When it comes to mandatory contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act, the nation's Catholic bishops won't budge an inch.
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, initially said he would study President Obama's newest variation of the requirement.
That didn't last long. Now, it's no sale unless the mandate is lifted from any person of faith who objects to facilitating contraception coverage for employees.
Excellent ideas. However, of the 1.2 million clinical abortions per year in the U.S., what percentage even seeks out these crisis pregnancy centers? It's got to be abysmally low.
Angela Wittman wrote: RE: Ucare's comment on universal health care: The Church is not dead in America. Why not support pregnancy care outreaches such as the Morning Center who is working to provide free healthcare to pregnant and disadvantaged mothers? Why not let Americans give freely to these things instead of advocating tyrannical laws? Charity should be voluntary - not mandated!
RE: Ucare's comment on universal health care: The Church is not dead in America. Why not support pregnancy care outreaches such as the Morning Center who is working to provide free healthcare to pregnant and disadvantaged mothers? Why not let Americans give freely to these things instead of advocating tyrannical laws? Charity should be voluntary - not mandated!
UCare instead of depending on government to be your savior, why not let the body of Christ reach out to these women. Support evangelism and crisis pregnancy centers instead of compounding the problem with more secular humanistic solutions.
Lurker wrote: "under-employed, unmarried..."? If, nine months earlier, she had allowed her brain to do her thinking rather than her hormones; she would not have to choose either.
UCare wrote: If an under-employed, unmarried pregnant woman has a live birth it'll cost her $9,000 or a $451 abortion. Without universal healthcare what which choice is she likely to make?
"under-employed, unmarried..."?
If, nine months earlier, she had allowed her brain to do her thinking rather than her hormones; she would not have to choose either.
If an under-employed, unmarried pregnant woman has a live birth it'll cost her $9,000 or a $451 abortion. Without universal healthcare what which choice is she likely to make?
Why stop at free contraceptives? Why not free *everything*? It is not so strange to ask. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (endorsed by Cardinal Trujillo) already says we have a right to work, favorable conditions therein, education, health-care, rest & leisure, a high standard of living generally. But all of these cost money, so who's going to pay? Rome's chief philosopher has an answer:
"if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery."
Thomas Acquinas, Part II, answering "Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need"
So Rome may have gotten hoisted on her own petard here.
As the latest technological breakthrough sweeps the nation, many families become early adopters: it's cheaper, easier and faster. Soon 98% of Americans embrace it. Eventually the President requires it to be provided free-of-charge to anyone who asks. Not surprisingly, The Pill -- that is, the new Food Pill -- causes all grocery chains to fail.
Funny how this degenerated into a controversy about paying for contraception, when the issue is religious freedom. But then the Democrats are too corrupt to care about the First Amendment, and the Republicans are too dumb to fight the real issue. The Democrats deceptively say it's about providing healthcare for women, and the Republicans stupidly fail to ask how is pregnancy a disease?
"Now the Protestant consensus, which made an uncomfortable peace with birth control starting almost 100 years ago, is swinging back toward the Catholic view, in large part due to the perception that contraception encourages sex outside marriage which often leads to abortion."
I think it's ironic that the church, which many think is restrictive, is the one standing up for our freedoms. I guess It means that being a slave to Christ is perfect freedom.
Ah, Neil, one of the favorite slogans that the Republicans came out with--and employ everywhere, which they shouldn't--is, "Just say,NO!" This is actually good advice when it comes to drugs and nonmarital sex. However,
Catholics for Choice wrote: We know that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use a method of contraception banned by the US bishops. We also know that the bishops represent the views of very few people other than themselves.…
Excerpt from, What Catholics Believe About Birth Control. This is not a impartial site, but just from what I know from experience it would not surprise me that the majority of Catholic women support birth control practices that the Romish church doesn't. By the way, I'm not endorsing their views either, just pointing out what may very well be a fact.
I really have no doubt that birth control methods, whatever, is already easily available, e.g. from Planned Parenthood. One may not want women depending on them for birth control either. The Republicans could have had a very big say in the availability of birth control methods in the new health law, if they had participated in a more nonpartisan way in trying to improve it.
-Allan Carlson, President of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society and Founder and International Secretary of the World Congress of Families.
Praises for the book are already coming in:
"Evangelical Christians wanting self-esteem therapy should not read this book. This provocative volume, by one of the world's foremost family issues scholars, suggests that perhaps American Evangelicalism unwittingly traded the Blessed Virgin Mary for Margaret Sanger. The arguments are hard-hitting and unrelenting. Reading this book is like seeing an unwelcome reflection in a mirror. But it just might start a conversation that is well worth having."
-Russell D. Moore, Dean, School of Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Peter Schiff pointed out something I should've inferred: promising free contraceptives (or anything else) to consumers will increase demand to infinity; people might even obtain them for reasons having nothing to do with birth control. Nothing is free; someone has to pay, & insurers will either go out of business or pass costs on in the form of higher premiums. The government then will have to impose further controls, such as rationing (one Pill a day?), to fix the problems they create by undermining supply/demand price feedback. Even a single-payer system would require such a solution.
And one more thing: birth control isn't even an insurance issue. It is preemption of risk, not management of risk.
It is a sign of the jaw-dropping economic ignorance (or more likely, irresponsibility) we are exposed to. It's going to get crazier & crazier.
2
There are a total of 21 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
One may not want women depending on them for birth control either. The Republicans could have had a very big say in the availability of birth control methods in the new health law, if they had participated in a more nonpartisan way in trying to improve it.
christopher000 from rhode island: "let's see, they kill men, women, and children,..."
