Obama puts another one over on the gullible public

[gunsmith]

it could be that this really angered him and he knows he isn't getting another term and he really wants to implement some kind of lasting socialist policy.

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court endorsed for the first time the “ministerial exception” to state and federal employment discrimination laws while rejecting the Obama administration’s argument that churches should be treated no differently than other employers.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2012/01/12/open-thread-some-good-news-religious-liberty#ixzz1m90joLS3

[Blakenzy]

Actually, I would think that insurance companies and the Church would save money by providing contraceptive options to the employees. Birth control is waaay cheaper than covering the costs related to prenatal care, child birth, perinatal pediatric care, productivity lost due to maternity leave, additional future coverage of the infant/child.

So, insurance companies provide birth control, save money, the Church doesn't have to go against its beliefs by funding it and women who want birth control get it. 

[dogmush]

Except that the Church is paying the insurance company to provide birth control.  They're still providing it, just through a middle man.  I can see where the Church might have a problem with that, and I'm a fan of birth control. 

[Ron]

the Church doesn't have to go against its beliefs by funding it

How do you figure? The RC Church has always been officially against artificial birth control. The compromise is nothing more than semantics.

More importantly, this whole argument moves the ball down the field for the administration. The federal government shouldn't even have a voice at the table in this discussion. This is the proverbial camels nose under the tent of religious liberty. They chose this issue due to its divisive nature in the RC Church, knowing that most other Christian organizations don't have doctrinal issues with birth control and that a majority of RC members ignore the churches teaching on the issue.

[Blakenzy]

I thought that the Insurance companies would be absorbing the cost of the contraceptive treatment, with out increasing the cost of the employee's insurance policy? How does the Church pay for the contraceptives? If the women went out and bought the contraceptives out of their own pockets, with the Church's paycheck, would it still be a violation of the Church's right to not facilitate artificial birth control?

The federal government shouldn't even have a voice at the table in this discussion.

This I can agree with.

[Ron]

The issue is really this:

The federal government demands that all insurance policies pay for contraception.

As a bonus they get to degrade the separation of church and state and establish sovereignty over religious institutions. We of course will still have the right to practice our religion, as the federal government sees fit.

If you missed it, read the Mark Steyn article I linked to on the first page of this thread.  

edited to add: as an aside, I'm not even a Roman Catholic and really have no issues with most birth control options. 

[Monkeyleg]

I thought that the Insurance companies would be absorbing the cost of the contraceptive treatment, with out increasing the cost of the employee's insurance policy?

Do you really believe that a company of any sort can just "absorb" an additional cost without recouping that cost somewhere else? The companies will find a way to hide the cost for the contraceptives. If they can't do that, then they'll eliminate coverage for something else. Either way, they can't just eat the costs of this new mandate on top of other new costs that come along and expect to survive.

[Blakenzy]

Do you really believe that a company of any sort can just "absorb" an additional cost without recouping that cost somewhere else? The companies will find a way to hide the cost for the contraceptives. If they can't do that, then they'll eliminate coverage for something else. Either way, they can't just eat the costs of this new mandate on top of other new costs that come along and expect to survive.

Of course I don't believe companies would do anything for free. But as I said before the issuing of effective contraceptives is a cost saving tradeoff:  If giving "free" birth control to their clients will significantly decrease the probability of child birth claims popping up in the future, while these same clients sill continue paying for the full coverage of child birth services, the company makes money. Health insurance companies want you to pay for the insurance, but not actually use it. That's their profit margin.

[Jamie B]

The government should not mandate these things.

The RCC also needs to face the reality that they are whining about a trivial issue.

I have no sympathy for either of them.
They deserve each other, as neither represents the best interest of their people.

[Perd Hapley]

How about this idea? If you expect your employer to help you pay for something - don't work for an outfit well-known for being firmly opposed to that thing. Crazy, I know...

The government should not mandate these things.

The RCC also needs to face the reality that they are whining about a trivial issue.

I have no sympathy for either of them.
They deserve each other, as neither represents the best interest of their people.

Uh, what? How is it trivial? If the RCC is "whining about a trivial issue," then so are all the people going to their defense. What's trivial about government mandating that an organization pay for things it believes are violations of God's law?

[MillCreek]

The state and Federal governments have a rich tradition of mandating that healthcare insurance cover certain things.  Mammograms, direct referrals without going through your primary care physician, minimum lengths of stay in the hospital, etc. 

[Jamie B]

How about this idea? If you expect your employer to help you pay for something - don't work for an outfit well-known for being firmly opposed to that thing. Crazy, I know...


Uh, what? How is it trivial? If the RCC is "whining about a trivial issue," then so are all the people going to their defense. What's trivial about government mandating that an organization pay for things it believes are violations of God's law?

Gee, I guess that my bible must have left the passages out about not using birth control. Silly me!

