Yes, what the Republicans know is that the people who are voting Republican are not the majority. With the primary elections, only one in 650 votes are voting for any particular candidate,so it only takes a small fraction of the electorate to win, not the general population. When we don't vote, we hand control over to a very small minority, and they probably aren't representative of the population. By not voting, we give up our Democracy. But, that's why the Republicans are catering to these nuts, they are the ones voting. If people don't vote, they don't matter.

Health insurance is part of an employee's compensation. What they use it for is not the business of their employer.

If I work for a hospital that is an affiliate of the catholic church, it is none of their business if I use my paycheck to purchase condomes. It is none of their business if I use my health insurance to cover contraception. The law says that contraception is part of health care-and it is not my employer's right to limit my access to it.

My fear about this Blunt proposal is the slippery slope.

Didn't a Baptist church refuse to let an inter racial couple into their church? Can they say that they are not paying spousal benefits for a spouse of a different race?

Some religions require that you marry someone of the same faith-can they deny spouse benefits if you are not married to someone of the same faith?

The catholic church only recognizes marriages it performs. Can they deny medical coverage to spouses of employees who were not married in the catholic church?

Can churches who oppose unmarital sex deny STD screenings for single women-as single women should have no reason to be sceened for STD's?

Can Jehovia's witnesses deny coverage for blood transfusions-which they are against-to the publishers of the Watchtower?

Can BYU tell its staff that they wil not cover drugs that contain caffine-which they are against?

These are jobs that are affiliated with churches-not church jobs. There is no requirement of religious beliefs to hold these positions. The guy who makes sure there is enough ink in the machine that prints the Watchtower may not be Jehovia's witness-but he can't have a blood transfusion if he needs one during surgery?

This is about the rights of religious organizations-it is a workers' rights issue. The la has stated what needs to be covered in halth insurance plans. Do employers have the right to limit their employees rights to their benefits? No. Benefits are a part of compensation. They belong to the empoyee, not the employer.

If the law deems that something is a part of health insurance coverage-the choice to use it is betwen the employee and their doctor-not their employer.

Oh, tell me you didn't forget about "Chickens for Checkups"!

Your ideas aren't that far off from reality. We already have sanctioned slave labor in our prison system and now the largest for-profit prison agency wants to contract with, like 16 states to take over all of the prisons in exchange for GUARANTEEING 90% capacity.

Sorry. it's 48 states.

Don't forget slave labor from unpaid internships. Business love that. And yes, they are aiming for a movement back to the 19th century.

Drew. What??

Look for my post on Morning Maddow: February 14.

non-union prison labor working for $0.23/hour building military weapons and recycling toxic electronic equipment. All under the discretion of the Department of Defense.

And now wanting assurances from States that the prisons will remain no less than 90% full. If that's not cause for outrage, I don't know what is.

Outrage. Yes, this is outrageous. And the Prison Guard Union is one that never seems to be discussed when outrage over those awful teachers and nurses is being whipped up.

We here in the colonies...

@isabelle: "Ok, what is next my American friends? Abolish anti-slavery laws? Repeal women' right to vote?"

How can you think these safe? If it is OK to dismantle 'Religious Liberty' (First Amendment) it must be OK to dismantle the others, yes?

It isn't a religious liberty to trample the civil rights and personal health of others.

What civil rights are being trampled? What personal health is being trampled?

My insurance did not cover dental - could I sue my employer for trampling my personal health?

If your insurance does not cover something, you simply cover it yourself.

Oh, sure, no problem, everyone has money lying around for extra health insurance. Everyone can get coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions, cheap and easy!

Your employer shouldn't be involved in offering you any sort of health care. The government should be providing single payer health care for all citizens and removing insurance companies, churches, and other institutions that have no business there, from the equation.

Medicare for everyone! It's good enough for congress, it's good enough for the elderly, it's good enough for all of us and it would guarantee no discrimination or magical thinking limiting access to necessary care.

Or, paying for AIDS medicines. Or STD treatments and cures. Or, blood transfusions. What if a Christian Scientist is an employer? The health plan covers prayer. . .and that's it?

You don't need a health plan, Greenlee, if you're a christian "scientist". god will take care of you. Isn't that the ultimate in health care? Divine intervention?

Because god watches every sparrow fall. And does nothing about it!

Did not Christ say(not to get all religious here just...) "My kingdom is not of this Earth" Or something like that?

If there is a god or gods would they not be better served by not intervening?Is not the true test of "faith" to believe when belief seems to be of no consequence? It would be easy to pray to a god if that god showed his power on a daily basis.

Mind you I am far from being a zealot but they do seem to need help remembering their own beliefs now days.

Well, gee whiz! They've gone from talking burning bushes and partings of seas, to images in potato chips and mold stains.

It's a huge comedown to think your ancestors are worthy of such amazing demonstrations, and you're entitled only to Angus McDougall's doggy bottom!

If I were religious, I'd be upset, and feel slighted that my faith would have to depend on such paltry and desperate demonstrations.

Since I'm not, I agree with Christopher Hitchens:

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."

God is a concept used to control the weak-minded, and we're seeing proof of it in politics every day. How dare old white men meddle in my reproductive health care?? But they think they've got a moral calling, and their followers are blindly supporting a completely unsupportable effort to put women back into a strictly domestic and maternal role.

Not to argue for or againxt the myth of a god but we seem to be confusing religion with that( for good or bad) enduring concept of a god or gods. What has happened in all of this is religion has taken precedent over god.

Men have spoken for god forever, often politically motivated, and always in favor of personal expedience and enrichment.

There is nothing about this contraceptive mandate that's controversial except the brouhaha surrounding it.

This is an excellent argument for a single payer system. No one should be dependent on their employer for their health care. It's both insane and obscene that our health care system is for profit, and one's level of care depends entirely on one's ability to pay for it. No one's religious convictions should affect anyone else's access to health care, and ultimately, there is only one way to accomplish it.

The church is throwing a politically expedient tantrum over something it's already doing routinely in businesses and universities that are connected to, but not churchs. This keeps the teabagger, hyper-conservative base ramped up over micromanaging the dismemberment of women's civil and constitutional rights to make private decisions about their own health care.

This distracts from a discussion about jobs, the job market, and our slow recovery, which republicans continuously work to undermine.

@dogjudge: "So at what point do religious conscience laws supersede the US Constitution and change this country into a theocracy?"

Well, we are already past the point where judicial rulings can supersede the Truths our Constitution is entrusted to protect: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..."

In all actuality, Religious Freedom is already a part of the U.S. Constitution. So, to ask, "at what point do religious conscience laws supersede the US Constitution" makes absolutely no sense.

You just quoted the freaking Declaration of Independence, Clyde. As Dennis Miller said when he was still funny, "Dig into your savings and buy a clue."

And, yeah, asking when religious exemptions to laws may override the Constitution is a legitimate question. In the last couple of years, there have been a number of issues on which wingers such as yourself have claimed religious exemption. The most egregious, other than this contraception business, are claims that religious beliefs should exempt people from laws designed to protect the rights of sexual minorities. This is a new thing, as far as I know. Now that it has started, where will it stop? At what point will the religious right simply claim that they are bound by no laws: legislative, judicial or constitutional?

Religious freedom does not supersede the individual right to health care.

That's all this comes down to:

Magical thinking does not override the right to appropriate health care.

Wow. I must have missed that part of the Constitution.

Where exactly is this 'individual right to health care?'

If you own a body, you have the right to health care. That's why a hospital will treat you in the emergency room even without insurance. It would be helpful to everyone if the emergency room were not the place of last resort.

Not everything is in the constitution. Some of it is just common sense.

OK. The original post by Dogjudge:

So at what point do religious conscience laws supersede the US Constitution and change this country into a theocracy?

And, your answer is:

Not everything is in the constitution. Some of it is just common sense.

Essentially, common sense overrides The Bill of Rights and The Constitution.

Try that in the courts.

You liberals are a hoot.

Wingers are terrifying balls of spite, intolerance and vindictiveness. Guess who's more fun at a party.

Oh, a HOOT!

Well, that pins down your century and probable geographic location....

The constitution is an antique and deeply flawed document which has been amended many times over the years to attempt to keep up with social, political and environmental issues. Common sense said women should be able to vote, but it took decades of fighting to achieve that goal. Blacks are actually whole people deserving of autonomy over their lives. What a concept! It took an amendment to accomplish that.

