I disagree. This is a perfect compromise. It allows women to receive, though
insurance, the basic preventative health care they need and deserve (including
all forms of contraception which, by definition, does not include pregnancy
termination despite the fact that some peole erroneously claim differently),
while removing from establishments of religion (churches) and their
directly-owned and directly-run hospitals, charities, etc., the need to provide
or pay for contraception if that conflicts with their policies and dogma. This
compromise also denies establishmnts of religion the ability to impose their
dogma and beliefs on people who do not agree with to them, thereby denying them
the ability to Talibanize the United States. This is the best of all proposed
solutions to date.
@UtahBlueDevil: "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."You're totally missing the point. You and
others. Religions don't want to decide what people can and cannot do in
their bedrooms. That's a total stretch. People can do whatever they
pllease. What religions don't want is provide healthcare for what is to
them repugnant... funding of the killing of the unborn through employer provided
health insurance.If folks want contraception, fine. They can take
their own money and purchase it. If they want an abortion, fine. Pay for it
If a person can't afford a condom, they shouldn't be having sex. We
shouldn't have to pay for their entertainment.
If you have a right to health care, it follows you have a right to the best
healthcare in the world. How come Obama has a right to better health care than
me? "All animals are created equal, but pigs are created more equal"
A company should be able to pay for whatever they want or don't want. That
also falls under freedom of speech. "my company won't pay for viagra
for me, those swearwords" -signed liberals. You have the freedom to work
for whoever you want. If you don't like your companies benefits=leave! Go
start your own darned company if you're so smart libs.
Lost in DC.... read more carefully. The compromise is that the coverage for
contraception would be funded outside of the employers current coverage - the
employer isn't covering any of the cost. Therefor, they should have no
say. They shouldn't have any say anyways. But this keeps their sacred
funds from being used for contraception.I wonder if these highly
moral companies who do not want their employes to use contraception and feel
that is their business - also are as morally concerned that they pay their
employees enough to support family cost when there is no family planning. Do
they feel the same moral mandata - are willing to take a stand - and fund larger
familiy sizes?I personally think it is none of the employers
business - its neither their right, nor responsibility. If they feel it is
their business to tell pre-menopausal women in their late 30s or 40s they should
no longer have relations with their husbands... well, I think that is a step too
far... and none of their business. Preventing unwanted and unsafe pregnancies
should not be part of some political grand standing. It isn't just sex
crazed teens on the pill.
Contraceptives reduce abortions. That is all that should have to be said.
This is not about cost, or forcing religious orders to provide coverage. It is
about finding a poison pill to make contraception more difficult to obtain. I
don't see anyone calling for insurance companies not to pay for viagra and
the like.Not about cost or religious freedom, its about religious
dogma run amuck.
worfMcallen, TXBeing an American citizen is voluntary. If you
choose to be an American you are expected to follow the mandatory rules and laws
governing all Americans. It's your choice.
Ultra Bob,People choosing to live together and share?That's an excuse for the takers. This country choose freedom, and
liberty.Share is voluntary, while stealing are when things are
forced away from you. With contraceptives, those who are responsible, and work,
are denied the right of choice.
Copy Cat"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."-Amendment NineSimply because a right is not enumerated
does not mean it is not given. The right to privacy is another such example.Religious freedom, no matter how enshrined it is in the Constitution
still cannot violate the rights of another. If healthcare is a right, and I
believe a very reasonable argument can be made for it, it cannot be trumped by
your right of religion.The issue isn't cost (I am a Soldier
with very good healthcare provided by you, the taxpayer) but rather do all
individuals have equal access to healthcare. As stated earlier, I can certainly
understand both sides of the argument. I certainly would like to be compelled
to do something I felt wrong, nor would I ask that of someone else; however with
Health Insurance being tied to employment, protections have to be in place to
ensure all who need medical care can receive it. Those who oppose this should
use preaching to lower the demand.
All employees are entitled to equal protections, including contraceptives. The
should not be denied such in the name of "religous liberty."
have been off the grid for several weeks. anybody know if Hobby
Lobby ever had to actually hand over any money for the fines they were
threatened with? Could it still happen that they will be forced to pay, or has
the president backed off from the bad press as a pr move? thanks to
whoever can fill me in on the status of the hobby lobby situation.
DarrellCan't afford contraception? Go to any campus health,
county health, planned parenthood, or any other birth control give away place.
There are plenty of people who will happily supply free birth control because
they believe in it. Why do you feel the need to violate religious
folks ability to live their religion?Why do you feel the need to
control others? You will not be any happier if you successfully
force people to violate their religion.
Darrel "...Every American has the right to Healthcare," -
There is NO such right in the Constitution of the United States. Go read it! It
is not there."and religious freedom should be used to deny
that." - Religious freedom IS guaranteed in the Constitution of the United
States. Religious freedom trumps health care according to our constitution.I know that through 2 and a half centuries men have given their all to
preserve this country and the freedoms afforded us in the Constitution. I have a
profound reverence for those freedoms. No one is trying to take away
your birth control. You have the right to buy it and use it. I believe in its
use and I have paid for every cent of mine. But I know many devoted religious
people who believe its use is sinful, per their religion. I would never trample
their right to freely exercise their religion to save me a couple hundred
dollars a year in birth control costs. I cannot understand why so many of you
who would. Would you want your freedoms sold for a couple hundred
bucks? I am sure not. Do unto others as you would have them do unto
Copy Cat – “Bottom line: If you want birth control, Buy It YOURSELF!
Don't make anyone else pay for it.”Did you not read the
article and the compromise proposal? Cost is no longer the issue…But I’m curious if you would have that same response if, say, your
Christian Science employer shouted at you “Buy It YOURSELF!” (by the
way, no need to shout), when you asked why he/she wouldn’t cover a needed
blood transfusion?And the claim that one is medically necessary and
the other is not is irrelevant (to preempt the obvious retort), as that is not
the argument the Catholic Church is making. They are choosing to see it as a
denial of their right to practice (i.e., dictate) their religion, rather than
correctly seeing their own view as a violation of the establishment clause.
[When Obama tries to force nuns to take birth control, then they’ll have a
case.]And since the cost issue has now been removed from the debate,
it should be quite clear to any reasonable observer that this fight is purely
Let's be very clear. The only contraceptives covered by insurance are
women's contraceptives. This editorial argues that women's
reproductive health care is so uniquely special that the rules applied to other
kinds of health care don't apply to women's health care. That's
a very tenuous argument at best.The comments here reveal lots of
assumptions about women who use contraception. Research shows that 98 to 99
percent of American women will use contraception during their lifetimes. Using
contraception isn't a sign that a woman is promiscuous or immoral. Lots of
women who already have children use contraception since they can't afford
more children. Isn't that exercising responsiblity?What's
more, employers cannot legally ask employees which medications they're
using or why they're using them. That means employer health plans are
already paying for employees to take antibiotics to fight off sexually
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahProcreation is between a
married couple and God. ============ So, that settles
it.That means it's NONE of your business, is it Mike?BTW
- the same applies to - the Churchthe Stateand your Political
@Copy CatHypothetical argument, let's say I belong to a
religion to teaches I must wed at 20, but cannot bear children until 25.Person B belongs to a religion that says they cannot pay for
contraception...Who wins? That is why you cannot
legislate your religious beliefs.
Tyler D"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."Bottom
line: If you want birth control, Buy It YOURSELF! Don't make anyone else
pay for it. THat might make them violate the exercise of their religion, which
There are no such things as absolute rights. Everything "right" has
reasonable restrictions. The classic example is I cannot yell "Fire" in
a crowded theater unless there is one. I have the right to assemble, but I
cannot incite riot. If I am a member of a religion that teaches it must stone
anyone caught in the act of adultry, and I act on that, I can reasonably expect
to be thrown in jail. Does that impede my right to "religious
freedom"?My rights cannot infringe on your rights. I can
preach, and try to persuade (DC 121:41) but I cannot impose or legislate my
beliefs onto another, no matter how strongly I feel on the subject.I
certainly understand and appreciate the quandry certain organizations may find
themselves in, such as the Catholic Church, and would be the first to say there
is no one perfect solution. Every American has the right to Healthcare, and
religious freedom should be used to deny that. I feel the best solution
is to provide what the law stipulates, but then use preaching, persuasion on
your members against using it.
@LostinDCYou ever heard of the FCC? Try and say the F-word on TV or the
radio and see what happens. Try and discuss a topic(such as sex) the FCC finds
objectionable, see how much money you're fined. Try and find a copy of the
Anarchist Cookbook or other material the Feds find objectionable. If you can
find that type of literature, you most certainly are monitored while you do it.
@lost in DCI would suggest spending a little less time on trying to
swing at every fastball you see coming your way (i.e., answering every
commentator), and a bit more focus on constructing good arguments.And while I’m sure it feels like you cranked every ball thrown right out
of the park, from my perspective I’d say you have a single, a couple of
foul balls, and a whole lot of swing-and-a-miss (strikes).
