seems no sense of urgency in the Church to tackle the issue. Last May, the Vatican gave the bishops until this May – one full year – to come up with procedures to deal with sex abuse. They have to be kidding. A year to figure out how to deal with reporting and investigating an allegation of sex abuse? Guidance should have been swift and clear. And yet they want the President of the United States to jump at their command. I say bullshit.; 2/11/12, 2:37 AM
Anonymous said...: yoobee said...

“If you are upset about federal money going to religious institutions, then you should be petitioning to have that stopped. If you believe that this is a violation, argue against it. This is more intellectually honest than arguing, "well the government started it by wrongly giving money to religious institutions, so the government is warranted in committing a second wrong by infringing their free exercise rights."

There is no justification in arguing that because an institution accepts federal money they forfeit constitutional rights which prevent the government from interfering in the practice of their religion.”

yoobee,

Believe me, I’m in contact with my reps. in Congress. Unfortunately, I don’t have the lobbying power of that tax exempt organization known as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.; 2/11/12, 2:42 AM
Anonymous said...: yoobee said...

“Your argument about the Church denying workers the benefit of federal laws is a red herring. The federal government can enact all sorts of laws, but those can be struck down as unconstitutional. That is, federal laws are limited by the Constitution.

So here, even though the Executive branch publishes a set of rules, these rules cannot supersede the Constitution. In particular, it cannot supersede the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. That is the fundamental right here, and it supersedes any rule to provide health care. This rule isn't even statutory--it's executive rule making, which falls below legislation. Not all federal laws are created equal, and they are invalid to the extent they violate the Constitution.

Also, in regard to something you said earlier about this not being a part of the workers' decision because it is a new regulation: Catholic employers have never offered this coverage, so anyone working for them would not have had any kind of expectation that magically their employer would suddenly start providing it. That's why it's not unfair to them.”

yoobee,

First, I didn’t state the Church would be denying workers the benefit of federal laws. What I’m saying is if the exemption is put into effect by the federal government for religious institutions then there will be women who are denied the benefits of the new rule on contraception coverage because of where they work. The exemption is being generated in response to the Church. I see no way for the federal government to get around this issue without offending the bishops short of having a government agency providing the contraceptive services to these women. And that will probably still meet the disapproval of the bishops. They don't want birth control for anyone.

Regarding your point about these rules superseding the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, my position in this matter is this whole arrangement with the Catholic Church is in conflict with the idea of the separation of church of state. We have a religious institution which enjoys an exemption from federal income taxes and receives various forms of federal funding dictating what goes into federal laws. I really don’t believe Washington and the colonials put their asses on the line and fought a war so that a religious institution which answers to an authority in Rome can dictate what or what not should go into the laws of this country.

Concerning the point that Catholic employers have never offered this coverage so anyone working for them would not have had an expectation of this benefit, that may be true. However, the benefit is now available and those women who may have been purchasing contraceptives out of pocket in the past may now want to take advantage of this benefit. Indeed, if you believe the figure that 98 percent of Catholic woman have used birth control, some of the Catholic women at these institutions may want to use this new benefit.; 2/11/12, 2:49 AM
yoobee said...: 36: "if the exemption is put into effect by the federal government for religious institutions then there will be women who are denied the benefits of the new rule on contraception coverage because of where they work. The exemption is being generated in response to the Church. I see no way for the federal government to get around this issue without offending the bishops short of having a government agency providing the contraceptive services to these women. And that will probably still meet the disapproval of the bishops. They don't want birth comtrol for anyone.

Regarding your point about these rules superseding the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, my position in this matter is this whole arrangement with the Catholic Church is in conflict with the idea of the separation of church of state. We gave a religious institution which enjoys an exemption from federal income taxes and receives various forms of federal funding dictating what goes into federal laws. I really don’t believe Washington and the colonials put their asses on the line and fought a war so that a religious institution which answers to an authority in Rome can dictate what or what not should go into the laws of this country."

36,

These women will be denied these benefits the same way that a machinist worker in one plant does not have protective eyewear provided by his employer, even though a neighboring factory provides it to its own workers. It is not unusual for exemptions to legal requirements based on the type of employer.

The next point is what I want to stree most: the Constitution defines the limits of the power of the federal government. To emphasize: The Constitution's only function is to limit the federal government. It does not limit the rights private organizations or individuals. The Founding Fathers were adamant that they were not drafting a document that listed all of the rights of citizens, but rather crafted them as negative limitations on the government.

As has been pointed out repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere, the only conception of separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution is found in the First Amendment, and it limits the federal government from establishing an official state religion or infringing an individual's free exercise of religion. There is nothing, I assure you, in the Constitution stating that a religious organization or individual cannot participate in government or the democratic process. Since the document is aimed at governmental action only, how can it be read to limit individual actions?

I don't think the Founding Fathers fought a war so that abortion and contraception would be provided by the government.; 2/11/12, 3:07 AM
yoobee said...: 36: "One of my points about the sex abuse scandal is that the bishops wanted an immediate reversal on the decision regarding the exemption to the new law, throwing around inflammatory comments like this was a war on religious freedom. However, the sex abuse scandal continue to fester below the surface and yet there seems no sense of urgency in the Church to tackle the issue. Last May, the Vatican gave the bishops until this May – one full year – to come up with procedures to deal with sex abuse. They have to be kidding. A year to figure out how to deal with reporting and investigating an allegation of sex abuse? Guidance should have been swift and clear. And yet they want the President of the United States to jump at their command."

You're comparing apples and oranges. The bishops were trying to determine how best to address a systemic problem that has poisoned the Church for 30-40 years. The federal law was drafted out of thin air to go into effect with the healthcare mandate. The latter is simpler to change in a day; the former is not (at least, not if you actually want to fix the problem).

And even though the teacher's credibility may be questioned, it still does not disprove the matter that is being taught--it simply affects your ability to believe it. You can disagree with Church leaders because you think they have no credibility; however, you still have not provided a valid reason why you think it is wrong to be against contraception.; 2/11/12, 3:12 AM
yoobee said...: or that the Church's position against contraception has no merit.; 2/11/12, 3:13 AM
yoobee said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/11/12, 3:18 AM
yoobee said...: 36: "Believe me, I’m in contact with my reps. in Congress. Unfortunately, I don’t have the lobbying power of that tax exempt organization known as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."

36,

Good for you. I am sincerely glad that you are involved in this manner. I know what it is like to try to convince your reps to break ties with a organization that has significantly more clout (Planned Parenthood and NARAL in my case).

Even assuming that I think that federal subsidies to religiously-affiliated hospitals and non-profits violated the First Amendment (I don't think this), I could not get behind an argument based on the premise that an egregious wrong (denial of rights to religious institution) is warranted because of the previous wrong (federal subsidy to a religious organization).; 2/11/12, 3:28 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/11/12, 4:01 AM
Anonymous said...: yoobee said...,

“You're comparing apples and oranges. The bishops were trying to determine how best to address a systemic problem that has poisoned the Church for 30-40 years. The federal law was drafted out of thin air to go into effect with the healthcare mandate. The latter is simpler to change in a day; the former is not (at least, not if you actually want to fix the problem).

And even though the teacher's credibility may be questioned, it still does not disprove the matter that is being taught--it simply affects your ability to believe it. You can disagree with Church leaders because you think they have no credibility; however, you still have not provided a valid reason why you think it is wrong to be against contraception or that the Church's position against contraception has no merit.”

yoobee,

The bishops don’t need a year to figure out how to deal with the raping of children. And God only knows what is happening in those less developed countries that do not have the police and legal systems that we have to root this criminal behavior out.

I understand the teachings of the church. I’m not questioning that at all. I do question the agenda and motives of the bishops. My position about contraception is the bishops want to force their beliefs on everyone in this country. Again, here’s their response to the revised exemption proposed today:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/10/4254989/bishops-renew-call-to-legislative.html

The bishops want a ban on the insurance coverage of contraception nationwide, not just for religious institutions.; 2/11/12, 4:14 AM
Anonymous said...: yoobee said...,

“These women will be denied these benefits the same way that a machinist worker in one plant does not have protective eyewear provided by his employer, even though a neighboring factory provides it to its own workers. It is not unusual for exemptions to legal requirements based on the type of employer.

The next point is what I want to stree most: the Constitution defines the limits of the power of the federal government. To emphasize: The Constitution's only function is to limit the federal government. It does not limit the rights private organizations or individuals. The Founding Fathers were adamant that they were not drafting a document that listed all of the rights of citizens, but rather crafted them as negative limitations on the government.

As has been pointed out repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere, the only conception of separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution is found in the First Amendment, and it limits the federal government from establishing an official state religion or infringing an individual's free exercise of religion. There is nothing, I assure you, in the Constitution stating that a religious organization or individual cannot participate in government or the democratic process. Since the document is aimed at governmental action only, how can it be read to limit individual actions?

