Obama administration offers faith groups new birth control rule

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    Re: "No one - not the sworn to some evil Pres. Obama - is 'forcing' anyone to do anything against their own free will or choice."

    Except he's forcing those who don't want to participate in others' birth control or drug-induced abortion to pay for them.

    Very much "against their own free will or choice."

    There appears to be little of open-mindedness about such a disingenuous apologetic.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 4, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    If you don't want or believe in birth control - don't ask for it.

    No one - not the sworn to some evil Pres. Obama - is 'forcing' anyone to do anything against their own free will or choice.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 3, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    No i do not think he has violted any of those amendments and if you believe he has then present evidance to support your claims along with evidance to support you claims about his position o.n the second amendment which we are still waiting for.

    @social mod
    I think you read to much I not my second post. You are right there are and shod be limits on the powers of all our elected officials and they should be called to task when they exceed them however blatantly miss using terms as the posters above indeed did do only weakens their arguments.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Pagan, the government shouldn't be paying for and providing viagra. The government must reduce its reach. You made a great point that there are so many examples of government overreach.

    I can assure you that most conservatives are consistent in their vision of government powers and purpose. A smaller government will greatly benefit our nation.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    First, if you read my post, it doesn't say that we have an authoritarian government. It simply points out the flaw in your previous logic. That it IS possible to have an Authoritarian government elected to office through democratic process.
    Second, By the argument you put forward in your second post, it would follow that anything a president does is ok, so long as he wins the election.
    We have a constitution for a reason. It is to put a check on the powers we the people lent to our government. When the government begins to extend itself beyond the powers given it by the Constitution, those citizens paying attention have a duty to call foul. It doesn't matter if the majority want something or not, when it violates the rule of law, they can't have it.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:36 p.m.

    so you admit, then, he IS after the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, and maybe even the 13th?

    read ANY of his quotes on gun control, and you can see he abhors the 2nd.

    OK, eliminate coverage for Viagra.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    Re: "Btw authoritarian regimes don't typical bother with making concessions."


    Just as this authoritarian regime refuses to do.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:00 p.m.

    Viagra is covered by government funded Medicare.

    If you are upset about birth control for women being covered by our tax dollars but NOT male enhancing drugs factually being covered by our tax dollars...

    you are a hypocrite.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 2, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    I really don't get it. Government paid birth control? This is an insult!

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    "BO wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment."

    really please quote and sight the source for us where President Obama has said he wants a repeal (revoke) of the second amendment.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 2, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    @social mod fiscal con
    so the twice elected president that is doing what the majority of Americans that just reelected him in a free and open election by a majority vote to do is an authoritarian democracy within himself? sorry still not buying it. He s doing what the majority of Americans voted for him to do nothing more.

  • Kirk R Graves West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    If someone broke into my house and took all my stereo equipment, is it a compromise when he offers to give me back one of the speakers?

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    It is very possible to have an Autoritarian Democratically elected government. The two are not mutually exclusive. The first is about how the govenment governs and who holds the power to do so. The second is about how the government is put into power.

    There is no connection between a company not wanting to PAY for a product on moral grounds and your example of dictating to your employees how many children they can have. The same lack of logic applies to your example of Smokers, Drinkers and the Overweight. You might be opposed to their lifestyle, but you are not being required to act in any moraly repugnant way to support it.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    What about blatantly miss using terms like "dictator" makes you think gives you a winning argument?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    BO offers a compromise to the constitutional rights of those who oppose him. I did not think the rights guaranteed in the constitution were open to compromise. But I guess Obamacare trumps the 1st amendment.

    Affirmative action trumps the 14th amendment

    TSA trumps the 4th and 14th amendments

    the fairness doctrine promoted by the dems trumps more of the 1st amendment

    the dems fought a civil war to protect slavery, thereby gutting the 10th amendment

    BO wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment.

    Why should we be surprised that he wants to further eviscerate the 1st amendment? After all, his opponents only have their guns and religion to cling to, take those away and they will be forced to embrace him - just like Stalin in the early days of the USSR.

    Which other constitutional rights should we compromise away? Think how much safer we'd all be if the right to not self-incriminate embodied in the 5th amendment only applied to misdemeanors?

    Should we compromise away parts of the 13th amendment, too?

    Oh, and airnaut,
    the Everett Herald reported final assembly of the 787 was done in a WA plant. So much for your claim of NO union involvement.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    I am going to say something which usually makes me cringe when others say it. But I got this from an Islamic scholar (Islamic studies at Harvard - not jihad studies in Yemen).

    "America is a Christian nation." The scholar then explained that if we make a Venn diagram showing the union between religion and Christianity, the government has avoided treading into the realm of Christianity. The problem for Moslems is that the government is not set up to not intrude into Islam.

    America is a Christian nation, we need to stop intruding on Christianity. At the same time, to be accepting of diversity we need to find how not to intrude on other religious traditions.

