let's discuss the overreaching influence of a few loud religions in our secular society.

This isn't prohibiting free exercise of religion. Its simply telling employers they can't cherry-pick health benefits based on their personal belief. We all have to do things we don't like/agree with. (like paying taxes)

It amazes me how folks cry loudly about the reach of government, but don't seem troubled by the increasing reach of religion into the personal lives of Americans.

You are free to choose a religion or choose none of them.

I'm a strong supporter of birth control but forcing religious institutions to go against their religious beliefs when those beliefs are not detrimental to the US is unconstitutional. Especially, when forcing them to accept the morning after pill. People have a right to not work at an organization so the argument can't be based on these poor individuals are forced to do without.

The true source of this legislation is the insurance companies and big pharma the major donors to the white house and congress.

Mike P101: I understand what you are saying. Although, I view it differently. Birth control pills are used for many reasons, and not all have to do with contraception. Also, the Morning After Pill is available OTC to women over 17 (although there are some pharmacists that refuse to provide it - which is another issue). For those under 17, they will require a prescription. Which, brings us to your point that it's wrong to require these religious organizations to allow their insurance plans to cover MAP. MAP is NOT the abortion pill. It is a high dose of birth control pill. It works in 2 ways: if the egg has not been fertilized yet (which can take up to approximately 72 hours after sex to occur), it will prevent the fertilization from occurring; or if the egg has been fertilized, it prevents it from implanting in the uterus. If a viable fertilized zygote doesn't implant into the uterus - there has been no pregnancy established; thus, there is no abortion taking place. MAP actually works by the exact same mechanism as regular daily birth control pills (although some hormonal contraception also prevent the release of an egg from the ovary, which MAP may or may not do).

Many people confuse MAP w/ RU-486. RU-486 IS used to induce abortions up to 7 weeks after the pregnancy has occurred. RU-486 would not be included in the requirement being imposed to allow access to birth control because it is not considered contraception - it is considered an abortifactant.

We can't let a group of bible-thumping hypocrites dictate to free people that we can't get contraception

Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? The only group dictating is the Federal Government.

This is an issue of separation between church and state as written in the Constitution. The Federal Government should stay out of the business of what religious employers should offer their employees. The Federal Government is not supposed to "force" a religious organization to cover something the religious organization doesn't believe in. This is between the employer and employee.

If the employee doesn't like it then this person is free to go to another employer. It's really a very simple concept. This is what America is all about.

Combine this story with the one where you can be fired for religious reasons and you may as well just quit as try to get the pill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46068444#.Txrc4qVSTgI

This is not a religious issue. It's telling people to do something that goes against their conscience. I'm affraid a lot of people are going to be blinded to this because they summarily dismiss religious views. I find it amazing how more and more people are only concerned with their own, personal rights and freedom.

Jo Ann, let's frame your argument in another way. Let's say you accept a position in a Muslim owned business. And let's say it's a real good job, one that you really would hate to lose. Maybe the business owner decides that any women working in this business should wear a veil, or perhaps a burqa (not sure of spelling). Are you okay with that? Would you tell these women, perhaps good, Christian women, that they must follow these Muslin beliefs, even though this doesn't follow your personal beliefs? Or would you argue that these women should not have to wear this clothing because it has nothing to do with their beliefs? Perhaps you would argue that as a U.S. citizen, religious beliefs or practices cannot be forced upon you. Just curious.

ttmadison hit the nail on the head square off!!!! I'm not a woman but grew up around many of them, married to one and the pill is prescribed for medical reasons as well.

Requiring companies to purchase a product they disagree with from the standpoint of conscience is no different than the government requiring antireligious Liberals and atheists to buy a Bible.

This is the government saying one religious view, that of the atheist or agnostic, is more important than that of, say, a Catholic, which is patently unconstitutional. How about a much more fair solution: if you disagree with the viewpoint of the organization, don't work there! I'm an agnostic and would never choose to work for the Vatican, but that doesn't mean I feel that I have the right to dictate how they function if I did work there. What we have here is not someone trying to express their own freedom but someone trying to impose their views on someone else.

@John in NW PA - If I choose to work for a Muslim company or organization I would have to abide by their rules & policies. I don't so I won't.

This is what is so great in America. SO FAR we can choose where we want to work. And I stressed "so far" because things are slowly changing and not for the better.

no different than the government requiring antireligious Liberals and atheists to buy a Bible.

I think I see what you are trying to say, but your comparison doesn't make much sense. As an employer, religious or otherwise, you are responsible for providing health benefits to your employees. This isn't some vendetta against religious organizations, its just telling them to put health first and belief second.

The problem is, as the vast majority of publicly owned businesses in this country are owned by Christians, those of us who prefer to keep our beliefs to ourselves will have fewer and fewer places to work. Wasn't that the reason why our ancestors chose to come to this country anyways? To be able to practice religion without interference, and as I would interpret it, without interference from government or from others that would claim their beliefs are more important than mine.

Perhaps reread the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). Seems to me we have a lot of believers exalting themselves these days, from business owners forcing their beliefs on others to sports stars with their public displays (yes I mean Tim Tebow), that instead might want to humble themselves.

Jo Ann, let me help John in NW PA by putting this another way. Let's say you are an RN and you live in Kearney, NE. Your husband's job is there as well as your family support system. Let's say you want to practice your trade as a nurse and the only job openings available are at the local hospital. In Kearney, NE there is ONE hospital. It is Good Samaritan Hospital and it is part of the Catholic Health Initiatives. Kearney is not a particularly large town, so it is quite possible that this scenario could happen. So, in order for you to work as an RN in Kearney you would need to work at the only hospital in town. Now, let's say that you and your husband have 2 children and these are the only children you can afford. As a couple you have decided that birth control is the way to go to prevent an unwanted (and potentially financially crushing) pregnancy. Why should your insurance through your employer NOT cover your birth control? Not every employee of every religious sponsored business follows that religion. If you removed all the non-Catholics from Good Sam you would have a severe labor shortage. The business is not even going to know what medications you are on as it goes through your insurance. I am not sure of all businesses, but when I worked at Good Sam, and at my current employer, I do pay a portion of my medical out of every pay check. Therefore, do I not have the right to have my birth control covered?

@veggiegrl08 - A lot of obstacles you put up. Look, I'm just saying that the Federal Government can not and should not tell a religious organization what to do because of separation of church and state as mentioned in the US Constitution.

If I was in the situation you mentioned I would go and get my BC pills else where. There are other means in getting the pills.

Religious organizations are not telling their employees they cannot get BC pills. They are just saying that the Feds cannot and should not make them cover it.

Jo Ann, I admit my scenario is a bit over the top. I apologize. Thank you for a polite reply. The problem is birth control can be expensive, and if you receive health insurance via your employer OR if you make too much money you will not qualify for discounted BC through a family planning. My birth control is expensive because I have high blood pressure. I am lucky that all my prescriptions are covered through my prescription plan. Health care is an issue that I believe employers need to be a bit more lenient on, especially for preventative health. I realize that many churches are against birth control, and I respect their beliefs. That being said Good Samaritan is not a church. It serves the community as do many religious based employers. They can't deny me.. an athiest.. medical care because of my beliefs and I don't think they should deny women the opportunity to have their birth control covered via insurance. (that might be comparing apples to oranges)

Preventative medicine should be something all employers support. If your employees are healthy you will save money in covering sick time and the possible over time which can come with having the shifts covered. The employee pays their premium and their deductible so they should have the right to have all their medications covered. I appreciate your intelligent and polite response and respect your opinion. I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

Veggiegrl08 post 1.21 and John in NW PA

For most people, why is birth control prescribed? What disease does it cure or prevent? Why should our government mandate that all employers have to provide it as part of their healthcare benefits? Why is it even considered "healthcare" because birth control pills neither prevent nor cure any disease in 99% of prescriptions where it is prescribed?

You may not think that artificial birth control is intirincally evil, but the Catholic church does? Read Humanae Vitae: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Pay attention to what Pope Paul VI predicted:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Much has come to pass since this encyclical was written in 1968.

The undisputed scientific fact is that all human life begins at conception. Another undisputed scientific fact is that some birth control prescriptions don't prevent contraception, but don't allow the embryo to attach to the uterine wall. From a scientific basis, because conception or fertilization happened, it is not contraception, but an abortifacient. RU486 is also an abortifacient.

So the federal government is now forcing employers to pay for prescriptions that a Religious group finds intrinsically evil. How does that square with the Freedom to EXERCISE religion in the Constitution? Even if you think it does, do you really think a majority of the current US Supreme Court will agree? Don't you think this Obama rule is waste of taxpayer money since it ultimately will be found unconstitutional?

Do you not think this is going to enrage Christians, and especially Catholics? Don't you think this was incredibly stupid from political perspective for Obama--even totally disregarding the moral implications?

The undisputed scientific fact is that all human life begins at conception.

That is most certainly not an "undisputed fact". Theory of Gravity is an undisputed fact. 2+2=4 is an undisputed fact. If this issue was an undisputed fact we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is frustrating when people pass their beliefs as fact.

Another undisputed scientific fact is that some birth control prescriptions don't prevent contraception

You're playing with wording. The main goal of any birth control device is to prevent pregnancy, which can be done in a variety of ways. Depending on the situation some ways will be better than others. Again, your use of the word "undisputed" is not accurate and more than slightly misleading. You have your opinion and that's fine. I can respect that. But realize other people have theirs and science does not support one opinion over another at this time.

As Earl Butz said to some pope. "You no play the game you don't make the rules."

Definitely sounds like the chruch is still living in the 5th century.

Nope, I do not think any of the things you asked in your final two paragraphs which is why I am fine with insurance covering birth control. A church does NOT have to provide the insurance which covers BC. Catholic Health Initiatives is NOT the church. (for an example) Since I do not agree with your pro-life stance I won't even go there as this is not an abortion issue.

As a woman who has severely painful menstrual symptoms I have to be on birth control. My menstrual cycles are painful and debilitating. My "flow" (if you will) is so heavy that even using tampons and thick maxis I still have issues. I cannot function when I am on my cycle. Luckily, my gyno has found a birth control that diminishes my symptoms. I work in the EMS field and we are a 24/7 operation. I cannot take a week off every month to stay at home in bed suffering and disability is out of the question. My pill is expensive, but luckily, my insurance prescription plan covers some of the cost.

No one stated that the BC pill "cures" any diseases, but it does help in the prevention of some cancers, such as ovarian cancer. Being a woman who wants to have children some day I am thankful for this. My family has a history of cancer to include ovarian cancer. I'd rather not take my chances and want my ovaries in tact.

I find much that is preached in many religions, such as the idea of tithing even if you can't really afford it, "intrinsically evil", but you will never hear me bemoan the fact that churches don't pay taxes. I think the fact that many religions are intolerant of everyone outside their religion is "intrinsically evil", but I will never tell someone they can't worship their God in the church they choose. And I apologize, but I happily disagree with the Pope. No disrespect to him, but seriously. Contraception is not going to cause a man to treat a woman poorly. If a man is going to treat a woman poorly he will do it with or without the introduction of contraception. That train of thought is rather silly and far fetched.

This issue is a preventative health issue NOT a religious issue. These employers will never know who is purchasing bc and who is not. Not to mention, as I have stated before, the employee pays a portion of their insurance and most times a deductible. (I pay a deductible for prescriptions and visits to the doctor) There is nothing about this that needs to offend anyone. It is not a church or religious issue unless the church decides to make it an issue.

I appreciate your reply. While I respect your opinion and the rights afforded you to express it I disagree with what you have said. And, to be quite honest, there is nothing you can say to change my mind.

The Company post #1.23:

That is most certainly not an "undisputed fact"

That all human life begins at conception is as much an undisputed scientific fact as the Law of Gravity or 2+2=4. The reason we are having the discussion in the United States is because 7 men, Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell, said in 1973 that unborn humans do not posses the legal rights of personhood. Therefore, a mother with a baby(s) in her womb could have him or her legally killed. Please note that the Catholic Church also teaches that no sin is greater than God's mercy/ If any one is suffering from an abortion see some organization like Project Rachel.

The main goal of any birth control device is to prevent pregnancy, which can be done in a variety of ways.The main goal of any birth control device is to prevent pregnancy, which can be done in a variety of ways.

I am not playing with words. I am using their actual meaning.

From Encarta dictionary definition of pregnancy: time of carrying unborn offspring: the period during which a woman or female animal carries unborn offspring inside her body, from fertilization to birth

It is undisputed scientific fact that some birth control pills render the lining of the womb hostile to the implantation of the tiny new human being at one week of life. Therefore, it is an undisputed scientific fact that some birth control pills don't prevent pregnancy, but legally kill the baby in the mother's womb by not allowing the embryo to attach to the uterine lining of the mother's womb.

Employers with a certain number of employees are required to provide health insurance. This should include all commonly used medical treatments. If an employer is part of the religion that refuses any transfusions or other blood products (forgot which one that is exactly), should they be able to refuse coverage for transfusions for their employees? Birth control is less expensive than pregnancies and childbirth, and also has less health risks for the woman. This isn't forcing anyone to take it, or even forcing doctors to prescribe it. It simply requires that everyone gets a chance at coverage.

@ veggiegrl08:

They can't deny me.. an athiest.. medical care because of my beliefs and I don't think they should deny women the opportunity to have their birth control covered via insurance. (that might be comparing apples to oranges)

I agree with you 100% in that no one should be denied medical care at their time of need. But this is not what is at hand here. It's about the Feds trying to force a religious organization to pay insurance coverage for employees on a small part they don't believe in. This is not what America is about. It's about separation of church & state. It's very simple.

I hope you find relief in your situation. I believe religious organizations are lenient in situations like yours. I think they should handle it on a base to base case. Good luck to you.

Veggiegrl08 post 1.25:

Please note that I said in post 1,23, I said, "For most people, why is birth control prescribed." If there is a true medical reason to cure or prevent, than I don't think the Church would have a problem with paying for a medical prescription of birth control for that reason--but preventing the conception of a child or legally killing the unborn child in the mother's womb is not such a true medical reason. Contrary to your assertion, Under Obama's new rule the federal government is saying that a Church or a religious institution MUST PAY for birth control as a mandated healthcare benefit. If you think that is wrong, then you are on the Church's side as respects this issue.

Finally, the train of thought that contraception is a factor in man treating women as sex objects is hardly far-fetched. Now you can have sex for pleasure with no consequences. You honestly don't think that hasn't resulted in delaying marriages, children, more fornication, more adultery, more disrespect for sex partners--treating them as objects of sexual pleasure rather than using the sexual act as an expression of mutual love for each other?

all human life begins at conception

That is an opinion. The reason it is an opinion and not fact is because there is no scientific base to support that stance. Either stance for that matter.

If you belief that pregnancy starts at conception then I can see why you dislike this law. But other people do not. They are not evil people, they just have formed a different opinion based on the available information.

On that note I will drop out of this conversation. You will not convince me, I will not convince you-so we'll agree to disagree. Have a nice day

Shalom, I again humbly disagree with you. Birth control use does NOT curb acts of fornication, adultery etc. Why do you think there are single, unmarried parents out there? Why do you think there are married men and women who have children outside the marriage? It happens with or without birth control. The good thing about being on birth control in these situations is it prevents an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. That's the last I am going to say on this topic, because as I stated before, you will not change my mind on this.

Correction to my post at 1.31 "The lack of birth control use does not curb acts of fornication..."

The Company post #1.30:

That is an opinion.

That all human life, or all life for that matter, begins at conception is an undisputed scientific fact--not an opinion.

The reason it is an opinion and not fact is because there is no scientific base to support that stance.

That's crazy talk. That all life begins at fertilization is freshman or sophomore biology. How do you think man has been to do artificial semi nation in animals or in vitro fertilization in humans if he didn't understand how human life began?

If you belief that pregnancy starts at conception then I can see why you dislike this law.

I believe it because it is an undisputed scientific fact. You are right, that is why I dislike this law.

They are not evil people

I never said they were.

On that note I will drop out of this conversation.

I would too if I was trying to defend your position.

Veggiegrl08 post 1.31:

So you don't think human beings act on what they feel the consequences are? You don't think that more women have sex before marriage because they no longer have the fear of getting pregnant because of the pill? Even people who were non-Religious used to be virgins until they were married for that reason? If you did have sex with someone you wanted to make sure it was someone you were going to marry in case she did become pregnant. That is all very reasonable. It is just as reasonable that with the pill you don't have to do those things because the female won't become pregnant. You're naive, and unreasonable, if you don't think that the birth control pill has led to more acts of fornication. I am not saying that nobody fornicated before the birth control pill; I am just saying that a lot more humans do now because of the birth control pill.

inmissouri post #1.27:

This should include all commonly used medical treatments.

What "medical treatment" does birth control treat? What disease does birth control pills prevent or cure for over 99% of its prescriptions? For 99% of its prescriptions, nothing is cured so why should it be mandated by the federal government that an employer must pay for a drug that for 99% of its prescriptions a Religious institutions deems to be intrinsically evil?

If an employer is part of the religion that refuses any transfusions or other blood products (forgot which one that is exactly--Shalom2U thinks it is the Christian Sceintists), should they be able to refuse coverage for transfusions for their employees?

Of course they should. The employee should not expect an institution to pay for any medical procedure that the employee knows the employer thinks is against the employer's religious beliefs. If that is the concern of the employee, then work for someone else. If you are a Gentile, and work for a Jewish Religious institution, do you expect the cafeteria to feed you pork?

This isn't forcing anyone to take it, or even forcing doctors to prescribe it.

No one said it was. The objection with this law is that it is forcing the Catholic Church and other Religious institution to pay for drugs that are considered intrinsically evil by the Catholic Church.

The use of birth control should be on the person and not the corporation/business. If a religious person doesn't want to use it then fine, but in no shape or form (as someone else said) should an employer be able to 'cherry pick' which coverages they wish to extend to their employee based off the employers beliefs. Just because birth control is available, doesn't mean it's being forced on those who wish to use it, however for those that do, it should be available to them.

Another undisputed scientific fact is that some birth control prescriptions don't prevent contraception, but don't allow the embryo to attach to the uterine wall.

Absolutely false. In fact, hormonal birth control works in one of three ways (of which the first two are the most common): 1) prevent ovulation from occurring, 2) prevent fertilization of an egg if it is released from the ovary, and finally 3) prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall.

What is an undisputed scientific fact: pregnancy does NOT begin until a viable embryo implants into the uterine wall. So, if no implantation has occurred, then there is no abortion.

This is EXACTLY why birth control and even MAP is different than RU-486. RU-486 can be taken up to seven weeks after implantation and is an abortifactant. Birth control and MAP, due to their mechanisms of action, are not abortifactants.

Anyone that believes contraception or MAP are abortifactants either 1) is grossly uninformed or 2) knowingly lying.

If you work for a non-profit religeous institution, then you probably believe in their ways. So why would you get the pill anyway?

Because not all people who work in a non-profit religious institution believe in ALL of their ways.

The people opposed to this are hypocrites. Where were they in supporting the Fundamentalist Mormons? It is OK for a government to penalize a religion that advocates multiple wives, but it is wrong when a government mandates medical care? It is OK to stop a religion from sacrificing virgins on an alter, but it is wrong to provide full health care?

Talk about American Taliban. Their way is the only way (gay marriage is bad, abortion is bad, birth control is bad, inter-racial marrige is bad [just a few decades ago], mexican immigrants are bad, etc), and they will deny employees the right to choose their own health needs ... Hypocrites.

My religion is hedonism - I practice sex with multiple partners all the time. I want to practice in front of the courthouse. I want to put up a statue to my religion in front of all courthouses (just think - 10 feet tall statues fornicating). But you religious nutjobs prevent this. Hypocricy. You don't want religious freedom - you want to impose your religion on everybody. This is just like the Taliban - hence the name American Taliban...

At one time, it was unconsititutional to force someone to buy something that they didn't want.

Lyrica post #1.36:

If a religious person doesn't want to use it then fine, but in no shape or form (as someone else said) should an employer be able to 'cherry pick' which coverages they wish to extend to their employee based off the employers beliefs.

Let me get this straight. You think an employer, who pays the employee, should be forced to pay for medicine that employer has forever said is intrinsically evil--even though this prescription drug is not being prescribed 99% of the time to cure or prevent any disease? You want the government to not only force your beliefs on the employer, but also have the employer pay for carrying your beliefs out and force the employer to pay for actions that he or she thinks is intrinsically evil. You might not be evil, but that is an evil act.

So businesses that are owned by those who believe that cancer is God's punishment should be able do deny cancer coverage to their employees? Or AIDS is God's punishment? Or that if your children get sick - then they are 'sinful'?

Time to join the 21st century. This is not the dark ages. Religions do not get to decide what is appropriate medical care. Or do you want to go back to throwing 'bad' people into the lake and see if 'god' will save them (if they are worthy)?

If you are truly so religious - why do you even need medical care? Aren't the 'chosen' supposed to be protected by their 'god'? Or do you hedge your bet because of your lack of faith? Your credo and demands only apply to others?

Summer-1597193 post #1.37

Absolutely false.

No, it is absolutely true. Read post #1.37. See where I clearly it is undisputed scientific fact is that some birth control prescriptions don't prevent contraception. You then state:

hormonal birth control works by 3) preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall.

From the Encarta Dictionary the definition of pregnancy is: the time of carrying unborn offspring or the period during which a woman or female animal carries unborn offspring inside her body, from fertilization to birth. It is not from when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall. A woman is pregnant when the human is life is conceived. If not, what do you call the what a woman is from conception to when the when the embryo is implanted in the uterine wall. One thing is for sure, it is an undisputed scientific fact that life begins at conception, not when the human embryo attaches to the uterine wall.

What is an undisputed scientific fact: pregnancy does NOT begin until a viable embryo implants into the uterine wall. So, if no implantation has occurred, then there is no abortion.

From a scientific basis there is no dispute that pregnancy and human life begin at conception when done in the context of male-female sexual relations. There is a dispute from a legal and philosophical perspective--but that is a different argument. Most people think that people created the philosophical and legal argument separate from the scientific argument because they didn't like the moral implications if they extended the science definitions into the philosophical realm nor the legal implications if they extended this scientific fact into the legal realm.

Lyrica post 1.30:

Because not all people who work in a non-profit religious institution believe in ALL of their ways.

So if I work for Jewish institution, even though I am a Gentile, I should force them to offer pork in the workplace cafeteria?

Interested observor:

All laws come from the morality of the lawmakers. You should at least acknowledge that the Judeo-Christian Religious Faiths created a set of moral principles that were the foundation United States laws that created a society that prospered economically. When that Judeo-Christian foundation is gone so will be our way of life and our laws will change. This is an example of that if those who are of the Judeo-Christian Faith don't push back. We will have laws that reflect hedonism as a moral value.

Regardless, the hypocrisy is that those who complain that an employer should not shove down the throat of their employees healthcare benefits that reflect the values of the employer, those same people have no problems with the government shoving down the throat of employers mandated benefits that all employers have to offer--even those mandates that employers have said are intrinsically evil based on Religious grounds. Hardly the Free exercise of Religion, but I don't suspect the American Civil Liberties Union will come to the side of the Catholic Church. Can't the ACLU at least have the decency to change their name?

J7 in Colorado,

Ever hear of a thing called auto insurance?

So if I work for Jewish institution, even though I am a Gentile, I should force them to offer pork in the workplace cafeteria?

Or you could bring in your own pork sandwich. Cost of a ham sandwich vs. birth control.....I think you can figure that out. Not all people who follow a certain religion, worship the EXACT way or think the EXACT thing as the one leading.

You want the government to not only force your beliefs on the employer, but also have the employer pay for carrying your beliefs out and force the employer to pay for actions that he or she thinks is intrinsically evil.

I want my employer to not be able to nit pick what medical coverages are provided to me simply because my employer doesn't believe in it for religious reasons. As I said, just because the option is available, it doesn't mean I or anyone else has to take it. The evil act is in denying someone coverage that could help protect their livelihood...simply because the employer doesn't like it. My sister had to take birth control for a number of medical reasons (which I will not get into here) and none of them at the time was due to her worry of pregnancy. There are enough children in this world who have parents that don't believe in birth control (yet want to continue to have sex) and are starving or diseased. One would think a compassion for human life and a want to stop needless suffering would outweigh stringent guidelines written in ancient times. Nothing against the religion, but the hypocrisy lands on both sides.

A point to remember in this discussion is that total and complete religious freedom is not allowed in this country, nor should it be. We don't allow virgins to be sacrificed. We don't allow ritual hazing of young boys entering adulthood as some religions in other countries do even today. Or as an even more relevant example, states do not allow parents to deny medical treatment to their children based on religious grounds. So "religious freedom" only exists within the bounds of what our governments allow, again, as it should be. Regulations regarding the requirements of health care coverage are no different in concept. When it comes to the health and well being of its citizens the government can and should always take precedence over religious beliefs.

Shalom2U: You are absolutely, factually wrong on this. You may be using a dictionary - but a dictionary is NOT a scientific resource.

I suggest you actually use real scientific resources if you are going to make scientific statements. If you would like to know where I have gotten my information: Developmental Biology (a 400 level undergraduate course that was part of my Biology major), Embryology (a course during medical school), Obstetric & Gynecology textbooks (also a course during medical school), and several other medical school and science text and research papers I have had to read for my education. The mechanisms of action information (though very abbreviated) come from several pharmacology texts from medical school. Essentially - this is an area that I have a lot of education and training in - you are trying to pass your misinformation off as accurate to someone that knows it's flat wrong and a load of BS. Other people may fall for it - but, I won't.

Furthermore, another problem with your post - when human life begins is actually NOT established scientifically. There are several things that are considered required for life. Some scientists argue that the fertilized egg doesn't display all of these things at the time of fertilization; others argue that they do. To claim that there is an undisputed scientific consensus about when life begins is to, again, we woefully misinformed or blatantly lying.

While you are entirely entitled to your own opinions - you are NOT entitled to your own facts. Stop spreading misinformation about how birth control and MAP works. Stop claiming that science has 100% established when life begins as this simply isn't true.

Lyrica post 1.48:

Or you could bring in your own pork sandwich.

Or a Catholic employee can buy their own birth control without the Catholic Church paying for it or any part of it. Or like the Gentile working for the Jewish institution, you could work someplace else.

I want my employer to not be able to nit pick what medical coverages are provided to me simply because my employer doesn't believe in it for religious reasons.

Why is that not the same as the government forcing your beliefs on the employer, and also forcing such employer to pay for carrying your beliefs out and forcing the employer to pay for actions that he or she thinks is intrinsically evil. I fail to see the difference in this case. Please explain it to me.

As I said, just because the option is available, it doesn't mean I or anyone else has to take it.

Agree, but that is not the issue or what the Catholic Church is complaining about. The Church is complaining about the Federal Government forcing them to pay for a prescription drugs that in over 99% of the prescriptions are prescribed for what the Catholic Church considers to be an intrinsically evil act.

The evil act is in denying someone coverage that could help protect their livelihood

Forcing the Catholic church to pay for birth control is being required under the guise of healthcare benefit--not protection of one's livelihood. That would be disability insurance. Should the government require all employers to offer free disability insurance?

simply because the employer doesn't like it.

So the employer who pays the employee should have no say in what benefits he or she should give the employee. Isn't the employee free to choose another employer?

There are enough children in this world who have parents that don't believe in birth control (yet want to continue to have sex) and are starving or diseased. One would think a compassion for human life and a want to stop needless suffering would outweigh stringent guidelines written in ancient times.

What does this issue have to do with the issue at hand: That the Federal Government should not force Religious Institutions to pay for medical benefits that they deem to be intrinsically evil? Why is this law not an obvious violation of the US Constitution's Free Exercise of Religion clause? Do you really think the current US Supreme Court is going to find this law constitutional?

It amazes me that most people that are against contraception and abortion are right wingers that are also against welfare of any kind. Let me put a few things in perspective for you! I recently saw a ridiculous ad by a New York state group of pro-lifers that asserts 50 million americans are not with us because they were aborted. If they had all been put up for adoption, maybe 5 million of those babies would have been adopted. And the other 45 million, what happens to them? Well, either the state would pay the parents that kept the babies a small amount of welfare, or they are put in foster homes. In my state, the state pays foster homes $1500/month PER CHILD! You tell me that in this era of overpopulation and budget shortfalls, that we could take care of all of these unwanted children! Now on top of the the hard number of abortions, how many people would we have without contraception? Easily BILLIONS(a number I made up off the top of my head like most statistics)! How in the world could we possibly support this many people, financially or physically in this country or on this planet!

On top of all of this, getting back to the issue, NO ONE IS FORCING PEOPLE TO GET BIRTH CONTROL!

JSteve7 post 1.49:

So "religious freedom" only exists within the bounds of what our governments allow, again, as it should be.

Agree, but how else can it exist or not exist? And the government should allow employers to not pay for acts (see post 1.42) that the employer considers to be intrinsically evil. That seems reasonable. The employee is always free to work for someone else. This issue is not about the Church forcing or not forcing the Church employee to do or not do something. It is about the federal government forcing the Catholic Church to pay for something that the Church has always said is intrinsically evil.

Regulations regarding the requirements of health care coverage are no different in concept. When it comes to the health and well being of its citizens the government can and should always take precedence over religious beliefs.

How does paying for birth control contribute to the "health and well being of its citizens?" It doesn't. Therefore, by your logic, the Catholic Church should not have to pay for birth control prescription drugs for the Church's employees.

Summer-1597193 post 1,50:

In all those textbooks you have I'll bet it is scientifically accepted all life begins at fertilization. Any textbook that doesn't has an agenda beyond science. Please cite the page # as well the textbook name and author and edition date where it states that life doesn't begin at fertilization,

As for the definition of pregnant, please cite the textbook, author and page number where it specifically states that a woman who conceived a baby under normal sexual relations with a man is not considered pregnant until the fertilized ovum attaches to the uterine wall. Almost all scientists would classify a woman as pregnant when she is carrying a human life. Because human life begins at fertilization, pregnancy begins at fertilization. These are facts and it doesn't matter what your education level is, these facts, or any facts for that matter, don't change. You have an agenda beyond science if you say pregnancy only begins when the embryo is attached to the uterine wall.

There are several things that are considered required for life.

Now you are dealing with the philosophical, not the scientific. Whatever has to be considered, the forerunner is that sperm has to fertilizes the ovum. Once that happens and only until that happens, can human life begin.

Stop claiming that science has 100% established when life begins as this simply isn't true.

My claim that it is scientifically undisputed is that all life begins at fertilization. When that life becomes a human being with legal rights is a matter of philosophical or legal; debate--again, not scientific debate. If a human female ovum fertilized by human male sperm is not a human, then what does science say it is?

How does paying for birth control contribute to the "health and well being of its citizens?" It doesn't.

From a number of your posts I see you have a habit of making a ridiculous statement as some absolute fact. How does paying for birth control contribute to the health and well being of its citizens? Are you even reading any of the posts on this thread. There are people that are prescribed certain forms of birth control to relieve serious menstrual pain. But aside from that, without birth control, couples can't manage reproduction which results in unwanted pregnancies which put an enormous strain on families, not to mention the unwanted children brought into this world. Then there is the simple general question of population control which affects the health of everyone on the planet. In that sense, there may be no more important prescription to the planet than birth control.

Shalom, I have some news for you: people will have lots of sex - it's a drive second only to hunger. That is an incontrovertible fact. Now, do we, with government, decide to control this in some way or simply let unwanted births become an epidemic? Our government, with the support of most people, have decided that birth control is about as basic as it gets with regard to health of everyone. Thus, like the examples I stated, no one can opt out of this policy in the name of any religion. If it is such a big religious deal to someone, then don't form a public organization that hires people. Once public, it must play by the same public rules that ALL public institutions must.

It is frightening to me how many people do not understand the over-reaching government that has oppressed religious expression throughout history.

Those that do understand how important this is to people of faith have a reasoned argument. If your faith tells you that abortion is murder, you then may form the opinion that this is evil, and would not support any attempts to end life.

The scary thing to me is to read the posts that are filled with judgment, vitriolic hate, and bigotry towards those fellow citizens of faith.

Whether or not I choose to believe in an unseen God, or you believe in some unscientific fairy tale explosion, we both believe in something. I am fine with you believing what you choose, and you should respect that I believe something differently. Why work for an employer whose core beliefs differ from yours?

Sadly, the outcome will likely be that employers will chose to close up shop, or shrink their operation to the size that they do not have to offer healthcare, at which point they won't offer it at all, rather than supporting the death industry.

Now you are dealing with the philosophical, not the scientific.

Wanna bet? This is middle school science here.

In order to be considered a living organism, the organism must respond to stimuli, have growth and development, reproduction and be able to maintain homestasis as a whole organism.

The zygote, embryo and fetus DO exhibit some of these. There is disagreement within the scientific community about one of these in particular: the ability to maintain homeostasis as a whole organism. The zygote and embryo cannot do this. The fetus can do this after a certain point during pregnancy - this point is what has been labeled "viability" (or approximately 22 - 24 weeks). This is why there is debate about when life actually begins.

I'm not going to take the time to find the exact page number in all of these text books - as I am in the process of studying for several exams and simply don't have the time to do this. However, what I will tell you is that ob/gyn textbooks all agree that life begins at conception; however, these same textbooks state that pregnancy is established upon the implantation of the embryo in the uterus. If the embryo doesn't implant in the uterus - it will never develop beyond this point. Medical Embryology also states that pregnancy begins when implantation occurs.

My claim that it is scientifically undisputed is that all life begins at fertilization.

No it's not an undisputed scientific fact. If you actually knew anything about this you would at least be honest and say their is dispute about this. Yes, there are scientists that would agree with your position that life begins at conception (I never said otherwise). There are many scientists that take the position that it begins at a later date.

My argument with you is that you claim your positions are undisputed scientific fact - yet, it's not an undisputed scientific fact. If you want to agree with those scientists that state that life begins at conception - fine that that position. But, at least be honest - it's not undisputed. You simply are choosing to agree with those that state that it is - there is nothing wrong with that. However, you are absolutely wrong in stating that it is scientifically undisputed that life begins at conception. You are absolutely wrong in claiming that birth control causes abortion. You stated earlier that birth control prevents the embryo from attaching the the uterine wall - which, actually is NOT the main MOA of birth control.

You clearly don't understand the science of pregnancy (if you did you would at least admit that life at conception is NOT undisputed, and you would at least admit that pregnancy begins when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall). You clearly don't understand the pharmacology of birth control (if you did, you wouldn't claim that it works by preventing an embryo from attaching to the uterine wall - you would understand that it's main action is through preventing ovulation to being with, in the very rare instances that ovulation still occurs, it prevents fertilization, and in the exceedingly rare cases that this happens, it will prevent the implantation - which means no pregnancy was established, which, in turn, means, that it is NOT an abortifactant).

You're entitled to your own opinions. You are NOT entitled to your own facts. You are entitled to agree w/ scientists that state life begins at conception; you are NOT entitled to claim that this is undisputed when it is disputed. You are NOT entitled to make up facts about how birth control works.

JSteve7 post #1.55:

From a number of your posts I see you have a habit of making a ridiculous statement as some absolute fact.

What specific ridiculous statement(s) are you referring to?

There are people that are prescribed certain forms of birth control to relieve serious menstrual pain

I have consistently stated in my posts when this is the reason that the Catholic Church should be mandated by the Federal Government to pay for all birth control prescriptions the person stating it is being disingenuous and you know it. You know that the percentage of birth control prescriptions for reasons other than to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is incredibly small. I have also stated that the Catholic Church probably would not have a problem paying for a birth control prescription that was prescribed for a reason other than to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

But aside from that, without birth control, couples can't manage reproduction which results in unwanted pregnancies which put an enormous strain on families, not to mention the unwanted children brought into this world. Then there is the simple general question of population control which affects the health of everyone on the planet. In that sense, there may be no more important prescription to the planet than birth control.

So no disease or medical condition is cured nor is any disease prevented in 99% of the birth control prescriptions, but you still think it is perfectly acceptable for the Federal Government to force Christian institutions to pay for a prescription that the Church has said is intrinsically evil. How do you think this squares with the Free Exercise of Religion in our Constitution?

In that sense, there may be no more important prescription to the planet than birth control.

This statement is certainly not science nor is it about healthcare. I also think it is absolute nonsense. The birth control pill has falsely taught that you can have sex without consequences. Many people think the pill means you can have sex for pure pleasure only. This has lead to humans to view other humans as merely sex objects or toys. It has lead to addictions in pornography, which has lead to more divorces and a breakdown in the family. The more people who have sex, the more people have sex "without protection". This has lead to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, abortion and all its attendant consequences--extreme guilt, problem with relationships, etc. From that standpoint birth control is one of the worst things to have happened to humanity.

Shalom, I have some news for you: people will have lots of sex - it's a drive second only to hunger. That is an incontrovertible fact.

Didn't people have sex drives before the invention of birth control? Didn't humankind prosper long before the invention of birth control? Aren't those incontrovertible facts as well?

Now, do we, with government, decide to control this in some way or simply let unwanted births become an epidemic?

Do you actually think that the people in charge of government should have this right to inflict their will on the country's citizens as respects the number of children one should have? That is a scary thought...didn't China do this by forcing people to have abortions if they already had one child? Where does government, or more accurately the people in charge of government, stop forcing its will on its citizens as respects this issue? Doesn't this frighten you?

Our government, with the support of most people, have decided that birth control is about as basic as it gets with regard to health of everyone.

I disagree with the support of most people. My prediction, but I could be wrong, is that this law will prove to be an incredibly stupid political move by Obama. I think it will definitely cost him the election--but even if he does lose it will be hard to isolate the impact of this law. Obama better hope for a federal injunction--he knew that would happen which is probably why he put it into effect until after the election.

then don't form a public organization

Since when have religious institutions been considered public? I got news for you, Religious institutions by law have never been considered public. Obama and the Federal government is forcing Religious institutions to pay for actions that the Religious institution believes is intrinsically evil. Its unconstitutional on its face and I am 99% sure the current members of the US Supreme Court will agree.

Summer-1597193 post #1.57

Wanna bet?

I need to know what I am betting before I bet.

In order to be considered a living organism, the organism must respond to stimuli, have growth and development, reproduction and be able to maintain homestasis as a whole organism.

I would agree with that except for homeostasis. Why is that needed to be considered alive? Sounds like you have an agenda here.

The zygote, embryo and fetus DO exhibit some of these. There is disagreement within the scientific community about one of these in particular: the ability to maintain homeostasis as a whole organism. The zygote and embryo cannot do this. The fetus can do this after a certain point during pregnancy - this point is what has been labeled "viability" (or approximately 22 - 24 weeks). This is why there is debate about when life actually begins.

Now I know why you added homeostasis--not science, but to help your argument.

I'm not going to take the time to find the exact page number in all of these text books - as I am in the process of studying for several exams and simply don't have the time to do this.

Understand. Good luck on the exams.

these same textbooks state that pregnancy is established upon the implantation of the embryo in the uterus. If the embryo doesn't implant in the uterus - it will never develop beyond this point. Medical Embryology also states that pregnancy begins when implantation occurs.

Again, when you have time, please cite the source. I am sure it is not without controversy. So you are saying that a woman with a fertilized ovum in her uterus or fallopian tubes is not pregnant? What is she then?

If you actually knew anything about this you would at least be honest and say their is dispute about this. Yes, there are scientists that would agree with your position that life begins at conception (I never said otherwise). There are many scientists that take the position that it begins at a later date....But, at least be honest - it's not undisputed.

I do know something about this and if you were honest, or any scientist for that matter, all would agree that from a purely scientific basis all life begins when male sperm fuses with a female egg. From a scientific standpoint, life can't begin any other way. Any one who says life doesn't begin at this point in time is not talking about science, even if they are a scientist. They are delving into the philosophical and legal realm. I have no problems with them (scientists) and you delving into this area--they should and you should. But they should, and you should, at least have the intellectual honesty to state that you are not speaking at a scientific level when you say life doesn't begin at conception.

You are absolutely wrong in claiming that birth control causes abortion.

I said some, not all forms, of birth control cause an abortion. That is factually correct.

You stated earlier that birth control prevents the embryo from attaching the the uterine wall - which, actually is NOT the main MOA of birth control.

Again, I said some, and I repeat, some, forms of birth control prevent the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. You did as well. See YOUR post in post #1.37. When birth control prevents the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall that form of birth control is an abortifacient from a scientific point of view. I don't care about the main MOA, my objection is whenever birth control is an abortifacient people need to recognize it as such.

You clearly don't understand the science of pregnancy (if you did you would at least admit that life at conception is NOT undisputed, and you would at least admit that pregnancy begins when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall).

I think I do. Any scientist, and you, who says that life doesn't begin at conception from a scientific basis is only doing so because they don't like the moral implications if they apply the undisputed scientific fact that all life begins at fertilization in the moral and legal realm. I, and most scientists, would say a woman is pregnant when she is carrying a life in her body. Because it is an undisputed scientific fact that all life begins at fertilization, I would say a woman is pregnant the moment after sexual intercourse with a man she is carrying a fertilized egg or human embryo. If you were honest, you would agree from a scientific basis that definition of pregnancy is correct.

You clearly don't understand the pharmacology of birth control (if you did, you wouldn't claim that it works by preventing an embryo from attaching to the uterine wall - you would understand that it's main action is through preventing ovulation to being with, in the very rare instances that ovulation still occurs, it prevents fertilization, and in the exceedingly rare cases that this happens, it will prevent the implantation - which means no pregnancy was established, which, in turn, means, that it is NOT an abortifactant).

See my earlier comment in this post as respects this issue. If birth control prevents ovulation to begin with, I would agree it is not an abortifacient.

You are NOT entitled to your own facts.

And neither are you. I treat facts as facts and you should as well.

you are NOT entitled to claim that this is undisputed when it is disputed.

Any scientist, or any person for that matter, who claims that from a pure scientific basis all life doesn't begin at fertilization needs to state how life could have begun BEFORE fertilization from a purely scientific basis. They, and you, won't be able to do so.

You are NOT entitled to make up facts about how birth control works.

I NEVER did.

I would agree with that except for homeostasis. Why is that needed to be considered alive?

It's part of the definition of what makes an organism a living organism. I didn't make the definition - it's just the definition.

Understand. Good luck on the exams.

Thank you.

Again, when you have time, please cite the source. I

I will :)

So you are saying that a woman with a fertilized ovum in her uterus or fallopian tubes is not pregnant? What is she then?

She's not pregnant - she is simply a woman that has a fertilized egg that, if it implants successfully, will become pregnant.

I do know something about this and if you were honest, or any scientist for that matter, all would agree that from a purely scientific basis all life begins when male sperm fuses with a female egg. From a scientific standpoint, life can't begin any other way. Any one who says life doesn't begin at this point in time is not talking about science, even if they are a scientist. They are delving into the philosophical and legal realm. I have no problems with them (scientists) and you delving into this area--they should and you should. But they should, and you should, at least have the intellectual honesty to state that you are not speaking at a scientific level when you say life doesn't begin at conception.

First of all, I am published with research (admittedly, not in this area - my published research is on inflammatory bowel disease and the effects of a particular antimicrobial substance that is found everywhere). I do know how to read journal articles very well though - and this is an area that I do have training and education int.

Second of all, I never said life could begin any other way. What I said is that it is not clear, scientifically, when life begins. It's not clear because of the definition of what a living organism is.

Third, you should have the intellectual honesty to admit that it's not an undisputed fact as you claim it to be.

Again, I said some, and I repeat, some, forms of birth control prevent the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall. You did as well. See YOUR post in post #1.37. When birth control prevents the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall that form of birth control is an abortifacient from a scientific point of view. I don't care about the main MOA, my objection is whenever birth control is an abortifacient people need to recognize it as such.

And if you read my post you would understand that prevention of a implantation of a fertilized egg is exceedingly rare - birth control almost exclusively acts by preventing ovulation or preventing the fertilization in the first place.

Also, no it's not an abortificatant from a scientific point of view even when it prevents implantation - SINCE PREGNANCY HASN'T OCCURRED. You cannot terminate a pregnancy if a pregnancy is NOT established yet.

You should care about MOA - that will tell you if it's an abortifactant or not.

I, and most scientists, would say a woman is pregnant when she is carrying a life in her body.

You might define it that way - but scientists and physicians do NOT define it that way (see my later post, I can't remember the number).

And neither are you. I treat facts as facts and you should as well.

I am treating facts as facts - you are stating opinions that are not fact as if they are fact. Those are very different things.

Any scientist, or any person for that matter, who claims that from a pure scientific basis all life doesn't begin at fertilization needs to state how life could have begun BEFORE fertilization from a purely scientific basis. T

Not if the position is that life begins at some point AFTER fertilization.

I NEVER did.

Yeah you did when you claimed that birth control is an abortifactant, you made up facts about how birth control works.

Don't be surprised if at least one of these groups just says "fine, then we won't offer health insurance at all". The classic case of "be careful what you wish for"

Summer and JSteve7, you are best off to leave the discussion alone. Shalom will just keep repeating the same talking points over and over. The discussion is going to go no where. You have to agree to disagree on this one.

Sadly, the outcome will likely be that employers will chose to close up shop, or shrink their operation to the size that they do not have to offer healthcare, at which point they won't offer it at all, rather than supporting the death industry.

@ Mr. Amazing

I didn't know they were requiring employers to cover abortions? You stupid f***ing people that don't believe in birth control because some pope was talking to god on a 2-way radio to God, and thought it would be a good idea to overpopulate the earth need to WAKE UP!

veggiegrl08: I think you are right. I absolutely support Shalom2U's right to his/her opinion on this. To be honest, on the actual topic of the article (whether religious based employers be forced to provide access to birth control) - I have mixed thoughts on this. I fully support use of birth control (I use it even though I've had my tubes tied). I think that birth control is very important to women's health. I think that all women should have affordable access to birth control should they want it. On the other hand, there are issues of freedom of religion that are constitutionally guaranteed. Even with that - I can actually see valid arguments that support the position to require religious based employers to provide access to birth control; I also see valid arguments against this position. In the end - because I support access to affordable birth control - I do hope this requirement remains in place.

Summer, well said. I too respect every ones right to an opinion which is why I choose to step away from that particular conversation. He stated his, I stated mine. We do not agree and that's cool with me. It's just silly to continue arguing when neither person is going to change their opinion.

Thank you veggiegrl08. I'm thinking the same thing you are thinking at this point - it's time to step away. Thanks for the advise :)

Many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, the Obama administration announced Friday in an election-year move that outraged religious groups, fueling a national debate about the reach of government.

The reason church and religions do not want to do this is because they know what's coming next for their business. TAXES! I think and feel that most Americans today feel that all church and religions should be taxed like the rest of us are.

If church and religions are tax exempt, if I were to join a church or religion, does it mean i do not have to pay any taxes.

Church and religions are a business. TAX them, and tax them now, and make it retro-active for the past 20 years.

Church hosts drive-through prayers - USATODAY.com

Jul 28, 2008 · MT. MORRIS TOWNSHIP, Mich. — Hold the pickles, mustard, ketchup, tomatoes, buns, burgers and french fries. The only item on the menu in the Cathedral of .

Best Paid Pastors Make Hundreds Of Thousands To Millions Of ...

Jan 19, 2012 · ... imams and pastors, the recession has hit religious Americans just as it has affected the tens of millions of the country's jobless. ... The Top 10. Church-State Legal ...

These religious organizations are raking in billions per year, drive luxury cars, own expensive homes, jewelry and such, and they do not help those that they are suppose to be helping like the poor, handicap, and seniors that cannot afford food, electric bills and such.

Church and Religion is a corrupt organized business no better than the Mafia that ran the NY streets.

If church and religions are tax exempt, if I were to join a church or religion, does it mean i do not have to pay any taxes.

No. Church goers have to pay taxes on their personal property, homes, whatever. Just because one is religious doesn't mean they are exempt. The church building however is not subject to taxes.

Church and religions are a business. TAX them, and tax them now, and make it retro-active for the past 20 years.

Here's where you get into a sticky situation. The separation of Church and State is pretty much required. If it wasn't, there would be allowances for government buildings to have religious artifacts, religious sayings and the such to be displayed. While that doesn't bother me, I know it would cause several people to foam at the mouth. While the separation of Church and State may tread on gray areas such as the one currently the topic of this article, there needs to be a clear line somewhere so that neither powerhouses step on each others toes. Anytime there has been a blurred line of who is crossing what, there have always been rabid followers on both sides crying foul.

I will however agree, any church leader should lead his people by example. Living in luxury and driving expensive cars while their people struggle is never a good example of leadership....but that goes for any faction and not just the religious.

What is so wrong with birth contol?

Summer and Veggie, while Shalom argues against coverage of birth control, perhaps he himself is the best reason for supporting this decision. If allowed, the small portion of people with extreme views and little consideration for the views of others, would soon be effective in limiting rights for the rest of us. While much of his argument is refuted effectively, Shalom gives no ground. If he supports this decision, and it is obvious he does, what else would he support that would further the cause of his religion. What about the next opinionated person, holding extreme views, that moves into a position of making important decisions. This is exactly government's responsibility. This was exactly the decision that should be made. If this organization feels this decision is in error, then use the court system to change it. That is the beauty of our government. We are protected from extreme view while having the right to express them, and the right to challenge decisions made by the government.

The birth control pill has falsely taught that you can have sex without consequences. Many people think the pill means you can have sex for pure pleasure only

Folks, there it is right there. THAT is the central point for the fruit cakes that are opposed to birth control. This is also the central point for those that are opposed to a woman's right to chose. It's one thing for for someone to be opposed to terminating a pregnancy, but to be opposed to making it easier to avoid the pregnancy in the first place. That pretty much says what it is REALLY about. In most of these discussions, we have Evangelicals denying that their opposition to abortion is really about ensuring consequences for sex. But in this discussion here, we have the rare experience of a Shalom who just comes right out and admits it. There it is in his own words! OMG! The absolute horrors of sex without consequences!

Shalom, here is the reality. Technology in medicine has reduced and will continue to reduce the consequences of sex. However, due to the evil practices of a disgusting portion of the world population, those that fight against birth control, the entire planet is in a desperate race of population vs world resources. People are going to have sex regardless. Just look at the emerging nations of Africa. Most people in those countries do not have access to birth control and their populations are exploding beyond control. This is not an African problem. This is a WORLD problem. To preach against birth control is to contribute to the total destruction of the planet as we know it. China actually recognized this and has actually brought their population explosion under control. They have managed to do so by ignoring western religious kooks preaching stuff out of the 1400s.

As Shalom has openly admitted, it isn't really about some little detail of government health care policy. It is about whether or not we, as a people of a tiny little planet, decide to use modern technology and thinking to progress, or to de-evolve back to the centuries old dogma and scourge of the planet - fundamentalist religion.

I am given some hope for the future by the total lack of vote support on this site for Sahlom's crusade for consequences for sex. Surely, there are FAR better things worth a crusade against.

JSteve7, I chose not to address that part of the diatribe because I did not want to get into a debate about religious dogma. I agree with your assessment though. If you are against birth control because you are against people having sex just say so. I still won't agree with you, but at least you are being straight forward and honest.

I have no idea why any religion would be against birth control. I have no idea why they would rather have people giving birth to children that are unwanted, and therefore often times unloved, rather than allowing preventative actions to be taken. They rail against abortion, but if more people had access to affordable birth control maybe it would help. Which is worse, preventing an unwanted birth or having a woman get pregnant and aborting the child? Or, what I consider even worse than aborting a child, having a woman who goes ahead and gives birth to that child, resents him/her, and subjects that child to abuse until they are old enough to escape it. The views of the religious folks who are against birth control confuse me to no end.

Shalom2U

"For most people, why is birth control prescribed? What disease does it cure or prevent? Why should our government mandate that all employers have to provide it as part of their healthcare benefits? Why is it even considered "healthcare" because birth control pills neither prevent nor cure any disease in 99% of prescriptions where it is prescribed?"

I know more women on bc because of medical issues than I do for actual birth control. It is used to help with many diseases and menstrual problems some of which the alternative would be to have a hysterectomy.

Joann66954

No one should have to go to their employer and ask permission to get threatment for any medical problem. Allowing an employer to deny coverage for something that they don't believe in could open the door to employers denying cover for a whole host of things.

The seperation of church and state means the government can't make you be Jewish becasue it wants to, just as chopping of your wife's head is not ok even if your god says it is.

>Summer.. I agree with your view of MAP (I've had some of the same coursework :)) and agree that it is different than RU486, but many religious institutions (which are made up of individual people) do not agree. I respect their right to disagree even when I believe differently.

My point is that when the government attempts to impose its will on religious beliefs and institutions we are headed down the wrong path. I have little problem regulating the insurance industry but personally don't think the government should be telling an employer what they should or should not cover under insurance plans. That should be up to the worker and employer.

MikeP101: This course work is a lot of fun, right :/ (it's worth it in the long run :)) I understand that position. I honestly have kind of a mixed thought on this. On one hand, there is the freedom of religion. At the same time, this is health care - and individuals have the right to privacy in regards to their medical care.

Here's basically what I think should be done (well, at least, it would be a compromise). If the religious-based employer is actually acting a church in its capacity, then they should be able to chose if they provide this coverage or not. For example, religious schools often times require their teachers and staff to participate in religious education of the students. In this case, they are acting as both a school and a church - and, thus, they should not be required to provide coverage for birth control unless they chose to do so. Now, if they are a hospital, for example, this is different. Religious-based hospitals don't require their employees to participate in religious services. They don't require their employees to act as religious teachers to the patients (clients). So, in this case, they aren't acting as a church - they are acting as a hospital. Since they aren't acting as a church, then they they should have to provide coverage for contraceptives.

Summer, I think your compromise sounds reasonable. Church affiliated employers such as hospitals do not just employee people who cater to that particular religion. If they did they wouldn't have enough staffing to operate. Therefore, I don't think they should single out the non-catholics or lutherans or whatever when it comes to health care coverage.

>Summer... Yes :) and that would be a compromise. I'd go one step slightly further and make it required if the place wants to receive government monies. If they don't then they should be free to do what they want. We both know most hospitals and other major institutions get medicaid/medicare, so by taking gov funds they agree to follow certain rules. One of those rules would be that insurance companies provide certain medications that may be used for bc or other things. Then it's up to the workers what they use their scripts for and the institution isn't being "forced" to provide birth control.

I wholely agree that businesses need to stay out of employee's healthcare! Promote wellness yet, meddle no.

I'm wondering how many religious hospitals now actually require that the insurance company not cover birth control? Are there any actual numbers?

Mike P101: That's a good idea also.

As far as how many religious hospitals require that insurance companies not cover birth control goes...I'm not sure. I know that none of the Catholic Hospitals provide access to birth control (to their employees via insurance or patients). I'm honestly not sure about other religions.

>Summer.. We should run for congress... LOL

Dr. Mike

>Summer.. We should run for congress... LOL

Dr. Mike

JSteve7 post 1.71

THAT is the central point for the fruit cakes that are opposed to birth control.

Just partly. See Humanae Vitae for the reasons:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

That pretty much says what it is REALLY about.

No, t is about the federal government forcing the Catholic Church to pay for something that the Church has always said is intrinsically evil. My statement that "The birth control pill has falsely taught that you can have sex without consequences. Many people think the pill means you can have sex for pure pleasure only" was PART of a response to your statement in post 1.55: "there may be no more important prescription to the planet than birth control." I gave reasons why there is no such nothing as sex without consequences. Your rebuttal is we need it because overpopulation will destroy the planet--something which has been said for quite awhile, but the earth and mankind keep existing. You have faith in mankind, possibly through the power of God working through specific, inventing techniques and technology that would make sure that result won't happen.

As Shalom has openly admitted, it isn't really about some little detail of government health care policy.

Nonsense, you are making things up. I just responded to your statement that there may be no more important prescription to the planet than birth control. I never said that that was my real issue here. The real issue here is that the federal government forcing the Catholic Church to pay for something that the Church has always said is intrinsically evil.

>Summer.. We should run for congress... LOL

Dr. Mike

LOL, I want no part of that mess. I think medical school gives me a big enough headache - I don't need the type of headache I'd get from that. :)

Some point to clear up. A Catholic hospital is Catholic and operates under Catholic principles, as do hospitals operated by Protestants and Orthodox Jews. They have their consciences as Catholics or Protestants or Jews. You have to recognize that they are or should be operating from their conscience and you must respect that. You can not and should not try to force them to accommodate themselves to anybody else's conscience, denying their own. That's what some German soldiers said in WW II: "I had orders!", as if they didn't have their own conscience to say No.

