Obama and his fight against religion/Catholics.

[JoeChalupa]

I didn't see a thread about all the reaction over the issue of forcing Catholic Hospitals to provide birth control. What do you all think? Over reaching?
Unconstitutional?

McCaskill: "if you really believe reducing abortions are important .. doesn’t work to keep putting up barriers to women getting birth control".

Something like 97% of Catholics use birth control and like 55% support having it made available and covered by insurance if I am not mistaken.

[clambake]

should be more concerned about the pope protecting rapist.

[clambake]

my turn......"zing"

[cheguevara]

Something like 97% of Catholics use birth control

does that include the priests?

[ChumpDumper]

It's a very dumb mandate, even though the hypocritical Catholics are dumber.

[Das Texan]

its more a rights issue than anything else.

[elbamba]

I think that when the goverment begins regulating churches it will always have the stench of a violation of the first amendment. Rightly or wrongly. I think that the Obama administration believed that because the number of women, including catholic women, who believe are okay with taking contraceptives was so high, they could pass the regulataion with little resistance. What they overlooked is that the regulation looks as if the federal government is prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[ChumpDumper]

How is insurance a religious exercise?

[ChumpDumper]

And the federal government has already legally prohibited the free exercise of religion if you have looked at the gay marriage/polygamy thread.

[JoeChalupa]

Obama will have to compromise and make an exception, IMHO.

[mrsmaalox]

I read today that 28 states have had this mandate in place for years; the Catholics are just speaking up now?

[Borat Sagyidev]

The Pope said birth control measures used for sodomy may be acceptable. I assume he meant when his bishops, cardinals and other priests molest young boys as well.

Higher authority leading humanity to the promise land.

[Wild Cobra]

I read today that 28 states have had this mandate in place for years; the Catholics are just speaking up now?
Yes, 28 states require this, but 8 of those states allow exceptions for the Catholic Hospitals.

Still, this should be a States Rights issue. Not something mandated by the federal government.

Why do so few people believe in our constitution?

Can you all sat Tenth Amendment?

[boutons_deux]

5 Big Lies About the Phony 'War on Religion'

1. Catholic employers complain about having to provide birth control coverage with health insurance.

Republican politicians and religious-right leaders—particularly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, known previously for its willingness to tank healthcare reform over private abortion coverage that women could purchase with their own money—are claiming, incredibly, that the Obama administration's ruling that birth control should be covered by health insurance without a co-pay infringes on their freedom of religion.

Santorum, a Catholic, pitched a fit over the contraception rule in Colorado on the campaign trail this week, calling Obama "hostile to people of faith, particularly Christians, and specifically Catholics."

And Mitt Romney, whose church explicitly permits birth control, nevertheless had to get in on the fun, writing an op-ed for the Washington Examiner claiming Obama is trying to “impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away.”

The Catholic bishops fought Obama's decision to provide birth control coverage at all, and then demanded an exemption that would have given religious institutions sweeping rights to deny coverage. As Amanda Marcotte noted at RH Reality Check:

“Sensibly, the Obama administration did not grant the exception, following federal tradition of protecting the religious freedom of individual employees over claims from employers that their rights trump those of employees. You can’t cut someone’s salary because they don’t share your religious belief, after all, so why should you be able to cut their benefits?”

Not only that, but NPR reported that many Catholic hospitals and universities already do offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health insurance. And a new poll shows that a majority of Americans -- and a majority of Catholics – think Catholic hospitals and universities should indeed have to offer co-pay-free birth control coverage.

So how, exactly, is this a war on religion? If anything, it's another symptom of the war on workers—employers claiming that they have the right not to provide the same coverage mandated for other employees, because of their personal beliefs. (Note that the Catholic bishops never speak out on behalf of workers' rights, though the Pope has spoken out for economic justice issues many times. They're only interested in defending the rights of the boss to impose his religious beliefs on his female employees.) The only way it becomes an attack on religion is when right-wingers lie about it.

So what is a mandate for birth control becomes, in the words of Congressman Jim Jordan, “free contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.”

There'd be nothing wrong with this if it were true—abortion is in fact a legal healthcare procedure in the United States. But the fact is that it's not even close to true – it's just another dangerous elision between contraception—which prevents pregnancy—and abortion, which terminates an existing pregnancy.

While most pro-choicers would like to see abortion covered by health insurance, that's simply not the case and was a big enough point of contention in the fight over healthcare reform that the bill nearly went down. The fact that the right is continuing to lie about it simply shows that they know the American public isn't actually on their side when they tell the truth.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/154059

[JoeChalupa]

Despite the White House spin, advisors debated and then rejected any compromise with Catholics despite Joe Biden's warnings. Put an exception for religious institutions and move on.

[boutons_deux]

If the Catholic orgs don't want to obey the law, then they can refuse govt funding.

[CosmicCowboy]

If I have understood correctly, it also includes the "Plan B" pill which is essentially an abortion pill. I'm not a pro-lifer but I can see their point.

[clambake]

the catholic church should be taxed out the ass, tbh.

[Blake]

the catholic church should be taxed out the ass, tbh.

Agreed.

A lot of different denominational churches should be taxed out the ass.

[boutons_deux]

Bishops Were Prepared for Battle Over Birth Control Coverage

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=910738&f=19

===========

Obama’s Conscience Protection Clause Has Been Upheld In Court


Julie Rovner has a good piece explaining how President Obama’s contraception regulation is modeled on existing state laws in 28 states, a December 2000 ruling by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which ruled that “failure to provide such coverage violates the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act” — and has even been upheld in several court challenges:

In 2004, the California Supreme Court upheld that state’s law, in a suit brought by Catholic Charities, on a vote of 6-1.

The court ruled that Catholic Charities didn’t qualify as a “religious employer” because it didn’t meet each of four key criteria (which, by the way, are the same as those in the new federal regulation):

The organization’s primary purpose is “the inculcation of religious values.”
It primarily employs people of that religion.
It primarily serves people of that religion.
It’s a registered nonprofit organization.

Two years later, in 2006, New York’s top state court rejected a claim by Catholic Charities and several other religious groups that the state’s contraceptive coverage law discriminated against them because it exempted churches but not their religiously-affiliated groups.

“When a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees’ legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit,” the justices wrote.

Indeed, the government should not infringe on a house of worship’s religious doctrine, but it should also protect the liberties and rights of employees who work for religiously officiated institutions that serve the public good. Colleges or universities are free to preach about the evils of contraception to their workers. Yet since 58 percent of women use contraception for medical reasons besides, or in addition to, family planning, the decision to swallow the pill should be left to the conscience of every employee and the employer should never be allowed to stand in between a woman and her doctor.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/10/422636/obamas-conscience-protection-clause-has-been-upheld-in-court/

===

iow, this practice has been in place for 10 years. The Bishop choose now to make stink for other than this reason.

[Trainwreck2100]

it's shit like this were i wonder why don't they just go to a different hospital. Especially plan B where they have 72 hours, seriously if you can't find a noncatholic hospital in 3 days you're an idiot.

[CosmicCowboy]

it's shit like this were i wonder why don't they just go to a different hospital. Especially plan B where they have 72 hours, seriously if you can't find a noncatholic hospital in 3 days you're an idiot.

:lmao

do you even know what is being discussed?

This is about requiring employers to provide free birch control and abortion inducing drugs to employees.

[Trainwreck2100]

didn't read

[boutons_deux]

I read one Constitutional lawyer who said once an employer (Catholic org) refuses to provide insurance covergae that has been paid for by /is compensation to an employee on "conscience" grounds, then almost any org can refuse almost anything to any employee on whatever grounds.

iow, if the org isn't going to provide insurance coverage (for contraception), then it shouldn't sell the insurance in the first place.

[boutons_deux]

Large Catholic Institutions Offered Contraception Even Before Required To Do So

While Republicans and the United Conference of Catholic Bishops claim that the Obama’s contraception regulation represents an “unprecedented” attack on the religious liberties of organizations that oppose the use of birth control, ThinkProgress has chronicled the growing number of institutions that are already providing the benefit as part of their overall health care coverage. For instance, Georgetown University in Washington D.C. and DePaul University in Illinois offer employees the option of receiving contraception and so do Catholic organizations across the country.

For instance, the New York Times reported in 2002 that the Catholic Archdiocese of New York extended contraception coverage before the state passed its requirement. Catholic universities, Marquette and Mount Mary in Wisconsin were also offering the benefit prior to enactment of the state’s contraception equity clause in 2010. “Marquette’s policy recognizes that a significant portion of the university’s employees are non-Catholic and that contraceptives are at times prescribed by physicians for purposes other than birth control, spokeswoman Mary Pat Pfeil said.” She stressed that “the choice to use a contraceptive is both a medical decision and a matter of conscience.”

“Our employees know what church teaching is. And we trust them to use their conscience and do the right thing,” said Brent King, spokesman for the Madison Diocese, which began covering prescription contraception Aug. 1. [...]

Diocese of Madison employees, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, sign a document when they’re hired vowing to abide by the laws of both Wisconsin and the church. He said employees would receive “strong pastoral recommendations against” using the contraception benefit, but that the diocese has no intention of policing it.