Lost in DC - Touche'! You make a good point. Although it seems that the
government hasn't done much about "bearing false witness" otherwise
we wouldn't have many members left in Congress and we might not have been
stuck in a war based on false premises. And most advertisers would be filling
our prisons, etc, etc, etc.And so, it's a complicated issue and
what the president has dione is offer a reasonable solution that allows a choice
to be made instead of denying a choice, as has been proposed by this the DN
Re: ". . . the Affordable Care Act, in its current state, gives them -
choices."No. They already have that choice. They can choose to
buy or to receive "free" contraception provided by any number of
libertine organizations.No one's stopping them.The
ONLY choice affected by dictatorial Obamacare implementing regulations is that
of real people to avoid participating in what they consider sin.Just
as the First Amendment-hating Obama regime planned it from the beginning.
Noodle, how are we denying free speech or freedom of the press? Your
comment would be funny except you seem to believe it, which is tragic.Bluedevil,Nice twist of the facts. No one is saying employers can do
that, only that they shouldn’t have to pay.ECR,You mean
you DON’T want the government enforcing the moral code of “thou
shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness”?
couples do have choices – they don’t need Obamacare to
force their employers to pay for itKJB1, George, Tyler DNice
twist and obfuscation – nothing in the proposal does what you sayDektolViagra is the OPPOSITE of contraceptives – but OK,
don’t pay for it.CraigHe’s really notPagan,You cannot cite Christ when you more often decry Him.
BO has set a double standard. He says he cannot do anything about families
priced out of Obamacare because of the law, but he can someone make a deal on
the abortion and contraceptive mandate contained therein? Why does BO have
wiggle room here but not when it comes to some families being priced out of
Obamacare?Because he cares more about forcing his abortion mandate
on all than he does about families having insurance.Roland,Costs, etc, do not address the basic 1st amendment right to freedom of
conscience, - your comment is moot.Joeblow, hutterite, PaganWhich of YOUR constitutional rights shall we compromise, then move on? 1st?
4th? 5th? 14th? 13th?Timj,Being forced to pay for it violates
their conscience. I am sorry you do not see that.Cjb,The
insurance doesn’t appear from thin air – it come as premiums are
paid – premiums which would violate conscience.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."The free exercise thereof
does not mean dictating your religion to others. And since for most people
healthcare is tied to employment (it's high time we decouple that
nonsense), I believe the first part is what holds sway here - "make no law
respecting an establishment of religion."Bottom line: if you
don't believe in birth control, don't use it.But since
many insurance plans have provided at least partial coverage of birth control
before the ACA, I can't help thinking this is just another picked fight
motivated largely by the "hate Obama" crowd and their media amplifiers.
Just because your employer does not have a condoms and birth control pills in
the break room, free for the taking, does not mean he/she is treating the
employees like serfs.Honestly folks, I know you got free
"contraceptive supplies" when you moved into the college dorm, but
entering adulthood means buying your own stuff for your needs and wants. It is
time to grow up and pay for your own.Think of it this way, if you
want to go drink, YOU buy the drinks. Or do you think your employer should
provide alcohol in the break room too, and give you a monthly alcohol voucher?
Are they required to give you monthly movie tickets too? Free smokes? because if
you are hooked on nicotine, that is a real need? Shall we add heroine to the
list too? Where does this end?How about employees and employers make
their own adult agreement on what will be paid for work given, without
government interference. If the employee and employer aren't a good match,
they part ways, and seek a better match. Seems pretty simple. It is
constitutional. It is freedom. It is not restricting anyone's rights.
"Procreation is between a married couple and God."Thank you
Mike Richards for adding some sanity to this discussion. Whether or not someone
chooses to procreate or not should not be left up to their church or to others.
It is their choice. That's what the Affordable Care Act, in its current
state, gives them - choices.
Mike Richards,"....Obama thinks that he is above the
Constitution. He has no right nor authority to dictate to any establishment of
religion what it will or will not do...."____________________No one is forcing the Catholic or any other church to be an insurance
provider. If they choose to be so engaged, they either follow the same
requirements every other provider is required to follow or they can divest
themselves of the enterprise.If you're looking to see who
regards themselves as above the Constitution, you might your focus onto them
just a bit. Freedom of religion was never meant to provide any believer with a
special exemption from the rule of law.
"Congess shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."Obama thinks that he is
above the Constitution. He has no right nor authority to dictate to any
establishment of religion what it will or will not do. Procreation is between a
married couple and God. How a couple chooses to procreate or to not procreate
is not his business.
Why pay for some ones behavior? - Worf What did Jesus do... to Mary Magdalene? She was most decidedly not a virgin.
@procuradorfiscalOk, Then lets make a deal. Liberals will drop the whole
contraceptive thing, because conservatives don't want to pay for something
they don't believe in. As long as conservatives allow the tax exempt status
on churches go away. They use police and fire services like the rest of us. Yet
my taxes currently subsidize these services for churches. Sound like a deal?
