A lot of people appear to be missing the point, and therefore are ignorant in
their accusations and insensitive in their statements justifying what THEY view
as an "acceptable" compromise. The issue is not about birth control per
se; it's being forced to pay for it. It is completely true that a Catholic
(or other religious) employer can't keep its male employees from buying
"male birth control," but the issue is not control over others,
it's freedom of religious and moral choice. If I as an employer am against
birth control of any kind, due to my religious convictions, I can't prevent
my employees from using it, but I shouldn't be forced to pay for it -- and
that goes for BOTH male and female methods. The difference between this and war
actions is that individuals do not participate in war; governments do. I have
no control over whether we fight or invade another country; that is a
governmental decision. However, contraception and other elective medical
procedures and decisions are individual decisions. Your arguments are invalid.
@ Lost in DCBaccus0902,"Why do you write
“Ammendments” to make it appear I have misspelled the word when the
word does not appear in my comment?"Just because it tickles me :)My dear friend, I don't whorship President Obama. But, I like him a
lot. I think he is perhaps the most decent, caring and honest man that have been
the President of the United States in a long, long time. Do I agree with him
100%? NO!I am no saint. But the study of religion, all of them, is
my favorite pass time. In my research of different philosophies, I have
concluded that Christ and his teachings are the most beautiful, easy and
practical teachings for the individuals and society.I believe in
free enterprise and free agency. Yet, I think a Laisses Faire economic system is
repugnantly unfair,is the equivalent of social darwinism. Therefore, I reject
the actions of the Republican Party.Free agency, rights and
responsibilities should be equal for all people in society. All workers should
be entitled to universal Health Care. It should be up to their principles how
they manage their health. Not the employer and not the state.
@ The Truth,It is fascinating how we can see the same person or object but
see something or somebody completely different.The first Obama
Administration was extremelly frustrating to people like me, leftist, liberal
and Christian, because it seemed to us that President Obama was always going out
of his way to reach political compromises with the Republican dominated
Congress, to always get a resounding "NO!" from them.The
majority of this country supports President Obama. Why is that? Perhaps because
most people see the President with the same lenses I see him.Going
back to the issue of religious not been happy. Well, is not all religions and
not the majority of people who attend church.
Paying for birth control, and abortions should be voluntary. Just that simple.
Baccus0902,Why do you write “Ammendments” to make it appear I
have misspelled the word when the word does not appear in my comment?you do not dispute my claim BO is attacking our constitutional rights –
you just complain about the bill of rights (we wouldn’t need amendments if
they had it right the first time), and previous occupants of the WH as you
worshipfully praise BO.Pagan, One need not be a religious
organization to defend religious convictions. Split hairs as much
as you like, you still have zero evidence that I am against birth control for
women...Where have I said they should not get it? All I’ve said is
religious employers should not be forced to violate their religious convictions
to buy it for them.Furry,Insurance companies do NOT provide
it, they are the intermediaries between the PAYERS – employers and
employees, and providers. Employers are still being forced to PAY for it no
matter how BO parses words.Hank Pym,Nothing is preventing
women from choosing to buy birth control
@lowtherb1:"... since the federal government funds abortions, and you,
I assume, pay federal taxes, are you participating in abortions?"Certainly, taxes go for things we would like to see our money go for. But
this issue is about requiring a religion to provide money (insurance) for
something that goes against the religion's principles and teachings. There
is a significant difference.
to lost in DCPagan raised a perfectly valid point. To answer the
question of Why? Because it allows women to chose their own destiny.
@Baccus0902Obama may support some christian principles.
but his methods are certainly NOT. Obama's methods involve
teaching hate for certain groups, peoples, and organizations,and
Depriving others of rights and properties to impose his "principles", and otherwise running rough-shod over the constitution.Nothing Christ-like about it, no love, no choice, no agency,just
the choices he allows you.
The government does things everyday that "someone" is bound to find
objectionable, even on religious grounds. Given the back bending (no cost to
religious objectors) accommodation proposed, it should be crystal clear that
this fight is purely political.
I believe in free agency. However, the environment needs to be created first.
Force these businesses which call themselves religious institutions offer the
same health care as the rest of us business owners. Here, the garden of Eden is
set. Now, let the children, (the workers) decide what they will do with heir
agency. If they want to use it for birth control, fine. If not, fine. But they
need to have agency. Taking away agency and trying to shelter people
was never part of God's plan
To lost in DC 8:30 p.m. Feb. 2, 2013Furry,I do not understand
why these so-called "health” institutions think they are justified in
trying to impose their positions and dogma on everyone else contrary to the
protections provided in the US CONSTITUTION. Liberal dogma trumps that out-dated
old rag anyway.------------------They're not trying
to violate anything. Insurance companies should provide identical complete,
comprehensive and basic health care coverage to everyone in return for a premium
paid to the company for the coverage, and each person should then be able to
decide what parts of the coverage s/he wants to use (example - as a woman, I
would have no use at all for the portion of insurance covering me that would
treat male impotence). Employers shouldn't get into health decisions or
insurance coverage at all. Issue resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
Shouldn't those who are adamantly opposed to abortion be the strongest
supporters of birth control?
@worfWhile its unfortunate that you feel insulted, there is no
constitutional right to not be.
Government paying for birth control is an insult?
No religious organizations are fighting female birth control, just the
unconstitutional mandate that they violate their religious convictions. - lost
in DC How can you claim to be defending religious convictions... and claim that you are NOT, a religious organization.
Again, the title of this story is... ‘Religious organizations
'disappointed' by latest offer on birth control mandate’ Split hairs as much as you like, you still have zero evidence to be
against birth control for women... but not, for men.
My dear Lost in DC,It is funny you keep on quoting
"Ammendments" to the Constitution. So, our inspired founder fathers
didn't get it right the first time. Therefore, it was necessary for other
inspired people to fix it...... How convenient!I don't know
about you. But I have not seen a true Christian as President Obama in the White
House for a long time. President Obama seems to embody the principles of justice
and fairness that Christ preached and the founders of this nation conceived.DN rejected my previous post for containing "according to the
moderators" vulgarities and obscenities. But I just wanted to say to you and
others that the Religious groups, Jewish, Christian, Muslim (usually
monotheistics) are usually fighting for political control. Which make sense
since they believe to have the truth.I believe in God and His
inspiration. I have difficulties with men and their greed and ambition.
Lets keep in mind here that birth control really isn't an evil in that it
doesn't hurt anyone. Religions teach good principals, but unfortunately
they also make up arbitrary rules that burden peoples lives needlessly. This
isn't harmless. It degrades peoples happiness and it diverts peoples energy
that could have gone towards them resisting real evil.It isn't
right that women get less health coverage just because they work for a religious
Hutterite,Which of YOUR constitutional rights should we violate, then tell
you to just lump it and move on? The 5th, 4th, 14th, 13th? Which?Furry,I do not understand why these so-called "health”
institutions think they are justified in trying to impose their positions and
dogma on everyone else contrary to the protections provided in the US
CONSTITUTION. Liberal dogma trumps that out-dated old rag anyway.PaganNo religious organizations are fighting female birth control, just
the unconstitutional mandate that they violate their religious convictions.
Nice obfuscation and misstatement, though.
You can go into any gas station and purchase male birth control.Why
the religious argument against female birth control?
In my philosophy I am required to fight evil, in myself and in the world. I do
not expect to win all battles against evil. In the Bhagavid Gita, it is
explained that the duty of a human was to fight against evil and give the
results to God. And yes, if my government and country participate in abortions
and I pay taxes and I live here, I expect that I will suffer from the collective
karma.The battle against government funding of abortions has had
some wins, and with the ascendency of the Obama administration, some loses. But
just as the abolitionists had their wins and loses, in the end, the abomination
of slavery in this country was abolished. The Americans knew that slavery was
horrific but they tolerated it. The turning point came when President Pierce
used the force of government and declared all citizens could be deputized to
capture runaway slaves and the military could be used to take slaves back to
their owners. I see a correlation with the force of government now being used
to force citizen who do not participate in the barbarity of abortion to now
participate against their concience and their will.
I do not understand why these so-called "religious" institutions and
employers think they are justified in trying to impose their positions and dogma
on everyone else. Just let them provide generic insurance to their employees,
and let the insurance companies decide what to cover consistent with US law. If
they don't want to do that, then add the amount of the insurance premium to
their employees after-tax compensation and provide a source where the employees
can subscribe to a group insurance policy for their health coverage.
To lye 4:41 p.m. Feb. 2, 2013I was going to say basically the same
thing, but reference the fact that there are a lot of Americans who had their
taxes go to funding an invasion and occupation that was not supported or
acceptable in either law or equity. A war that was dispicable, horrific and
hideous. As an American, I endured that even though I found it to be against my
conscience and my moral convictions.Contraception, including
emergency contraception, is a very real part of basic health insurance coverage
for women. It is sad that these so-called "religious" institutions and
employers aren't willing to provide basic insurance coverage for their
Leopard: "@Hutterite, how about you being forced to participate in something
you think is dispicable? Something you think horrific and hideous."You mean like $700 billion per years spent on the DoD or special tax breaks
for private jet owners? That guys who genuinely believe that the Earth is 9,000
years old serve on the congressional Science Committee and on school boards?There's a lot thats despicable, horrific and hideous that we
already have learned to put up with. Religions can learn to "put up
with" treating their employees fairly, too.
@Leopard, since the federal government funds abortions, and you, I assume, pay
federal taxes, are you participating in abortions?
@Hutterite, how about you being forced to participate in something you think is
dispicable? Something you think horrific and hideous. Something you think will
bring negative karma? Would you lump it? No one is moving on and acquising their
mortal soul to a corrupt culture's convenience.
And they're going to remain disappointed until they get exactly what they
want, if not more. That's why they need to be told to lump it, so we can
move on with this.