There are lots of things the constitution doesn't yet cover because our founding fathers had no clue the issue was coming. So we as a society have to apply common sense to issues concerning us now.

Interesting side note: I have a blog on LiveJournal, and I made an entry on May 17th of last year about the state of US medicine.

I keep getting responses from Russia.

The world is watching us, and they're not just watching our national media. They're watching individual Americans and how we're responding to the crazy loose in our country.

That's an interesting point, Elyn. Does VA's new law meet the technical definition of Rape in that state?

Actually, yes it does.

The reason this amendment carefully includes the requirement that women must sign a consent form before undergoing the trans-vaginal unltrasound, is that rape is defined by -

" The United Nations defines it as "sexual intercourse without valid consent,"^[5][18] and the World Health Organization defined it in 2002 as "physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object".^[19]"

from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Looks like the Rapepublican party wants pregnant women to pay for their own state mandated Rape. FBI's 2012 definition of rape - "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

RobDon,

Come on. First, the President did not decide this all by himself.

Second, would you offer a suggestion as to something a president might require me to buy (health care related) that I find objectionable? I'm not saying there isn't anything. I just can't think of anything off the top of my head. (See Some Guy's comment below)

It is not a mandate that one must buy something, this is allowing women to have access to contraception. Just because it's made available doesn't mean it must be purchased. I think many conservatives are missing that point.

I believe you are all missing the point. This began as a constitutional issue. The govt mandating religously affiliated institutions offer something which went against their beliefs. Thus, the free exercise of religion was breached. Even the pres recognized this and back tracked.

The Catholic Church believes, among other things, in the infallibility of the Pope on matters of doctrine, the sanctity of life, and free will.

One Pope has already spoken out against contraception and that life begins at conception. The Bishops role is to reinforce this teaching to the congregations. They have done this by opposing the pres' mandate. They have also reminded people the govt cannot pass a law which prevents a religious organization from exercizing their beliefs. Birth control is against the Catholic belief.

The argument goes that many Catholics disagree with the Church. That's where free will comes in. You are free to make decisions which go against Church teaching, but that becomes a matter of conscience.

While you may disagree with the Catholic Church, please respect those of us who are believers

Pauly, thanks for the comment and question. The president's administration (thus only elected official is the President) is deciding what is covered or not covered. And by evidence of the recent controversy, determining who will pay for what including mandating the private insurers cover something for free.

What if the next administration decides that unless a medical condition requires it, birth control should no longer be covered? Or, it should be part of an add-on to the basic policy and the employee must pay for that coverage? I would assume you would be oppose to this and argue it was not in the President authority to make such changes?

Nicole, I understand your position but someone is "buying something" it is not manufactured and distributed for free. Unless my employer pays my entire premium, then I am having to "buy" the coverage. You are correct, it would then be at my discretion whether to use the service or product that I bought.

Tom, you presented the situation well and correctly. The only thing I would add is that the Church, the organization not just the people, seems to have protection under our constitution and case law as well. So, while the church can not force followers to do things, their argument is that the government can not force the church to do things that violate its long standing teaching.

While the President argument is that his fix takes care of that, the church says the issue is more complex given it still having to make it available and some institutions are self-insured thus creating the same problem over again.

I agree, individual liberty should not be sacrificed. And, unless someone is outlawing contraception, it is still available. There is no constitutional right to birth control, directly or through the courts as of yet.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why your church's religiosity is more important than their employee's religiosity. If you seriously want to frame this as a debate about liberty and freedom of religion then you must justify why it's OK to inhibit individual freedom of religion in lieu of corporate religious freedom. These two are at odds in this situation so to whom do you want the law to side and why?

Rob do not be disingenuous about this debate. The mandate here is that preventative health care measures be covered by the insurance policy. No one said that you had to purchase or use any of those preventative health care measures. You aren't being forced to buy contraception against your will. You are being forced to pay money to an insurance company that, should you want contraception, will have to provide it for you. Please tell me you see the difference.

Good questions Mouzer.