Mountainman 9:42 "America has become a nation where everyone is forced to
finance ...unmarried sexual activity."Yes, of course, because
the only people who want to prevent pregnancies are unmarried folks. There are
a variety of reasons to use contraception including medical reasons. It is
dangerous for some women to become pregnant. I know of a woman who has tried and
lost several pregnancies because of a specific medical condition. When and if
she and her husband decide to have children she will be put on a strict regimen
of medication and bed rest. In the meantime should she and her husband be
denied the right to have a sexual relationship because a religious organization
objects to providing contraception?It seems that offering
contraception to those who want it, or need it, or simply choose to use it to
avoid a pregnancy is a more fair a reasonable policy than denying it to everyone
to meet the desires of a specific group. Those who think it is wrong to use can
always make that choice, according to their conscience, not according to some
Maybe the best compromise would just be to make reproductive healthcare free for
all Americans through the Federal Government, that way "Religious
Employers" won't need to deal with it at all.Our taxes
already go to loads of things we don't all support: War, War on Drugs,
Death Penalties, etc.
My beliefs, no matter how sacred, cannot be used to infringe on the rights of
another. Healthcare is a right, recognized under the governments obligation to
protect Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If contraception
goes against your moral compass, you and your partner are free to excercise that
belief between the two of you. You are even free to preach that morality under
the First Ammendment, but you are not free to infringe on the rights of others
Worf asks: Why pay for some ones behavior?In a word,
it’s called civilization. It’s when a group of people decide to
live together sharing their lives, wealth, problems and solutions. Among other
things. We give our government the right and authority to make
rules governing our conduct according to the wishes of the majority. The goal
being the general welfare and benefit of the group. While not everyone will
agree with the rules, every body in the group is expected to abide by the rules.
Contraceptives are deemed to be beneficial to our society. Even
to the point where the government makes a rule that they be available to all.
The government rule does not force anyone to use contraceptives only that they
be available. The American Constitution says that the government
should promote the welfare of the people, this rule does that.
Religious beliefs protected by the Constitution are not the basis for public
law. It becomes problematic when the Catholic Church, for example, opts to
become an insurance provider. Nothing wrong with them doing that, but does than
mean that subsequent legislation is to be built around religious orthodoxy and
dogma? If so, which belief system is the standard that public law must conform
to? See the dilemma?I applaud the President for trying to find a
practical way to accommodate beliefs within the framework of public law. But
he’s dealing with a touchy situation when a church opts to wear a hat
other than its ecclesiastical one.
If they choose not to offer contraceptives they should be barred from providing
Viagra as well.
Conservatives ask for compromise based on religious arguments... and
offer none, in return. It is very simple. Abortion was legalized
over 40 years ago because the ban of abortion was not factually PREVENTING
abortions. They were still happening, very much illegally, and with great risk
to the person. Let's look at Utah. One of the most restrictive
abortion laws in the country, and this was the result: 'Judge
releases beaten teen, citing state's abortion law' - By Emiley Morgan
- Published by DSNews - 10/14/09 'A 17-year-old girl who paid a
man to BEAT her in the hopes of terminating her pregnancy has been...'
Anything that falls short of allowing organized religions from restricting
individual liberties is not going to be enough to appease them. am not sure why
he is even bothering at this point. Obama will never be able to bend enough to
please. The power elite and needs to stop looking to try. Obama iis a populist
and was hired as a populist, there is no rason to be apologetic to the elite for
Re: ". . . I will continue to believe that you're only in favor of
religious freedom when it comes to your own religious beliefs."No doubt.But, if you truly object to paying for the items you
list, how on earth can you justify insisting people be FORCED to pay for new
things that violate their beliefs?It seems that it's your
commitment to religious freedom that should be more closely examined.But, at any rate, if you support this liberal overreach, I hope you're
prepared for the backlash overreach that will surely come, and that your current
argument and actions would appear to justify.
@procurafiscadorMany people have religious objections to the uses to
which the government uses our tax dollars, but they don't have the choice
to opt out of paying for these things.Specifically, here are some
things that I have had to pay for that I consider far more abominable than
paying for someone's contraception:waterboarding of captured
prisonersAbu Ghraib torture of prisoners, resulting in multiple deathsthe entire Iraq warsolitary confinement of prisoners - including Bradley
Manningproviding taxpayer funds to defend DOMAWhen you take up
the cause to allow me to opt out of paying for these things, then I'll
accept that you are a supporter of religious freedom. Until then, I will
continue to believe that you're only in favor of religious freedom when it
comes to your own religious beliefs.
America has become a nation where everyone is forced to finance immoral behavior
of others; in this case, unmarried sexual activity.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.”
Obama does not care about people's religious liberties! He only cares about
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Gee. What a shock. The dnews producing an anti-Obama editorial. Now that's
not something you see every single day...
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?
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.
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.