Significantly, the Obama regulation exempts churches from including the birth control benefits in their plans and would provide an a new layer of conscience protections for the state. But since most Catholic women rely on contraception, it’s likely that many may still offer the benefit.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/09/422281/large-catholic-institutions-offered-contraception-even-before-mandated-to-do-so/

[mercos]

I agree with the decision as a matter of policy, but it was stupid politics. The Obama administration just gave the GOP the fuel it needed to start up the culture wars again. With the economy looking better they needed something to hit Obama with and he gave it to them foolishly. This is not the kind of decision you want to make in an election year. Rookie mistake by Obama that matches Romney's "I'm not concerned about the poor" gaffe.

[clambake]

I agree with the decision as a matter of policy, but it was stupid politics. The Obama administration just gave the GOP the fuel it needed to start up the culture wars again. With the economy looking better they needed something to hit Obama with and he gave it to them foolishly. This is not the kind of decision you want to make in an election year. Rookie mistake by Obama that matches Romney's "I'm not concerned about the poor" gaffe.

some culture.

only fox news would defend a religion that rapes children.

[boutons_deux]

GOP doesn't need fuel, other than their own inflammable breath and farts, to start a culture war.

[CosmicCowboy]

Obama just folded. Catholic hospitals and charities will be exempt.

[clambake]

of course he folded.

[Wild Cobra]

Love to play poker with him sometime.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hmmm...

got that originally on my iphone from a CNN news flash.

Maybe not such a fold as originally claimed...

Really just semantics...the insurance companies have to furnish it free, not the churches...WTF? Thats no difference...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions."

[clambake]

they're just trying to paint him as a religious hater.

still disgusting that fox news is defending a religion that rapes children.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm...

got that originally on my iphone from a CNN news flash.

Maybe not such a fold as originally claimed...

Really just semantics...the insurance companies have to furnish it free, not the churches...WTF? Thats no difference...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions."
Maybe the difference is they aren't required to dispense prescription birth control.

[CosmicCowboy]

Maybe the difference is they aren't required to dispense prescription birth control.

no difference

[CosmicCowboy]

they're just trying to paint him as a religious hater.

still disgusting that fox news is defending a religion that rapes children.

Technically it's the US Constitution that defends religious freedom.

[clambake]

religions shouldn't feel free to rape children.

[CosmicCowboy]

religions shouldn't feel free to rape children.

I agree, but your condemnation of Fox is pretty weak. I seriously doubt anyone at Fox condones raping children either.

[clambake]

I agree, but your condemnation of Fox is pretty weak. I seriously doubt anyone at Fox condones raping children either.

i watch fox all the time. they avoid that subject altogether.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Oh the Utopia clammy dreams about :lol

[clambake]

Oh the Utopia clammy dreams about :lol

naw, just commenting on how fox will bottom feed.

just like you did when you were praying for "b' girl" to be true.

[CosmicCowboy]

i watch fox all the time. they avoid that subject altogether.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/9/20/f030ffa4-b92d-402c-aee4-4549daed726a.jpg

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Fox+News+priest+scandal

[Warlord23]

For those of you that agree with the Catholics' indignation in this matter, if this had been a case of Islamic charities refusing to provide coverage for female employees who are victims of domestic violence because their holy book actually advocates wife-beating ... would you support their right to deny such coverage because it is important to their faith?

[clambake]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/9/20/f030ffa4-b92d-402c-aee4-4549daed726a.jpg

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Fox+News+priest+scandal

only took them 3 weeks to forget about that.

not bad.

[CosmicCowboy]

For those of you that agree with the Catholics' indignation in this matter, if this had been a case of Islamic charities refusing to provide coverage for female employees who are victims of domestic violence because their holy book actually advocates wife-beating ... would you support their right to deny such coverage because it is important to their faith?

Pretty weak analogy. The precedent for certain religious beliefs being illegal is clearly established. The one you mentioned being one...Polygamy being another that immediately comes to mind...

[CosmicCowboy]

only took them 3 weeks to forget about that.

not bad.

*spinning tires in reverse*

[clambake]

*spinning tires in reverse*

fox could gain points like this:

bishop: "we're outraged about this birth control thingy"

fox talking head: "where do religious leaders that routinely rape children get the balls to bitch about anything?"

[CosmicCowboy]

fox could gain points like this:

bishop: "we're outraged about this birth control thingy"

fox talking head: "where do religious leaders that routinely rape children get the balls to bitch about anything?"

Last I checked that would not qualify as "reporting the news".

[clambake]

Last I checked that would not qualify as "reporting the news".

touched a nerve with cc.

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty weak analogy. The precedent for certain religious beliefs being illegal is clearly established. The one you mentioned being one...Polygamy being another that immediately comes to mind...So why can't denying a benefit due to religious belief be illegal?

[ElNono]

For those of you that agree with the Catholics' indignation in this matter, if this had been a case of Islamic charities refusing to provide coverage for female employees who are victims of domestic violence because their holy book actually advocates wife-beating ... would you support their right to deny such coverage because it is important to their faith?

Sharia Law!

[CosmicCowboy]

touched a nerve with cc.

Not a bit. As I have stated many times in here you guys constantly confuse Fox NEWS (Shepard Smith for one being pretty fair and impartial) with Fox commentators (OReilly, Hannity, etc.) which are NOT news and don't claim to be.

[CosmicCowboy]

So why can't denying a benefit due to religious belief be illegal?

Well, you can start with the very definition of "benefit"...it's something freely given and not mandated.

[clambake]

fox, cnn, whoever should limit catholic news to nothing but child rape.

[Warlord23]

Pretty weak analogy. The precedent for certain religious beliefs being illegal is clearly established. The one you mentioned being one...Polygamy being another that immediately comes to mind...

The legality of wife-beating isn't relevant here. The Islamic organization is not promoting/condoning wife-beating, it simply doesn't recognize wife-beating as a valid reason for medical coverage.

In both cases (the Catholic one and my fictional analogy),
- the woman needs medical assistance
- according to the employer, the need for which medical assistance is sought is incompatible with the teachings of their faith

[CosmicCowboy]

And BTW, I could give a shit one way or the other on this issue. I am by no stretch defending the catholic churches position on contraception or abortion...just their constitutional right to have a position.

[CosmicCowboy]

The legality of wife-beating isn't relevant here. The Islamic organization is not promoting/condoning wife-beating, it simply doesn't recognize wife-beating as a valid reason for medical coverage.

In both cases (the Catholic one and my fictional analogy),
- the woman needs medical assistance
- according to the employer, the need for which medical assistance is sought is incompatible with the teachings of their faith

I choose not to debate your fictional analogy.

[clambake]

And BTW, I could give a shit one way or the other on this issue. I am by no stretch defending the catholic churches position on contraception or abortion...just their constitutional right to have a position.

thats what i'm saying. their behavior hasn't earned constitutional rights. and we should tax the holy fucking shit out of them.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, you can start with the very definition of "benefit"...it's something freely given and not mandated.Unless it is mandated.

So why could it not be illegal?

[ChumpDumper]

And BTW, I could give a shit one way or the other on this issue. I am by no stretch defending the catholic churches position on contraception or abortion...just their constitutional right to have a position.People who believe in polygamy have a constitutional right to their position too.

[CosmicCowboy]

thats what i'm saying. their behavior hasn't earned constitutional rights. and we should tax the holy fucking shit out of them.

The issue of whether churches and non-profits should or should not be taxed is not addressed in the constitution. It's basically just a tax code issue as far as i know. I can see both sides of the argument.

[johnsmith]

I'm Catholic and I haven't raped any kids.........yet.

[CosmicCowboy]

People who believe in polygamy have a constitutional right to their position too.

I believe the Supreme Court in Reynolds vs. US disagreed with chumpdumper.

[clambake]

The issue of whether churches and non-profits should or should not be taxed is not addressed in the constitution. It's basically just a tax code issue as far as i know. I can see both sides of the argument.

cool. i would like for them to be the first example. as punishment.

[clambake]

I'm Catholic and I haven't raped any kids.........yet.

well....you're just not trying.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not a bit. As I have stated many times in here you guys constantly confuse Fox NEWS (Shepard Smith for one being pretty fair and impartial) with Fox commentators (OReilly, Hannity, etc.) which are NOT news and don't claim to be.

And I have stated many times that you have idea how a news cast's material is selected or how that can have an impact. Just because the talking heads do not get angry and spit vitriol about Democrats does not mean that what they do choose to talk about can slant things one way or another.


Its not a hard concept and its been shown as with the case of Ron Paul how they do that. That you think that their news cast is not slanted just further's my views on your acumen labor and entitlement boy.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe the Supreme Court disagrees with chumpdumper.Actually no. They agree that they can hold any position they want.

They just can't act on the one about polygamy.

I don't see how this is any different.

[TeyshaBlue]

well....you're just not trying.

:lmao

[johnsmith]

well....you're just not trying.

Noted.....more effort to follow.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually no. They agree that they can hold any position they want.

They just can't act on the one about polygamy.

I don't see how this is any different.

The difference seems to be in prohibiting an action as opposed to REQUIRING an action.

[ChumpDumper]

The difference seems to be in prohibiting an action as opposed to REQUIRING an action.It's prohibiting their choice to ignore a law due to religious belief.

Same thing.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's prohibiting their choice to ignore a law due to religious belief.

Same thing.

But the law doesn't require them to offer insurance at all.

[ChumpDumper]

But the law doesn't require them to offer insurance at all.The law doesn't require polygamists to marry anyone at all.

[CosmicCowboy]

The law doesn't require polygamists to marry anyone at all.

pffffft

you can do better than that.

see definition of polygamy.

[ChumpDumper]

pffffft

you can do better than that.

see definition of polygamy.I did. You can believe in polygamy without doing it.

Sorry your sauce is weak.

[johnsmith]

TBH this whole argument you guys are having is sort of weak.

[johnsmith]

Hey Chump, what part of Austin do you live in?

[CosmicCowboy]

I did. You can believe in polygamy without doing it.

Sorry your sauce is weak.

Believing in polygamy doesn't make you a polygamist.

Weak sauce my ass...:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

TBH this whole argument you guys are having is sort of weak.

:lol

I'll agree with that. Typical Chump ankle biting.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hey Chump, what part of Austin do you live in?

Do you live on a north facing flag lot?...

[johnsmith]

Do you live on a north facing flag lot?...

I guess i'm going to have to plead ignorant on this one because I don't get it?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chump, what part of Austin do you live in?Arboretum.


Believing in polygamy doesn't make you a polygamist.It makes you believe in polygamy. That belief is legal.

[clambake]

I guess i'm going to have to plead ignorant on this one because I don't get it?

it was a shot at wild cobra. :lol

[johnsmith]

Arboretum.

It makes you believe in polygamy. That belief is legal.

I made the move up here about a year ago now.....I fucking love this city....It reminds me of Denver a bit......plus, it's not San Antonio, and that's a good thing.

[EVAY]

For those of you that agree with the Catholics' indignation in this matter, if this had been a case of Islamic charities refusing to provide coverage for female employees who are victims of domestic violence because their holy book actually advocates wife-beating ... would you support their right to deny such coverage because it is important to their faith?

Thank you.

[EVAY]

sorry, but I believe that the Catholic Church would rather get the public focusing on Obama than on their own sex scandals with young boys.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then basically Catholic hospitals can do whatever they want despite the AMA, FDA or whatever if they pass it off as a religious belief?

I have a solution: get out of health care if you don't want to play by the rules.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

sorry, but I believe that the Catholic Church would rather get the public focusing on Obama than on their own sex scandals with young boys.

With consumer confidence and employment figures up the GOP has to talk about something.

[Nbadan]

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii528/DUpoliticalcartoons3/106079_600.jpg

[Viva Las Espuelas]

With consumer confidence and employment figures up

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_/138670145.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access under the banner of "religous freedom," Obama finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of religiously affiliated employers who don't want to offer birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox, contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it's cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there's very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are unaware they're eligible.

That's the nitty-gritty. The fun part of this is that Obama just pulled a fast one on Republicans. He drew this out for two weeks, letting Republicans work themselves into a frenzy of anti-contraception rhetoric, all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty, and then created a compromise that addressed their purported concerns but without actually reducing women's access to contraception, which is what this has always been about. (As Dana Goldstein reported in 2010, before the religious liberty gambit was brought up, the Catholic bishops were just demanding that women be denied access and told to abstain from sex instead.) With the fig leaf of religious liberty removed, Republicans are in a bad situation. They can either drop this and slink away knowing they've been punked, or they can double down. But in order to do so, they'll have to be more blatantly anti-contraception, a politically toxic move in a country where 99% of women have used contraception.

My guess is that they'll take their knocks and go home, but a lot of the damage has already been done. Romney was provoked repeatedly to go on the record saying negative things about contraception. Sure, it was in the frame of concern about religious liberty, but as this incident fades into memory, what most people will remember is that Republicans picked a fight with Obama over contraception coverage and lost. This also gave Obama a chance to highlight this benefit and take full credit for it. Obama needs young female voters to turn out at the polls in November, and hijacking two weeks of the news cycle to send the message that he's going to get you your birth control for free is a big win for him in that department. I expect to see some ads in the fall showing Romney saying hostile things about contraception and health care reform, with the message that free birth control is going away if he's elected. It's all so perfect that I'm inclined to think this was Obama's plan all along.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/10/obama_riled_up_republicans_on_contraception_and_th en_delivers_a_knock_out_punch_.html

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually I think this is far from over. You can declare victory if you want to but IMHO it's a little early. The religious organizations still have to pay the premiums to buy the insurance the insurance companies are required to provide. Unlike you, Boutons, most intelligent people can clearly see that.

[boutons_deux]

Since you businessmen commonly fire women for getting pregnant or sick while underpaying them 20% less for the same job as a man, the objective was provide contraception for women as preventative health measure.

Mission Fucking Accomplished.

[CosmicCowboy]

Since you businessmen commonly fire women for getting pregnant or sick while underpaying them 20% less for the same job as a man, the objective was provide contraception for women as preventative health measure.

Mission Fucking Accomplished.

Fucking loser.

The only female that works for me makes $52,000 a year and gets full insurance provided for her and her family on my dime.

GFY

[xrayzebra]

Fucking loser.

The only female that works for me makes $52,000 a year and gets full insurance provided for her and her family on my dime.

GFY

Hey CC cut him some slack, he hasn't worked in so long he doesn't
remember the rules. His moma just points him at the computer and
he stays out her hair until it's time for his warm milk and beddy.

Only problem she has that he keeps sucking on that thumb and screwing
the keyboard up with all his slobber.

Besides he will report you to Media Matters and Moveon.org and
Big Sis.

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Fucking loser.

The only female that works for me makes $52,000 a year and gets full insurance provided for her and her family on my dime.

GFYContraception included?

[SA210]

Obama and his fight against religion/Catholics.

Obama??......fight???

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, John Edwards was the fighter. God knows how much product he used on that cowlick he had that one time.

[boutons_deux]

GOP Continues To Oppose Contraception Coverage Plan Now Supported By Large Catholic Institutions

Peterson Beadle on Feb 12, 2012 at 11:50 am

The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops almost immediately rejected a compromise on requiring contraception coverage that the Obama administration announced on Friday, and Republicans have continued to attack the accommodation. Under the compromise, religious institutions will not be required to provide contraceptive coverage because insurers will provide contraception directly to employees at no cost, completely removing religious institutions from the equation. But this deal was not enough to satisfy conservative opposition.

On ABC’s This Week, Rep. Paul Ryan echoed the Republican objection of contraception coverage. Ryan told host George Stephanopolous the compromise is nothing more than a “fig leaf” and an “accounting trick”:

RYAN: To paraphrase the bishops’ letter, this thing, it’s a distinction without a difference. It’s an accounting gimmick or a fig leaf. It’s not a compromise. The president’s doubled down. [...] If this is what the president’s willing to do in a tough election year, imagine what he’s going to do to implement the rest of his health care law after an election.

STEPHANOPOLOUS: You heard Jack Lew right there, this is not going to force the institutions to pay for the coverage. [...]

RYAN: It’s a distinction without a difference. This is an accounting trick.

Watch his interview:

Ryan’s own heavily-Catholic home state of Wisconsin currently mandates contraception coverage without any exclusion for religious institutions. As ThinkProgress reported, Marquette University, a Jesuit institution located in Milwaukee, even decided to offer contraception coverage prior to the state’s mandate.

And Ryan and his Republican colleagues are arguing against a policy that a majority of Catholic voters support and that major Catholic organizations favor, including the Catholic Health Association, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities and Catholic Charities USA. The Rev. John Jenkins, president of the Catholic-affiliated University of Notre Dame, supported President Obama’s compromise, calling it a “a welcome step toward recognizing the freedom of religious institutions to abide by the principles that define their respective missions.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/12/423563/gop-continues-to-oppose-contraception-coverage-plan-now-supported-by-large-catholic-institutions/

=========

Repugs inflaming battles everywhere in their America-polarizing culture wars, Guns, Gays, God, Muslim n!gg@ foreigner in the WH, misogynistic war on women's vaginas, abortion, contraception, etc, etc.

[CosmicCowboy]

Can you not see the distinction between an employer CHOOSING to offer it as a benefit and being FORCED to offer it by the Federal Government?

[ChumpDumper]

Can you not see the distinction between an employer CHOOSING to offer it as a benefit and being FORCED to offer it by the Federal Government?I can see an employer's trying to get out of obeying a law on religious grounds.

The Supreme Court says that won't work in the case you cited.

[boutons_deux]

Cherry picking the laws you want to disobey based on your moral position is and always will be.

What if your employer was a Scientology asshole and you weren't, and decided to disobey the law based on Scientology "morals"?

If you want to have an organization where you hire only consenting members of your moral persuasion AND you refused all taxpayer funds, then run your org according to whatever "morals" you want. Once you start accepting taxpayer funds, you must obey the law.

[boutons_deux]

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.


