Critics of the Obama administration's policy on contraception coverage are eager, if not desperate, to put a faith-based spin on their condemnations. "This is not a women's rights issue," Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said yesterday. "This is a religious liberty issue."
As a political matter, it's easy to understand the motivation for the misleading spin. For one thing, modern birth control is popular, and Obama's detractors don't want to be seen as out of touch. For another, Republicans in particular see value in attacking the president over religion, as part of a larger culture war/electoral strategy.
Once in a while, though, we see a more candid and forthcoming perspective.
The White House is "all talk, no action" on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular," Picarello said. "We're not going to do anything until this is fixed."
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for "good Catholic business people who can't in good conscience cooperate with this."
"If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate," Picarello said.
As Jamelle Bouie explained, "In other words, if a Catholic so much as opens a business -- even if it's secular -- they should be allowed to discriminate and deny birth-control coverage to their female employees, in effect, charging them a fine for having two XX chromosomes."
The White House is likely to find it difficult to negotiate with a position like this one. After all, it is, at its core, anti-birth control.
Also note, some of the political players have been just as candid.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rick Santorum argued several months ago, "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that's okay, contraception is okay.' It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
When critics say, "It's not about contraception," a whole lot of them mean, "It's about contraception."
Leave a Comment:
It's about contraception... AND it's about conservatives that don't like the fact that some women enjoy sex with people to whom they are not married.
"AND it's about conservatives that don't like the fact that some women enjoy sex."
FIFY
Even women in their marriage. Not everyone wants to have seven children. That's "family planning" in my neighborhood.
If it had been up to the bishops, my (now ex-) wife and I would have had to give up sex when she was 30, since her doctor advised her that she would never have survived another pregnancy. No contraception, no sterilization, no divorce.
So, yeah, it's about the Church having a problem with women having sex. Full stop.
Yep - sex for any reason other than to procreate is just wrong in the church's eyes. But don't tell that to all those Catholic priests who ... well, you know.
No wonder I stopped being Catholic a long time ago.
I left the Church a few years ago too (I'm now Episcopalian). I just couldn't bring myself to put another dollar into the collection plate and contribute a to corrupt, self-serving hierarchy.
Between the years of 1907 and 2008, only 77 women have been elected to the Oklahoma state legislature, and currently less than 20 is serving out of a total 149. But who better to pass laws about women’s bodies than a group of men who will never have to worry about the consequences of their religious zealotry?
And then there is Sally Kern.
Too bad your employer has to be the provider of your (affordable) health coverage options.
I tried to do some reading on Catholic ideas about contraception from books I've got on my shelves. I came up surprisingly empty. The Catechism doesn't appear to have anything at all in it about contraception. I also came up empty with Vatican II documents. I got some joy with some other texts, but nothing that really clarified anything. In fact, I found what seems to me a strange example of cognitive dissonance. Or at least an inability to think clearly.
In Familiaris consortio I found something which at first began very well: "Thus the Church condemns as a grave offense against human dignity and justice all those activities of government or other public authorities which attempt to limit in any way the freedom of couples in deciding about children." If it stopped there, things would be fine, but the next sentence reads: "Consequently any violence applied by such authorities in favor of contraception or, still worse, of sterilization and procured abortion, must be altogether condemned and forcibly rejected." Say what?
I find it hard to wrap my head around the notion that, in order to preserve the freedom of couples to make their own decisions about children, governments are obligated to prohibit contraception and abortion. Equating voluntary contraception and abortion with forced sterilization (which this passage seems to be doing) is equally nonsensical, but I just can't get by the argument that freedom of choice is preserved by prohibiting actual choice.
I'm sure I could find plenty online about Catholic dogma concerning contraception, but I'm not sure I want to go down this particular rabbit hole any further unless someone with a Catholic background can explain to me the logic of what I've come across so far.
Here is my nutshell understanding:
That's the nutshell. If you crack the nuts I think what you find inside is the fear that the subjugated will be free to ignore the exertions of the ancient regime.
In other words... sing along with me...
DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.
PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!
NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
John, I have no doubt that you are essentially right that people who are opposed to contraception do so more or less on the grounds you laid out. It's kind of obvious. I'm more bothered by my inability to see any logical connection between the two sentences I quoted. One sentence may follow the other in sequence, but the thought of the second sentence does not follow from the first. Sticking the word "consequently" at the front of the second sentence doesn't change that. Maybe those two sentences would make more sense in Latin, but I doubt it.
The only reason I had avoided making this Monty Python Reference was that I was waiting to see if anyone else would make it.
You have Restored my Faith in Humanity.
God Bless you sir.
You're welcome Vox except that I am not a sir. I have lady parts. ;-)
You think you have lady parts, but if the GOP gets their way, come November, those lady parts belong to the State.
The GOP wouldn't be interested in my lady parts as they shut down a few years ago. In fact they probably think I am a burden to society since I can no longer produce offspring (never did actually). Producing offspring is the only function the GOP think women have or ought to have.
I never had kids, either. That was definitely the smart thing to do in my case. After all, if I can kill a pet rock through neglect... Anyway, there's more than enough people breeding all over the place without my contribution.
I keep waiting to hear someone in this discussion over the coverage of birth control for Catholic-owned businesses bring up other medical conflicts with other religions. If the Catholics can successfully fight this what is to stop a Jehovah's Witness business from denying covereage for blood transfusions or Christian Scientists from denying medical insurance at all. Catholics aren't the only religion to make irrational doctrinal demands in regards to health care issues. PLEASE Rachel M., will someone instill this into the debate.
I was raised a Seventh-day Adventists who are against drinking and eating meat. Should their hospitals and universities be allowed to not cover treatment or preventive medication for heart disease or alcohol-related illnesses or injuries (driving while under the influence)? How about Mormons? Couldn't they, then, decide their institutions deny coverage for sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies out of wedlock as they are a family based religion, doctrinally? I find this excuse by the Catholics making it, not only riduculous, but dangerous as well.
^^^ This.
How does that affect observant Jews, for whom pikuach nefesh is (almost) the highest religious commandment of all?
This is yet another issue that will open a little door to big problems. The above posters are 100% spot on about other religious exemptions. Also if we start allowing business to claim religious exemptions where does it end? Do new businesses affiliate themselves with churches in some way to avoid things they don't like? Since some say it is against Biblical principles to be gay.Can businesses then discriminate against gay workers on the basis of religious freedom if they decide to properly align themselves with a Southern Baptist church?
Secondly, if the church is claiming hospitals and universities as part of the church for this purpose then the public should be able to claim them as part of the church and have all medical service fees, tuition, etc. become tax deductible.
This is bigger than this issue. This is a precedent that doesn't need setting!
I don't know how many times I can post this - been doing it all day @ every blog I can find:
To me the point isn't even secular v. church.
This is a simple case of everyone has to obey the laws of the land.
Example, if a person is a janitor for a church, he might say, "Don't pay me because I love my church and just want to contribute." But the church really can't do that. They must, at least, issue a 1099 that states the equivalent pay that was donated. Also, the church must provide workers comp. ins., pay FICA taxes, follow OHSA regs. regarding work place safety, such as labeling of chemicals, etc.
So, if you are an employer, you must follow the rules/laws. No employer I ever worked for got an "exemption" for any of the laws mentioned above.
I would like to see U.S. Catholics who disagree with the Church's contraception policy stage a silent protest by putting Monopoly money in the contribution envelopes on Sunday. That would bring the Bishops Conference to its knees when churches across the country get no real money. The reason why I suggest this action is because each church sends some money to its diocese.
How about either condoms or empty pill cases?
That works too.
Or the receipt from the pharmacy for their pills.
Seriously, at the very least every woman attending a Catholic Church should take the equivalent of what she paid for the Pill and deduct it from what she pays the Church and make a note, e.g., Donation = $100 - $75 for perscription = net $25 in the collection plate.
I also like the idea that the Catholic Church needs to demand that a vasectomy can't be covered because the ONLY reason for that is to prevent conception.
See what the men have to say about it!
Would a vegan business owner ever demand that insurance companies come up with a special policy that doesn't cover cholesterol drugs, even though they hire carnivores? This is all about legal discrimination combined with continued government funding.
