Comments about ‘Obama: Birth control policy meets everyone's needs’

**'Romney Maintained Massachusetts Contraception Requirement That Mirrors Obamas Rule' - By Igor Volsky - Think Progress - 02/07/12

'In 2002 the very same year Romney campaigned for governor of Massachusetts the state enacted a contraceptive equity law that REQUIRED insurers that provide outpatient benefits to cover hormone replacement therapy and ALL FDA-approved contraceptive methods.' article

Apparently the Republican party had ZERO issue with mandatory birth control...

in 2002.

When Romney did it.

What ever happened to self-control being part of birth control?

This way of handling the issue is a win-win scenario. Women get the health care insurance they need and want, and the "religious" folk don't have to pay for it. Well done, President Obama.

Now we will see if the other side is willing to be reasonable, or whether they will continue their onslaught on women's rights. Somehow I don't see that onslaught easing in the near future.

The President called this a political wedge from the Republicans. It is not a political wedge. This wedge actually comes from his fast track healthcare bill that was ram rodded down people's lives by a Congress that said pass it and then read all 3,000 pages and decifer and interpret what was intended. We are finding out 2 years later some of the innuendos of that bill. People have given authority to the President, Secretaries of various agencies and others that appear to be able to dictate what we will or will not do as private citizens, owners of companies and corporations, and institutions and facilities that are operated by religious organizations for decades and maybe centuries. This without public hearings or public notice, per se. Even one of the high authorities of the Catholic Church in the United States of America met with the President and the President went against what they had discussed. That is not a wedge from anyone but the President himself and his Czars, closest advisers and Secretaries of Departments. He is definitely into the campaign mode.

"This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions."

No, this isn't complicated. In fact it should be the last thing being dicussed right now. The complicated issues are millions without jobs, Obama bailouts to Wall Street, the Arab Spring, Iran's nuclear potential,government funded companies declaring bankruptcy, health care laws being passed without being understood, let alone read. Now these are complicagted issues.

Reynolds v. US (1878) resolved this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision provided that although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The bottom line, this is a political, not a Constitutional dispute, and everyone knows it. Otherwise, let Mormons bring back polygamy.

My insurance does not pay for Viagra:
I think it should, and everyone else should pay for it, because just like Obama, my needs are EVERYONE elses need.

sarcasm

'What ever happened to self-control being part of birth control?' - 3grandslams | 11:04 a.m. Feb. 10, 2012

But self control is not being SUPPORTED.

As exampled by:

**'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.

Sex in the City?
Jersey Shore?

This is just an attempt to put responsibility for pregnancy...

back, on the pregnant.

And NOT the parents, who teach 'abstinence' only.

Like, Sarah Palin.

Various studies AND examples have proven abstinence, does not work.

To claim 'well why don't you just NOT have sex' is foolish...

when it comes from the parents, who had sex to have the child they are telling...

not to have sex.

Since when does Obama care about religious liberties after deliberately forcing this stuff on the Catholic Church even after birth control, etc was already accessible freely at the local health clinic?

Obama violates the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights and he is our President?

'My insurance does not pay for Viagra:' - Counter Intelligence | 11:20 a.m. Feb. 10, 2012

But you can GET, Viagra CI.

This is RESTRICTING access to birth control.

So the comparison, has no merit.

Be careful to look at the details. First remember that these are FREE. Is any product really FREE? NO. They will still be paid for. So the question is HOW? By raising premiums. So the cost of health care goes up for all. Second having listened to Obama's speech I noticed one big group left out. He said that CARITIES and HOSPITALS run by a religion will not be forced to pay, however is that the only two categories that the Catholic Church falls under? NO. What about religious schools? Will they still be forced to violate their religious beliefs? If the regulation goes as Obama said in his speech every Catholic school from a local parish school to Notre Dame WILL be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

fliiiiiiiip

FLOP

To 3grandslams | 11:04 a.m. Feb. 10, 2012
Iowa City, IA
What ever happened to self-control being part of birth control?