Noted attorney David Boise explains that freedom of religion as outlined in the Constitution is quite different from the bishops’ version:

Everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose. [But] there isn`t anything in the Constitution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12727/contrived_catholic_contraception_controversy_is_a_ workers_rights_issue/

[ploto]

The dumbest part of this whole argument is that many of these institutions already provide prescription coverage that includes birth control pills. In fact, there are many women who take them for purposes other than for contraception and they are easily covered. All you need is a diagnosis of dysmenorrhea or some other menstrual irregularity for your physician to claim they are medically mandated. I know physicians at Catholic medical institutions who do that for their patients.

[SA210]

Yeah, John Edwards was the fighter. God knows how much product he used on that cowlick he had that one time.

Iwcupp82I3A


:lmao

[boutons_deux]

Obama Didn't Cave on Birth Control


Everyone who was going to get birth control coverage before will still have access to it. Employees of Catholic schools and hospitals aren't always Catholic, and most sexually active women who aren't trying to get pregnant use birth control [2]. The new rule will not allow the religious views of the leadership of religiously-affiliated organizations to dictate whether birth control is provided to their employees. The intent of the first version of the rule was to make birth control easier to get. The new rule will achieve that goal. "No woman's health should depend on who she is, where she works, or how much money she makes," Obama said in his statement. This policy ensures that.

The coverage will still feature no copayments. The insurance companies that are being required to offer birth control coverage directly to the employees of religious organizations will have to offer it for free. There will be no difference in cost between the plan that covers birth control and the plan that doesn't. The Obama administration justifies this by noting that studies suggest that covering birth control is cost-neutral or even saves money for health insurers [3] because it's cheaper than pregnancy; it spaces out pregnancies, leading to healthier kids, and has other beneficial health effects [4].

The policy change still won't satisfy the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposed the birth control provision from the start [1]. It's not a cave if your opponents aren't getting what they actually want. What the bishops desire is for the entire birth control rule to be repealed. They believe that no employer [5]—religious affiliation or not—should be required to offer birth control coverage. UPDATE, Friday 3:45 EST: The bishops have released a statement on the policy change [6] that says they're "studying" it and it's a "first step in the right direction." It's unclear whether they'll ultimately retreat from their original position or simply say this attempt is a good step but not sufficient.

The most important reproductive rights groups—Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, and so on—all support the policy shift. You can bet that these politically savvy groups would be hollering to high heaven if they thought that women had been betrayed.

This whole scuffle was an intriguing policy dilemma, pitting women's health advocates versus faith leaders waving the banner of religious freedom. But with this move, Obama has demonstrated that it's possible to sidestep the red-hot politics of the dispute and work out a reasonable policy outcome that's backed by reproductive rights groups and the Catholic Health Association [1]. It's not likely, though, that the social conservatives who have bashed Obama as an implacable foe of religious freedom will give it a rest.

http://motherjones.com/print/161931

=======

Repugs were further graved into their tombstones as misogynists, as fake moral dictators obsessed with pussies and sex.

[boutons_deux]

Democratic Women Boycott House Contraception Hearing After Republicans Prevent Women From Testifying

This morning, Democrats tore into House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for preventing women from testifying before a hearing examining the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Republicans oppose the administration’s rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women.

Ranking committee member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) had asked Issa to include a female witness at the hearing, but the Chairman refused, arguing that “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/16/426850/democratic-women-boycott-issas-contraception-hearing-for-preventing-women-from-testifying/

Repugs campaigning hard for the misogynist vote.

Repugs hate big govt and love "freedom and liberty", but want to allow UCA business managers into gynecologists making health care decisions.

[Winehole23]

For the second time in a year, the Obama administration has backtracked on its requirement to make religious institutions pay for contraception.


A new policy announced Friday further expanded the exemption to Obamacare: Women will still be able to get the same health benefits, but certain religious employers won’t have to pay for them. Instead, institutions that insure themselves can use a third-party to find a separate health insurance plan to pay for and provide the contraceptives.

(http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-administration-changes-contraception-rules-87072.html#continue) http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/4640965876105127104 (http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=L&ai=BMGQ6Uv8LUceiD-vO2QWl2oGYBO2T-fkCAAAAEAEgADgAUImG1coFWLXgr-pEYMnW5YzkpPATggEXY2EtcHViLTkzMTc5MDI2NjEyMTg2OTOy ARB3d3cucG9saXRpY28uY29tugEJZ2ZwX2ltYWdlyAEC2gFhaH R0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xpdGljby5jb20vc3RvcnkvMjAxMy8wMi9v YmFtYS1hZG1pbmlzdHJhdGlvbi1jaGFuZ2VzLWNvbnRyYWNlcH Rpb24tcnVsZXMtODcwNzIuaHRtbMACAuACAOoCHjYzMjYvcG9s aXRpY28vaGVhbHRoY2FyZS1zdG9yefgCgtIegAMBkAPoApgDpA OoAwHgBAHSBQIIAaAGFA&num=0&sig=AOD64_2rjnNVfbqo9DBVkJz_ubo5J28qkA&client=ca-pub-9317902661218693&adurl=http://www.politico.com)

Facing outrage from institutions that objected to the contraception requirement on moral grounds, the administration had already exempted some religious institutions — churches were always exempt — from requiring contraception coverage last year. Then, Obama exempted some religiously affiliated institutions, such as evangelical Christian schools or Catholic hospitals, from covering contraception in their plans, forcing insurers to offer free contraception to those employed by them.


