"but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her
contraceptive care free of charge.What a crock nothings free,
SOMEONE has to pay for it. The other plans that will not be exempt from his
contraception mandate will bear the cost.But then, we know in BOs
eyes, religious freedom (guaranteed by the 1st amendment) PALES in comparison to
his devotion to radical womens groups.
More evidence that Obama cares little for precedent, law, the Constition &
religion. His views are radical & foreign. November cannot come soon
I could not agree more on the ill fate of this President. Exactly, who will pay
for these contraceptives but the Religious organisation? I cannot believe some
Christian organisations agreed with this proposal. But the biggest surprise to
me was when the President explained:"...as a Christian myself...ΓΆ
This is the guy who has censored the word Christmas in the White House, does not
celebrate any Christian ceremonies in the White House, and yet takes the time to
prey with his Jewish employees in the White House anytime there is a Jewish
holiday. This President has only and persistently come out as a Zionist to me,
but a Zionist who believes he is some kind of God himself.
This is just more pandering by Obama to his tadical base....From 50
million a year ago...now 65 million Americans are on welfare, dependent on the
govt......Unemployment when he took office 7%.,,now it is 8.5 and 10% if
we use the same standard we used for GWB....This is just a political shift
not a compromise....the Catholics are still forced to buy abortions for
employees....These facts just go to show the record that is Obama
and how we cannot afford another month let alone another four years of this
radical Saul Alinsky graduate.........Nobama 2012.... Let's take our
freedom back from the communist regime
The insurance company will still charge the Catholic Church for the coverage, it
will just say that it isn't. The cost to cover the pills will only be a couple
of dollars per person per month on the policy. It will never be noticed.
Obamacare will have us all paying for the pills and for abortions.
The President does not have the authority to force anyone to buy anything! He
does not have the power to force insurance companies to pay for anything! That's
the real issue here. He is way beyond his bounds set by the constitution! That's
all we need to know!
Can I make this clear? The workers of parish schools and hospitals aren't
covered by an insurance provider paying for a portion of their care. These
workers are covered by the church who contracts an insurance company to
facilitate the health care provided. They have a blue cross card but the church
pays the "insurance" portion after deductible is reached. It's called
"self pay". Many large companies do this. What insurance company is
assigned to cover their contraception? Further when a company or entity is
"self pay" they are required to follow federal laws and mandates and
can ignore the state ones. So there is no opting out. Why doesn't
the federal government just dispense contraception to everyone. All birth
control and morning after pill is given to the customer at the pharmacy and the
government gets the bill?
But Rep. Chris Smith (NJ), a leading pro-life advocate, refused to back down,
saying, the White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and
contradiction. It states, for example, that religious employers will not have to
pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their insurance
companies will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.------Rep Smith, do you think that just because a church (or
anyone) pays money to someone that they have control over what the recipient
does with the money? If I pay you for work done, do I have a right to restrict
what you do with your money?It is and has always been possible that
the Catholic church can hire someone, and with the money they pay to the
employee, the employee can use it for what ever, whether or not it violates
The vast majority of the American population (including Catholics) doesn't have
a problem with birth control. The notion that insurance should pay for it is not
controversial. The small set of social conservatives that have a problem with it
are heavily, heavily outnumbered.At some point Congress might want
to actually solve some actual problems. Republican politicians would do well to
stop trying to out-bishop the actual Catholic bishops. Only on the issue of
birth control, mind you. On the issues of immigrant rights, and economic
fairness, and unemployment, and war, forget about it. The Republicans aren't
interested. It's 2012. The GOP has nothing substantial to go with
against President Obama and they know it. So much so, that they are making a
fuss about easily accessible, affordable contraception -- which reduces the
incidences of abortion, and brings down health care costs.But no one
ever accused them of being reasonable.
28 states have this policy including massachusetts who instituted it under
Romney. Bunch of hypocrites many of you are... you didn't care one bit about
this issue until Obama did something, then suddenly we're on the precipice of
armageddon. It's ridiculous, and the voters are with Obama on this, even 52% of
Catholics. Now that Catholic hospitals have accepted it we're left with just two
options: 1. Republicans hate contraceptives 2. Republicans hate Obama and are
willing to throw women's healthcare under the bus to try and land a blow on him.
@ChristyThis isn't about whether birth control is a good thing or
not. This is about the federal government dictating what religion must provide.
Obama keeps pushing the envelope when it comes to the Constitution. We already
know, by his own words, that he has problems with the Constitution. He doesn't
like the fact that it restricts the power of the federal government. I always have to laugh when liberals (who are anything but, when it comes to
individual liberty) start talking about choice and not infringing on women's
rights. Liberals are only too happy to turn a blind eye to abuses of power when
it suits their needs. The Obama administration is making the Bush
administration look like a bunch of libertarians.Obama is just like
any other leftist in history. It's the same half-truths used by the left for
centuries. "We need to take some freedom for the betterment of society as
a whole." I am not buying this nonsense. If you want birth control, go
out and buy it or go to work for a company who WILL provide it. You have no
right, however, to demand it of the church.
