Catholic Leaders Blast New Contraception Rules
The Obama administration is requiring religious employers to provide health care plans that cover access to contraception.
Catholic leaders in Maryland blasted the Obama administration for implementing a new rule requiring religious employers to offer health plans that cover contraceptives without co-pays or deductibles.
The Department of Health and Human Services stated that the new rule "ensures that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range" of all "FDA-approved forms of contraception."
Nonprofit and religious employers have until Aug. 1, 2013 to comply with the new law.
Cardinal-designate Edwin F. O'Brien, leader of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, condemned the Obama administration's "shocking and disturbing decision" in a statement. O'Brien said the decision forces "individuals and religious organization to surrender their beliefs ... for the sake of political and financial expediency."
The Archdiocese of Washington called the rule an attack on religious freedom. In a statement, the Washington Catholic organization stated: "Until now, no federal law has required anyone to purchase, sell, sponsor, or be covered by a private health plan that violates his or her conscience. Under the HHS edict, however, virtually all Catholic charitable organizations, hospitals, schools, colleges and universities that want to provide for the needs of their employees and students in a manner consistent with Catholic moral teachings will be placed in the untenable position of having to choose between violating the law and violating their conscience."
Brook
2:54 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
So, the religious employers are upset because their employees ~might~ buy contraceptives with the employees' own money? Sounds to me like a big stink about nothing.
A) If the employee follows the same religious code, then they won't buy any contraceptives. The employer is unaffected.
B) If the employee follows a different belief, then they buy contraceptives out of their own pocket. The employer is only affected by any conflict they have with their employee, which would have occurred regardless.
So... who cares if the health plan the employer must offer provides information on contraceptives? It's up to the employee whether the use them or not... the employer has to deal either way.
Ohai
3:19 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
I don't think you understand the issue. It's not the employees money we're talking about- it's the employer's money who pays for (at least part) of the insurance premiums that are more expensive now having to cover these items without co-pays or deductibles.
It's amusing to see someone like you who clearly supports Obama's health care plan- which forces us to buy insurance- suddenly be concerned with how people choose to spend their own money. Oh, the hypocrisy. The only thing I find more absurd than religion is politics.
Brook
4:02 pm on Thursday, January 26, 2012
How is it you read the most ridiculous things into anything I say? Where in my message did I say I was "concerned with how people choose to spend their own money"? If anything, I reiterated that it was ~absurd~ for someone (the employers) be concerned with how people (the employees) spend their own money.
I'm neither for nor against the healthcare, as it no longer affects me. I have decent healthcare, thanks to my wife. However, 10 years ago I might have sided with these healthcare laws because I couldn't get any from my employers and would have to pay exorbitant fees as an individual to some insurer.
You are right... the only thing more absurd about religion is politics. Which is amusing, since you always bring the latter up.
bill bissenas
8:20 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
This is the problem with secular progressives. Since God is dead, anything that a church believes or advocates is nonsense and therefore, can be completely discounted in the name of the collective good. Not that I feel very sorry for the Catholic Church given that the Church overall supported the socialist Obamacare.
Brook
8:36 am on Tuesday, January 31, 2012
And again, Bill, you just come on here, throwing labels around and not providing an ounce of legitimate argument.
God is dead? Don't see that anywhere. Many people believe in God who also believe in contraceptives. They just probably don't believe in ~your~ interpretation of God. Maybe a God that hates people is dead, but a God that loves people certainly seems alive and well.
Anything the church believes or advocates is nonsense and should be discounted? Funny, many of the teaching of Jesus are actually positive and enjoyed by your loathed "progressives and socialists". Giving to the poor (Mark 10: 21-25), healing the sick regardless of rules and conditions (Mark 7:31 and 8:22, among others), helping others selflessly (Matthew 25: 31-46), and avoiding bigotry and judgment (James 2: 1-7). Of course, there may be a difference between what ~Christianity~ advocates and what many ~churches~ advocate.
So, before throwing labels out (Matthew 7:1), maybe you should stop and think about what was said... and what ~you~ are saying.
bill bissenas
12:35 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Yes, it's true, religious progressives do believe that government can be used as an instrument to implement their God's intentions. That's absolutely true. That's why Alinsky-affiliated organizations such as PATH exist.
Brook
1:32 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
And you're saying that religious conservatives don't believe the same thing? What with acts to ban gay marriage, abortion, or anything else they interpret as an affront to their religious beliefs? This is what you get when people behave at one end of a religious, political, or social extreme... people at both ends doing the same thing, regardless of common sense.
Also, I love how you noted that this an instrument to ~their~ (the progressives') God... as if there's more than one because of socio-political divide. Last I looked, everything quoted above was from the same book both sides of the fence read. The only difference is which ones each side seems to use to fit their own schemata.
bill bissenas
2:42 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Progressivism takes many form, all of them insidious.
Brook
3:08 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Now you're not only being ignorant but delusional. I'm not sure if you're just a hateful individual or actively suffering a mental disorder.
You also might want to check your terminology. The more you use the term "progressivism" the more it sounds like you mean "left-wing" or even "liberal".
bill bissenas
3:23 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
It's not about hate, it's about truth. And the progressives seek to take from us our property and liberty for the purpose of implementing "good intentions." Insidious, of course, consistent with the intentions of our founders, of course not.
Brook
7:45 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
I have to assume that you are the latter of my two declarations, then. You need serious help, Bill. Of course, judging by Paranoid Personality Disorder, you would probably accuse any therapist of being a "leftist, socialist, progressive, liberal" out to harm you with their insidious work.
bill bissenas
9:16 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
I can't help you. We all have our own path out of the darkness of liberalism. For some, it's a short journey, for others it's a bit longer, and for others still, the journey never ends.
"It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan