Does the Church pay for erectile dysfunction medicine for their employees?

Does the church pay for erectile dysfunction meds for their employees?

Has anyone against taxpayer funded abortions, worried about cost, figured out how much unplanned and unwanted pregnancies cost the taxpayer?

I'm so tired of this argument! The personhood bill would NOT outlaw the pill! I'm totally pro-choice but hormonal birth control "tricks" the body into thinking it's pregnant so that further eggs are not released. If none are released, none can get fertilized. Personhood bills do not affect most forms of BC-the ONLY one it would affect is the IUD-which does not prevent fertilization-just implantation. It's a stupid bill but outrage about losing the pill over this only hurts the Left's credibility.

Religion, Helthcare & Oxymorons

So if Catholics won't have to provide insurance for female contraception - all will be well, right!? - (ohh! goody I think I finally get to turn the slippery slope argument around on these lovely religious rights advocates!!!)

Of course I loved your Amish Busdriver Oxymoron, Rachel! Unfortunately I don't think any of the politicians actually understood your point,... as was painfully obvious from the CPAC clip you ran, where they mad fun of your Meet the Press appearance.

We need to all put our heads together and compile a serious list: --> What else can "religiously affiliated" organizations now get away with not providing for their employees? For brevities sake let's just consider healthcare costs, here are the first three that come to mind right off the top of my head... Besides the Amish Bus Driver of course!

Consequences of not separating church and state regarding health care costs:

- Jehovah's Witnesses won't have to pay for anything having to do with blood transfusions;
- Christians Scientists' idea of preventative and primary healthcare is prayer... only they decide when medical science is appropriate, where that leaves employees and their medical bills is anybody's guess, but a priori I'd say all preventative care can be stricken from the policies;
- Scientology denies the existence of mental illness and most definitely would not want to pay for any antidepressants, nor any other chemical agents that so many Americans take every day, nor are they okay with psychologists or psychiatrists treating anyone, so the only question is: will mental health insurance cover the Scientology courses as a legitimate treatment?

... so many religions so little time... But you get the picture, right?!? ...so help me compile a list that will strike fear into any politician considering the use of this whole issue as political hammer to clobber women & liberals into submission!

Tanya P. Henauer

Rachel,

My wife and I absolutely love your show.

Ok let us address the “Birth Control” issue. Most Employers that provide health care insurance for their employees are required to include birth control as a covered expense. The only Employers left out of that Federal mandate are religious places of worship, religiously owned Public Hospitals and Religiously owned Public Colleges. President Obama realized that this was being discriminatory towards people employed by the previously mentioned “Religious” entities. In order to alleviate the discrimination against these employees, we need to have ALL employers that provide Health insurance for their employees to include birth control as a covered expense.

People claiming that this infringes on the Catholic churches right to freedom of religion are not getting the point. This is an “EMPLOYER” issue, not a freedom of religion issue. The Law doesn’t state that Catholic people should use birth control, it merely allows those employees choosing “OF THEIR OWN ACCORD” to use birth control to be covered under their health insurance just like all other employees. If the catholic church is so worried that their flock is all of a sudden going to go against their religious beliefs and start having wild protected sex or that their going to start popping birth control pills, they should hook up with John Boehner, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. They could push thru legislation to mandate that no Catholics no matter whom they work for can have birth control covered under their health insurance policy. No better yet, let us pass a law making it illegal for Catholics to use birth control.

Oh, by the way you have probably already heard that “98 PERCENT” of catholic women already use birth control. In addition, making the religious employers follow the rules does not make it look like the Catholic Church is condoning it. It makes it look like the Catholic Church may have to own up to the fact that they have been discriminating against their employees up until now.

How long before a person is defined as thinking about having sex?

what about VASECTOMY? is that a disease or BIRTH CONTROL? WHY IS IT O.K. for MEN.

who is paying for that surgery?? how many catholics & tea party or conservatives have had a VASECTOMY? will they admit. ask congress how many men had that surgery and why? such BS. no one has discussed VASECTOMY. it is birth control,not any other reason for this procedure. i am pissed!!!

helaine malinsky

Personhood amendments are beside the point here. Santorum is far, far nuttier than that. It's not just that birth control might be abortion, it's that birth control is immoral per se and ought to be banned.

A really talented journalist would be able to get him on the record advocating castration for masturbators, or stoning for adultery.

Just saying.

please look into this vasectomy issue. no person has thought about this,why? it is hidden,but we women have not forgotten about that surgery--THAT'S BIRTH CONTROL!!

Okay, I have no training in psychology, but it has always seemed to me that in addition to all the things they say about reproductive rights, there is a quiet, unconscious sentiment in many among the religious right that women ought not be enjoying sex, and if they do then they should be punished. And that punishment is pregnancy and childbirth. So no birth control, no abortion allowed.

I have this image of old white men with repressed sexuality equating free birth control pills for women with free prostitutes for men. I certainly hope I'm way off base on this, but I have this nagging suspicion that there's something to it.

too bad the high ranking "Catholics" never appeared to be so outraged and outspoken when their own were molesting poor, young children. And might i add that myself and two other people I personally know are on the pill for other medical conditions prescribed by real doctors. In fact my tubes are tied so pregnancy is not even an issue. Santorum is an ignorant idiot. He says you don't purchase car insurance and expect that oil changes are covered..what hole do these people crawl out of??

They're all trying to be "holier than thou," but they're not thinking this through even a little bit -- as Rachel and many people on this comment list have pointed out much better than I could.

The question I have about the "personhood" proposals is, what about the carpool lane? If a fertilized egg becomes an legal, official "person," does that mean women would be able to start legally driving in the carpool lanes immediately after conception?

Yes, it's a ridiculous question. But this whole thing is a ridiculous question. At least, so far, most actual people think so, too.

Birth control pills stop ovulation. That means the egg is not there to meet the sperm, and no fertilization occurs. The only exceptions to this are if fertilization occurs during the first 30 days of using the pill or if doses are skipped, the patient has intercourse, and then makes up the missing doses.

The religious right are treating this issue as if the pill regularly causes early miscarriages. It does not. When used as directed, it simply prevents an egg from being available to sperm. If eggs not having sperm were sinful, than abstinence would be a sin.

My entire education was in Catholic schools so I spent 16 years all told (first grade through MA) exposed to both the church's teachings and the general moral atmosphere. Catholic moral theology is developed by a bunch of celibate men - many of them earnest and well meaning but many also somewhat conflicted on the subject of women and sexuality. the result is that their moral instruction focuses to an alarming degree on sex and the menace that women represent for a man's spiritual life. Teaching on wars, poverty, and various other extraneous things get very short shift. Sex is a scary subject for many priests representing as it does their most troubling temptations. There is a certain amount of resentment mixed in with this: if I don't get to enjoy this, anyone who does, even in marriage, doesn't exactly deserve to be punished but certainly deserves it if there are uncomfortable consequences.

According to Wikipedia the Catholic Church issued

1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.^[4] The following is the condemnation of contraception:

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Whereas the current debate only focuses on artificial contraceptives does it also imply that those persons covered by Church privided health insurance would not be covered for the various forms of male and female sterilization since it violates stated church doctrine? How come this has not entered the debate, and if the church does cover these procedures it would be the height of hypocracy?

The Republicans love life when it's in the womb. But after birth they abandon those children and their families. Cut education. Cut food stamps. Cut WIC. Cut wages. And -- most galling to me -- a sadistic pleasure in applying the death penalty to a "sacred human life".

Rachel,

How does the Catholic Church dare to moralize anyone? They spent the last decade covering up sexual abuse of young boys by the priesthood. The issue concerning contraception is really about having future Catholics to pay for the lavish lifestyle of the vatican, the priesthood and all the churches. They need the babies!! The church has a history of the subjugation of women going back to the middle ages, when they deemed them witches for wanting orgasms. At least today they don't burn them at the stake. Sex has always been a major sin going back to St. Thomas, so why is everyone so suprised by the up roar. The question is are we going to stand up for the women!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Hey everyone, guess what? There are two different religious parts to the first amendment. The first part protects all citizens from the government having a religion of choice; the second part protects the right for citizens to practice their religion of choice. The second for some reason is the only one that ever gets mentioned. I would think that if I worked for a Catholic School or hospital, not providing my family with the same rights as all other citizens defiantly violates my first amendment rights.

Actual churches are exempt anyway and they shouldn’t be. This country has historically made churches follow the laws of this country. You can’t have religious honor killings; Utah was not made a state until the Mormon Church reversed its decision on plural marriage. Obviously in the last few years the first amendment somehow has changed even without itself being amended.

I read the atricle and I agree with you completely. I am still amazed at the WaPo comments. I never saw so many Conservative straw men set up and knocked down.

Dear Rachel,

Thank you for standing up for women's rights in a time when even so many women do not recognize the potential for having their knees cut off right out from under them. It's refreshing to hear a voice of sanity in an insane world.

Respectfully,

MG

I fully support healthcare for women. And, for men.

I am, however, unalterably opposed to the new Obama compromise.

I own a business. I pay for my employee healthcare. I subsidize the healthcare of their families. I'm, actually, happy to do so because I can get healthcare insurance at a lower cost than can they.

Now, however, Catholic and Evangelical religious businesses will not be required to pay for a portion of their employee's healthcare costs. Supposedly, the insurance companies will pay.

What that really means, however, is that other companies and other people will pay. This is not magic money - somebody pays.

That means I must pay, and my employees must pay, for the healthcare of others that Catholics won't pay. Our costs go up. Their costs go down.

Essentially, this is a tax on non-Catholics to pay for Catholic sensibilities. A religious-based tax on non-Catholics forced by the United States government. An establishment of Catholicism as the preferred religion of the United States government.

I'm a Jew. This is a new Inquisition. The government now is forcing me to pay for Catholic Church costs.

This is a unconscionable. It is establishment of a new US religion. It is unconstitutional. It is very upsetting. I will not forgive Obama for this. Ever.

last night I thought it would be fun to go over to the Greta Van Garbage blog and play with the conservatives. It was fun and very amusing to see how desperate they are to bring Obama down. They know hes going to win and they can't stand the fact that with four more years of Obama, the economy will be back, unemployment will be down and the standard of living for poor and middle class people will be back.

I don't think this is really about religious freedom. As someone earlier mentioned, it's about power. Those in power (or think they are or want to be) push the birth-control-is-wrong mantra because the conservatives that buy into it will have more babies. More conservative babies. That's their theory. THEN, yank away public education funding (and push for charter and homeschooling) because they certainly wouldn't want children growing up to think for themselves. Hence the circle of power is complete. Couple that with our population becoming more diverse (i.e. less white), well, Old White Men in Robes Who Wear Funny Hats just think that is atrocious.

Okay this country is in a sad state of mind! The fact that this is a battle line of politics, when FAR more important subjects are in need of attention. The Religious excremental effect on politics simply shows that true reality based issues are not important to people. I am tired of religion being a fence that people and corporatio­ns hide behind. You are a part of this country too start acting like it. There should not be any insurance restrictions due to the organizati­onal following of any belief within a religion or corporation. Hiding behind the wall of "Separatio­n of Church and State" is a blatant manipulaton. Start paying taxes! Start being in line with the same laws as the rest of the public. Would companies effecting the insurance that they carried because of the owners or the boards religious beliefs be deemed acceptable­?