Friday’s shift broadened the definition of which groups would be exempt and addressed where the money to pay for the guaranteed coverage would come from so that religious groups wouldn’t be paying even indirectly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-administration-changes-contraception-rules-87072.html#ixzz2JfZaMhAB

[Winehole23]

Women will get a small separate insurance policy that covers contraception that is not paid for by the religious employer and does not cost the woman anything. Costs will be covered by fees insurers pay to participate in the new federal health exchanges being set up under Obamacare.


The new policy also expands the definition of “religious employer,” potentially allowing more institutions to get out of the requirement. The new policy eliminates the requirement that they have religious values in their purpose, employ people of the same religion and primarily serve people with the same religious values.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-administration-changes-contraception-rules-87072.html#ixzz2JffUYWj8

[Winehole23]

so much for Obama's war on Catholics . . .

[TeyshaBlue]

Them Catholics done kicked his ass.

[TeyshaBlue]

Probably want to revisit the OP "Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception "

[boutons_deux]

Barry "taking over health care" like an insane dictator. right-wing fucktards WRONG AGAIN.

[TeyshaBlue]

'sup, coward?

[boutons_deux]

'sup, stalker?

[TeyshaBlue]

dont confuse mocking with stalking, coward.

[redzero]

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/ii528/DUpoliticalcartoons3/106079_600.jpg

Aw, the Catholic Tea Party is handing out contraceptives and birth control. How nice.

[boutons_deux]

dont confuse mocking with stalking, coward.

'sup, stalker?

[Trainwreck2100]

congratulations women you can be whores for free while us males have to pay for our contraception

[Wild Cobra]

congratulations women you can be whores for free while us males have to pay for our contraception
And i thought women wanted equality...

[Winehole23]

congratulations women you can be whores for free while us males have to pay for our contraceptionat least viagra is covered. that's a real medical condition . . .

[Trainwreck2100]

at least viagra is covered. that's a real medical condition . . .

viagra is not contaception, and if it meant women's didn't get free whore pills while i have to pay for dick wraps i'd say take the damn viagra off.

[Winehole23]

well, it's still covered. bet you could get free dick wraps at Planned Parenthood if you cared so much.

[Trainwreck2100]

Maybe i don't want those free planned parenthood dick wraps that cost $6 for 60, that comes out to .10 cents a day 3.00 a month while women get pills that are 50 a month which is a huge difference. I should be able to get the expensive shit covered by the insurance like women do.

[boutons_deux]

now that this "I can impose my morals on my employees" slippery slope has been been stepped onto, expect more self-righteous "Christian" authoritarians to start inflicting other aspects of their moral code on employees and customers, who are mostly in a weak position to resist due to the weak job market.

[Winehole23]

Maybe i don't want those free planned parenthood dick wraps that cost $6 for 60, that comes out to .10 cents a day 3.00 a month while women get pills that are 50 a month which is a huge difference. I should be able to get the expensive shit covered by the insurance like women do.:cry

[exstatic]

congratulations women you can be whores for free while us males have to pay for our contraception

You must not want sex very much if the cost of a rubber is deterring you...

[Trainwreck2100]

it's not about cost it is about fairness

[spursncowboys]

it's not about cost it is about fairness

Fairness...What are you a liberal?

[leemajors]

Has TW had condomless sex yet? I am assuming he finally lost his cherry here.

[Blake]

Christopher Brandlin was born Catholic, raised Catholic, went to Catholic school and wore a flag-themed cross over his flag-themed tie for President Donald Trump’s appearance Thursday in Las Vegas.

Yet in the dispute between Trump and Pope Leo XIV over the Iran war, Brandlin believes it’s the pontiff, not the president, who’s in the wrong.

Pope Leo is “actually using more politics than he should,” Brandlin, a Republican candidate for a Nevada state Assembly seat, said in an interview.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-voters-say-pope-stay-lane-fight-iran-war-rcna331604

Hard core Catholics like this are still actually choosing Trump over the Pope.