I guess you only get to "choose" when you agree with this administration

[Anonymous]

Even E.J. Dionne questions this move. I'm really shocked and saddened by this latest act of intolerance by the Obama administration. Don't expect much support for this view from the regular DCUM crowd, but the point needs to be made (and possibly heard).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-breach-of-faith-over-contraceptive-ruling/2012/01/29/gIQAY7V5aQ_story.html

[Anonymous]

There is no room for religion in public policy, no matter how "sensitive" a president you are.

Catholics are essentially the only major religious group mon,optically opposed to birth co trol. For everybody else, it is a major health need. No way should Catholics get a say in deciding what insurance companies should pay for- anymor Ethan Jehovah's should get to dictate that blood transfusions not be covered.

[Anonymous]

Why is this shocking and saddening? Religious institutions with a primarily religious purpose are exempt. But things like hosptials and colleges are not. Makes sense to me. The law protects women's rights at the expense of some religious institutions. To me, this choice is serving the greater good. But then, I'm female.

And it might be worth noting (or not) that birth control drugs are used for many things other than just contraception. My GYN put me on it after age 40 to help reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, which my mother had. Definitely not for birth control purposes -- my tubes are tied.

[Anonymous]

If you come across an argument, go ahead and type it up.

[Anonymous]

I was all ready to get mad about this. But I can't. Here's why.

The Administration went out of its way to exempt abortion procedures from the bill, and then the bishops went around telling people that the plan covered abortions. You can't throw the President under the bus after he takes a political risk, then expect to be treated kindly.

Second, the bill exempts plans that primarily cover people of your organization's religion. So your catholic parish or school does not need to cover contraceptives. But if you run a Sisters of Mercy hospital system, employing thousands of people of many faiths, you do.

Third, covering birth control pills is not a huge moral dilemma. It's not like being forced to perform abortions. Really it's not, and if you believe it then you should empty the pews at your parish of all the hypocrites. We are talking about whether corporations that cover 25,000 employees can pay for pills. And it's not church parishioners' religious donations, these are nonprofit corporations, getting paid for their services by individuals, private corporations, and the government.

For the record, I'm a lifelong Catholic and my mother worked her entire career at a Catholic hospital. This is a matter of principle for the bishops, but little else.

[Anonymous]

What is offensive to me is that the new regulations require an instituion to violate the very tenents upon which it was established, including providing contraception, sterilization, and abortion, or face a $10M fine. And to claim that there is a distinction between the "house of worship" and the institutions that are covered ignores the itegration of social services, both educational and medical, that have been provided by the Catholic Church world-wide.

[Anonymous]

The catholic church has no right to dictate what its insurers provide to their customers.

[Anonymous]

Might be time for the catholic church to go back to church activities, and spin off the hospitals to more tolerant groups...of course, the church won't, because its power no longer lies in the pews

[Anonymous]

This is why they are pro-abortion not pro-choice. Choice is only allowed when you choose the pro-abortion side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Might be time for the catholic church to go back to church activities, and spin off the hospitals to more tolerant groups...of course, the church won't, because its power no longer lies in the pews

Yes, the Church is making big bucks on those hospitals!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The catholic church has no right to dictate what its insurers provide to their customers.

Yes, no employer should ever be able to decide what type of insurance it provides for its employers! Those employees probably had no idea they were working for a Catholic institution. Many of us get confused. Georgetown isn't St. Georgetown! Very confusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The catholic church has no right to dictate what its insurers provide to their customers.

Yes, no employer should ever be able to decide what type of insurance it provides for its employers! Those employees probably had no idea they were working for a Catholic institution. Many of us get confused. Georgetown isn't St. Georgetown! Very confusing.

Will your ob/gyn prescribe birth control at Georgetown? Sure. OK, so stop the pontificating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The catholic church has no right to dictate what its insurers provide to their customers.

Yes, no employer should ever be able to decide what type of insurance it provides for its employers! Those employees probably had no idea they were working for a Catholic institution. Many of us get confused. Georgetown isn't St. Georgetown! Very confusing.

Will your ob/gyn prescribe birth control at Georgetown? Sure. OK, so stop the pontificating.

Which is the point. It is their choice and they do it. Then why can't another institution make a different choice? Choice is only acceptable if it fits the "right to choose" stance.

But hey, thanks for proving my point!

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:What is offensive to me is that the new regulations require an instituion to violate the very tenents upon which it was established, including providing contraception, sterilization, and abortion, or face a $10M fine. And to claim that there is a distinction between the "house of worship" and the institutions that are covered ignores the itegration of social services, both educational and medical, that have been provided by the Catholic Church world-wide.

It requires an institution to follow the laws of the land and respect the right of its employees to exercise THEIR religious freedom. It does not require anyone to use contraceptives against their will, just to contribute to the insurance that will cover it. Dionne, while disagreeing with the specifics, says that the law should require the institution to help the employees get such coverage. I disagree with more than just the specifics of many Obama policies, so this does not seem to me to be that big a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The catholic church has no right to dictate what its insurers provide to their customers.

Yes, no employer should ever be able to decide what type of insurance it provides for its employers! Those employees probably had no idea they were working for a Catholic institution. Many of us get confused. Georgetown isn't St. Georgetown! Very confusing.

Will your ob/gyn prescribe birth control at Georgetown? Sure. OK, so stop the pontificating.

Which is the point. It is their choice and they do it. Then why can't another institution make a different choice? Choice is only acceptable if it fits the "right to choose" stance.

But hey, thanks for proving my point!

Uh, you aren't getting it. OB/GYN practices at ALL of the Catholic hospitals prescribe birth control. So they have already decided that this is ethically acceptable. They will even make money off of the visit to get a script. And yet the same institutions are protesting this.