When I worked for several years for Centura Health, a part of Catholic Health Initiatives in colorado, they never asked me when they hired me if I believed in their religion. They never explained that I shouldn't get any contraception from my doctor and pharmacy. Unless they begin to use only Nuns and Catholics, they should be providing any kind of health care that an employee of theirs needs and wants. I don't believe in Viagra, does that mean I can hire a thousand people and insure them, except no viagra? Centura Health hires thousands of people, and in Colorado, there are less Catholics hired than Protestants and atheists. Where are my rights? My neighbor gets contraception covered by her employer, and I would have to pay for mine? My rights allow me to have my own religion. There is no state OR Employer forced religion. That's my right.
So who are these people that can afford to have unlimited children these days? Only the people who are already rich like Romney or who have gotten rich on the public's dime by running repeatedly for office and getting lucrative 'consultancies' after serving, a la Santorum et al. What is the goal of trying to impose large families on married couples when one of the major purposes they served in earlier times was much needed labor on family farms.
Oh, I guess that is it. Agribusiness must want peons...
In the 50s, there were always a few families in small town Iowa that were good Catholics and looked like the Duggars--14 or more children. They were always dirt poor, had holes in their shoes, underweight, sickly, never had money for a popsicle or milk money (3 cents) at school. This is precisely why birth control was allowed. Sure, it brought out some promiscuity and lack of fear, but STDs settled that back down. Contraceptives are family planning, unless you are as good a Catholic as Santorum. 98% of Catholics use family planning too. I don't know a Catholic anymore that has more than 3 children.
I keep waiting to hear someone in this discussion over the coverage of birth control for Catholic-owned businesses bring up other medical conflicts with other religions. If the Catholics can successfully fight this what is to stop a Jehovah's Witness business from denying covereage for blood transfusions or Christian Scientists from denying medical insurance at all. Catholics aren't the only religion to make irrational doctrinal demands in regards to health care issues. PLEASE Rachel M., will someone include this into the debate.
I was raised a Seventh-day Adventists who are against drinking and eating meat. Should their hospitals and universities be allowed to not cover treatment or preventive medication for heart disease or alcohol-related illnesses or injuries (driving while under the influence)? How about Mormons? Couldn't they, then, decide their institutions deny coverage for sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies out of wedlock as they are a family based religion, doctrinally? I find this excuse by the Catholics making it, not only riduculous, but dangerous as well.
My family doctor when I was growing up WAS a Jehovah's Witness. A family member had a bad accident, and he asked my aunt and uncle if they wanted blood transfusions if they needed it. They, of course, said yes. He went into the surgery to let the OR team know that if they needed blood, they were to supply it. He knew his beliefs were not the law for his patients. His priority was his patient's rights.
The war on religion is more like the war on women, birth control, abortion, etc...How much would it cost a woman for birth control, say the pill if she didn't have it covered by her healthcare plan?
I haven't used the Pill in years so out of curiosity, I ran a quick search that shows different varieties were from $58 - $85/mo. If you get them from say, Planned Parenthood, they're $15-$50/mo.
This seems like a good place to mention that come August of this year, birth control becomes free for those who have insurance, courtesy of the ACA:
Birth Control Free For All: New Insurance Rules Affect Millions of Women
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/birth-control-free-insurance-rules-affect-millions-women/story?id=14202111
Beginning Aug. 1, 2012, all private insurance plans will be required to cover women's preventive services without a co-pay or deductible. The move is intended to help women have the chance to stop health problems before they start.
"We know that half of women, according to studies, forego or delay preventive care because they can't afford it and under the affordable care act that all changes," Stephanie Cutter, a White House advisor, told ABC News.
(Coverage) will be co-pay or deductible-free (for) well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, breast-feeding support, domestic violence screening and all FDA approved birth control methods -- including emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill.
I used to pay $58 for a low dose contraceptive pill. It's not cheap and yet often it is the only medical need a young woman has.
I said it before. Reproductive rights are the gateway drugs that lead Sharia style control over women, the removal of their personhood the freedom of their choices movement and conduct. Depriving them of the right to abortion is the first step. Depriving them of birth control is the next. The fact that they are guilty of false allegations of rape when they come forward unless they can conclusively prove it. Is another. How many more before burkas and male relative accompaniment become mandatory?
Rick Santorum truly makes me sick. Who is he to tell me or anybody else how things "are supposed to be?"