Well look if we want to talk about this as a discussion about liberty then there are only really 2 conclusions: either we have to side w/ the person who has the most to lose by us not siding w/ them (in this case it would be the individual; FTR this doesn't mean that in other cases it would not be the business, it just wouldn't in this particular instance) or we have to talk about why it is that we have to remove the employer from the process and have health care directly applied to the people. If someone wants that latter tenant OK and I believe that, that's a totally legitimate argument for someone to say 'this is why employers shouldn't be allowed to participate in the healthcare discussion.' OK. We had employers involved because it would reduce the cost of premiums and our hope is/was that this would benefit the individual. But perhaps the inhibition of liberty to the employer or the employer being allowed to intervene between the employee and his/her individual insurer is too much of a risk. Then we can reasonably conclude that insurance should only be directly applied to the person. But what we cannot do is disingenuously pretend like the employer is the only person involved in this discussion. I am sick people framing the argument like the Church is the only entity involved.

Hey, Mouzer...and newsblog,

First, I am not against contraception and see no reason why insurance coverage should not include it, in general. I am more against the morning after pill and, of course, abortion except in case of rape or threat to the mother's life. Not looking for argument or discussion here, just wanted you to know my personal views.

Second, your question is valid. Here's how I and, I think, most of those against the "compromise" see it:

1. No one is stopping the individual from getting or using contraception. No one is preventing the employee from purchasing insurance coverage on their own.

2. There is no constitutional right that the individual be provided insurance or provided contraception.

3. The church, the Catholic Church more specifically, has had a long standing teaching against the use of contraception. It is the position of the denomination despite a different opinion amongst followers. No follower agrees 100% with any organization has been my experience.

4. The government does not have the authority or right to mandate a religious organization violate it's long standing tenets. I believe, but would have to research, that the courts have said you can't just form your own religion, make up some teachings, and then claim protection. So the argument many make in this line is not valid...IMHO.

5. Thus, the solution...the individual can obtain contraception on their own and the church (or it's organizations) do not have to provide it.

I hope this lays the framework well enough that you see my position regarding your question. Both the individual and the religious organization's constitutional rights can be maintain in the situation. You are free to purchase and use contraception and the church should not have to provide that to you, either directly or indirectly.

Rob thanks. My first paragraph actually wasn't for you, it was for Tom. I am sorry I should've specified. The way I posted I see why you'd see it that way. I was only directing the second paragraph to you because I did not understand your last post (the one before this one).

The problem is if you say "well the employee can go somewhere else" I can then use that same logic to say "well the church can be an exclusive access institution" in which case the church wouldn't have to accept any of these rules. That's the problem w/ the autonomy argument. Anything you say that the individual can do the church can do. Why one should do one and the other not is the problem. If the church doesn't want to serve the general public then fine. Do not provide services to the general public. But if the church then turns around and claims "well god commands us to provide services to the public" then they are immediately contradicting themselves.

In the first instance they are advocating free will and in the second instance they are advocating, at the very least, existentialism if not determinism. If you state that you are compelled to do something and therefore don't actually have a choice then you are automatically saying that you aren't truly free. If the church argues that position then they immediately give up the right to judge the 'free' actions of the employee. That's the whole problem as I am seeing it. It becomes more and more cooky. By the very same logic the employee could then argue that she was 'compelled' to have sex w/ her husband and therefore did not have choice. You see what I mean? I do not think that people realize this is what they are saying when they make an autonomy argument.

Mouzer, you lost me some in the last paragraph.

The church or a follower being "compelled" to do something does not eliminate free will. The church, like any organization, follows or determine its line of service. Every organization does not have to do everything. For instance, you can't walk into McDonald's and buy a condom.

Granted, when the chruch enters the public arena, there are many requirements placed on it that it has to abide by. There are a few areas though, where the churches long standing teaches have to either be accommodated, compromised, or abandoned. That is what this situation is and it is a process to see which situation this eventually becomes.

Back to civics class. Yes, the President, his cabinet officers, their aids, Department heads and all the way down the line of the Executive branch have the Constitutional authority to set administrative policy. If you don't like how the President executes his role in the job, you exercise the term limits already in place and vote someone else in.

No, the President did not decide this all by himself. He was first authorized by majority vote, took council with the appropriate officers in his adminsitration, took into account the overwhelming public sentiment and the public good, Constitutional effects (women's right to privacy in controlling their bodies) and acted. He did the right thing, and less than one third of the population doesn't think so. How ironic that the relative few who dislike how the Constitution works, are confused about how the system is supposed to benefit the many without regard to religious dogma, raise the biggest fuss.

