Politics, Catholics, and Birth Control

[elalacran]

You fer or agin allowing employees to have the option of health insurance covering contraceptives?

From the point of view of employers and those footing the bill, it sure makes sense to have such coverage. Pregnancy leave and paternity leave complicates the lives of employers, and when it comes to insurance costs, more contraception is preferable to more births.

How about the religious aspect?

Well, sure, if someone doesn't want the coverage they are not forced to get it; neither are birth control pills forced down their throats.

So what's the problem?

The only problem I see is that, for HMOs, a Catholic provider would be expected to provide contraceptive prescriptions. How much of a problem is that?

Isn't that a matter of the patient-doctor relationship? Do Catholic hospitals attempt to prevent doctors admitted to practice from writing prescriptions for birth control pills or devices? Do Catholic hospitals, clinics, doctors and pharmacies have a sign in the window saying "NO contraceptives available here!" I doubt that occurs much in practice.

How many Catholic doctors refuse to write birth control prescriptions? If they reflect the beliefs and practices of the general Catholic population, not many. The use of birth control is overwhelming among American Catholics as it is.

For the thoughts of the Catholic electorate, see content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1

It is interesting that Catholic doctrine in this is controlled by a handful of men who are claimed to be mostly celibate except for the occasional attraction to young boys. It is interesting that one outspoken female voice in support of Catholic doctrine is that of a nun. What could be more detached from a reality of sex and diapers and children and need to work?

In a test of strength between the Catholic Church and the will of the American people, or even the will of American Catholics, the church loses.

[anonthemoose]

Pretty much an encapsulation of the GOTP philosophy and structure, isn't it? Some old dudes who are "righteous" and "family oriented" with strong "religious" and "family" values who try to dictate female reproductive rights, while doing a little diddling on the side?

And, yes, the Dems have done their share of diddling also, but they don't tend to be so loud about their "righteousness", and "family beliefs and values" so their hypocrisy is slightly less than the GOTP. Not much, but a bit.

At least the Dems want their diddlings done more safely.

Saying that young people shouldn't use contraceptives because they don't work all the time is like saying young people shouldn't use seat belts, helmets, or other safety devices because they don't work all the time.

[lubbockgoper]

Same difference between the two parties as always. Republicans stand on their principles, dims have none.

I would never expect you two to understand...

[elalacran]

It is a principle to cater to special interest groups? It is a principle to deny American citizens freedom of choice?

That is one difference between the parties. Republicans cater to those who want to legislate their brand of morality, their brand of control over others. Democrats can do that too, when it comes to environmental or labor issues for example, but not in the area of reproductive rights.

Tell you though: just as most American Catholic women use or have used contraceptives, so do/have most Republican women. Politically, it is a losing issue to oppose reproductive freedom.

If we want to talk of morality, then I guess we can get to the morality of the Vatican's stance on birth control and abortion. Is it moral? I can see where one might be uncomfortable with absolutely free abortion, but not with contraception. The lack of contraception has ended or shortened so many lives or made them miserable, that the Vatican has to be on the list of those organizations that promote slavery and genocide. The papacy takes a wholly unforgiveable stance on birth control.

[lubbockgoper]

You simply have no frame of reference in dealing with someone who has principles, it's a silly conversation to try to have with libs. you have no ability to fathom what it means.

Might as well be discussing physics with a house cat.

[anonthemoose]

Same old moronboorpiggopher.

Love it or hate it, it is what it is.

Straight forward, but limited in intelligence.

[elalacran]

Feb 8, 2012 12:37:50 GMT -5 lubbockgoper said:

You simply have no frame of reference in dealing with someone who has principles, it's a silly conversation to try to have with libs. you have no ability to fathom what it means.

Might as well be discussing physics with a house cat.

You want to talk principles, try this: Religious freedom does not include the freedom to deprive others of freedom.

That is something that Americans have gotten wrong numerous times, starting with the Puritans, who came to the new world for the religious freedom to limit religious freedom by the use of beadles and whips and stocks.

[anonthemoose]

Feb 8, 2012 16:51:02 GMT -5 elalacran said:

Feb 8, 2012 12:37:50 GMT -5 lubbockgoper said:

You simply have no frame of reference in dealing with someone who has principles, it's a silly conversation to try to have with libs. you have no ability to fathom what it means.

Might as well be discussing physics with a house cat.

You want to talk principles, try this: Religious freedom does not include the freedom to deprive others of freedom.

That is something that Americans have gotten wrong numerous times, starting with the Puritans, who came to the new world for the religious freedom to limit religious freedom by the use of beadles and whips and stocks.

I think it meant "principals". I had a couple like that. One had no neck and no ability to think abstractly. We connected when I told him I was going to beat the dog out of another student sitting with us, if that other student said anything else about my family during school hours. That one had principles.

The other principal had fat removal surgery (before liposuction), to remove about 50 k of fat, and then gained all of the weight back within a year or two. He had principals.

Those homophones can confuse some.

Do ya think that moronboorpiggopher practices its posts in the mirror? Seems like its talking to its self.

Just my opinion based upon past experience though. ;D

[anonthemoose]

Is it just me, or has the GOTP vs Obama chasm of division started looking like a vulva instead of a $?

I think the whole contraception thing is a plot by the Dems and Obama to make the GOTP (and moronboorpiggopher) look like bigger idiots than the already are.

I could be mistaken though.

[petulanadragunovic]

Here at www.salon.com/2012/02/09/on_birth_control_romney_mirrored_obama/singleton/ they say there is no difference between Obama and Romney on this issue. Romney did the same when he was governor that Obama is doing now.

[mcelhennysway]

Mitt says that Massachusetts law was from the administration before his.

[elalacran]

Before now, didn't Catholic employers who paid all or part of health insurance premiums pay, in effect, for treatment of STDs? There was no STD exclusion in their policies. Neither was there an abortion exclusion. If abortion was medically necessary, it would be covered by health insurance provided by a Catholic employer. Were Catholic employers FORCED that way to promote irreligious behavior? Were they up in arms about it then?

Since the 1970s there has been developing the concept of reproductive rights. The use of contraception is, in the USA, a reproductive right.

Turn this around. Is the government, that prescribes standards for health insurance policies, to be in cahoots with different religious groups that want to use government standards in order to infringe on or affect the reproductive and other rights of Americans? Particularly here, where the most private and personal decisions are to be made by patient and doctor?

The argument appears to be that in order not to step on freedom of religion, government has to avoid measures that recognize a reproductive right of contraception.

Remember that the policyholder here is not the employer but the covered employee. Contraception is not forced on the policyholder; contraception is an option.

Where's my stake in all this? I believe in limiting population growth. I believe that contraception is a major tool in fighting poverty and in empowering women. I believe that religious and legal restraints on the control women have over their reproduction amount to enslavement. That goes for contraception and for abortion.

You remember the old saw: "God made man; Sam Colt made them equal." I say that only family planning and contraception makes women truly free and equal, and that there are many forces out there seeking to curtail the freedom and independence of women.

[elalacran]

Well. looks like the govt adjusted its rules.

[lubbockgoper]

What a great example of my point. Two sides state, unequivocally, that an issue is very important and take opposite sides.

One side stands firm and the other side caves, who has principles again?

Feb 10, 2012 13:23:29 GMT -5 elalacran said:

Well. looks like the govt adjusted its rules.

[anonthemoose]

Feb 10, 2012 18:04:05 GMT -5 lubbockgoper said:

What a great example of my point. Two sides state, unequivocally, that an issue is very important and take opposite sides.

One side stands firm and the other side caves, who has principles again?

Feb 10, 2012 13:23:29 GMT -5 elalacran said:

Well. looks like the govt adjusted its rules.

One side is willing to work with the other side, and the other side wants to control vaginas and uteri, though they have neither.

Which principles are you talking about? The ones that say people with penises get to make decisions for people with vaginas and uteri?

Speaking of, the military is opening up more positions for women. That's got to gall you moronboorpiggopher, seeing how you feel that the military has gone to Hel since they allowed women to serve as more than nurses and secretaries.

Homophobic and misogynistic thing that you are.