Obama Forces Abortion, Condoms and Mornnig After Pills on Catholics

[Rion]

I guess when you're an extremist who lacks self awareness, everyone else is the extremist.

Which is why some posters here can't seem to figure out why even those of us who are pro-contraceptive are against this.

 

[purpledolphin8402]

I was reading the replies to this forum, and I think something needs to pointed out. Birth control pills are not just used for birth control. They help with severe acne, excessive hair growth, painful periods and cramps, irregular periods and ovarian cysts. Is the Catholic church ok with using birth control pills for other reasons other than keeping yourself from getting pregnant?

 

[Wolseley]

I was reading the replies to this forum, and I think something needs to pointed out. Birth control pills are not just used for birth control. They help with severe acne, excessive hair growth, painful periods and cramps, irregular periods and ovarian cysts. Is the Catholic church ok with using birth control pills for other reasons other than keeping yourself from getting pregnant?

Yes, as long as the primary purpose is not to prevent pregnancy. But even then, all other avenues of solving the problem would have to be exhuasted and found fruitless in each individual case before the moral complicitness in using a birth-control drug for any other purpose would be lifted, however. Keep in mind, though, that I am not a canon lawyer. For an authoritative analysis, consult the Holy See.

 

[pgp_protector]

There are powers beyond the grave to which I shall be held accountable.

Scripture directs me to submit to rulers. God will hold them accountable as well.

However, I think the question does indeed come back as a plausible one for you. How do you feel about the wars?

God never seamed to have a problem with Wars, He used them quite a bit to punish nations.

 

[jgarden]

Obama Forces Abortion, Condoms and Morning After Pills on Catholics

Nobody is actually forcing the employees of Catholic institutions to use any of these products - its a matter of free personal choice!

Many Catholic institutions already receive public funding and tax deductions from the government - are they now willing to forego all public money as the cost of not being held accountable?

 

[MachZer0]

Obama Forces Abortion, Condoms and Morning After Pills on Catholics

Nobody is actually forcing the employees of Catholic institutions to use any of these products - its a matter of free personal choice!

Many Catholic institutions already receive public funding and tax deductions from the government - are they now willing to forego all public money as the cost of not being held accountable?

It's not an issue of use but rather provision. Would you object to the government forcing you to provide a product you found objectionable

 

[Btodd]

It's not an issue of use but rather provision. Would you object to the government forcing you to provide a product you found objectionable

The hospital is not providing it; the insurer is. At first, the objection was that it was forcing hospitals to endorse something that violates their conscience, and now that they don't have to endorse it, they still can't allow people to make their own choice, and want to dictate what those choices are. It's not the free exercise of religion. Free expression is not to be confused with forced discrimination.

Strange for an organization (the Catholic Church, not the hospital that is partially funded with my tax dollars) that believes God gave us free will, for good or bad.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

It's not an issue of use but rather provision. Would you object to the government forcing you to provide a product you found objectionable

It happens all the time. What if I am morally repulsed by smoking, and don't want my insurer to pass costs along to me that involve treating people who have developed emphysema or lung cancer from decades of smoking?

Do I get to opt-out of that because I find smoking objectionable?

And again, the hospital is not providing contraception. The insurer is, and the hospital has no right to dictate business between an insurer and a private consumer.


Btodd

 

[MachZer0]

The hospital is not providing it; the insurer is. At first, the objection was that it was forcing hospitals to endorse something that violates their conscience, and now that they don't have to endorse it, they still can't allow people to make their own choice, and want to dictate what those choices are. It's not the free exercise of religion. Free expression is not to be confused with forced discrimination.

Strange for an organization (the Catholic Church, not the hospital that is partially funded with my tax dollars) that believes God gave us free will, for good or bad.

Btodd

It's the employer who contracts with the insurance company, so it is still forcing the employer to violate a religious belief

 

[MachZer0]

It happens all the time. What if I am morally repulsed by smoking, and don't want my insurer to pass costs along to me that involve treating people who have developed emphysema or lung cancer from decades of smoking?

Do I get to opt-out of that because I find smoking objectionable?

And again, the hospital is not providing contraception. The insurer is, and the hospital has no right to dictate business between an insurer and a private consumer.

Btodd

Yes, you can opt out and yes, the employer is actually having to provide the objectionable item since he is the one contracting the services.

Answer this. Why mot let the employees purchase contraceptives outright and get a tax credit equal to the purchase?

 

[Btodd]

It's the employer who contracts with the insurance company, so it is still forcing the employer to violate a religious belief

Nope. Because the employer does not get to dictate what other services the insurance company provides citizens. Talk about overstepping bounds.

No matter how you slice it, Catholics will always say they're being 'forced' to pay for contraception. Even if there is some regulation that specifically exempts their money from going toward contraception itself, they'll still be paying tons of money to an insurer who provides contraception, so even then...they'll still be financially supporting the use of contraception by helping the insurance company prosper. It won't ever stop.

The best solution would be for the Catholic Church to take some of that enormous surplus of tax-free money they have and start their own insurance provider that does not cover contraception or abortion. Then, and only then, could they dictate what services are provided to a private citizen, because they would actually own the company.

Religious freedom. What a farce. Religious bigotry.


Btodd

 

[Wolseley]

The best solution would be for the Catholic Church to take some of that enormous surplus of tax-free money they have and start their own insurance provider that does not cover contraception or abortion. Then, and only then, could they dictate what services are provided to a private citizen, because they would actually own the company.

That's actually a pretty good idea. I'd support that.

But I don't think Comrade Obama would.

 

[MachZer0]

Nope. Because the employer does not get to dictate what other services the insurance company provides citizens. Talk about overstepping bounds.

No matter how you slice it, Catholics will always say they're being 'forced' to pay for contraception. Even if there is some regulation that specifically exempts their money from going toward contraception itself, they'll still be paying tons of money to an insurer who provides contraception, so even then...they'll still be financially supporting the use of contraception by helping the insurance company prosper. It won't ever stop.

The best solution would be for the Catholic Church to take some of that enormous surplus of tax-free money they have and start their own insurance provider that does not cover contraception or abortion. Then, and only then, could they dictate what services are provided to a private citizen, because they would actually own the company.

Religious freedom. What a farce. Religious bigotry.

Btodd

Why shouldn't they be able to contract with an insurance company and stipulate that they did not want to have contraceptives included in the policy? That would fall under the category of freedom by the way

 

[Btodd]

Why shouldn't they be able to contract with an insurance company and stipulate that they did not want to have contraceptives included in the policy? That would fall under the category of freedom by the way

Contraceptives aren't included in the hospital's policy. They're provided by the insurer directly to the consumer...the hospital has no part in the transaction at all. The consumer is free to request it, the insurer is free to provide it, and the hospital is free to express their religious views. What they are not free to do, however, is dictate what transactions a company they do not own makes with a private citizen. This would be the reverse of freedom; the hospital would actually be dictating what that citizen does in their private life.

The hospital has no right whatsoever to tell an insurer, 'you can't provide that'.


Btodd

 

[MachZer0]

Contraceptives aren't included in the hospital's policy. They're provided by the insurer directly to the consumer...the hospital has no part in the transaction at all. The consumer is free to request it, the insurer is free to provide it, and the hospital is free to express their religious views. What they are not free to do, however, is dictate what transactions a company they do not own makes with a private citizen. This would be the reverse of freedom; the hospital would actually be dictating what that citizen does in their private life.

the insurance provider is only involved because it was contracted by the plotter to provide services. Another solution would have Bergen for Obama to force pharmacies to provide contraceptives for free

The hospital has no right whatsoever to tell an insurer, 'you can't provide that'.

Btodd

actually, Obama has no right to be ordering anybody to provide something for free

 

[Btodd]

the insurance provider is only involved because it was contracted by the plotter to provide services.

Doesn't matter. The contraceptives transaction is between the insurance provider and the citizen. It does not require the hospital to give an 'OK' in regard to what a citizen does with their private life, and the hospital cannot tell an insurance provider what other services it can offer people.

Obama has no right to be ordering anybody to provide something for free

I do think the 'free' part is odd, myself. The first plan I heard proposed was that the insurer would provide it at no greater cost than if it had been offered under the hospital's plan. We'll see how that plays out.

Catholic Insurance Company™. Think about it.


Btodd

 

[MachZer0]

Doesn't matter. The contraceptives transaction is between the insurance provider and the citizen. It does not require the hospital to give an 'OK' in regard to what a citizen does with their private life, and the hospital cannot tell an insurance provider what other services it can offer people.

I do think the 'free' part is odd, myself. The first plan I heard proposed was that the insurer would provide it at no greater cost than if it had been offered under the hospital's plan. We'll see how that plays out.

Catholic Insurance Company™. Think about it.

Btodd

It does indeed matter because the benefit is being provided by the employer making him complicit. Frankly, I don't see how you believe you can determine when someone else believes their religious freedom is being infringed

 

[Btodd]

It does indeed matter because the benefit is being provided by the employer making him complicit. Frankly, I don't see how you believe you can determine when someone else believes their religious freedom is being infringed

As I already pointed out, even if the provider didn't provide the hospital employees with contraception, they would still be paying large sums of money to the insurer, who would provide contraception to people who didn't work for the hospital...meaning that no matter what they do, they will be 'supporting' contraception.

You've taken this to absolutely absurd lengths. Even when the hospital is trying to dictate a transaction between an insurer and a private citizen, it's suppose to be called 'religious freedom'? The religious freedom to dictate what people do with their private lives? LOL.

And yes, I can determine what freedom means, even if it's religious freedom. One doesn't have to be a believer when we're discussing reasons. Your argument isn't that religious freedom is being infringed upon because you have faith that it is. You're appealing to reasons, and not very well.


Btodd

 

[AtheistVet]

Does it violate your religions freedom when tax money goes towards contraceptives for military members?

 

[MachZer0]

As I already pointed out, even if the provider didn't provide the hospital employees with contraception, they would still be paying large sums of money to the insurer, who would provide contraception to people who didn't work for the hospital...meaning that no matter what they do, they will be 'supporting' contraception.

You've taken this to absolutely absurd lengths. Even when the hospital is trying to dictate a transaction between an insurer and a private citizen, it's suppose to be called 'religious freedom'? The religious freedom to dictate what people do with their private lives? LOL.

And yes, I can determine what freedom means, even if it's religious freedom. One doesn't have to be a believer when we're discussing reasons. Your argument isn't that religious freedom is being infringed upon because you have faith that it is. You're appealing to reasons, and not very well.

Btodd

None of that is relevant because it is the employer contracting to provide the services. If the employer dropped the health benefit, the insurance co would not dispense the contraceptives to the employee. So by contracting with the insurance company the employer is responsible for the said distribution. And it makes no sense that anyone should be forced by the government to provide its services for free