The church or a follower being "compelled" to do something does not eliminate free will

Yes it does. Free will is the belief that decisions are made independent of circumstance. You are morally culpable of cause and effect, but your ability to exercise choice is not barred by, nor enhanced by, circumstance. You can make the existentialist argument that circumstance does affect us, but that ultimately moral responsibility is ours and choice is ours. Existentialists acknowledge that situations will limit the dichotomies in which you have choice (i.e. your circumstance will limit you to options a and b), but that you are still capable of exercising choice and moral responsibility w/in the confines of a and b. A person who believes in free will does not believe that you are set up w/ a dichotomy. If I tried to rob you at gun point and you truly believed in free will you would believe that your decision to hand me your wallet was not due to my having a gun pointed to you, your desire to live, your desire to go home to your wife, your fear, my menacing presence, etc. You would believe you made this choice completely independent of the situation. Now if you want to say of course having a gun pointed at me will limit my decisions- I either have to comply or I don't. If I comply X will happen. If I don't Y will happen. But that argument is not a free will argument.

The church contradicts itself when it tries to assert that it is compelled to provide services to the public because it's God's will, but that a woman who has sex w/ her husband did so completely independent of circumstance. If you say your circumstance affected your decision then this means, in order to philosophically and morally consistent, you must acknowledge that circumstance also affects other people's ability to make decisions. That was my point about how the argument just continues to go further and further down the rabbit hole. The more you try to argue that no no my autonomy matters on the basis of my liberty (choice), the more someone else can do the very same. It's hypocritical and an intellectual contradiction for people to defend the church in this way. My whole point was simply that the autonomy argument is such a silly argument for someone to make. I wasn't trying to drag us into an ethics class ;-)

Now from an ethical perspective: yeah the church wants to exert it's doctrine and other people want to exert their doctrine and it's a conflict. We have to look to precedent to figure out how to deal w/ this or change the law so that we're taking the employer out and are directly approaching the individual. Since that's what Obama did there should be no complaint on behalf of Catholics. Really, there shouldn't have been anyway since church's already comply w/ every other federal law that they have to. For instance they already service murderers, rapists, people w/ tattoos, and gays. It's not as though this is something new or egregious. My whole point, though, was that Tom making the autonomy argument was just silly. If we want to talk about where the legal bounds are OK. That's more of what you are trying to say personally and to that extent I think you and I are in agreement.

@southpaugh: "Back to civics class. Yes, the President, his cabinet officers, their aids, Department heads and all the way down the line of the Executive branch have the Constitutional authority to set administrative policy. If you don't like how the President executes his role in the job, you exercise the term limits already in place and vote someone else in."

On the contrary, the Constitution limits what administrative policy can be set. Just because the president goes through all the correct motions does not make his policy constitutional.

@The Mouzer: "I'm still waiting for you to explain why your church's religiosity is more important than their employee's religiosity. If you seriously want to frame this as a debate about liberty and freedom of religion then you must justify why it's OK to inhibit individual freedom of religion in lieu of corporate religious freedom."

The employer is being coerced by the government to engage in something considered immoral (abortifacient drugs=killing). The employer has a constitutional right to not be involved in or connected to this action.

The employee also has rights to not be coerced by the government. Explain how an employer exercising his First Amendment rights obfuscates the employees First Amendment rights?

The employer (a church affiliate - NOT a church) is required to provide health insurance to it's employees.

This health insurance (Blue Cross? Aetna?) is required to provide birth control without a co-pay to it's policy holders. The policy holder is the individual, not the church affiliate.

The employee may choose to use this provision and obtain birth control through their insurance. The necessary medical services are performed by medical personnel, not the church.

This is not the church providing birth control to it's followers.

This is a church affiliate providing a policy that provides the option to the employee.

This isn't even new. Businesses and Universities affiliated with the church already provide insurance policies to employees that offer access to birth control.

This is the republicans firing up their ignorant and uneducated base to keep them from thinking about how the job market is slowly recovering, and maybe President Obama isn't doing the crappy job republicans want their base to think he is.

This is just another distraction, and we shouldn't be giving it quite the newsplay it's getting.