That's that old theocracy idea that the far right wants us to live by. They believe that they alone know the true answers, and they are, by golly, going to make us live by them. Whether we like it or not, since we are such heathens and Anti American.
I resent that so much. Who are they to tell me if I am religious or Patriotic? I feel I am a very Patriotic person. But they are judgmental, and believe that they alone are right.
When John McCain was running for POTUS, a person interviewing him in 2008, asked him this question: "If 76% of Americans want XXXXXX passed, how is it that you will not do American citizen's will, but what you want?" His answer tells it all. He said, "I know what the American citizens want, but I know what they need. And that is what I am going to do." IOW we are like small children who are to be denied ice cream until we finish our vegetables.
willow: sounds like missionaries/missionary position to me.
Nadia, my thoughts exactly. Who are these self righteous-,know-it-all fools who believe they have the answers to everything. Actually, they are pathetic zealots who have gotten an idea into their heads which to them sound like the words of the Almighty, speaking to them personally as a confidant and BFF.
How can anyone in their right mind take them seriously? Yet their electorate votes for 'em, which is one of life's mysteries IMO.
I wonder if RS thinks that men using Viagra are doing things "counter to how things are supposed to be" since Erectile dsyfunction comes along with certain diseases or age and and thus a "natural" part of life for these men.
I also wonder whether all the people who voted for him know where he stands on contraception. 
Yes, they do know. He hasn't only come up with those ideas just recently.
Unfortunately, most women in this country do not vote for people who have their self interest in mind. One of the reasons woman come under such fire when the Rethugs rule is that women have long voted Republican without thinking what was going to happen to them when the scoundrels got into office.
Women do not seem to recognize "cause and effect".
roberson, I hope you are a woman. If you are not, I hope you can see that your comment could be construed by many women as offensive. Women have been taking advantage of higher education in medicine, law, and business for decades. We are pretty well acquainted with the principles of cause and effect, as well as a lot of other things you might not know about.
"...in effect, charging them a fine for having two XX chromosomes."
Technical point. Women have 2 X chromosomes not 2 XX chromosomes. Not that it matters. We know what you meant :)
They talk about how it infringes on the religious liberty of the business owner and how they cannot, in good faith, provide insurance that covers contraception without it going against their "principles".
What about the liberties of the employee who works for that business owner? What if the employee is not religious or has different views on contraception while still being Catholic, for instance? The business owner is then infringing on the employee's own religious views.
Yeah, but they don't care so much about that.
Exactly! What happened to "personal responsibility?" Just because it is covered under insurance does not mean that a devout Catholic women would rush out and get some just because she could get it free. Not having it covered by insurance only means that she has to pay 100% of cost for it - not that she would forego it's use.
The Bishops are trying to make this sound like if they provide the same insurance other employers provide, they are putting their stamp of approval on its use, which totally ignores the fact that although they have disapproved its use for decades 98% of Catholic women can't get enough of it!
It's a woman's "soul" responsiblity (pun intended).
They are perfectly free to start their own businesses and impose their beliefs on their employees.
Daniel- this is the exact point that I have been making that I still, as of yet, haven't gotten a conservative to answer. There will be instances in which business rights will infringe upon individual rights and vise versa. The question is to whom does the law side? Now there are a handful of instances when the law sides w/ the business. As an example you are not allowed to verbally abuse employees at a business and if you do the business has every right to kick you out of the store. Make a mess out of that and the business has the right to have you arrested and served w/ a no trespassing warrant. But by and large the individual is to whom the law sides. In the United States we have historically always favored the individual over the business when the two have come into conflict. That is why we have things like the Civil Rights Act and worker's rights.
To me the point isn't even secular v. church.
This is a simple case of everyone has to obey the laws of the land.
Example, if a person is a janitor for a church, he might say, "Don't pay me because I love my church and just want to contribute." But the church really can't do that. They must, at least, issue a 1099 that states the equivalent pay that was donated. Also, the church must provide workers comp. ins., pay FICA taxes, follow OHSA regs. regarding work place safety, such as labeling of chemicals, etc.
So, if you are an employer, you must follow the rules/laws. No employer I ever worked for got an "exemption" for any of the laws mentioned above.
These Republican candidates need to remember that they are running for President of the United States, NOT president of the Catholic Church (or any other religious organization).
The job of President is a secular job, NOT a religious one. If they want to influence those who believe in their religious preferences, then they should approach that through their particular religions.
It appears that, since so many Catholic women actually DO use contraceptives (in conflict with their religious doctrine, the Catholic Church either needs to change their mindset or bring in such dogmatic religious followers, such as Santorum, to set their parishioners straight.
In the 1960s when we were fighting for desegregation, many businesses claimed that the government was infringing on their property rights by requiring that a restaurant for instant serve blacks. I believe that the government rational was that when a business opened its doors to the public to do business, it could not deny service to any part of the public based on the business owners bias. Thus a business cannot discriminate against a person based on race, color, sex, or ethic background. I do not know whether religion is specifically mentioned in the civil rights law, but if a business denies federally mandated health insurance to employees of another faith because the business owner does not believe in a certain medial procedure, is it not guilty of discrimination under the civil rights law? Once a business opens its doors to the general public, it cannot discriminate against a portion of the public.
Rick Santorum is a jerk, he has no idea that birth control pills are also used for medical treatment for many health issues that effect women. I hope that teh President does not give in an inch on this matter. This is not an attack on religion, but is totally an attack on womens health issues and choice.
I don't believe they even care one way or the other. Its something that can be used as a campaign slogan against Obama, since its all intertwined with the Health Care Act. Whatever they can find to use as an arrow, they will use. Whether or not it is true. They will use anything.
Are we tired yet of hearing Santorum's obsession with other poeple's sex life?? Yawn.
Simply allowing pregnant women to claim their embryos as dependents on their tax returns should be enough to kill any woman punishing bill the crazy
Repulicans send up. Nine months... the extra exemption... millions of women.... lossa money out of the Treasury.
On thing rarely mentioned in regard to Rick Santorum is a clip Rachel showed awhile age. which, I think, gives more background to his thinking. In this clip, he says that sexual relations are for the creation of children and that's all. So, in his mind, that is "how things are supposed to be". In his world, contraception isn't necessary because married folks won't have sex unless they want to create a child. I don't believe this is Biblical, but it is early church teaching.
I can honestly say I never met a man that believed that. I've never met a man that believed missionary style sex is the only one that's okay. And I'm an old Granny, married three times, and single for quite awhile. And that's just not a natural idea for a male. LOL
I think his wife must carry something of his that used to be attached..
That is the doctrinal position of the RCC on sex. Well, part of it. The new catechism that replaced the Baltimore Catechism allowed that sex could be a means of bonding between straight married couples, but if and only if every sex act is open to the possibility of procreation (this is generally taken to mean that any sex session that involves uncovered genitals must include in it somewhere PIV without a condom.).
Ricky has it right according to his holy overseers, and he's not the first person, nor even the first man I've heard espousing the actual doctrine of the church.
True, Rebecca. Santorum doesn't wear a condom during sex. He wears a sweater vest.
In the 1930s when a Catholic, Al Smith, ran for President, there was a popular cartoon of him on a leash from the Pope in Rome. He was soundly defeated mostly because he was a Catholic and people feared he would put his faith above the Constitution and U.S. Law. In other words try to impose Cannon Law (the Catholic equivalent of Sharia law) on Americans. When Kennedy ran for President, he had to give a speech declaring that if elected, he would not use his faith as a guide before the Constitution and U.S. Law.
If Santorum wants to be President, he will have to make a Kennedy like pledge to the American people that he will up hold the Constitution and not impose Cannon Law on America. From most of his statements about these social issues, it does not look as though he is prepared to take Kennedy's pledge. As a fourth generation Unitarian that scares me. I would be the first to get burned at the stake as a heretic.
Since I am 71, I do not have to worry about losing my contraceptives, but I have spent my life fighting against religious bigotry and discrimination of all sorts, and I have no intention of having the freedoms I have fought so hard to win denied to those who have benefited from my fight.
Actually, Eileen, I think Santorum probably uses a rabbit skin.
I'm waiting for someone to bring up the fact that Viagra is automatically covered in prescription plans.
Not to mention vasectomy and circumcision.
Lets not forget penis pumps that are advertised late at night.
It's not the contraception, it's the sex. They don't like sex. They especially don't like non-reproductive sex. And under their system, the role of a woman as a person comes second to her role as a sexual object.
The idea of personal sovereignty, that you belong to yourself is completely alien to their doctrine. Under their model, your bodies belong to God, and by extension, The Church, before they belong to you.
So in a way, it is a religious issue. In that their firmly held religious belief is that you are less than a person and you do not get to control what happens to your body.
It's not a violation of religious liberties however, just as it is not a violation when we forbid necrophilia, cannibalism, or human sacrifices. Because reason and logic have to triumph over superstition in federal law.
Otherwise I'm going to open a church and declare that it's been revealed to me by a supernatural creature that I don't have to pay taxes and where pants in public.
It's my religious liberty to have sixteen wives, and to let my dog do its business in the park without cleaning it up. "For Yea, he hath said that 'Scat happens.'
For some reason your post made me think of this gem from Family Guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MxwMUd9P7A
Not the first part, but the part about 'A Day In the Life of an Irish Woman'
Exactly, the Catholic church's position isn't too far removed from the old dirty joke that says that a woman is a life support system for a vagina.
Actually the idea that the Catholic Church is going to talk about the morality of sexuality, is a joke in itself. I mean how do you do that? How do you go through the priest scandal and then still think you have the moral authority to lecture people on what is and isn't acceptable vis a vis sex.
(Also.)
I apologize for that typo. I have to get out of the habit of typing without my glasses.
The Catholic Church does not have any moral authority to deny contraception because by denying contraception to women, especially in poor countries, they condemn hundreds of thousands of women and their families to a life of poverty, sexual servitude, and early death. By denying abortions they condemn many children to suffer often terribly from birth defects and genetic abnormalities.
I read a moving post yesterday by a person who had stopped being a Catholic after watching the Pope trying to tell an African woman who was dying of stravation that she should not want birth control.
The issue here is women's health, not the sexual revolution, which for the sake of Mr. Santorum, who doesn't seem to know, happened over 50 years ago. Catholic bishops recognize that their control is slipping away, as 98% of Catholic women already use birth control. So, although large Catholic health systems in California have had their benefit policies (including contraceptive coverage) on women's wellness in place for years, and hospital systems in Massachusetts have had them in place since Romney was governor, the Catholic bishops suddenly see these policies as a threat to civilization as they know it (or as they wish it was).
As Rachel and Chris Hayes noted last night, the media enablers who are propelling the contraception controversy are mostly older white guys (i.e., Chris Mathews) who came of age when birth control appeared and still think sex is a bit nasty. (Well, it is if you are doing it right, as Woody Allen once said.)
As for the position of the Catholic Bishops, I will not be lectured on morality and what is right or wrong from anyone in a position of leadership at an organization that covered up worldwide pedophelia for decades.
Amen to that.
Obvious comment left unwritten. However, as the young lady told the priest: "You no play the game, you no make the rules."
Thanks DC ... I usually catch my own double entendre but "position of the Catholic Bishops ..." went right by me!
I wonder if Santorum's wife agrees with him on contraception. I wouldn't be surprised if she did, but I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't either.
Rick doesn't strike me as someone who has very much sex so the issue may be moot in the Santorum household.
Maybe he's like my parents. They had two children, so they must have had sex twice. RS has seven children, so he must have had sex seven times. Ya think? LOL
Either way it is clear that her feelings on the matter are irrelevant as far as he is concerned.
he also doesnt seem like the type of person that would take what she says as seriously as what he thinks. perhaps i'm projecting that based on some of the pastors who talked about masturbation being bad, and women should never be headmasters of schools, because women should never be in positions of power over men. and how not a single person in the church looked troubled by this.
My parochial school forbade boys to have their hands in their pockets. It took until some years later to realize they were freaking out about the proximity hands-in-pockets have to a certain body part.
From time to time I remind my daughter of her observation when she was (much) younger that she was aware that her mother and I had gotten it on but now that she was born there was no remaining justification for continuing.
This isn't even new news.....28 states inacted laws that insure that all people recieve the benefit of contraceptive coverage in their medical insurance without descrimination of where they work. That means, those who are not/or who are catholic working in catholic hospitals and are covered by medical insurance, get the contraceptive coverage. Now, this isn't even a new set of laws. Where is the outrage? Well, it is all contrived by the radical evangelical right. It is an election year myth. Shame on the catholic Bishops, and all those in the catholic church that care more about this more than the molesting of young boys by their clergy. Shame on the TGOP for making this some sort of controversy when there is none.
yes, it's about contraception, and the only on in the media who has been on this story for awhile has been Rachel Maddow.
thank you, Rachel
Is Oregon trampling on the religious rights of this group?
Oregon doctors have said that Alayna Wyland, an 18-month-old with a massive growth covering her left eye, may go blind because her parents refused to get her medical treatment on religious grounds.
Today jury selection continues in the trial of Timothy and Rebecca Wyland, who have been charged with first-degree criminal mistreatment of their child, only days after the state House passed a bill to be tougher on faith-healing parents.
The Wylands, who are 43 and 22, respectively, and are members of the Followers of Christ Church, told authorities they believed that prayer and anointing oils would heal their daughter's hemangioma, an abnormal growth of blood vessels that was occluding her vision.
In the past two years, Oregon's Clackamas County has prosecuted two other couples from the same church whose children died from untreated ailments. One, Jeff and Marci Beagley, were convicted of criminally negligent homicide last year and sentenced to 16 months in prison.
Their 16-year-old son, Neil, died of complications from an untreated urinary tract blockage.
"With an adult who refuses medical help, it's not a problem -- it's one of the freedoms we have in this country," said Gordon Melton, director of the California-based Institute for the Study of American Religions. "But if it's a child, the state has an interest in the child remaining healthy and becoming an adult. The court can step in and assume parental control."
Followers of Christ is an independent evangelical church that emerged in the 19th century and now has about 5,000 to 10,000 members, according to Melton.
With polemic like this, one wonders why these religiously-affiliated institutions would even bother highering women of child-bearing age.
They don't want to cover BC in their insurance plans. Fine! I suppose they're also proposing generous and liberal paid maternity/paternity for all new parents after every birth/adoption--the US is an abomination on this front in western civilized society. And affordable--if not free--daycare to support parents who work. And how about doing something about those anti-family employers who fire women who get pregnant since being pregnant isn't really a disability worthy of accommodation in the workplace.
Many women who use birth control are actually married--and some even have kids already. As someone mentioned, that's why it's called "family planning". Also, tell any ob-gyn that you have heavy or irregular periods, debilitating mood swings associated with PMS or PMDD, or adult acne, and there's a good likelihood he/she will prescribe some form of hormonal birth control--even if your not sexually active. My doctor has gone so far to say that she thinks bc should be in the drinking water (don't know if i agree with all that, but)... You'd think these men folk would be all over the common cure for that monthly hormonal bitch-fest, but I guess the prefer the 9-month extended version of the monthly hormonal bitch-fest (followed by 4 years of poop and tantrums).
Never! Some of those sluts aren't married, and some of those who are married were previously divorced (and are thus engaged in adultery.)
Seriously. Hormonal bitch-fest? Go back to Planet Sexism, you aren't mature enough to be posting here.
In the Roman Catholic Church women are not equal to men. There are other religions that consider women to be less than men. If the businesses that are affiliated with the Catholic Church are allowed to discriminate against women and their health needs, which of those other religions will be able to act on their beliefs within the businesses they run? To extend the religious freedom rights that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to religious affiliated businesses in the general marketplace would be the beginning of a very slippery slope. I don't believe that even this (heavily Catholic) Supreme Court would go that far. The men of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church know this. What is their motive in raising this issue at this time?
Not to mention those that consider inferior races to be less than real, white humans.
To me the point isn't even secular v. church.
This is a simple case of everyone has to obey the laws of the land.
Example, if a person is a janitor for a church, he might say, "Don't pay me because I love my church and just want to contribute." But the church really can't do that. They must, at least, issue a 1099 that states the equivalent pay that was donated. Also, the church must provide workers comp. ins., pay FICA taxes, follow OHSA regs. regarding work place safety, such as labeling of chemicals, etc.
So, if you are an employer, you must follow the rules/laws. No employer I ever worked for got an "exemption" for any of the laws mentioned above.