    Steamrolling government intrusion without consideration of freedom of conscience will make us less diverse. It is as progressive as the redneck who views Moslems as terrorists and thinks we should "fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here".

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    I think overpopulation is a problem. I am morally opposed to large families.
    In my company, I want to restrict healthcare coverage to 2 children ONLY.
    I also refuse to cover Smokers, Drinkers, the Overweight, all on moral grounds.

    This could get interesting.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:06 a.m.

    Obama is the worst uncompromising dictator ever. :)

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 1, 2013 11:11 p.m.


    So by your own admittance the term regime is typically associated with a authoritarian not a demoratily elected government right? Sorry but you kind of proved Tolstoys point.

    "Bypassing the elected officials of the people" you mean like oh maybe the president who is elected as a representative of the people?

    Btw authoritarian regimes don't typical bother with making concessions.

  • LifeLibertyHappiness Draper, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 10:54 p.m.

    The Obama administration, as David says, doesn't understand "free". A principle we leaned in high school, TANSTAAFL - There ain't so such thing as a free lunch, is still true. Free means charging higher premiums to everyone else. Having "the government" pay for it means having your friends and neighbors pay for it. Like the ridiculous, politically motivated bailout of GM started by President Bush and finished by President Obama. Now GM doesn't want to pay it all back and leave tax payers holding about $40 billion. Nothing is free. And no, viagra and vasectomies shouldn't be "free" either. GM should pay back every dime and not be able to buy back it's stock from the Government at less than the Government paid unless they take whatever loss the Government (agai,n us, the taxpayers)incurs, turn it into a note payable and pay back every dime. That's why I will never buy another GM car until they pay back every single penny they took from the tax payers. No more bailouts, not more Government mandated free stuff.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    Re: ". . . every time you use the word regime your arguments lose more credibility . . . ."

    Just for the record, a perfectly acceptable definition of "regime" is "A government, esp. an authoritarian one."

    It does, admittedly, connote a certain element of illegitimacy. But the Obama regime insists on hewing closer to that line every day -- legislating through unconstitutional executive fiat, for the express purpose of bypassing the elected representatives of the people.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Feb. 1, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    This is an improvement?

    Previously, the Catholics and others had objected, because it requires them to pay for medical procedures they are morally opposed to.

    Under the "compromise," these organizations are...required to pay for medical procedures they are morally opposed to.

    Some people hear the word "compromise" and start slavering like Pavlov's dog, without bothering to drill down into the inconvenient details.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    so he once again offers a compromise and you once again insist he is inflexible? it is pretty simple to see anyone that does not walk lock step with you fits into the category of socialistic and evil. sorry that you think the majority of americans that twice voted him into office are so bad it must be very difficult to live among us.

    every time you use the word regime your arguments lose more credibility, you may not like that he was elected twice into office by the majority of americans but it is what it is and it certainly does not fit the definition of a regime,

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    Because a large number of women use birth control, the administration has made it a priority for women to receive free contraceptive coverage. But the coverage isn't free. Someone has to pay for it. Because of Obamacare this "free" coverage is paid in the form of taxes by all Americans. Remember, the Supreme Court said it was a tax and not a fee.

    I wonder when the administration will require insurers to cover, "free of charge", prostate coverage for men. If men live long enough they will all be at risk of having prostate hypertrophy or prostate cancer.

    I also wonder when the administration will require, "free of charge", immunizations, breast cancer screening, strep throat treatment medications, Scout camp physicals, etc.

    I also wonder when free housing, automobile, clothing, and cosmetics will be provided by the government. Why stop with universal, "free" coverage of contraceptives?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    Re: "Obama has once again offered a 'compromise' . . . ."

    Good thing you put the word "compromise" in quotes. So we know you're not seriously suggesting that when this regime gives up nothing, and demands that everyone else give up their principles to accommodate it, that action could somehow be characterized as an actual compromise.

    Nothing proposed by the regime permits people who are morally opposed to its dictate to avoid participating in it. It merely offers a fig leaf to cover the naked and unassailable fact that the regime is dictating that people opposed to birth control must support birth control.

    What's next?

    And will liberals agree that the next Republican administration can order them to contribute to support the goals of religious organizations?

    This liberal overreach could easily come around to smack liberals harder than they anticipate.

    Their dogma appears on the verge of being run over by their karma.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Feb. 1, 2013 1:10 p.m.


    So the party that doesn't agree with your progressive, socialistic vision of America is the party of "No." Thank God for that.

    By the way, either the DesNews doesn't find anything wrong with the Obama Administration or they're not doing their job. Or perhaps they don't have the courage.

    Regardless, no one is that good. And yes, I have to find my news elsewhere, including that evil FoxNews.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Feb. 1, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    There --
    Obama has once again offered a "compromise" to keep moving forward.

    Let's see if the All-or-Nothing, party of "No" takes it, or leaves it.