@peanut9000: "This is a church affiliate providing a policy that provides the option to the employee."

Church affiliates are made up of individuals that are choosing not to carry insurance that has this option. These individuals are protected by the First Amendment.

That other individuals have decided differently in no way obligates said individuals to violate their consciences.

Besides, Obama already has a Religious Exemption in the mandate. The problem is that he also defines exactly what action is considered religious and what is not. If you serve those outside of your particular creed, somehow this is not your living your creed. Totally illogical.

28 states already have a version of this law on the books, and 8 of those states have absolutely no exemption for religion of any kind.

This is a distraction, and a completely spurious argument. Religious people are getting bunched for republican political purposes, and not their own.

No religious exemption, per se, because one can get out of requirements simply by self-insuring (in all but 3 of the states.) Which is what most of them do.

see 2.11 above.

No, peanut9000. The employer gains exemption by self-insuring.

No one gains when insurance companies are involved.

Except, of course, the insurance companies.

Now! Write a book and get some idiots to believe you have The Answers.

The Workout Worship! (playing off your userid)

It worked for Elron. It worked for my nutty relative Mary Baker Eddy. It would have worked for me if I'd've given the nut permission to start a religion based on a book I wrote...I guess I lack dreams of avarice!

But you should absolutely go for it. It's an awesome way to get rich. Those people will give you their money if you tell them god wants you to have it!

Remember Rick Santorum praying over Terry Schiavo, anticipating removal of said tube?

Yep. Are "Pray The Gay Away" services covered on this insurance plan?

Whoo! I read "demand insurance" as "demon insurance"! :P

Some insurance already covers faith healing if you consider Reiki (a sort of laying on of hands) a faith healing.

PrayAwayTheGay and Viagra: definitely covered!

it's simple PamLS, it's all they got. They have no plan other than killing the social safety net and that's not selling. The Presidents policies despite their intransigence has got the economy moving again. Jobs are being created. They got buttcus. So they start a culture war to hide the fact that they have no plan. Well at least they don't have a plan that the majority of the American people will buy.

The economy is recovering - at glacial speed, but nevertheless - and that's counter to the republican stance that President Obama has ruined everything and is responsible for the utter collapse of our country, morally and economically.

They need distractions for their base to fasten on and be ramped-up by. Abortion and birth control are red-flag, foam-at-the-mouth, wild-eyed-crazy-bait issues the teabagging base can't resist.

That was also what was behind the SOPA/PIPA nonsense. I was horrified/proud of myself for finally hearing the coded language used in those ads: "They're takin' yer jerbs! Them damn furiners 'r takin' yer jerbs!" As if American corporations aren't being given tax incentives to ship american jobs overseas at rates that far outstrip any foreign efforts to steal american intellectual property.

All of these side issues republicans get wrapped up in and worked up by are simply distractions the republican leadership are using to try to steer the political conversation away from all of the amazing accomplishments this administration has managed despite the colossal constipation that has become our congress.

EXACTLY welll said vt

I think all the normal Republicans will form a new party and leave this one to the nut jobs. I know my friend has dumped the GOP and is now an Independent.

Ditto, much to the dismay of my Rush-Limbaugh, Fox-news gobbling mother.

She even stated, "Dear Lord, I feel my child has fallen into the trap of the Axis of Eeevilll!"

I think we ignore the Church hierarchy. It's basically too little, too late for them. The Catholic Church is a dinosaur and hopefully will become extinct or evolve into a more reasonable, enlightened beast. They don't count, their opinions don't count. They need to go away!

Stewart has made fun of the comparison to Nazi Germany. But in a warped way, you can see that if you accept their premise of zygote persons, they are absolutely correct. If anyone sees a Zygote as equivalent to any other person, then the Pill is like preventing Children from swimming to shore. It is horrific. We may scoff at their premise, but it is a historical fact that Civil authority can commit such immoral acts that people of conscience are compelled to disobey.

If they think this is like Selma Alabama, or India under British Imperial subjugation, or tolerance of Slavery in the South, then There are the Martin Luther Kings, the Gandhiji's, the John Browns of the world to resist. Note these were all very religious individuals, and their cause was just.

