The way I see it is that why Church wouldn't pay a flat premium to a number of medical insurance companies who provide different plans (some with contraceptive, some without) for each employee and have them choose what they want and pay for the rest themselves? Why even meddle in a situation that is unsavory to them?

I agree that it's a very gray area, but what has caused this, is that religion has oozed into matters of state. Medicine is a matter of state and religion should have no say in that.

Because they want to take care of their employees and remain at least somewhat competitive for employees. Hospital administrators, school principals, university deans, etc , Catholic or not, aren't going to work for a company that doesn't provide health benefits. Most people get health care coverage through their employer, who pays the majority of the cost. The employer picks the plan(s) that it wants to offer its employees. Some, like my company, offer a variety of insurers (including self-insurance) to choose from. Others offer one. Period.

The Church could have avoided this by not offering coverage for anyone , which is what some of their hotheads are now threatening to do. But if they do that there will be fines and loss of employees.

Going forward no companies (with the exception of companies selling to direct church employees) will be legally able to provide a plan that excludes bc coverage(with no co-pay). Choice is reduced. The church hospitals, schools, etc will not even be allowed to self-insure and thus avoid the HHS rule. The Church sees itself as backed into a corner-either violate your teachings or turn over serious fines to the government. In future, watch for court cases over this.

This seemed appropriate in this thread.

By James B. Kelleher updated 2/8/2012 9:51:36 AM ET 2012-02-08T14:51:36
CHICAGO — Birth and abortion rates among U.S. teens fell to record lows in 2008 as increased use of contraceptives sent the overall teen pregnancy rate to its lowest level since at least 1972, a study showed on Wednesday. But disparities among racial and ethnic groups continued to persist, with black and Hispanic teens experiencing pregnancy and abortion rates two to four times higher than their white peers, the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research group that conducted the analysis, said.

*shakes head*





After reading that, I consider this topic closed.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/...ule.php?ref=fpa

Closed? Over? Nothing is over until we say it is!!

There is a HUGE (ie. constitutional) difference between mandating contraceptive coverage for public employee health plans and mandating contraceptive coverage of religious institution employee health plans.

The issue was never whether houses of worship would be excluded. The issue was always about the social service agencies, the food banks, soup kitchens, employment assistance agencies, schools, universities, hospitals and all the other organizations run by Catholics as part of their outreach.

From a rights standpoint it wouldn't matter if there were near 100% agreement that this rule is a good thing if it violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The majoritarian impulse is exactly what needs to be protected against.

I think we're missing something that was brought up today by somebody on-line: The White House may've brought this issue up for three reasons: (1) drive up the female youth vote, since Obamacare is supposed to provide for contriception(2) Give Mittens trouble with the social conservatives over his past, and (3) make the right-wing overreach and overreact.

Well #3 might've come true.

Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced a new Senate bill to which would allow any employer to deny birth control coverage. OK this is not drawing straws over religious organizations, this is ANY employer by their own whims and ideology can deny birth control as part of their coverage.

Right-winger David Frum facepalmed today over that:



It should be also noted that most Americans support this mandate, I believe 54%. Frum might be onto something.

(Ironically, this possible overreach won't hurt Rubio, make him a hearthrob to those base morons. Future GOP running mate, read all about it!)

Oh yes absolutely the right-wing will overreach. It's what they do.
But I'm not sure if politically this policy will be a winner for the President. It depends on the framing. There are some blue-collar Catholic liberals/independents who, despite their acceptance/usage of contraception, are queasy about the state dictating to the church. We shall see.

Well, the new HHS regulation will take church's off the hook. Insurance companies will be responsible for providing free contraception for employers who do not.

I think that was wise backpeddling on Obama's part. The assholes at Faux News are going to call it indecisive, but they are what they are.

As a Catholic, he still had my vote, but you never know how it would have played out in the mainstream. So I'm pleased with this.

I think he pointlessly backpedeled politically, but whatever.

Maybe he's scared of Santorum-mania taking Pennsylvania in the fall?

You don't honestly believe that Santorum will be around in the fall. Do you, Ronnie?

I enjoy breaking your balls, but I know you're much smarter than that. You have a very sharp political mind for a twentysomething slacker (a backhanded compliment, but still a compliment ).

The President made a good decision. I don't think compelling religious affiliated employers to abide a contraception regulation was necessary. He should have seen this dispute coming.

Sarcasm on my part apparently doesn't translate well digitally.

Yeah, I agree. The important thing is that the reversal came quicky. I think that, for the most part, even die hard Conservative Catholics can say "no harm, no foul."

I always try to stay out of Religious threads but let me just say this. As a practicing Catholic, I, like 90 some percent of other Catholic women think the church needs to come to the 21st Century regarding birth control. I have never been on board with them on this issue.

In my life, I have known no Catholic women, friend, relative, co-worker(in my age group) who was opposed to birth control. My mother, who is now nearly 89 would be in the generation in which "rhythm was the best method." We've come a long way baby.

I think The President's compromise (and actually I don't see it as a cave but a compromise) is acceptable and from women's groups I'm hearing on tv, everyone seems to be ok with it. We will see how it plays out but I don't have a problem with it.


TIS

It was the smart move, Tis.

I, too, have a lot of problems with the Church's position on birth control (and sexuality in general). But not everyone is like us. There are still a lot of die-hards out there, and he doesn't want to make an enemy of the Church's hierarchy.