It is a violation of the Catholic Church's law. Big difference.

No different than the churches who use marijuana in their 'worship' - churches can say anything that they want to.

The whining is by the church hierarchy, as most Catholic people do not share the same opinion.

[roo_ster]

Gee, I guess that my bible must have left the passages out about not using birth control. Silly me!

It is a violation of the Catholic Church's law. Big difference.

No different than the churches who use marijuana in their 'worship' - churches can say anything that they want to.

The whining is by the church hierarchy, as most Catholic people do not share the same opinion.

Nice way to mis-read the polls Mr. Axelrod.

The polls say that many RC's use birth control, not that they are fine & dandy with gov't dictating that birth control & abortifacients be provided by the RCC to RCC employees.

[cosine]

Trivial issue?

Wow, some people's misunderstanding about the Catholic Church is really apparent in this thread. 

The Catholic Church doesn't establish its doctrine by the consensus of its members.

The Catholic Church doesn't hold that the use of contraceptives is a violation of its administrative law, but a violation of moral law. The issue that the majority of Catholics choose to violate a moral law as taught by the Catholic Church is a matter between those Catholics' own consciences and God.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.”

from this  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/02/because-my-pope-peaks-truths-like-this.html

[Perd Hapley]

The whining is by the church hierarchy, as most Catholic people do not share the same opinion.

Most people defending the RCC on this do not share its views on birth control. It's kind of like that trivial little idea of "I don't agree with a word you say, but I'll whine about your right to say it."

Gee, I guess that my bible must have left the passages out about not using birth control. Silly me!

It is a violation of the Catholic Church's law. Big difference.

No different than the churches who use marijuana in their 'worship' - churches can say anything that they want to.

So I guess the govt. could force churches to marry same-sex couples, right? We have plenty of churches that are already OK with that. Why should the weird traditionalists be any different?

[Ron]

This country is so fubar.

Rights are only important when it's your ox getting gored apparently.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Oh my! Here I am wanting  to hold fistfuls coat and cheering him on.... . What is the world coming to!


I even used punctuation! In his honor!

[kgbsquirrel]

I even used punctuation! In his honor!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

lol  i hear ya  i did have to go back and add it though if that helps

[Perd Hapley]

I'm overwhelmed. Punctuation? That's even better than winning the whole internet. 

[De Selby]

I just wish the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could be so well organised and effective in identifying and expelling child abusers within their midst.  It's just a bit odd that they're taking a stand on the morality of birth control when they've been very keen to downplay and deny liability for the "poor judgment" that closeted and shuffled child abusers for decades.

I also question, on this topic of religious freedom, if the APS consensus would be the same if this were a story about Saudi investors buying a major US employer and demanding that all female employees wear burqas, or that all employees join prayers five times a day.

 Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them". 

[TommyGunn]

There's a slight difference in working for a company that theoretically insists on women wearing burqas and everyone prays 5 times a day, and a government compelling a church run charity to provide a treatment that clashes with official doctrine.
It would certainly have been nice if the Catholic Church had been more efficient in expelling and punishing those amongst its leadership whom offended against children. Anyone familiar with the history of child abuse in modern America would agree with this....but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to uphold their principles.  The fact that they failed in on instance doesn't argue in favor of them failing in other instances.

[Ron]

I just wish the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could be so well organized and effective in identifying and expelling child abusers within their midst.  It's just a bit odd that they're taking a stand on the morality of birth control when they've been very keen to downplay and deny liability for the "poor judgment" that closeted and shuffled child abusers for decades. non-sequitur

I also question, on this topic of religious freedom, if the APS consensus would be the same if this were a story about Saudi investors buying a major US employer and demanding that all female employees wear burqas, or that all employees join prayers five times a day.

 Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them".  Not from me.  One of our most eroded rights is freedom of association.

[Jamie B]

I just wish the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could be so well organised and effective in identifying and expelling child abusers within their midst.  It's just a bit odd that they're taking a stand on the morality of birth control when they've been very keen to downplay and deny liability for the "poor judgment" that closeted and shuffled child abusers for decades.

I also question, on this topic of religious freedom, if the APS consensus would be the same if this were a story about Saudi investors buying a major US employer and demanding that all female employees wear burqas, or that all employees join prayers five times a day.

 Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them".  

Exactly the reason for my comments regarding the UCCB hypocrisy.

Looks like the WH is not backing down from their edict:

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-sticking-contraception-plan-171743278.html

"We put out the plan that reflects where the president intended to go. This is our plan," White House chief of staff Jacob Lew said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.

Lew said no religious organization will be required to pay for or facilitate the coverage that it disagrees with since the insurance companies are the ones who will pay.

Asked what incentive insurance companies would have to provide contraception, Lew - Obama's budget director until last month - said it would be cost effective just like other preventive healthcare coverage.

This is going to be pure entertainment value.