I don't think the Founding Fathers fought a war so that abortion and contraception would be provided by the government.”

yoobee,

Regarding your example of eye wear, the rule is in place to provide protection. To get an exemption, the employer needs to demonstrate what alternate course of action he will use to ensure the same level of protection to prevent injury. What alternate plan have the bishops proposed to cover the non-Catholic employees in their institutions? None. They want their beliefs to apply to everyone. That’s one of the rubs with this situation.

I understand that the Constitution limits the power of the federal government. However, the First Amendment also limits the federal government from establishing a religion. In my opinion if the federal government is carving out exemptions to rules that favor a religion while impacting other individuals not of that religion, that to me is establishing a religion. If there were no non-Catholic employees in these institutions, then there would be no conflict with this exemption. My opinion is if the Catholic Church wants to engage in a public enterprise they need to be sensitive to the beliefs of all their employees. If they cannot follow a federal law without impacting their non-Catholic employees then perhaps they should not engage in a public enterprise. This is not a Catholic country.

If a religious organization participates in government, do you think they should be required to pay taxes? Do you have a concern with the bishops being responsible to Rome and how that influence is brought to bear in the government of this country? How about if this was an Islamic organization influencing the government? Would you object?

I think the Founding Fathers fought a war for freedom. Abortion and contraception is not being provided by the government. The people, with the freedom that was won by the Founding Fathers, have determined they want these services to be legal in this country.; 2/11/12, 5:44 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: 98% of (sexually active) Catholic women have used contraceptives

Wow. It's almost like the majority of Christians are sinners.

Good thing Jesus didn't know that. No way in hell he'd have sacrificed himself on the cross just to help a bunch of sinners.

*facepalm*; 2/11/12, 8:49 AM
shiloh said...: yoobee

"the former is not"

Yea, no fast way of dealing w/a Catholic church "systemic" problem of sexually deviant priests.

The only reason they dealt w/it ,period, is/was because it started to cost the church beaucoup $$$ in legal costs and out of court settlements.

At my first political blog there was very heated discussion re: the church (50+) year cover-up child molesting priests. Fun times! :D Interesting studies have shown 30% of priests are gay, gasp!, which is higher than the general population.

btw, once upon a time priests were allowed to marry, but they change the law because again, wait for it ... $$$ ie it costs the church more $$$ if priests married, all those kids and whatnot. I digress.

And yoobee, indeed the founding fathers probably had no opinion re: present day contraception, just like they had no opinion on tv violence. Things change.

>

Had to comment on your deflecting/misleading reasons why the church was stonewalling re: fixing their "ongoing" sexually deviant priest problem.

Too other fun political blog discussions were abortion/creationism vs intelligent design/evolution as they were quite heated and ended up going nowhere. Fond memories ...

>

We now return you to present day much ado about nothing Catholic universities/hospitals etc. health insurance paying for birth control.

>

And if yoobee wants to continue discussing the ongoing sexually deviant priests in the Catholic church problem and the continuing cover-up/stonewalling, I'm all ears! :); 2/11/12, 9:33 AM
Rusty said...: Alex said...
Browndog - is conception a miracle if it turns out to be a horribly disfigured or retarded child?

Ask the parents.
I've worked with developmentally disabled children and adults. On a few levels I find their company superior to that of,"normal" people.; 2/11/12, 12:06 PM
yoobee said...: 36 and shiloh (re: the Church sex abuse scandal):

It DOES take more than a year to weed out the problem. The Church wasn't just trying to figure out how to stop current priests from molesting children--it was trying to figure out what needed to be fixed in order to prevent it from happening in the future. That's not an overnight deal, not when the system has been corrupted for 40 years.

And it's interesting that shiloh brings up the fact that 30% of priests in the survey are gay. Did you know that there is a VERY strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia? This was a major contributor to the problem, and now the Church is finally realizing that they have to stop ordaining priests who don't live according to their faith. This means they have to learn how to identify the symptoms of pedophilia before the seminarian is ordained. That's not an overnight switch.

36,
But the church can have a voice in a democracy--the fact that politicians listen to them in no way establishes a religion. The USCCB is about 180 people. Politicians don't listen to the bishops because they need those 180 votes. Rather, they listen because there are 70 million Catholics in the country, making up a huge part of the electorate. If a politician wants to listen to an Islamic group, that is fine by me--honestly, I am ok with it. But if he starts enacting laws that conform to Islamic beliefs that I don't agree with, then I will vote against that representative--I won't try to censor the Islamic group.

