Catholic Bishops Group Denounces Contraception Compromise

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
We know your wish to control what women do with their bodies. That's what underlies the entire issue - "religious" patriarchs misogyny.

What underlies Feminazi BS.

Control freaks! Authoritarian biatches! Narcissistic attention seekers!

I am sick of Feminazi' that spew this crap it is what women want, we women, us women....

Get this straight you don't speak for any woman other than yourself.

Woman don't get to speak on behalf of other woman.

You don't get to tell other women what to think or believe anymore than a man does.

You don't get to use another women's money for your BS.

If you want an abortion pay for it yourself.

If you want to sleep around pay for it yourself.

If you want birth control pay for it yourself.

You are supposed to be a big girl. Well big girl's pay their own way and they don't cry for others to pick up the tab for their playing around.

GBA wrote:

<quoted text>
No one forces a non Catholic to work at a Catholic instituion.
Employee restrictions are common place in society.
Birth control has always been a matter of contention as a matter of reimbursement by insurance companies even in the secular sphere.
Health insurance exists to treat disease. Pregnancy and sex are not diseases.

No, actually a place of employment may not discriminate on the basis of religion, you lying idiot.

Now, a church might be able to in certain cases. But hospitals and universities are not exempt from labor laws.

Is that clear? Don't come back and be so stupid again.

You are correct that birth control is a contentious issue in other contexts. We know that. And that gives lie to this recent lie that the RCC's only problem is "paying for it." We know that's not the only problem the RCC has with offering non church employees birth control...because the compromise suggested the RCC would not have to.

You freeeks are so anti rational it's less believable than a man living for several days in the belly of a great fish.

Yep wrote:

I dont know why he portrays it as only Catholics, when every mainstream protestant denomination, Jewish leaders, Charities, directors of Community action programs, Have all signed and stand against this bill that infringes on all peoples religious freedoms.

The Methodists and Episcopalians back Obama here.

bappie wrote:

<quoted text>Well at least we got Hitler and Gobbels out of the white house. Now that's progress!

Now we have Lucifer aren't you proud?

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
The Methodists and Episcopalians back Obama here.

Not so Progressive. In recent days leaders of many religious denominations have joined their voices with the Catholic Church, decrying the regulation as an attack of the religious Liberty of individuals and institutions.
Baptists & Jews...

"Does the government have the right to intrude on the conscience of people to force them to pay for that which they find unconscionable?" Richard Land, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
"This goes contrary to our traditions in this country and contrary to our understanding of the First Amendment's religious Freedom protections." " In my opinion he said, a Baptist needs to take a stand on this issue."
A letter circulated throughout the Catholic Church's these past weeks. "In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S., denying to Catholics our nation's first and most fundamental Freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled wither to violate our consciences, or to drop health covering for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so.
The Administration's sole concession was to give out institution one year to comply."
"We cannot - we will not - comply with this unjust law."

Letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
They told to HHS in September that the regulation was an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.

This fight does not just apply to Catholics, it is a fight that applies to all of Christianity, and is an attack on the First Amendment and Free Speech.
Why do I say free speech? Well this same letter was attempted to be read to all our Catholic military men by their priests.
They were told they could not read it. As Obama said it was sedition. Welcome to the wonderful world of the narcissistic defiler of Christians.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
No, actually a place of employment may not discriminate on the basis of religion, you lying idiot.
Now, a church might be able to in certain cases. But hospitals and universities are not exempt from labor laws.
Is that clear? Don't come back and be so stupid again.
You are correct that birth control is a contentious issue in other contexts. We know that. And that gives lie to this recent lie that the RCC's only problem is "paying for it." We know that's not the only problem the RCC has with offering non church employees birth control...because the compromise suggested the RCC would not have to.
You freeeks are so anti rational it's less believable than a man living for several days in the belly of a great fish.

If you want free pills, Morning After Pill which is abortion, tubal ligation, Abortions, go to Planned Parenthood. The Liberal Left has made sure their funding to the tune of 900 million continues.
So why do we have to have a mandate demanding all of us to comply and pay for the services of some? And demanding that religious providers throw their conscience to the wind and adhere.
Freedom of choice, First Amendment, and Free Speech is being attacked by this Administration.
As to fish, we wish to show you how to catch fish, instead of merely eating one provided for you. But that philosophy is over a Progressives head I guess.

LibGetInCrateDropInOcean wrote:

<quoted text>If you want free pills, Morning After Pill which is abortion, tubal ligation, Abortions, go to Planned Parenthood....Freedom of choice, First Amendment, and Free Speech is being attacked by this Administration.

Secular employees of non profit institutions are entitled to health care coverage free of a particular "religious" dogma.

Church employees are not. The churches are secure in their "religious" beliefs regarding how they treat employees in terms of health coverage, although churches still must adhere to most, not all, labor laws.

You don't mind if Scientology employees would be subject to minimum wage laws, would you? Because Scientology happens to think that's an abridgment on their "religious" rights....

Constapo and talibangelical freeeks are busy trying to defund and defame and destroy Planned Parenthood, so your suggestion to go there - and it's not ubiquitous - smacks of anti rationality.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>Secular employees of non profit institutions are entitled to health care coverage free of a particular "religious" dogma.

Church employees are not. The churches are secure in their "religious" beliefs regarding how they treat employees in terms of health coverage, although churches still must adhere to most, not all, labor laws.

You don't mind if Scientology employees would be subject to minimum wage laws, would you? Because Scientology happens to think that's an abridgment on their "religious" rights....

Constapo and talibangelical freeeks are busy trying to defund and defame and destroy Planned Parenthood, so your suggestion to go there - and it's not ubiquitous - smacks of anti rationality.

employees are not entitled to anything.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Secular employees of non profit institutions are entitled to health care coverage free of a particular "religious" dogma.
Church employees are not. The churches are secure in their "religious" beliefs regarding how they treat employees in terms of health coverage, although churches still must adhere to most, not all, labor laws.
You don't mind if Scientology employees would be subject to minimum wage laws, would you? Because Scientology happens to think that's an abridgment on their "religious" rights....
Constapo and talibangelical freeeks are busy trying to defund and defame and destroy Planned Parenthood, so your suggestion to go there - and it's not ubiquitous - smacks of anti rationality.

Not so irrational, Mitt.

PP will get mention, as they DO receive quite a bit of funding and never waste an opportunity to inform everyone that they do provide comprehensive reproductive health servcies-including BC.

They're a great source for low cost/free BC. No question. The feds should levearge them for this instead of jamming it down everyone else's throat. PP'd take the money, that's for sure.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Not so irrational, Mitt.
PP will get mention, as they DO receive quite a bit of funding and never waste an opportunity to inform everyone that they do provide comprehensive reproductive health servcies-including BC.
They're a great source for low cost/free BC. No question. The feds should levearge them for this instead of jamming it down everyone else's throat. PP'd take the money, that's for sure.

Your reply is inadequate.

Planned Parenthood is not everywhere. Constapo and talibangelicals are trying to undermine Planned Parenthood as we speak. Now you suggest Planned Parenthood as a fix? It rings hollow.

Birth control is an important part of women's health and society's interest in avoiding unwanted pregnancies. It is medically reasonable that health insurance plans should cover it.

Churches may opt out, however. Since so many of them have this condemning sex problem and then the misogyny....

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Your reply is inadequate.
Planned Parenthood is not everywhere. Constapo and talibangelicals are trying to undermine Planned Parenthood as we speak. Now you suggest Planned Parenthood as a fix? It rings hollow.
Birth control is an important part of women's health and society's interest in avoiding unwanted pregnancies. It is medically reasonable that health insurance plans should cover it.
Churches may opt out, however. Since so many of them have this condemning sex problem and then the misogyny....

They are pretty widespread.
No, they're not everywhere.
I suggest that if the feds think BC is some kind of an imperative, there's no reason to saddle insurance companies with the bill (hypothetical, of course-they've never SAID they'd absorb the cost) if PP already does it for a living and get beaucoups federal money anyway.
To be honest, I'm having a hard time with trying to decipher if reproductive rights for women are a "choice" or not. Lots of telling people what they have to do to support "a personal decision I make for myself", isn't it?
Guess it depends on who's wallet's getting emptied.

Genesis 38:9-10:“Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.”
Yep — pull out and get snuffed out. That’s harsh.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
But, that's not at issue here.
No side is advocating now to outlaw BC. One side wants the mandate scratched.

For ALL Americans.

Subjecting us all to RCC morality.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Found a Quaker case cited, since you're only interested in me doing your research on your behalf.
Source:http://www.firstamendme ntcenter.org/federal-appeals-c ourt-quaker-must-pay-federal-t axes
Excerpt of decision by 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals:
“the uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest” and “as a result, requiring petitioner’s participation in the Federal income tax system is the only, and thus least restrictive means of furthering the Government’s interest.”
I know I mentioned "compelling interest" several times last week.
That's why they have to pay taxes.
Same principle will govern this matter when it hits a court, and someone will have to argue that free BC serves a governmental interest so compelling that it vitiates first amendment proceedings.

Well, thanks for looking it up. Interesting.

Sounds like that might be cited in the Obamacare review, huh?

I imagine that the final decision on Obamacare will cover the bc argument, too.

Don't you?

I mean, if mandating coverage is found to be Cobstitutiinal, and dictating coverage parameters, it seems this bc issue would clearly then be a 14th amendment issue, as bc forms a reasonable part of "preventive care"...

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
For ALL Americans.
Subjecting us all to RCC morality.

Only RCC's want the mandate scratched?

News to me.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, thanks for looking it up. Interesting.
Sounds like that might be cited in the Obamacare review, huh?
I imagine that the final decision on Obamacare will cover the bc argument, too.
Don't you?
I mean, if mandating coverage is found to be Cobstitutiinal, and dictating coverage parameters, it seems this bc issue would clearly then be a 14th amendment issue, as bc forms a reasonable part of "preventive care"...

You asked me about it so many damn times I had to stop and look it up.

You're going fast here-

Review by SCOTUS, yeah, I'd think that they'd look from a "compelling state interest" angle now that there are suits filed on first amendment grounds.

I still don't see it as a 14th amendment issue-there's no issue of equal protection made by the administration. They aren't pushing that-haven't mentioned it, and preventive care as a whole isn't covered by policies now. You're not "leveling the field" with this, I mean.

GBA wrote:

<quoted text>
Employee restrictions are common place in society.

And yet you conservative dumbasses love to crow about how free speech is an unassailable right, even for employees.

Make up your mind.

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
it is only about paying for it. Yours lies won't change that.

Then it's settled. Insurance companies will pay for it.

So you have no valid objection.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, thanks for looking it up. Interesting.
Sounds like that might be cited in the Obamacare review, huh?
I imagine that the final decision on Obamacare will cover the bc argument, too.
Don't you?
I mean, if mandating coverage is found to be Cobstitutiinal, and dictating coverage parameters, it seems this bc issue would clearly then be a 14th amendment issue, as bc forms a reasonable part of "preventive care"...

Thanks for the back and forth.

Pick it up tomorrow if you're in for it.

Gonna go get a drink-it's my birthday.

See ya

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
The Methodists and Episcopalians back Obama here.

As do the largest Catholic charities in the US.

Thanks for keeping your own side honest.

That's rare on topix.