If the Church is sincere, we should be encouraging them to go for it. They should be calling for civil disobedience in the streets. They should violate labor laws and discriminate based on whether employees use birth control. They should be consistent and save the zygote persons from what Michele Goldberg satirically described as the perspective of the womb as a slaughterhouse.

.

Come on angry old white guys- Get behind the gun slinging Santorum. Go for it. Make your women (they are your dominion after all) submit to uterine irrigation. You must do it if you believe you must save the unborn.

Go ahead punks. Make our day.

Ah dear old religion, always 5 centuries (or more) behind the times and still claiming to be relevant!

But in a warped way, you can see that if you accept their premise of zygote persons, they are absolutely correct.

They used to (and some probably still do) believe that the world is flat. They are a dead end and I think we should do as you do to a screaming two year old having a temper tantrum- IGNORE THEM. Personally, I'd love to spank the crap out of them but anyway...

It's too damn bad they can't be bothered to expend this much energy defending the living.

I think this is the problem you and I have John. Even when we try to look at it from their perspective and be as fair to their argument as possible and approach their logic on their terms....sometimes the crazy either doesn't want to or can't recognize it's crazy. Sometimes no matter how much we're moving in their direction to give them the benefit of the doubt they want to maintain and believe whatever narrow focus or scope they've already concluded before the argument ever started. This is part of why I get all preachy about how people need to let evidence formulate their beliefs instead of having a belief and cherry picking evidence to fit that belief. Doing the latter means that you can justify any crazy one thing or other, but that you don't have the follow the logic/facts to their ultimate conclusion. This is also why, I think, people can fall for the idea of libertarianism and it's utopic vision of the world. Because when you already believe that the free market is good then you will come up w/ any and all arguments to make the free market good. And then your rationale becomes entirely corrupt.

More to the point of your post though: Jehovah's Witnesses, as an example, believe that natural abortions are the only form of abortion that the Bible allows for. They point to a passage of the Bible in which they believe a woman is being excused for having a miscarriage. It's OK for you to miscarry because that's 'natural.' This, then, is how they follow the logic and conclude that things like homosexuality and birth control are bad. Because they are 'unnatural.' So it is only moral sin if you are 'unnaturally' committing the act. Hence why Jehovah's Witnesses insist that homosexuality is a curable disorder instead of a biological drive. If they allowed for the latter that would mean homosexuality was natural and therefore could not be discouraged. It would also mean that the passages they point to in the Bible describing homosexuality as sin and homosexuals as sinners would be flawed. In the case of miscarriage they cannot conclude that if a fetus naturally dies on it's own that this is wrong, only that if you force it to die it's wrong.

Still, though, why aren't they (like Catholics) in a rage to find out whom among their congregation are using birth control? While they may be able to explain away one element of your inquiry, they cannot explain every element. I remember when I was studying w/ a WatchTower group and went to their church for congregation. The minister went off talking about how you cannot set foot inside of a Watch Tower (a Jehovah's Witness church) if you are a sinner because you are not allowed to sully the sanctity of God's holy place. If you are committing sin- the minister went on- then talk to our guidance counselors and your brother's w/in the congregation and we will help you. We'll come to your house and pray w/ you and give you guidance and counseling. But you cannot bring sin into this house of worship. Assuming they believed this why weren't they trying to figure out who was homosexual or who was on birth control or who was having an affair or who was an alcoholic, etc?

Assuming they believed this why weren't they trying to figure out who was homosexual or who was on birth control or who was having an affair or who was an alcoholic, etc?

Well, Mouzer, I can give you my opinion on this (as a Catholic). The answer to your question is simple - they do NOT want to know. They (church leadership) turn a blind eye to so many things that are contrary to Catholic law because as long as they can keep people in the pews, they can get money from them. When they do too much judging, people leave. The Catholic Church is a huge business, and people are already leaving the church in large numbers these days. There is even a campaign to try to bring ex- or non-practicing Catholics back into the church. But the bottom line is that people will only take so much of being told they are bad, wrong, sinners, etc. before they decide to seek their spiritual guidance elsewhere, taking their money with them. Instead of living with The Catholic Guilt, they say 'screw it' and go somewhere else.

The teachings of the church are outdated. Walk into a Catholic mass nowadays and you will see fewer young people, smaller families (thanks to birth control), and less devout followers in general. If you removed all the ones on birth control, the homosexuals, the ones having affairs, etc - the numbers would shrink even more. And when the population of Catholics shrinks, the $$ in the collection plate shrinks as well.