Again, practically speaking, all laws are a moral decision, a choice to favor one group's interest over another's. If the Church does not want contraception to be generally available, they can legally work to make that happen--just like Planned Parenthood works in the opposite capacity. The Ku Klux Klan is not censored because of its views, and it can use the democratic process to further its own agenda. But you forget that it is not only about one group--the rep still answers to the public. One way or another, one group's beliefs will be forced on the country, and it will likely depend on the strength of the voters behind it.

I don't see a requirement for one to pay taxes to participate in government. The First Amendment prevents government establishing a religion, but does not say that Church leaders can never speak their mind or a minister cannot hold a public office unless the organization pays taxes. There is no such limit anywhere. Maybe you would like it to be, but it is not the state of the law currently.

Furthermore, if paying taxes is a cost of participation in government, you just disenfranchised the poor with that rule. And, as Fr. Martin pointed out a couple of days ago, the Catholic Church DOES pay taxes--just not income tax. They do, however, file tax forms.

Finally, regarding your comment about the Founding Fathers--which citizens decided that those things should be legal? The Supreme Court? The more than 50% of voters who believe that abortion should be outlawed at least in some cases? That number is growing by the way, and perhaps the number who want to outlaw it by a vote will do so someday. And that will be fine with you because a majority of the citizen of the country decided it.; 2/11/12, 12:07 PM
Alex said...: Ask the parents.
I've worked with developmentally disabled children and adults. On a few levels I find their company superior to that of,"normal" people.

While it's admirable that those parents are doing the best they can - what's the point in the end? Parents so exhausted by the disabled child that they have no life left except to care for that child. That's not how it should be.; 2/11/12, 12:18 PM
yoobee said...: Alex: "While it's admirable that those parents are doing the best they can - what's the point in the end? Parents so exhausted by the disabled child that they have no life left except to care for that child. That's not how it should be."

While it's admirable that you feel comfortable to make a value-based judgment of "how it should be", this is easily the most ridiculous statement I've heard in the last two or three days.; 2/11/12, 12:26 PM
kimsch said...: ask the parents

I am one such parent. My daughter is developmentally disabled, has a moderate hearing impairment, epiliepsy, and lupus. She has some genetic anomalies: extra genes on her 10th chromosome and ring 19 in a mosaic pattern. Usually chromosome pairs look like the number 11. Her 19th pair look like 11 10 11 10 11 10. One of every other pair is in a circle rather than a line.

She's 21 years old now. She can write her name and recognize some other names and words. She doesn't really speak but knows some sign language. She can dress herself and feed herself and go to the bathroom, but needs some help with some hygiene issues.

She's mostly like a three-year-old. Loves Barney and Blue's Clues and The Fresh Beat Band. She loves puzzles and often puts them together upside-down (white parts showing only). She loves music and can listen to the "radio" (CDs) all day long. She won't be a productive member of society. She's not suffering. Neither am I to have her.

In no way would I have prevented her birth. Do I wish she were a normal 21-year-old girl? Yes. But I also thank God that she's not worse off. She's not in a wheelchair, I don't have to change diapers or feed her. I don't have medical equipment to deal with (she does have a vagus nerve implant though).

She's my princess and always will be.; 2/11/12, 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: yoobee said...

“It DOES take more than a year to weed out the problem. The Church wasn't just trying to figure out how to stop current priests from molesting children--it was trying to figure out what needed to be fixed in order to prevent it from happening in the future. That's not an overnight deal, not when the system has been corrupted for 40 years.

And it's interesting that shiloh brings up the fact that 30% of priests in the survey are gay. Did you know that there is a VERY strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia? This was a major contributor to the problem, and now the Church is finally realizing that they have to stop ordaining priests who don't live according to their faith. This means they have to learn how to identify the symptoms of pedophilia before the seminarian is ordained. That's not an overnight switch.”

yoobee,

The Vatican doesn’t need a year to figure out what it takes to prevent sexual abuse from happening in the future. Here’s what the Pope needs to say:

First, if there is an allegation that a priest has committed a sexual assault, the bishop in charge will notify the legal authorities and ensure the priest is kept away from children.

Second, if the investigation and subsequent trail determine the priest did commit sexual assault that priest will be defrocked and removed from the priesthood. Period.

Third, if it is discovered that the bishop involved attempted to cover up the sexual assault by sheltering or moving the offending the priest, that bishop will be excommunicated. Period.

These priests and bishops need to understand there are consequences for these crimes. And the Church needs to take the words of Christ in Matthew 18:6 to heart.