---------------

In other words, you're telling a loving married couple that they should eschew sex unless they are trying to start a pregnancy. What a GREAT way to promote a divorce.

Either the Constitution forbids Congress from legislating anything that concerns religion or it does not

Either the President is forbidden, by his oath of office, to enforce any law that contradicts the Constitution, of he is not.

It is clear that the legislation crossed the line when it violated the 1st Amendment rights of an establishment of religion to be protected from legislation. It is also clear that the President could not enforce that law without violating his oath of office.

This is a Constitutional question. This has nothing to do with a woman's right to not conceive a child after having had sex. This has nothing to do with the "morning after pill". This has everything to do with the Constitution.

Either we are a nation protected by the Constitution or we are not.

Mr. Obama was forced to concede that we are protected by the Constitution. It would have been much better had he understood his limited role as President and that he had acted properly in the first place.

He cares little or nothing about the Constitution, but he cares a lot for public opinion.

@Esquire:

I don't support the practice of polygamy, but I'll take you up on your suggestion. Why not bring back polygamy? Martin Sheen can cohbitate with two porn stars with his children and no problem seems to be raised legally. All over this country people live in all kinds of "polygamous" or polyamorous relationships without legal consequence, but a marriage contract makes such illegal and worthy of scorn.

I detest the notion that the SCOTUS "investigated the history" of religious freedom. This isn't the same as interpreting the legal document which is the Constitution. In bot the SCOTUS and the current POTUS actions, the constitutional oath was violated, to sustain and uphold the constitution.

I find it laughable that you would call Romney a flip flopper and give Obama a pass when he realizes the political landmine in his plan and seek a "compromise."

His action is no more than political expediency in an election year. If he wins in November, his assault on religion will resume with a vengence. If you cannot see the constitutional violations which are becoming more prevalent, you will well deserve the government enslavement which is almost imperceptibly binding us.

Hey, I don't have a strong opinion on the morality of birth control. I actually think it makes a tonne of sense as a tool in the proper setting such as a monogomous marriage. But, President Obama's solution is disingenuous at best. By forcing the insurance companies to offer free birth control, insurance companies will simply have to raise premiums to cover this unfunded mandate. Premiums on companies and individuals will rise accordingly. So those religious institutions whose employees now have access to free BC will pay a portion of the higher premium that they cover. And premiums on everyone else will go up proportionately as well.

BTW, when did the federal government get it in their heads that they could force private parties to give freebiew to other private parties? We continue to slide down a slippery slope...

Flip-flopping is okay if you are President Obama...he is a very measured leader and he just happened to change his mind on this one.

Sounds like a slight of the hand and a free lunch.

The issue has nothing to do with self-control 3grandslams. The issue is when a rape victim is transported unconscious or dazed by an ambulance to the nearest hospital. When this hospital is a Catholic hospital, they will refuse her request for emergency contraception. They will also refuse to discharge her to a hospital where she can get the prescription. You tell me who's rights are violated by telling a rape victim, who's control over her own body has been violated by her assailant, that she doesn't have the right to decide what to do with her body as long as she's in that hospital.

The LDS Church considers this instance to be a valid one for an abortion. Why do Catholics, some of who have unfortunately created a history in their church of violating the rights of others (civil, political, religious and otherwise), think they have a right to dictate their religious beliefs in this situation and cloud it in the name of religious freedom? Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If you open a hospital and you accept all patients regardless of religious beliefs, then the standard of care should not be limited by the hospital administration's religious beliefs. Otherwise, limit the patients to only be practicers of your religious beliefs, or get out of the hospital business altogether. That is the only issue here. Those who have called this an issue of religious freedom have seriously distorted this issue and relegated the victim to an even lower status than her assailant placed her.

@Pagan

"But you can GET, Viagra CI.

This is RESTRICTING access to birth control"

That is blatantly false: No one is stopping anyone from getting birth control: The Obama policy is to force insurance to provide it free. That is NOT the same thing.

But I agree the comparison is not exact: Viagra makes something work - contraception stops it from working: therefor there is MORE reason to demand free Viagra (that others MUST pay for). More sarcasm