Again, this is only my opinion, and I consider myself to be a cafeteria catholic. But I know that my devout Catholic grandmother went to her grave believing that the church was opposed to birth control because that meant fewer 'little catholics who would grow up to be grown-up catholics' who would ensure the sustainability of the church through generous donations.

It was the point Mike made yesterday. When a principle of conscience is applied very selectively, our BS detectors go off. We are compelled to entertain other hypotheses to explain the phenomena we are observing. In discussions I am compelled to assume the person is making a good faith representation of what it is that is motivating their perspective on an issue. However the hypothesis that best fits their behavior is that this has very little to do with ideas or any activity in the frontal cortex. The dudes are herding the females.

For the first time in the 20 million years of their existence, female hominids are now able to assert control over a biological straight-jacket employed in systems of social subjugation which have had through the ages so many passing names, religious rationales and other confabulations representing the same thing. I doubt that any of the Bishops sense the truth of this primal motivation behind their actions. Regardless what it is that is in their heart of hearts- the places deep inside where they most refuse to gaze, it is a fundamental human right to assert dominion over one's own body. As far as I'm concerned, that is what this struggle is about. Whether one set of people will be able to continue their domination of another set.

If the Bishops say they are shutting down social work activities they are engaged in, then the move is to get Dolan to state whether they would be compelled to shut down if the government were giving away contraceptives for free. He will forced to be honest and say no. Obama's move then is to propose the bill in congress to make contraceptives issued by the government. The tables are then turned on the conservatives. They have the choice about being against contraceptives, or against the religious freedom of the church/ forcing them to shut down much needed social welfare activities.

It would not be a pretty political situation for them to be in.

Checkmate.

The fact that it is the 21st century and we still have to waste time with all these Neanderthal minds is just an abomination. Too much time is spent kissing the asses of the religious fanatical factions rather than moving beyond them. There are better things to be doing than having them set obstacles in the path of progress. Honestly, with this species it is one step forward, two steps back.

@The Mouzer: " all preachy about how people need to let evidence formulate their beliefs instead of having a belief and cherry picking evidence to fit that belief."

Like the evidence that at conception there exists: a whole, separate, unique living human being. Simple Biology. Formulate away, Mouzer!

Oh, I'm sure you'll 'cherry pick' some 'evidence' to fit your desire to not have to admit to the evidence science provides.

@JohnMesserly: "It is nuts. I have gone through the logic of Double effect many times on this blog, making the case that it is internally consistent."

Still bringing up that tired old drivel? You know it is not consistent. You see for yourself that one of the conditions falls flat. Namely:

• Acts that have morally negative effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e., when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.

In this case, good health is not dependent on health insurance that includes contraceptives, sterilization, etc. There exist many plans currently operating that prove this point.

Catholic dogma does not prove anything. I know that it has been all the rage among Catholic clergy for quite a while now to classify voluntary use of contraceptives with forced sterilization. It's a false equivalence. And although you may be in step with old men in dresses, you are out of step with the country on this issue, which includes most Catholics and especially most Catholic women. Being in the minority position does not automatically make you wrong, but it should make you stop and consider just why you are in the minority.

Also, picking a fight with Mickey over facts is a mug's game. Especially when all you've got going for you is empty bluster.

Being in the minority position does not automatically make you wrong,

Exactly.

Also, picking a fight with Mickey over facts is a mug's game.

Not if the facts do indeed matter.

As the facts are not on your side, your second sentence should have started with "especially when" rather than "not if." One of the crippling traits of people such as yourself is the baseless smugness which makes you look especially ridiculous. You prance around on your high horse, but you're not sitting on a horse. You are not arguing from a position of strength. You see yourself as a conquering hero, charging fearlessly into the disorganized ranks of your heathen foes. But what I see is a little boy in short pants and a lolly stuck in his hair, stamping his little feet and shrieking at the top of his little lungs "I am so right, you booger-brain!" It's not exactly an awe-inspring sight.

I suppose, when you can't make a real argument you have to write cute little ditties.

Right! The list of recovering Catholics is immense.

With any luck, that list will grow longer.