Regarding the comment that there is a very strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, can you provide a link where a major medical organization states that? I do think allowing priests to marry would go a long why to help solve the problem but as Shiloh points out the money involved and inheritance is an issue for the Church. It’s funny how everything always comes down to money, even in religion.; 2/11/12, 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: yoobee said...

“But the church can have a voice in a democracy--the fact that politicians listen to them in no way establishes a religion. The USCCB is about 180 people. Politicians don't listen to the bishops because they need those 180 votes. Rather, they listen because there are 70 million Catholics in the country, making up a huge part of the electorate. If a politician wants to listen to an Islamic group, that is fine by me--honestly, I am ok with it. But if he starts enacting laws that conform to Islamic beliefs that I don't agree with, then I will vote against that representative--I won't try to censor the Islamic group.”

Yes, then can listen but if they are crafting laws based on religious beliefs that impact other people not of that faith then, in my opinion, that is a separation of church and state issue. And that seems to be what is happening with this contraception issue. Non-Catholics at these Catholic institutions are being adversely impacted by the exemption. You say you will vote against your representative if he wants to enact a law based on an Islamic belief but if it’s a Catholic belief you are OK with it? Seems contradictory regarding the application of the First Amendment and you seem to be making my point.

“Again, practically speaking, all laws are a moral decision, a choice to favor one group's interest over another's. If the Church does not want contraception to be generally available, they can legally work to make that happen--just like Planned Parenthood works in the opposite capacity. The Ku Klux Klan is not censored because of its views, and it can use the democratic process to further its own agenda. But you forget that it is not only about one group--the rep still answers to the public. One way or another, one group's beliefs will be forced on the country, and it will likely depend on the strength of the voters behind it.”

The Church is trying to make contraception illegal based on a religious belief. That to me crosses the line with the First Amendment. If the Church was trying to get something changed regarding a secular issue that would be a different matter. Planned Parenthood is not a religious organization and they are not forcing individuals to act against their will. Abortion and contraception being legal in this country doesn’t mean people have to get an abortion or use contraception. They have a choice. The Church’s desire is to remove the ability for people to have a choice and that’s the rub. They are attempting to impose their religious beliefs on everyone and to me that is unconstitutional. Let the bishops go to the people and try to convince them not to use abortion or contraception. If they are successful, then it doesn’t matter if these services are legal because no one would be using them. But that, in reality, would not be the case because not everyone will adhere to the teachings of the Church – and the bishops know this. Hence, this is why they are trying to get laws changed to prohibit these services. And that is unconstitutional – there needs to be separation of church and state.; 2/11/12, 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: yoobee said...

“I don't see a requirement for one to pay taxes to participate in government. The First Amendment prevents government establishing a religion, but does not say that Church leaders can never speak their mind or a minister cannot hold a public office unless the organization pays taxes. There is no such limit anywhere. Maybe you would like it to be, but it is not the state of the law currently.”

They certainly can speak their minds, but I’m concerned with the level of lobbying power they have as a religious institution.

“Furthermore, if paying taxes is a cost of participation in government, you just disenfranchised the poor with that rule. And, as Fr. Martin pointed out a couple of days ago, the Catholic Church DOES pay taxes--just not income tax. They do, however, file tax forms.”

The poor don’t pay taxes because they can’t economically afford to do so. That’s not the same case for the Church. It would be interesting to see the amount of revenue that could be collected through federal income taxes. Like I mentioned earlier, the Church has plenty of money to pay high settlement costs and legal fees resulting from this sex abuse scandal. If they want to play in politics by lobbying and so forth, they should be paying income taxes.

“Finally, regarding your comment about the Founding Fathers--which citizens decided that those things should be legal? The Supreme Court? The more than 50% of voters who believe that abortion should be outlawed at least in some cases? That number is growing by the way, and perhaps the number who want to outlaw it by a vote will do so someday. And that will be fine with you because a majority of the citizen of the country decided it.”

The citizens have decided through the system of government that was established with a constitution that begins with the words “We the people ”. The Supreme Court, as established by that constitution, has determined that women have a right to control their bodies. If the Church wants to take on abortion and contraception, let the bishops go directly to the people and convince them to not use these services. As I mentioned up thread, if they are successful, then it wouldn’t matter if these services are legal since no one will be using them. However, that will not be the case. You know, Jesus Christ never used the government of His time to create laws to force people to accept His teachings. He ministered directly to the people and allowed them to either accept or not accept His words. Why don’t the bishops following His example?; 2/11/12, 3:20 PM