Bill to reverse Obama birth control policy defeated in Senate

[Pops]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ics/53313252/1

[RedBlack&Blue]

Good.

[huskernut]

Anyone know if the bill required the companies be owned by churches that have a long standing opposition to birth control, like the Catholic Church. That would be fine with me.

But if it was to allow any company to do it, that's just assisnine.

[Cardinal]

This is good. Unwanted pregnancy is a huge problem in America, the tentacles of which reach into multiple areas of our society. It would be a shame to allow (outdated?) doctrines that have been established by a few robed men of limited real world experience one half a world away block programs that can help our society's struggle to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

[CornfieldCounty]

This is good. Unwanted pregnancy is a huge problem in America, the tentacles of which reach into multiple areas of our society. It would be a shame to allow (outdated?) doctrines that have been established by a few robed men of limited real world experience one half a world away block programs that can help our society's struggle to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Yea, denying the pill.. that's what was the point.

[ChitownHusker]

This is good. Unwanted pregnancy is a huge problem in America, the tentacles of which reach into multiple areas of our society. It would be a shame to allow (outdated?) doctrines that have been established by a few robed men of limited real world experience one half a world away block programs that can help our society's struggle to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Really? And how were the Cardinals "blocking" anything that didn't pertain to the benefits provided by their own organizations?

[Cardinal]

Yea, denying the pill.. that's what was the point.

I think there could be a good compromise for the two sides to make, which would not require the religion-owned employers to provide insurance for the birth control devices that prevent fertilized eggs from attaching or that otherwise eliminate fertilized eggs. I understand organized religion's concerns about life upon fertilization, even if I do not necessarily agree with them. The compromise could then require all religion-owned employers to provide insurance only for barrier contraceptives that are intended to prevent fertilization.

[Big Red Rick]

Unbelievable comments. Seems the hyperbole is more applicable then ever.

First, they came for the babies,
And I said nothing.

Then, they came for the Catholics,
And I said nothing.

[ChitownHusker]

I think there could be a good compromise for the two sides to make, which would not require the religion-owned employers to provide insurance for the birth control devices that prevent fertilized eggs from attaching or that otherwise eliminate fertilized eggs. I understand organized religion's concerns about life upon fertilization, even if I do not necessarily agree with them. The compromise could then require all religion-owned employers to provide insurance only for barrier contraceptives that are intended to prevent fertilization.

The flaw in your thinking is that you are saying that is acceptable for the government to make value judgments about the validity of particular religious beliefs. What you're effectively saying is that the government can say that we are going to allow the free exercise of one religious belief because we deem it to be reasonable, but we are not going to allow the free exercise of a different religious belief because we deem it to be unreasonable. That is PRECISELY the kind of governmental action that is prohibited by the First Amendment.

[Big Red Rick]

I think there could be a good compromise for the two sides to make, which would not require the religion-owned employers to provide insurance for the birth control devices that prevent fertilized eggs from attaching or that otherwise eliminate fertilized eggs. I understand organized religion's concerns about life upon fertilization, even if I do not necessarily agree with them. The compromise could then require all religion-owned employers to provide insurance only for barrier contraceptives that are intended to prevent fertilization.

If we didn't have a president over-stepping his Constitutionally-limited authority, no compromise is needed. The premise is rejected.

[ColoREDo]

The flaw in your thinking is that you are saying that is acceptable for the government to make value judgments about the validity of particular religious beliefs. What you're effectively saying is that the government can say that we are going to allow the free exercise of one religious belief because we deem it to be reasonable, but we are not going to allow the free exercise of a different religious belief because we deem it to be unreasonable. That is PRECISELY the kind of governmental action that is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Don't we do that by not allowing people to be stoned to death.

[RedBlack&Blue]

Really? And how were the Cardinals "blocking" anything that didn't pertain to the benefits provided by their own organizations?

It's not that simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/he...catholicchurch

As Roman Catholic leaders and government officials clash over the proper role of religion and reproductive health, shifts in health care economics are magnifying the tension. Financially stronger Catholic-sponsored medical centers are increasingly joining with smaller secular hospitals, in some cases limiting access to treatments like contraception, abortion and sterilization.

In Seattle, Swedish Health Services has offered elective abortions for decades. But the hospital agreed to stop when it joined forces this month with Providence Health & Services, one of the nation’s largest Catholic systems.

In late December, Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky turned down a bid by Catholic Health Initiatives, another large system, to merge with a public hospital in Louisville, in part because of concern that some women would have less access to contraceptive services.

And in Rockford, Ill., there is resistance to a plan by OSF HealthCare, run by the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, to buy a hospital because of new restrictions that would require women to go elsewhere if they wanted a tubal ligation after a Caesarean section.

About 20 such deals have been announced over the last three years, by one estimate, and experts expect more as stand-alone hospitals and smaller systems with no Catholic ties look to combine with larger and financially stronger institutions, in part because changes under the federal health care law are forcing all hospitals to become much more efficient.

There is already considerable tension between Catholic-run medical institutions and the Obama administration over insurance coverage for contraception for employees. The cultural divide over reproductive health is playing out on the campaign trail as candidates debate hot-button issues like abortion and contraception.

But while the growth of Catholic-run hospital networks is a testament to their long history and operational skill, local and state officials, doctors and advocates in many communities are concerned that some procedures that run counter to Catholic doctrine may no longer be available or will be much more limited. Some doctors fear they may not be able to do what’s best for patients, forced to wait to treat a woman who is miscarrying, for example, or to send a rape victim elsewhere for an emergency contraceptive.

[RedBlack&Blue]

Unbelievable comments. Seems the hyperbole is more applicable then ever.

First, they came for the babies,
And I said nothing.

Then, they came for the Catholics,
And I said nothing.

First, they came for the women,
And I said nothing.

Then, they came for the non-churched,
And I said nothing.

[Cardinal]

Don't we do that by not allowing people to be stoned to death.

What about religions that engage in human or animal sacrifice?

Society has a long history of stepping in and saying that certain aspects of certain religions are outweighed by the needs of society as a whole.

[CornfieldCounty]

It's not that simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/he...catholicchurch

You can always go to your local County Hospital, government run, all people accepted, or Government Funded Planned Parenthood.

[HuZkurZ]

I think there could be a good compromise for the two sides to make, which would not require the religion-owned employers to provide insurance for the birth control devices that prevent fertilized eggs from attaching or that otherwise eliminate fertilized eggs. I understand organized religion's concerns about life upon fertilization, even if I do not necessarily agree with them. The compromise could then require all religion-owned employers to provide insurance only for barrier contraceptives that are intended to prevent fertilization.

Compromise isn't what the other side wants.

What does Obama do when he needs to build on woman support come Nov? You take up the issue of contraception. Upsetting the religious right isn't of concern cause he won't get that vote anyway. So he gins up this issue on the basis of sucking the right into the argument so he can accuse the right of being against the health of women. Lib politics as usual.

What does Obama do when the black vote slides, he starts a website "African Americans for Obama". This way he can put on the ebonics dialect and show them he is one of them, atleast until Nov.

[huskernut]

What about religions that engage in human or animal sacrifice?

Society has a long history of stepping in and saying that certain aspects of certain religions are outweighed by the needs of society as a whole.

Maybe if we still allowed human sacrifices we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

[RedBlack&Blue]

You can always go to your local County Hospital, government run, all people accepted, or Government Funded Planned Parenthood.

Didn't read the article?

The point is that the success of Catholic medical institutions is causing an interplay between Catholics and non-Catholics that the church cannot ignore.

If a Catholic medical institution takes over a non-Catholic one, why should the religious doctrine of the church trump the non-Catholic policies? They shouldn't.

It's a sticky wicket. Compromise is necessary. Birth control, viagra, tubal ligations, even some abortions, are medical procedures/treatments.

[ChitownHusker]

Don't we do that by not allowing people to be stoned to death.

You get that distinction there, right? You've heard that the phrase that one's right to swing their fist ends at another person's nose?

[RedBlack&Blue]

Compromise isn't what the other side wants.

Compromise is something reasonable people do.

We Americans used to be the best at it. Not any more.