"You're"

No more like a man that can read and decide on my own what is propaganda.

Correct, Christine. At least you can read unlike some commentators who only pick up on what they are adamant about.

Please note that there are two Christines posting here.

Yes, there are two Christines. I didn't realize when i was posting that my "screen" name appeared the same.
By the content, I think people can tell the difference.

<i> Government should not be able to tell private religious organizations to do something that is against their beliefs</i>
Yet MY taxes are used to fund bombs which are against my beliefs? It can't be both ways. Either we ALL get to have our "objections" paid service, or none of us.

This law says that LARGE EMPLOYERS ( over 50 employees ) have to cover contraception for women. PERIOD. ( no pun intended ) . The point is to keep employers from cutting services from their insurance plans. It has ALREADY been the law in 28 states AND NO ONE HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT. The largest Catholic employer is likely DePaul university ( the largest Catholic University) - and they have covered this FOR YEARS. This should be a non-issue - but it is being "ginned-up" by the right wing to try to score POLITICAL POINTS. This is not about religion and it's not even about health care - If you are a Republican who hates Obama and Democrats more than you like common sense - You will be outraged (!!!!!). If you are a sensible human of any political persuasion, you will understand that this is about guaranteeing a minimum acceptable level of healthcare coverage for Americans. Quit playing policitcs with peoples lives - THIS IS NOT A GAME. Grow up.

Amy you hit it on the head.

Amen Amy! It's amazing how many people do not do appropriate research before shooting their mouths off with incorrect information hence spreading the spin & lies.
So, if birth control stays covered then why not have the men starting complaining that the government should have to cover their condoms too. Birth control, when used as pregnancy prevention, is a personal choice. Just like if someone wanted to get breast enlargements etc which would never be covered by insurance. Health insurance is there for the need when something is MEDICALLY necessary . Birth control does not fall under this. You don't want to get pregnant? Then you do as our mothers and their mothers did: you abstain or you learn your biological clock & when to have & not have sex. If that's all too much, then you have the right to buy birth control, but not at the expense of someone else flipping the bill.
Also, the idea that the government can FORCE anyone or any business to cover anything is ridiculous. Please tell me how anyone can stand here and agree that they are ok with the government having NO problem telling religious organizations that they HAVE TO cover something that is clearly against everything their beliefs? What will be next?

I don't think Viagra is considered coverage for an emergency, nor it is it only prescribed for reproductive purposes, most often I'm guessing it's recreational considering the demographic most afflicted by ED. There is no debate on that or any other coverage that could be considered questionable. I don't think religious organizations should be forced by the federal gov't to cover things they don't believe in. It's not the place of the government, but for goodness sakes, there should have been at minimum 50% women on the committee to be part of the discussion.

Very well said Amy. Our government has gone way off the mark. Since when does the Constitution say that birth control is a right. I am not against birth control, but I am against the government telling me or anyone else that it needs to be covered by insurance. No one is trying to ban birth control.

prairiemoon, some people in this country are proud to be conservative in their moral beliefs. This country is founded on the traditional family. Its success is due, in part, to the cohesiveness provided by it. I don't want to pay for anyone's contraceptives through my health insurance premiums. Contraception should be beyond the scope of insurance coverage. It rarely has anything to do with maintaining health.

@prairiemoon - Exactly!

peteee363 - better read this: "In its current form, Virginia’s bill requires that the ultrasound find and monitor the fetal heartbeat and provide an image of the shape of the fetus. As in other states with ultrasound laws, this will often require a probe to be inserted into the vagina." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/us/virginia-bill-requiring-ultrasound-before-abortion-nears-vote.html)

Oh, and by the way, today Governor McDonnell backed away from supporting the portion of the bill that talked about the internal vaginal probe ultrasound, so I guess you are incorrect with your facts on this.

Ann, as a Christian, I'd like to ask you to show me specific examples of where, how, and when the "government" has trampled all over religious freedom. Who do you define as the government, by the way and please give specific examples. I, for one, have NEVER felt like my religious freedom has been trampled by the government. Then again, I choose not to allow it to be. Perhaps that's the difference.

Dorothy, religious freedom was written into our Constitution by the framers. It is the basis for why we rebelled, along with taxation without representation. I happen to believe religion is a manmade construct, and I only concern myself with my relationship with God, but that really has nothing to do with the current conversation. Healthcare is already in place for everyone, including illegal immigrants. I'm tired of paying for so many other people's free ride.

Hey dopey, who were the pilgrims "rebelling" against? And what did they have to do with the Constitution? Did you go to elementary school? Or maybe you went to Christine's homeschool, where they teach about Pilgrims fighting the revolution against the British for religious freedom and writing the Constitution.

shut up, I recommend you watch some very well made documentaries, such as The History Of Us, produced by The History Channel, and John Adams, based on the book, John Adams. Also, reading Constitution For Dummies is also suggested. So many people seem to have no real civic or Constitutional knowledge it's scary.

shut up, I can't help it. I must know what you believe to be the reason(s) we rebelled, and against whom.

shut up, ever hear of the Separatists? William Bradford? Plymouth, England and Plymouth, MA? http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us/fairfield/saunders_d/homework/colonies/puritans.pdf
Wiki: "Almost half of the colonists were part of a separatist group seeking the freedom to practice Christianity according to their own determination and not the will of the Anglican Church."

Oooh, now I see. When you said, "religious freedom was written into our Constitution by the framers. It is the basis for why we rebelled, along with taxation without representation," the "we" you were talking about were the "Separatists" and "William Bradford" because they "rebelled" (not just went elsewhere) and had so much to do with fighting against taxation without representation, and writing the Constitution. History and civics at your homeschool must be very interesting. When is the class about Jesus overthrowing the Spaniards and saving everyone from Obamacare?

shut up, I think you have completely lost your mind. Do you have any idea what you're talking about, because I don't think anyone else does. Any you don't need to worry about what goes on in my homeschool. I am teaching my kids kindness and empathy toward people (even egotistic, misinformed people) in addition to accurate American History. There's an online class you should think about attending: Constitution 101 from Hillsdale College. I suggest that with absolutely no snark.

Amen Dorothy!

It'll be ok, Pete...being dupped would apply if I actually felt that way not based on your opinion. But thanks anyways

I wonder how your mother feels about you comparing her to pedophiles, banking institutions, internet spammers and tax evaders.

Pro choice supporters do not believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control. And any discussion on abortion should also include..."any man causing an unwanted pregnancy should be castrated." That in itself would end the abortion issue!

"mom of 4" you are my new hero.

Oh, that's right blame it on the penis. The vajay jay had nothing to do with it.

Rob, how I wish what you've said were actually true in this country. I am pro-choice. I believe the decision to keep or not keep a pregnancy should be up to the woman and, God-willing, the man involved in the pregnancy too. But, I'm a realist and I know that thousands, if not millions of already-born children are abused and killed every year by parents who don't care about them at all. And what are we, as a country, doing to stop this? You say that "women's rights are far above and entail much more than Birth control and the decision to end a life." I agree, to a point, but, again, where is the outrage when a woman is beaten beyond recognition by her boyfriend or husband? Where is the support for this woman when the husband takes away all her financial support, victimizing her once again?

I pray NO ONE on this thread is ever faced with having to make a decision on ending a pregnancy. I've been with 14 year-old girls who were raped and had to decide what to do and I've been with 40 year-old women who still struggle with their decisions made. These are NOT easy conversations and I think the bottom line, for me, is this - it's hard for me to take seriously a conversation that includes a discussion of women's health and reproductive rights (even if that wasn't the original conversation, peteee363) without a women there to give her perspective. I think that's all Erin was really trying to say.

This has been my argument all along.

R. zik you are so right! This particular blogger, Erin, (and not a journalist) has a habit if twisting events to suit her personal beliefs and instill discussions that have nothing to do with the facts of the event(s) she references. This is another prime example.

well, I am gald to see that people on here have taken a look at the the souces that these "jounalists" have used to promote their left wing ideas. I rarely post on here anymore because you can't argue with prople who don't present their posts with facts.

None of my words included "the meeting was intended to ban contraceptives for women."

Erin, But you did say that they turned away the only female witness when, if you watch the video, that is clearly not true. In fact that seems to be the major point of your rant and it is based on a falsehood.

When my wife also needed "the pill" for a medical condition, they were paid for by insurance. Perhaps your doctor didn't put the correct code on the prescription? Your doctor should be able to convince the insurance company of the medical need (unless your doctor is prescribing the pills for a non-approved condition).

BCBS used to cover my birth control pills when I worked for a different company. So, I think it is more the plan than BCBS. My current plan doesn't cover the pill, or any form of more permanent sterilization. They will however spend thousands on IVF.
I think their goal is to make more tiny humans so they can get even more money in premiums.

Julie,

It's likely that your plan excludes coverage for BC pills, not BC/BS. There are many plans that do not include BC in their coverage of prescription drugs. For that matter, self-funded plans are excluded from many of the rules and regulations. It's also a great point that insurance doesn't pay what's cost effective. They pay what they are obligated to based on the plan. For example, I know many plans exclude hearing aid but yet they will pay for weekly visits for Speech and Language Therapy.

In this case, you can't blame BC/BS. The responsible party woudl be whomever negotiated your plan coverage.

Julie,
This is the fault of your doctor, their billing and your insurance company. It has nothing to do with a penis. Also, Viagra wasn't created as a ED drug. It was a side effect which they capitalized on and now prescribe as such.

Julie,

Viagra and Birth Control cost the same under most insurance plans. Not sure which BCBS plan you have but it should just cost you your Rx co pay. Change your pharmacy.

Ron,
Once again, you're not understanding that in some plans there is NO coverage for birth control. It's not a matter of switching pharmacies. If birth control is not not covered, you don't pay a co-pay, you pay 100% of the cost of the drug.

petee363, you must not know a lot of democrats. You make a great deal of assumptions about people you are afraid to get to know.

No assumptions needed Tessa. That is how they are. I know too many. They need to go back to Crook County!!! Fast!!!!

her own religious background is an oxymoron. You cant truely be Catholic and have the views she holds. That is just fact. Too many American's pick and choose what they want from thier organizations and affiliations these days. Too many posers. Stand up for what you believe in even if its not the popular laim stream view point.

Just a quick side bar here-I blog for The Plainfield Patch, and have commented here as well as elsewhere on HuffPost. I have been called many things, but "left-wing liberal" is not one of them. Perhaps the exception proves the rule?

No Robert, I did not "bash" her for her opinion. I question the premise of the article, as you put it, "challenging a panel of men about their exclusion of the female perspective". The exclusion of female perspective, in this instance, is a falsehood.

Two female doctors were included as witnesses along with a video of a mixed gender panel as evidence. Erin's statement "Chairman Darrell Issa, R­–Calif., turned away the only female witness" is very clearly not true. The video of the testimony is available on-line. I watched the doctors' comments. They were most assuredly women.

Spot on Barry, not bashing her for her opinion. But her article is based on deception. She wants you to believe the premise of the meeting was something that is was not. She can speak her mind all she wants, I actually may agree with her on some points, but when you purposely deceive others to make a point, that is just dishonest.

First, birth control is not health care. Second, no religious beliefs are being "forced" on anyone--it is a question of whether a religious or faithful employer should PAY for birth control. They are not restricting birth control, but don't want to pay for birth control, which is an elective medication, not one required for health.

Bob,

There are MANY times when BC is "health care".

@Tom: I'm sorry for being ignorant, but name one situation where "birth control" is "health care"?

As I stated earlier, prescribing birth control pills for a health issue is NOT birth control; even if the medications necessary to solve a real medical issue have a secondary result of "birth control" (preventing ovulation, for instance).

Insurance companies will pay for birth control pills that are used for a real health issue. That is not under discussion. Elective birth control is what is being questioned.

Bob,
You're mistaken. Not all insurance plans will cover BC pills even when they are prescribed for a medical condition. I can attest to that because I have such a plan.

Birth control is a health issue when the health of the woman can be put at risk by a pregnancy.

I agree Bob. Birth control most times is a choice not a health care issue.

A Tom...not having sex is also an option...Or how about using a rubber? LOL

Bob,
Not all women are given the option to CHOOSE to have sex or not.

Sorry--what health problem does birth control "prevent"? Pregnancy is NOT a disease to be prevented. Health insurance is to prevent or correct health problems, not pregnancy! Believe it or not, Viagra actually corrects a health problem called impotence, so it qualifies under health insurance (although it is mostly likely wildly over-prescribed).

If you ELECT to have sex and don't want to have a baby, then pay for birth control. But don't compare that to medications that correct medical problems.

Impotency is not a disease either (although it might be the symptom of a disease). Like a pregnancy, it is a condition. Birth control prevents the condition of pregnancy. For many, pregnancy IS a problem--a condition that they do not want.

To be clear, health insurance is used in case a problem occurs, much like auto insurance is used if an accident occurs. Health CARE coverage is an entirely different thing.

I think we need to decide if this is a medical issue or a religious issue. It seems to me that most who oppose coverage of birth control do so because of religious reasons. Their argument is that the purpose of sex is procreation. It is my argument that viagra should only be used if one suffers from impotency but has the burning desire to procreate. So, based on the religious argument, there is no need for a boner pill if your mate is menopausal. According to the religious argument, you are no longer fruitful and shouldn't try to multiply. Sorry, God's will.

Durk,
NOONE is saying you CAN'T have birth control or Viagra... but pay for it yourself.

But Patty, Viagra is covered by insurance. That's the whole point, you don't have to pay for it yourself.

Why are you so insistent that people should pay for it themselves? Do you love the insurance companies so much that you don't want them to have to provide coverage? Is that your argument?

Bob,
You say that health insurance is to prevent or correct health problems and not prevent pregnancy since it's not a disease. Would you then be in favor of allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for pregnancy, delivery and everything that goes along with it?
If they ELECT to have sex and want a baby, then should they have to pay for that choice?

I am sure that is the traditional Roman Catholic view point on sex right Durk? Ha! LOL

Both Viagra and Birth control are subsidised under insurance plans. What is the argument about here? Viagra isnt free gang. There is a co payment and or a monthly cost. The same way for birth control.

Ron,
The difference is that Viagra is covered at a co-pay price but BC pills are not. The consumer has to pay full price for that medication. In some cases even if it's being prescribed for a medical condition.

Viagra isn't covered. It costs a co pay...$20 to $35 per month.

Tom, then have your Doctor code is so it can be a co pay. That is thier job.

Ron,
Coding has nothing to do with it. Plain and simple, birth control in ANY form for ANY reason is NOT a covered benefit with our insurance plan. Even when doctors summit medical records and write letters of medical necessity (known as LMN's ), the review determines that birth control is NOT a covered expense.

I'm not sure you're understanding covered and not covered. If an prescription is covered, the patient pays a co-pay and the insurance picks up the difference. Like your example of Viagra having a co-pay of $20-$35/month. The patient pays the co-pay and the insurance plan picks up the balance. How much would Viagra be if the patient had to pay the entire cost and not just a co-pay?

In the case of something like birth control that is not covered, the patient pay the entire cost and the the insurance plan picks up nothing.

Actually, many of us believe that religious beliefs ARE above the US Constitution; read Dr. Marin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail. [One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.]

Secondly, as stated earlier, birth control really shouldn't be considered health care.

Thirdly, it should take some very serious health issue (like AIDS, perhaps) before the government steps in to mandate coverage of a particular drug or procedure. While some women die during childbirth, that does not constitute a health crisis. (And a woman who has a medical condition with which childbirth would be dangerous could probably qualify for birth control for "health" reasons.)

Your reasoning is flawed. If what you argue is the law, then a woman could sue the Roman Catholic Church for sex discrimination, since it will not accept women into the priesthood. The law says that a person cannot be excluded from a job because of his or her sex.

The Constitution prohibits the governemtn from forcing religious institutions to violate sincere beliefs. Thus, the government can't force the Church to ordain women. And, since the prohibition against all artificial birth control is a sincere belief (even if a majority of Catholics ignore the ban), affiliated institutions can't be forced to offer birth control.

Bob,

the government already mandates school aged children to have vacines. So they already are in the business of mandating parts of our health coverage.

Ron, in regards to vaccines, there are plenty of children who are not vaccinated. Their parent CHOOSE to not vaccinate due to a host of different reasons.

To Bob LeMay: Even if you do belive that religious beliefs are above the US Constitution, the reality is that they are not. History shows that it will be changed or declared unconstitutional if it is indeed an unjust law. Until then, the law needs to be obeyed. If it is not obeyed, then you must suffer the consequences of disobeying the law. An example is of parents whom religious belief are to pray for their sick child instead of getting that child needed medical care. If that child dies because the parents refused medical care, are rightly charged with manslaughter for their childs death. Birth control is very much health care. Prevention of pregnancy is very easily achieved medically, and in no way should be denied to anyone seeking it, regardless of any religious belief to deny someone this heath care. Again, the law forces no one to use birth control, it only makes it easily available to anyone that wants it as part of their health care, and it is health care. To deny this coverage is forcing religious beliefs on others. The Taliban did that. So did the Spanish Inqusition. To say contaception it is not health care is the equivilant of saying the Earth is not round and really is flat and is not around 4.3 billion years old, it is only around 6,000 years old, because that is what some people believe is to be true. Contraception IS an important part of health care for the people that want and need it.

@Rick Karner. Repeating multiple times that "birth control is health care" in your response...does not make it true. In that case cosmetic surgery is health care, as is a haircut. Elective modification of natural body processes is NOT health care.

@Ron Burgandy: Vaccines prevent the spread of infectious diseases, so in the interest of protecting the public good, requiring vaccines is understandable.

Pregnancy is not infectious.

Bob,
Funny that you mention vaccines. Not only does our plan not cover birth control, it also doesn't cover vaccines after the age of 2. Maybe that should be something that is addressed by the government as well.

If you're saying that vaccines are a health risk, wouldn't that be to only the people that chose not to be vaccinated?

Well, if you don't like the fact that an employer affiliated with a denomination won't offer birth control, then look elsewhere for a job.

This isn't any different than enrolling at Wheaton College, and then learning that smoking and drinking on campus, even when of legal age, is prohibited.

Or, if you are a non-Mormon and work for an employer affiliated with the LDS, only to learn that there are no coffeemakers anywhere.

Wait a second, Mormons don't drink coffee? I feel like I should have known that.

I need to Google this... fortunately, when I typed "Mormons don't" into Google it automatically pulled up "drink coffee".

Well, I have to say, good for them. This stuff is bad for us... delicious, but bad for us.

Again... you want birth control & you can't afford it then go to a health clinic. It's just wrong that you should be able to receive birth control from an institution who believe and preach abstinence and the sanctity of life.

You aren't going to the institution to receive birth control; you're going to the insurance company.

Here is what the CEO of CHA said:

"The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions,” Keehan said. “The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed. We are pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished. The unity of Catholic organizations in addressing this concern was a sign of its importance. This difference has at times been uncomfortable but it has helped our country sort through an issue that has been important throughout the history of our great democracy.”

Nowhere in that statement does it say that the CHA approves of free contraception or that they approve of contraception. What it does say is that they are ok with insurance companies providing birth control options to their clients if their clients so choose that option. The overriding issue here is to keep church and state separate. President Obama has no right to legislate the church do anything but follow the rule of law. That is the real issue at hand. The real slippery slope is the giving the government the right to legislate how you practice your faith.

Regarding the statistic about Catholic women and birth control, the studies from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth suggest that 98 percent of sexually experienced Catholic women have--at some point in their lives--used a contraceptive method other than natural planning.

Just because 98% of sexually active Catholics use or have used BC doesnt mean it should be free. They should pay for it.

Ann,

I don't know many news outlets that are credible anymore! LOL Patch is a bunch of liberal hachet men and women. If you will notice the rehtoric is ramping up now that the election is underway. Most of these supposed writers will go away after the election.

So Catholic hospitals can take government money but don't have to abide by government policy?

Do these ventures not help everyone and not just people of Catholic faith? Nuff said there.

In the drafted compromise, religious organizations can opt out of this mandate due to their religious beliefs. They would not be forced to provide birth control. However, and outside insurance provider would then contact employees of that organization to offer birth control coverage. Women can decline, but for the women of other faiths, why should they not be entitled to coverage? Preventing unwanted, complicated or high risk pregnancies saves money and lives. It seems strange to me so many wouldn't want to prevent unneccesary abortions.

Good point Jesse.

Thank you Jesse. Finally, someone who gets it. None of this should be a political issue in the first place.

To quote a wise comment from earlier, I believe it might be you who could be crowned a "dupe" for asserting that just bc you did a google search and posted some stats from a gov't website that would allow you to determine that your "flame throwers" on the left use poor sources as opposed to what? the 100% infallible sources so often used by those on the other side of the aisle?

Well PETEE you stepped in it again. I did the negotiating and with a high school education against the corporate negotiators with law degrees and won fair contracts for the people I represented.. The day will come when your corporate buddies will cut you loose with nothing. Maybe you should do your fact check. as far as Roanoke and Jamestown these were free enterprises that you and your Chamber of commerce buddies seem to like.

I'm glad that you have had your successes but not everybody is treated fairly in the workplace and history does support this, if you are capable of reading. I don't know what made you so superior to everyone else but you should get a patent on it and sell it. It should be hit hit along with the other snake oil you stock.

It is unlawful for a labor union to take money from your paycheck for contributions to a federal PAC or for the federal PAC to accept such contributions without your written authorization. Recently, the Federal Election Commission has audited some well-known national union PACs to see if they had written authorizations from employees for the contributions the PACs were receiving. The results were astonishing. One national union PAC, according to the FEC audit, could not produce written authorizations for 93% of PAC contributions the FEC examined. Another national union PAC was unable to show authorizations for at least 67% of the contributions the FEC examined. This suggests a widespread problem: union PACs are making political contributions to federal candidates with employees' money taken without their written authorizations.

93% is a big number Mr. Moore. The law is the law and unions are good at electing people who make law work for them and not the everyday American. Remember only about 10% of private sector jobs and 30% of Government jobs are unionized. So the majority of us do not belong to a union. I am not union bashing here just stating facts. I am sure if my job has a union and I feel they are working on my behalf to bring me better wages and benefits with out changing election results I could support them.

You sound like a good guy Robert. You made some really good points.

WHo takes the high road these days? LOL

No different than falsly describing President Obama as an un-American alien Kenyen/Indonesian Islamic radical socialist/communist with a fake Hawian birth certificate that appeases terrorists.......

Ann, I agree with you and generally speaking with Peteee363 as well. The issue of Erin's lack of research has come up plenty of times. I do not know Erin. Most of her blogs I find harsh and overly critical. However, no matter what hers, yours or anyone else's opinion is, can we not be polite and courteous about stating them? I understand the issue with the fabrication. Maybe that's something that needs to be addressed with the editor. I know my own blogs are gone over with a fine-toothed comb before being posted. Not sure if hers are looked at that closely. I would imagine that since her posts generally spike a lot of "discussion" her editor may let her "misinformation" and lack of research slide. Hmmm. Kinda sad... And Ron...there are plenty of people out there taking the high road. Kinda have to look for them, but they're there :)

There are quite a few of us out there that will put any amount of effort and quite a bit of money forth to make sure that doesn't happen.

If that is the case Olddeegee then you better get ready for mass protest's and hysteria just like in Greece. You watch...

You're actually comparing the Republican Party of today with the party of Lincoln? The GOP of today isn't even the same party that Reagan was in.

Rant all you want. Hey, I have an idea, wanna watch Obama's inauguration with me in 2013?

I'd be happier if religion was left out of our government. Trying to solve modern problems with archaic solutions has never worked and never will. The churches are out of this, but their insurance companies who operate under US law must follow those laws. Please take your beliefs to church and leave them out of sane, rational discussion.

"a medicine of convenience"
No. A medicine of responsibility. There are plenty of married couples in the catholic church who take birth control pills because they either do not want children, or do not want any more children, and who prefer not using condoms.

The government is not FORCING anything. They are merely offering the option to everyone in the pool of insured who personally asks for it. Since the catholic church wants to be in this same larger pool of insured, and reap the financial benefits of what this represents, they must adhere to the rules that all the rest of the pool does. If they do not like these rules, the catholic church can self-insure all of their employees and can take responsibility for the fiscal realities of that on their own. The church has every ability to make this decision, but the reality is it costs more to insure people who base their decisions on superstition than it does to insure people who base their decisions on medical knowledge.

If the church wants to be included in the same pool as I chose for its logical and medically based reasons, then they can not pick and choose which rules they want to follow anymore than I can. If I don't like the rules of my insurer, I would be expected to do the same, it has nothing to do with religion other than the non-stop desire for those in the church to continually see themselves as victims instead of being responsible for their own choices like the rest of use are expected to be.

Noreen, government can not interfere with beliefs, but you can not act on your religious beliefs if your beliefs violate the law. To do otherwise, the Supreme Court has stated that religious beliefs would then be above the US Constitution. The first amendement has limitations. Example: you can not yell fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. You can not marry more than one person, take peyote for spiritual vision quests, or sacrifice virgins, even if these things are your legitimate relgious beliefs. As long as laws affect everyone equally, they will enforced. You can believe any crazy relgious belief you want, you just can't act out your belief.

Again, Noreen, why do you have to be calling someone "stupid"? Why go down that road? You may not like her opinion, but calling her stupid is rude, nasty and uncalled for. You didn't NEED to use that word to get your point across. It was a good point, but name calling was unnecessary.

Paul:
You've given some a lot to think about.

I don't think any Catholic leader would say what anyone does with an alter boy (nasty) is okay, nor have they ever. What the Catholic church was caught up in was a dubious case of "not in my backyard". Which, by the way, is a very human reaction to hearing something so awful. Look at what happened at Penn State, and is repeated time and time again. The church has had to deal with the sins in a very real, public way. Years ago they thought they could cure someone w/that behavior. They have learned they can't, that the only solution is the immediate removal of the offendor. They have raised a ton of awareness and have implemented processes to help that behavior from starting or continuing. So they aren't saying that is okay, but somehow birth control is wrong. However, my beef isn't with birth control or not, but with government forcing it's will on the church - putting itself above religious beliefs. Whether you agree w/birth control or not, do you really want the governement to have this kind of 1984ish power? I don't.

Noreen,
You said " woman having to pay a copay for a birth control pill." Several other people have made similar comments. This isn't an accurate statement because these women aren't paying a co-pay, they're paying 100% of the cost of the drug. That's a big difference.

The Preamble gives no such rights. "The Preamble sets forth the Constitution's goals, but the Supreme Court has ruled that is is not an independent source of rights."-The Words We Live By, Monk. "Although...one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, APART FROM THE PREAMBLE, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom."-US Supreme Court, Jacobson v. Massachsetts (1905).

"The Commerce Clause has become the greatest source of federal power under the Constitution."-Monk Prior to 1937 (and the New Deal), the Supreme Court consistently limited the power of the Federal government through the Commerce Clause. After 1937, the Court began to decide in favor of using the Commerce Clause for a large variety of things. Why the change? Roosevelt expanded the Court with his own liberal nominees to advance his own agenda. That's why we now have the out-of-control use of "Commerce Clause" as an allegedly Constitutional excuse for the federal government to obtain and use more centralized power. So, using Court precedent versus the framers' intent is now common practice. Wrong, but common.

Rick, first, it would help me greatly (no snark intended) if you would utilize proper capitalization and punctuation. Quotes, when quoting from a source, are also helpful. It would just be easier for me to read. As to your last post, I quote that bastion of liberal-ness who I generally heartily despise, Cass Sunstein. "The Constitution does not mean only what the judges say it means...Its meaning to Congress, the President, state government, and citizens in general has been more important than its meaning within the narrow confines of the Supreme Court building." Remember that the people have the final say about the meaning of the Constitution through our power of amendment. Government in all forms in the US is a tool of the people, not the reverse.

Rick, thank you for the snarky suggestion to read the Constitution. I have read it several times, am currently refreshing my knowledge by taking the Constitution 101 course, rereading The Words We Live By, Monk, watching John Adams, watching The History of Us, and just had my kids memorize the Preamble as well as the Bill of Rights. We're also about to take a fabulous virtual field trip to Colonia Williamsburg, VA. After that we will watch David Barton's American Heritage Series. We like to do fun things like that, in addition to "school".

peteee363, I wanted to go this year to CW, but we have already taken a US vacation. This off-topic, but we cover Ancients next year. Any suggestions for US-based archeological digs?

It is disappointing to hear that you find it acceptable to punish the married couple who does not want any(or any more) children, because of a worst case-scenario that has nothing at all to do with them.

Would you be willing to be the person to tell this responsible couple face to face they can not enjoy the benefits of modern medicine? I doubt it.