Reply With Quote...asks a guy on his blog? Seriously?
http://news.yahoo.com/government-for...181200841.html
Does Obamacare requiring Catholic Hospitals insurance plans to provide care against catholic teaching violate the constitution?The new regulation has mandated all health care insurance plans must cover sterilizations and approved birth control methods, which include the so-called "morning after pill," which many pro-life advocates regard as a pharmaceutical form of abortion. There is a religious conscience clause, but it does not apply to individuals or to employers that are not primarily purposed for the promulgation of religious faith, such as Catholic hospitals, universities or charities.
...asks a guy on his blog? Seriously?
It bothers him.This includes E.J. Dionne, a liberal Catholic who writes for the Washington Post, who, while he wishes the Church would be more open to contraception, nevertheless expressed to be troubled over the Obama administration's trampling of religious liberty. Dionne is not the first nor will he be the last Obama supporter who has become appalled at the gap between the president's rhetoric and his actions.
I mean seriously, here we are, trying to protect women from the religious ravages of the Taliban (among other things of course) and we need to ask the question of whether or not a religion is entitled to deprive anyone of needed health care? Really?
Originally Posted by Lorini
that didn't take long
So are we done with this now?
I've heard a lot of buzz on this issue lately because the local Catholic bishop is really bothered by it and he's using his pulpit to denounce the mandate. Catholics are not happy about having to buy whore-pills for sluts. Because obviously that's what happens with birth control, women turn into sluts right? I can't think of anymore more qualified than a celibate religious official to make a judgment on these topics so it must be a correct conclusion.
You're complaining the thread went partisan fast? Instead of posting the E.J. Dionne column you posted a no-comment link to some Yahoo user-added blogpost decrying quote "the Obama administration's trampling of religious liberty."
How about this story?
Among other charming anecdotes,
Can you feel the liberty! Lots of new babies for Jesus on that one!One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.
“If I want children, I’ll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary,” she said.
What does Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities have to say? "No one would go to a Jewish barbecue and expect pork chops to be served."
Hahah good one Michael. If someone could tape this to his windshield I'd be grateful.
Last edited by Jason Townsend; 02-02-2012 at 01:19 PM.
So sad that this issue is considered partisan. I agree it is partisan but it shouldn't be.
When the other side has certain views I'd say "partisanship" in the sense of vehement, uncompromising disagreement is no vice.
Nothing says value-neutral language like "dictate"!
No. This has been easy answers to easy questions......Does Obamacare requiring Catholic Hospitals insurance plans to provide care against catholic teaching violate the constitution?
This thread is going to go places.
Personally I am rather ambivalent regarding the requirement. Government dictates all the time what business's have to do and I think when you run a hospital you are running a business, not a religion.
But it does seem to be causing a "separation of church and state" kind of reaction.
I used the opening link because it was the first thing I came across after hearing about this, plus it seemed to cover both sides.
If only there was some other option.
Outsourced to Kevin Drum.
Shorter version: you shouldn't get an exemption to every law based on religious beliefs, and this particular belief is outmoded and barbaric and really deserves no legal deference from a secular democracy.
Last edited by jeffd; 02-02-2012 at 02:02 PM.
I bet Catholic hospitals have to sterilize their surgical equipment too, even though that's not in their book either.
GET THE GUMMINT OUTTA MAH RELIGION
Try again without using "Obamacare".
This thread is damned entertaining.
It's also sad when a woman's health is threatened on moral grounds. :(
A gem, this.
Heh, I was wondering about that. The term seems...disrespectful, to me. But hey, if Bush had proposed it, would they have called it "Bushcare"?
Just another example - similar to sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws - where religious and human rights conflict. I really don't see how religion is going to survive the increasing number of these conflicts, long-term. As the number of people indifferent to religion continues to grow, I foresee increasing pressure to remove the special, first-amendment-inspired exceptions that have been granted to religious organizations.
Religion will survive. The stupidity may not, but there's a lot more to religion than the stupidity.
Red herring. No religious organization is losing its first amendment protections here. The First guarantees freedom of worship. Freedom of worship does not imply an exemption to any law that one finds objectionable.
Government can always trump religion. Mormons are not allowed to practice polygamy, for example. I believe it's possible for a guardian to be appointed to a child of Christian Scientists so that the child can receive medical care.
The law isn't forcing anyone to use birth control. I don't see how that violates Catholic teaching. Catholic employees of the church can simply not use birth control, other than the super reliable rhythm method.
The Catholic church doesn't get to define what constitutes health care.
It seems similar to the situation where some religious pharmacists didn't want to distribute birth control. They didn't like it, but were essentially told that if they didn't comply, they could find another line of work. The difference is that now, instead of pharmacists complaining, entire hospitals are complaining. The outcome will probably be the same, though - either they can do what they're told, or they can get out of the business.
Of course, the Catholics might very well choose the latter. In Illinois, when the Catholic adoption agency was told it needed to either allow gay parents to adopt children or else lose its contracts with the state, the agency chose not to change.
My religion forbids paying tithe to anyone but the church. Where can i apply for religious based exemption to taxes?
You can do whatever you want with your own religious beliefs, the problem comes when you want to discriminate against other people based on your religious belief and/or attempt to force them to follow aspects of your religion against their will.
I want to see the Bushcare stats. And the Nixoncare numbers. Really, what the fuck else could we call a system that has to do with the health planning of a nation?
I'll bet the Georgewashinton care sucked.
I want mandatory dick amputation for priests that abuse children.
Hahahhah
Are there really entire hospitals complaining? And they are complaining about having to fund a healthcare plan that includes contraceptives for their employees? Why do they think they get the right to determine the reproductive behavior of their employees?
Posting Permissions