If Obama could avoid taking on the Vatican by compromising, my position was that he'd be wise to do it. And he did it.

PB,

Speaking of birth control, I was asked recently and didn't really have an answer but rather "assumed" the church's position on Vasectomys?? Thatntoo should NOT be covered right?


TIS

That is pretty much standard because getting a vasectomy is very good business practice for an insurance company. This is true because a vasectomy cost under $1000. The cost of a delivery room alone is more than $10,000.

In my case, I didn't have to worry. After the birth of our third child, my wife came at me with a paring knife.

No I was referring to the Church's position. I would argue that a vasectomy is birth control as well no?


TIS

Oh, well Church doctrine states that tubal ligations and vasectomies for purposes of contraception and sterilization are not acceptable, although they may be done out of medical necessity.

That's my point. If that's the case then any Catholic hospital should NOT cover that as well, or rather, like with birth control, have the Insurance company offer it, not the religious hospital. Right?

TIS

Some Catholics are still not satisfied. They maintain that their insurance premiums will increase to accomodate free access to contraception.

Like Mel Gibson?

~Yeah I'm sorry, low blow.

Overreach?

McConnell: GOP Will Fight To Let ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/...?ref=fpnewsfeed

It is probably overreach. To the extent that the Administration made this about "eff your religious freedom" and big footing the Catholic Church it wasn't necessarily going to be a winner for them politically.

If you make it about "women's health" and "hating contraceptives" that is much safer ground for the Administration I think and fits into their talking points that Republicans hate women and want to restrict choices.

The SC has already agreed to hear the case against the Affordable Health Care law and there are separate cases regarding the contraceptive mandate. I would just wait to see what the courts say were I Republican.

No the debate has gone from philosophical splitting hairs to just pure ole anti-contraception, Christianite crusading overreach:



Are they that fucking stupid?

Senate New England GOPers Snowe and Collins both approved of the President's compromise and are avoiding commenting this shit (so far) like it's the plague. Brown tried to straddle, and his fall rival Warren kicked him off the fence.

But "frontrunner" Rick Santorum is all for this fight against contraceptives:

Shocking Video: Planned Parenthood Targets Kids With Sex
by Steven Ertelt
February 14, 2012


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZix2Nm0fKw&feature=youtu.be


A new video expose and report from a pro-life group shows how the Planned Parenthood abortion business exposes children to sexual material in order to seed a generation of sex addicts who will become future customers for the abortion giant.

The new American Life League report exposes Planned Parenthood’s sex programs using graphic imagery from Planned Parenthood’s own websites, materials, and events.

As Planned Parenthood kicks off National Condom Week tomorrow, it will also be actively engaged in selling underage sex to children, as young as those in grade school, with graphic videos and books, ALL says. The new disturbing video it compiled shows Planned Parenthood’s sexualization materials that are presented to school-age children across the country.

“Any parent that sees the video of Planned Parenthood’s material for school children will be horrified,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League. “Planned Parenthood’s business model is aimed at making money from people who are engaged in sexual activity. The earlier Planned Parenthood can get girls having sex, the more money they make. Many of these children will become the women who will have abortions, which made up 51% of Planned Parenthood’s clinic revenue in 2010.”

The video, Hooking Kids on Sex, exposes a book used by Planned Parenthood’s sex educators for 10-year-olds with graphic images about how to masturbate, put on a condom and have sexual intercourse.

“If a dirty old man showed this book to kids in a park, he’d be arrested,” continued Sedlak. “Why does Planned Parenthood, a taxpayer-funded organization, get to distribute these books to our children and get more government money?”

The video also exposes Planned Parenthood’s S.T.A.R.S (Seriously Talking About Responsible Sex) program, which required teens to go see Capital Pride, a parade of scantily clad drag queens, gay couples kissing and men in thongs dancing on stage.

“Planned Parenthood wants kids to choose them for their sexual education over their own parents,” said Sedlak. “They want to be the trusted friend and advocate for kids of all ages. They know that a conversation about sex with a stranger or browsing a Planned Parenthood website about teen sex is easier than talking with their parents. The abortion giant has no problem using tax dollars to exploit that fear and make money off those kids.”

Nina Rhea, Director of Pro-Life Action of Oregon, also commented on the new report.

“The non-science, pornographic content of these school sex ed programs are abusive. Planned Parenthood’s websites are saturated with dangerous sex games erroneously labeled ‘education’ and ‘safe sex.’ This is not education but indoctrination into casual underage sex. There is no such thing as ‘safe sex,’” she said. “According to the Centers for Disease Control, the most reliable ways to avoid sexually transmitted disease is either abstaining from sex, or to be in a long-term monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STD’s are often asymptomatic.”

“Planned Parenthood’s ideology is drawn from their dangerous assessment of innocent children: ‘We are all sexual, from birth to death.’ These irresponsible programs are enablers for child predators who boldly prowl schools, shopping malls, and neighborhoods, who kidnap and then sexually abuse children,” she continued.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/14/shocking-video-planned-parenthood-targets-kids-with-sex/

But more kids having sex means more babies, right?

How is that a bad thing to bring upon more gifts from God?

Not to state the obvious or anything but I think the underlying point of the article/video about Planned Parenthood is that kids having sex often results in abortions; which means $.

Oh come on, PP won't be as successful as Disney has been.