Some of these comments here here demonstrate just how hugely irrational some
people are about this president. No one is saying that this
contraception isn't going to be paid for. The insurance companies are more than
happy to provide contraceptives to women because the cost of contraceptives is
way cheaper than the cost of pregnancy and childbirth. Providing contraception
SAVES the insurance companies money. And 95% percent of women in the US use
contraception, including a large number of religious women too. And now, thanks
to the change in policy, religious institutions will have their thoughts and
feelings respected, and will not have to do something that goes against their
conscience. It's a win-win-win for religious liberty, women's health and the
health insurance industry.And Obama has shown himself willing to do
something that Republicans seem to be unwilling to do: compromise. Some people need to get a grip. If it makes you happy to say the most
outrageous, over the top things you can about the president, more power to you.
But all it does is makes one side look like a bunch of irrational ideologues who
care more about name-calling than good governance. Swing voters, those who
determine the outcome of elections, are ALWAYS turned off be that kind of
rhetoric.Every single reasonable thing that this president has tried
to do has been met with hyperbolic rhetoric and outright hatred, even when those
proposals are supported by business and the majority of the American
electorate.If Republicans think that overheated language, vitriol
and inflexible obstructionism is a winning strategy, I think they will be in for
a very rude awakening come November.
@UtahCenteristI disagree. I don't think President Obama comes
across as taking the moral high ground of compromise. It looks like he sent up
a trial balloon and it got shot down. His philosophy is not one that
compromises. He keeps pushing and retreating to see what he can get away with.
Don't think for a minute that if he wins re-election he is going to care about
compromising on stuff like this. It is an election year and that's the only
reason he backed off.
@A1994"It looks like he sent up a trial balloon and it got shot
down"He secured the support of the head nun with Catholic
Hospitals before making the announcement. That's not floating a trial balloon,
that's getting your main opponent to agree with you, then announcing your
I have a serious question. I view war as immoral and a grave sin. Can I opt
out of using my tax money for wars?
@atl134Great. So he asked one nun at a hospital. The point is that
it affects ALL religious organizations. Again, this isn't about what
contraception for women. It's about crossing the line of separation of church
and state and telling the church what must be done. The constitution forbids
it. If the doctrine of even one church, let alone the entire Catholic church,
says that birth control is against their beliefs, the federal government has no
power to make them provide it. And I do believe this is an indication of things
to come if Obama wins a second term. This is the same president who
made promises of being transparent and then had his party RUSH one of the most
significant, life-changing bills (the healthcare law) through congress on
Christmas Eve using a budgetary procedure so he only needed a simple majority of
votes. He doesn't care about the Constitution and neither do his supporters if
it skirting the bill of rights helps their cause.
If I ran an insurance company, I would certainly rather pay for the
contraceptives (legal, by the way, for about half a century) of many women than
the abortion of a single woman, and would rather do THAT than pay for a live
birth. If you want fewer abortions or unwanted pregnancies, then look to better
contraception, and better availability of it, as part of the answer. As for a
big federal "power grab", the right never hesitates to instruct women
in how their uterus should be used with the threat of legal punishment. And
unlike the frothing posters of the right, I have no hyperbolic names for anyone.
It's so funny... the majority of Catholic women use birth control. Amazing how
people will get so up in arms over something that is really a non-issue.
The Catholic church does stand for good in the world. If they would stop putting
so much energy into non issues such as birth control that really aren't wrong or
immoral, they would have more political capital and energy to fight true evil
"And unlike the frothing posters of the right, I have no hyperbolic names
for anyone."Isn't calling someone 'frothing' kind of...the
same...whatever.Anyway, people still seem to be missing the point.
This isn't about the benefits of birth control. This is about MAKING a private,
religious institution do something that goes against its beliefs. So, in the
case of the Catholic Church, whether the government is demanding they pay for
insurance that covers birth control or abortions, to them it is the same.So far, nobody who is defending the Obama administration has been able
to debate the fact that the government has no authority to make a private
institution pay for an act that runs counter to its beliefs. The only response
the left has is to list all the benefits of birth control. You cannot argue
that the government is overstepping its bounds. If the government
can dictate that churches must provide birth control (in the name of women's
health), why can it not dictate that churches perform gay marriages (in the name
of equality)? And if they refuse, if they break Obama's laws, will the
government then pull their tax exempt status?
IF Obama gets elected in Nov. there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that there
will be more and more "mandates".As a (then) lameduck
President WHY WOULDN'T he add more and more mandates through executive fiat?All the while insurance costs go up and up and up...........!
This is the problem with employer based private insurance markets, you can't get
everyone coverage. The way to solve this is with universal healthcare. Ever
notice that churches don't complain about coverage of birth control in Europe?
That's because it's not employer provided. Just one more benefit of universal
coverage here (also it's cheaper as a simple comparison of GDP%'s of healthcare
spending by nation would show, there's no for-profit motive to deny care, nobody
goes into bankruptcy over medical expenses, no pre-existing conditions, and
everyone has access to healthcare).
Taxpayers, even pacifists, fund wars through taxes. Coal companies help fund the
very mine safety regulations which no doubt cut into their profits. Rich people
resent paying taxes for programs that will not, they feel, make any difference
in their lives. Even non-profit organizations have fees and rules which
complicate their operations.And so it is with "tax free"
organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church and its thousands of
subsidiaries. But they get more attention because the country has many
Catholics, and the person trying to achieve healthcare opportunities for all is
President Obama, a Democrat in this 2012, an election year. Which
brings to mind the question: why don't Republicans have to propose anything that
would help our broken system other than declare they will "end
Obamacare"? Note - Sorry for the use of the term
"frothing". I was just a bit disgusted with someone calling themselves
"TRUTH" while letting fly with scare terms like "communist