Comments about ‘Contraception mandate outrages religious groups’

I have nothing against contraception.

In fact, I think its great.

However,

Again we see the typical liberal mentality.

Which is:

"Why buy something I want myself when I can make others buy it for me"?

Barack wonders why his "stimulus" plans spending trillions of dollars

is NOT working?

What incentive do people have to pay their own bills

if barack is willing

to make others pay their bills for them?

Contraception: Good

Forcing Jane to pay for what Jill wants: Bad

get a clue barack

Birth control is a personal issue, so it needs to be paid for personally.

It is unconstitutional to for the government to force someone to go against their religious beliefs.

Funny how libs shout seperation of church and state when it benefits them, but are cockroach quiet when it doesn't.

I am not sure why this discussion is limited to religious institutions. A church is an association of like-minded individuals. Conscientious objectors who see war as evil are allowed to opt out of the draft whether their objection is based on affiliation with an organized religion or is simply a personal moral belief. If this is your moral view of contraception, should you be compelled to provide it? Recently there have been similar cases where physicians were compelled against their religious beliefs to perform abortions. So have we now voluntarily given up our freedom of personal religion to be compelled to follow Obama's official statist religion?

From a different perspective, insurance historically has been managed by states. That is why insurance policies have not been sold across state boundaries and thus avoid regulation as interstate commerce. Under Obamacare I no longer have choice in insurance but must give up my personal freedom to choose to the failed policies of national control.

In both cases personal freedom is being confiscated as a result of federal encroachment on states rights to regulate, and I allow this to happen in exchange for the security of the government nanny state.

Why should my employer be able to force his religious beliefs on me?

And if we are going to do opt-outs, what else should people be able to choose to opt-out for? Should I get to choose not to support pregnancy and child birth after the second child? Can I choose not to support ED medication? What about medications for depression and other psychological problems? And before I support cancer treatments, I should get to know what cancer it is and how much it is the responsibility of the person who has it - I mean, why should I support cancer treatments for a smoker? And we all know that a glass of red wine 3 or 4 times a week can help lower the risk of heart problems, should I have to pay for heart treatments for those who refuse to help themselves by drinking a glass of wine occasionally?

@Chris B.
"Barack wonders why his "stimulus" plans spending trillions of dollars

is NOT working?"

The stimulus didn't work? The bikini graph and the 22 straight months of private sector job growth disagree.

How did people ever get contraception before the government mandated it?

'Contraception mandate outrages religious groups' - title

So did the oblishment of slavery
Womens rights
and Interacial marriage.

Did the world end?

No.

'Again we see the typical liberal mentality.' - Chris B | 5:11 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012

Partisan attack reflex...

vs...

**'Bristol Palin has book deal' - By Hillel Italie - AP - Published by DSnews - 03/01/11

'Bristol Palin, 20, has become a celebrity in her own right, through her broken relationship with her child's father, Levi Johnston...' - article.

Unplanned pregnancy.

"Birth control is a personal issue, so it needs to be paid for personally."

Isn't going to the doctor or the dentist for a checkup a personal issue too? What about wearing contact lenses vs. glasses. That's a personal decision. I think your logic here is flawed.

KDEE

How is your employer forcing his beliefs on you? You can still use contraception, they just don't want to offer insurance that pays for it! Forget religious bigotry, it's just plain economics! If your plan includes these "services", everyone's rate goes up. Regarding your second question, emphatically YES! If you don't like what benefits your employer offers, then you are free to find another one that offers better ones. Why shouldn't an employer be free to decide what benefits they offer? An employer that wants to attract the "best and brightest" will put together an attractive benefits package. Other employers may choose to offer higher pay and less benefits - some people like that better. It is astounding how little people understand about free market economics!

Contraception leads to lower abortion rates due to reducing unwanted pregnancies (see: Western Europe). It's part of why the Netherlands (lowest in the world, them or Belgium) has a 1/3 lower abortion rate than the US.

Notre Dame University, clearly a Catholic institution, will be forced by the government to offer its employees (most Catholic) insurance coverage for pregnancy prevention services and drugs (something contrary to their religious beliefs) or pay massive fines back to the government.

Please tell me you can see something wrong with that! Please.

@Glasses of wine: What if the government took away your freedom to drink wine or fined you whenever you did? Your belief in wine's properties to make your life better is not different than a Catholic's belief that abstaining for contraception will make their life better. I am sure both beliefs are sincere. Prohibition failed because American's like freedom. Obamacare will fail because American's like freedom.

Some laws protect freedom, others (particularly those passed recently) take away freedom. Was the last congress productive passing over 350 laws? They were productive in eating away at my freedom, that is for sure.

@ Mickey: He is prohibiting me from choosing on my own whether or not I want my insurance to pay for birth control.

I were Phillip-Morris, would I have a right to require everyone who works for me to smoke?

And even if the only women--I assume men do not bear physical consequences of not using birth control--become pregnant are married, does anyone question that the time and cost, possible health risks to mother and the child she carries inside her are mostly borne by the one who cannot benefit from this service if it is not available or affordable? Not every woman in these places, you know, is well-paid enough to buy this on her own. It is medicine. And sometimes it is also prescribed for things besides birth control. But I digress...One's employer is not one's doctor, and coming from the side of the aisle which touts less interference, telling women what they should or shouldn't do seems a bit precious. Moreover, a sickly mother of many is not as efficient as a healthier mother of fewer, no matter how badly she may have wanted more. Many of us have sadly had fewer children than we would have liked for health reasons. God gave us intelligence, too. History tells us that often women died in childbirth from too many children born too often, with not enough care for either mother or child. Would you see your wives and daughters return to that fate?

By the way, if they simply offer the service, they aren't cramming contraception down anyone's throat, are they? I assume they won't give well-baby checkups to fity-year olds just because it's part of their medical benefit package, right? So...of course, they can spend a minor fortune when the mothers need maternal care and the babies need care, and some are special-needs. Then what? And one more thing--will mothers-to-be retain their jobs if they go along with their religious training? Just wondering if everything on all sides has been thought out.

I still say the elephant in the room is that religions discriminate against women, and by enjoying a favored legal and cultural status in this country,their discrimination also enjoys that status. Denying a woman a health service that she feels is essential and is exclusive to women is discrimination, but because it's cloaked in the mantel of religious belief it's not only probably legal, it's championed. USA, USA, USA.

Well now, if this law is fair and appropriate, I want the Federal Government to force my employer to pay for my automobile insurance because we all know that cars have accidents and are therefore hazardous to a person's health.

Seriously, I see no problem in an employer offering insurance coverage as one of "their" employee benefits, according to the employer's own choice. This fits into the "free enterprise" concept, and allows an employer to compete in the job market.

But, in my opinion, to force any type of employer, religious or otherwise, to provide (and pay for) a specific employee benefit (especially with the threat of outrageous financial sanctions) flys into the face of freedom and is an insult to our founding fathers.

However, on the other hand, I will gladly withdraw my many objections if the government will purchase the insurance policies from me. Someone has to get rich from this deal, why not me?

Except for that last paragraph, I am very serious - and I do wonder who will get the insurance contract. It will be interesting to see if there is full disclosure. I hope it doesn't go that far, but if it does it will be important for the tax payers to know where the money goes.