Comments about ‘In our opinion: President Obama's compromise for contraceptives misses the mark’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 5 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

A recent study found that women who were given access to contraceptives at no cost had an abortion rate that was reduced by two-thirds. Since abortion rates have already declined by 30% since 1980, a further 2/3 reduction would lead to a abortion rate 76% below its 1980 level. That's more than we could accomplish with the passage of any law.

That's something for the religious to be happy about.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Seldom are compromises perfect. This seems pretty reasonable.

Seems that the first argument used was that "we don't want to pay for things we are morally opposed to."

This compromise seems to address that concern.
Could it be that the real goal is to limit the use of birth control?

Coming up with a reasonable compromise may be impossible when aiming at a moving target.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Under the administration's proposed compromise, a separate insurance plan covering contraceptives would be provided . . . free of cost . . . ."

There's what makes this "compromise" anything but.

As the editorial points out -- nothing of value is truly free.

The contraceptives and abortion drugs have to be bought and paid for. Unless the President's proposal includes an offer to cover the cost from his own deep pocket, people whose religious beliefs prohibit their involvement in behavior they consider a grievous sin will -- against their principles -- become unwilling enablers of the behavior.

This liberal overreach is as dangerous for liberals as it is for people of faith. In the normal political give and take, liberal overreach is sure to end. Liberals are now setting up the mechanism and enabling those who will surely demand a backlash overreach of similar magnitude.

Are you ready, liberals?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Gee. What a shock. The dnews producing an anti-Obama editorial. Now that's not something you see every single day...

Timj
South Jordan, UT

Religious freedoms aren't being violated here. People still have the right to decide whether or not they use contraceptives. No one's forcing contraceptive use on them.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

This article misses the mark. It will not be the employer that will be ensuring a work place that provides contraceptives, but it will be the law. Under the law all people are to have access to such insurance.

In order to sin, a person must make a choice to do it, and because it is the law that is requiring this insurance, the employer has no choice and is therefore not sinning.

It would also help if religions would choose their battles. It is easy to see why abortion is wrong. It is too close to murder. This however is a nusance rule. It is religion trying to make people feel guilty for people having sex unless they want to have a baby. It is religion taking a perfectly good and natural act between two people and trying to insert themself in between those people. This is why there is not much sympathy in this case for the religious argument.

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

This opinion is outrageous. If its against your religion, don't use contraception. If you don't want to be a part of our societies health care system, do what the Amish do, or the local polygamous sects, separate yourself. Otherwise, I would have thought BOMBS topped the list higher than contraception, but hey, who and I to judge.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Access to contraception is not a religious issue it is an attempt to sabotage Obama's health care reform. If each employer only allows plans that support their individual belief system the health care law becomes unworkable. What if a Jehovah's Witness employer doesn't allow any blood transfusions on his health care plan? Or what if a Southern Baptist won't cover any illness associated with drinking? Or what if I decide that having more than one child is immoral and I refuse to allow my companies self funded insurance plan to cover the birth of that second child?

Sometimes individual rights to healthcare access trump rights to religious expression.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

Which is better: each of three hundred million people acting according to his or her own conscience, or one government government official dictating what they all must do? Obamacare is built on the latter model. The closer our approach to totalitarianism, the more violations of conscience there will be.

We still can repeal this monstrosity of a health care law, but the hour is growing late.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

Why do conservatives only care about their constitutional rights, while trampling or ignoring others? All you people care about is guns and God. While you sit there and ignore free speech and freedom of the press. When really those are even more important than your rights, because without a free press and without free speech, well, you don't have your other rights either.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

Take note of the dozens of passages in Obamacare which say "the Secretary of HHS shall determine...." Rather than write the law themselves, Congress chose instead to put immense regulatory power into the hands of one person. This is why Nancy Pelosi said we would have to pass the law in order to find out what's in it. The what's-in-it is still being determined by Secretary Sibelius, and it's not pretty.

In this instance, the Secretary is telling you that you must provide your employees with abortion-inducing drugs. The fact that is is being done indirectly does not change the substance of the rule.

This is why I called it totalitarianism, and why I believe there's more to come.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

So what the DN is saying, since we have decided on a system of employer based healthcare, the employers get to decided what you do with your spouse, when you have kids, how many kids you have, and under what conditions. Making it so that the employer doesn't have to use any of their own money to sponsor a life style that is not to their liking isn't enough. No, the DN is proposing that employers have the ability to reach into your off hours lives, and even though there is no cost to the employer, that these employers get to determine what spouses do with each other. Employers get to decide that relations between legally wedded couples should be restricted for only procreation, and that is all.

Do we not see any level of over reach here. I get that the employers should not have to pay for things they morally are against. But then to take that next step that employers also have the right to determine what happens in the bedrooms of married couples, and determine family planning for them.... that goes way beyond any right any employer has.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Obama does not care about people's religious liberties! He only cares about redistribution.

ECR
Burke, VA

I understand the sentiments expressed in this essay and I agree with many or most of them. But I wonder when we might ask a different question.

When will religious organizations or religious individuals stop asking the state to enforce their moral code on the population in general?

All our lives would be more pleasant if everyone believed the same things we do. But they don't. And it would be unrealisitc to expect them to.

For those who think that even contraception is sinful they should do all they can to personally convince others not to use them - of course, within the limits of lawful and reasonable behavior. But like it or not, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land and that option is part of it. It is possible to separate ones self from practices that go against a moral or religious principle. Most of us do it every day we live in this secular world.

My suggestion would be to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Funny how the same people who go on about getting the government out of people's lives have no problem with using "religious liberty" to allow employers to treat their employees like serfs...

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The thing is, there's no way everyone could come out satisfied on this. So we've got to pick a rational, reasonable solution and move on.

freedomingood
provo, Utah

Some people's religion doesn't allow them to have any sort of blood transfusion. Should we exclude that as well? Should my employer use his financial power to make me follow HIS religion?

That's what this is about. Employers that want to use their financial power to FORCE their employees to follow their own religions. Ridiculous.

You know when you say the founding fathers were religious, god fearing men it's partially true. But even so, they have the sense in their heads to separate church and state!

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "People still have the right to decide whether or not they use contraceptives. No one's forcing contraceptive use on them."

Wrong. That's the demonic nature of this liberal NON-compromise.

Real people -- people opposed to contraception on moral grounds -- will NOT be able to avoid enabling and paying for others' contraceptives and chemical abortions. The regime proposes forcing OTHERS' contraceptive use on them.

And, its proposed fig leaf can't cover the naked truth -- people opposed to contraception and abortifacient morning-after drugs will be FORCED to buy and distribute them, FORCING them to participate in what they consider a mortal sin.

As usual, liberals are buying votes with our money. In this case, they're buying godless libertine votes with religious people's money.

Once their narcissistic overreach opens this Pandora's box, I hope liberals are prepared for the backlash of anti-liberal overreach proposals that will certainly result from it.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It would be interesting to know the exact specifications of the mark that the president missed.

Hopefully the President of the USA has his aim on protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people rather than cater to the beliefs of a church or religion. Seems like the idea in the American Constitution was to prevent the government from giving favor or disfavor to churches or religions.

According to the article, the presidents plan would not require the church to pay for insurance for contraceptives, but would uphold the persons right to choose an insurance that did provide contraceptives at no cost to the church. But the church is saving that the government cannot provide rights or freedoms to people in conflict with the churches beliefs.

Giant churches and corporations are in a fierce competition for control of the American government. The American way of life, it’s freedoms and rights depend on the prevailing of our government.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Why pay for some ones behavior?

Paying for contraceptives is like having government supply super bowl tickets.

We're becoming a nation of whiners, and beggars.--Thank you Obama for crazy leadership.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments