Catholic Bishops Group Denounces Contraception Compromise

Judged:

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I wish "women" did like to have a say in control of their own bodies. Then, they wouldn't be picking everyone's pocket for birth control pills.

Judged:

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
If it's objectioneble by the Church on first amendment grounds, it's sure objectionable on the same grounds for a private business owner.

Judged:

1

1

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Leaving aside your other ravings, the above is beyond crazy. The competing interest of religious freedom would certainly be greater than that of any "freedom" of a private business in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
But the freedom of the RCC and its churches is preserved here: They're exempt. Period.
It's charities and universities, which are non profits, not houses of worship, and which employ secular, non Catholic and birth control using Catholics, which are not exempt.
You keep lying about this simple point with your unschooled comparisons to the Amish and whatnot.

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
Leaving aside your other ravings, the above is beyond crazy. The competing interest of religious freedom would certainly be greater than that of any "freedom" of a private business in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
But the freedom of the RCC and its churches is preserved here: They're exempt. Period.
It's charities and universities, which are non profits, not houses of worship, and which employ secular, non Catholic and birth control using Catholics, which are not exempt.
You keep lying about this simple point with your unschooled comparisons to the Amish and whatnot.

Judged:

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>Who's lying?

I never said the church weren't exempt.

What I'm saying now is that the "compromise" just kicked the can down the road.

You still cannot make a religious institution buy contraceptives against its teaching.

If you don't believe me, just wait until one of the suits hits a courtroom.

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
Dan the church isn't buying obammys new plan and will fight. Obammy has huge problems.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>You're whistling past the graveyard.
Kellie Ferguson, executive director of Republican Majority For Choice:“You could see the same backlash {koman] on attacks on contraception. For the last number of years, we in the pro-choice community in general — AND WE SPECIFICALLY AS REPUBLICANS — have been saying as this pandering to a sort of social conservative faction of voters continues, you’re going to see the line pushed further and further and further. And we’re now crossing the line from discussion of when we should regulate abortion to when we should now regulate legal doctor-prescribed medications like birth control, which is woven in the fabric of society as an acceptable medication.

“There’s a big leap between people who vote at a Republican caucus and the majority that will vote in a general election. I THINK PIGEON-HOLING THE PARTY AS AGAINST WOMEN’S HEALTH IN GENERAL NOT ONLY HURTS THE PARTY, BUT IT HURTS OUR KEY CANDIDATES.“

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
You're whistling past the graveyard.
Kellie Ferguson, executive director of Republican Majority For Choice:“You could see the same backlash {koman] on attacks on contraception. For the last number of years, we in the pro-choice community in general — AND WE SPECIFICALLY AS REPUBLICANS — have been saying as this pandering to a sort of social conservative faction of voters continues, you’re going to see the line pushed further and further and further. And we’re now crossing the line from discussion of when we should regulate abortion to when we should now regulate legal doctor-prescribed medications like birth control, which is woven in the fabric of society as an acceptable medication.
“There’s a big leap between people who vote at a Republican caucus and the majority that will vote in a general election. I THINK PIGEON-HOLING THE PARTY AS AGAINST WOMEN’S HEALTH IN GENERAL NOT ONLY HURTS THE PARTY, BUT IT HURTS OUR KEY CANDIDATES.“

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
what does that have to do with my post?? Nothing.

Judged:

2

1

1

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>That's all he's got.

Last week, he was flailing around trying to explain how premiums aren't a factor in insurance coverage.

Judged:

2

1

1

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
it is amazing to me the lengths liberals go to justify obammy. He could pull a gun and shoot someone on camera and they would find a reason why this was great. I stand amazed with each passing day.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Overheated rhetoric.
No one, and I mean no one in this argument is proposing outlawing contraception. No one serious is taking any position on "women's health"; that'sa rehortical smokescreen for those attempting to justify why the constitution is being ignored.
You cannot mandate a violation of people's first amendment rights. That's it.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>To be completely fair, they'd tell you that it wasn't Obama's fault he shot the guy. A Republican would have forced him to do it.

Judged:

1

1

Johann Paulus Ringo Starr wrote:

Yes, no one has moral authority than john paul II's hand-picked collection of bishops, the same wonderful people who banded together to aid and abet child rapists and stamp out any catholic intellectual who failed to toe the vatican's line.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
And yet a week later, and neither you, nor any other conservative bleating about this issue, can answer THIS:
How is it that Quakers are forced to pay taxes that support, in part, our wars and military?
How is THAT not a far more egregious First Amendment violation than this one?

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the courts have held that you have to pay your income taxes.
That's why they have to pay them.
As stated, individual Quakers, et. al have received waivers for military service on religious grounds, even in wartime.
If Sal is a Catholic and a business owner and employs > 15 people and he sues on individual conscience rights, the administration will have to show how his premium payments DO NOT fund provision of the contraceptives.
If they can't (and they won't), Sal will win the case.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Wait.
In this post you're saying that the courts have held that Quakers need to pay taxes that support, among other things, wars and and weapons, and that they don't have any right NOT to directly fund them. But, you go on further, they have a right to be conscientious objectors, and not participate in wars, themselves.
Well, that is EXACTLY the same situation the RCC finds itself in on this issue. Precisely. Except for the fact that the Catholics are now not even asked to pay for the contraceptives, thanks to the wise compromise reached by Obama.
In other words, you have NO argument.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
In othe rwords, you failed to read my post completely.
Obama says now the BC is "free".
How, exactly, did something so onerously expensive that women seemingly have to choose to either buy it or pay rent become "free" as of last Friday?
It didn't become "free", of course.
How is it to be paid for?