Another point: It is a scientific Fact that at the moment of conception a new human DNA comes into existence and therefore a new living human being, no matter how inchoate. Human life deserves the maximum respect, from the womb to the tomb. There are those who think that people with problems such as Alzheimer's or feeble old age should be euthanized as unnecessary expense and waste of time. Abortion is the killing of an unborn living human being, unless it is a natural spontaneous abortion. Some doctors or nurses even strangle or leave live-born aborted children to die. Where is humanity? Are we returning to the Dred Scott case, where a human being was declared the property of another? NO ! This should not be for those who are ignorant of the reality of the new human life at the moment of conception.

It is a scientific Fact that at the moment of conception a new human DNA comes into existence and therefore a new living human being, no matter how inchoate

Sigh, no it's not. That is ONE scientific hypothesis about when life begins (called the genetic hypothesis). There are several other hypotheses out there - all of which have supportive evidence. It really depends on which hypothesis you agree more with. There is actually NOT scientific consensus on this.

Also, the idea of contraception is SEPARATE from the idea of abortion. Conception prevents a pregnancy from occurring. Pregnancy begins upon implantation in the uterus. Birth control has three mechanisms of actions - the first (primary) mechanism of action is to prevent ovulation; the secondary mechanism of action is to prevent fertilization; and the last mechanism of action (which is actually very rare) is to prevent implantation. If birth control prevents ovulation and fertilization, even if one subscribes to the genetic hypothesis of when life begins, then conception doesn't end said life. In terms of when pregnancy begins, conception doesn't cause abortion because it prevents a pregnancy from even being in occurring.

As far as doctors and nurses strangling or leaving live-born aborted babies (and yes, once they are born, they are babies) - this has very rarely occurred. When it does occur, this is wrong. The baby was born alive, and should receive appropriate medical care. This is exceedingly rare - even more rare. Again, this is a separate issue than contraception.

Now, as far as catholic hospitals go - I have a feeling that the argument is that as a hospital, they aren't acting as a church. I don't know how this issue (requiring religious-based employers to allow their insurance to provide access to contraception) will actually turn out in the long run. I can honestly see arguments both ways. On one hand, they are funded (in part) by a church - and what about the separation of church and state? On the other hand, they do receive federal funds (if they accept medicaid and medicare, for example), AND they aren't acting as a church (they are acting as a hospital). Like I said, I can see both sides of this actual issue being discussed by the article.

Summer post #1.86:

That is ONE scientific hypothesis about when life begins (called the genetic hypothesis).

Your agenda is showing again. It is no hypothesis that all human life can trace back its inception to fertilization. It is an undisputed scientific fact. It is no hypothesis that science classifies all living organisms. It is no hypotheses that a zygote, human or of another animal species, is a living organism. It is an undisputed scientific fact. It is no hypothesis that a human zygote is a human life in its earliest stage of human development. It is an undisputed scientific fact. I have you asked what "science" calls a human zygote if not a human life in its earliest stage of development. You have given me no name. Therefore, from a purely scientific basis a human zygote is a human life--albeit in its earliest stages of development. That is an undisputed scientific fact.

I have you asked you in other posts what "science" calls a human zygote if not a human life in its earliest stage of development. You have given me no name.

Are most religious people against the pill? Maybe I'm biased as a protestant but even my New Baptist pastor of a father-in-law has no issues and I thought that at least 1/2 of Catholics in America actually don't have a problem with it even though they may technically be disallowed. That's truly shocking.

It's about TIME common sense ruled and religious organizations stopped hiding behind their status to argue they are above the law.

This really is the government going too far. People have the right to choose birth control or not, but an employer shouldn't be forced to provide it. The people also have the right to work where they want and they can choose an employer that provides that benefit.

but employers are going to be required to provide that benefit starting next year. and they are NOT talking about employees of churches- only the profit-generating hospitals and universities owned by churches. did I mention those institutions are for-profit? they are businesses and should be treated like any other businesses. and those employees are 'contributing' towards their employer 'provided' health care. when people are paying into their own health plans, they should be afforded the same coverage everyone else is going to be entitled to.

Time to tax the churches

fgh: You are absolutely incorrect. There are a great many religious organizations that employee people who are not of that religion. Certain hospitals and hospital systems for one example. And Big Pharma has nothing to do with it. Most birth control pills are generic now so no one is making much money off of them anyway.

But I bet you the insurance companies of these organizations cover the cost of Viraga and penile pumps!

This type of double standard makes it so difficult for women to function in a free society. There is no place in the bible where it says that a person cannot practice birth control. In addition, there is no place in the bible where it says that priest should be celibate. (The issue of celibate priest came about many years ago via the Catholic Church when they were fearful that the wife and children of married priests would lay claim to church property after the priest died).

It seems funny to me that these religious folks are so against birth control while preaching against sex education and the use of condoms to prevent disease transmission. So perhaps some bible scholar can explain to me why God gave people a penis or a vagina and the ability to experience a sex drive and orgasm. I can't imagine God being do vindictive that he/ she would provide humans with that capability and then say "don't do it, it is a sin unless your trying to make a baby." And yes I know the phrase "go forth and multiply" but I also think that God would want people to have the ability to take care of the children that they have. In addition, at the time that passage in the bible was written, people lived in an agrarian society and large families were required to work the farms. In addition, the infant mortality rate was high. So more children and larger families were required.

I used to go to church. In fact, it was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition. Until one day when I went to church and a fight broke out between the deacon and the preacher. Seems the preacher (and he was a old fart) got the teen daughter of the deacon pregnant. They squared off with each other and proceeded to whip each others butts right there at the pulpit. What the preacher was is now called a pedophile.

That was my end to church going, and I was only 9 years old when this event happened.

And as stated above, since the churches want to be in our business all the time and want to run the country, then they need to pay their fair share of taxes.

Alot of religio-bigots on tonight. Never understood the concept of hating a person, just because of his religion. Let's go out and hate people because of color now, and then we'll start a Nazi movement against Jews.

I certainly have no argument against birth control. My personal belief is that we need to halve the global population as soon as possible, then stabilize it.

I do have a problem with forcing someone to pay for other people's birth control drugs and devices. Making it mandatory with no co-payment places those drugs on a higher priority than drugs needed to cure disease (like antibiotics) or maintain health (like blood pressure medication.) Why can't they be required to cover them on an equal footing (co-payment and/or deductible) with other drugs in the health plan? It just forces the premiums up for employer and employees.

The requirements will cause the employers to just drop their health plans altogether - how will that help the employees? The employers will just transfer the amount previously paid for health premiums to the employees so they can shop for their own plans (after subtracting the amount paid for the federal "fine", of course.)

"Let's go out and hate people because of color now, and then we'll start a Nazi movement against Jews."

you just had to head for Godwin's Law, didn't ya?

Ah, got it. Since you can label it, 'Godwin's Law' then my argument has no meaning. I guess if I had said instead, "Blacks and Muslims" then it would have been okay then.

Typical Liberal Argument. Now go hate somewhere else.

hey, you hit it. i just saw it happen.

Because the employer is paying for it. Employers don't have to offer insurance to begin with. Now they’re being told that if they want to provide it, they have to violate the principles their organization is built on.

Then they are free to opt out and pay a fine.

"violate the principles their organization is built on."

but imposing those religious principles on other people that might not even agree with them is perfectly fine?

If I was opposed to something, it doesn't mean I should try an keep it away from other people. Too many of these holier than thou religious nuts want to bring us back a few centuries.

Really, Howard aren't you being a bit dramatic? Nobody's keeping anything away from anyone. Every insurance plan excludes some items and procedures. You are still free to pay for them yourself. Or get another job with different insurance. The issue is whether we should trample the Church's right to make moral decisions about what they pay for.
The trouble with you liberals is you always think your rights come before everyone else's.

birth control is a basic human right.

PAQ- you can't be serious?

Hey, if they don't want to cover the cost of the birth control pill then they need to stop covering the cost of Viagra and Penis pumps for the treatment of impotence. How about that?

The decision of whether or not to take birth control, get an abortion, or use a condom belongs to the individual and is not only a basic human right but also a Constitutional one. Religious institutions are at war with secular society and openly trying to impose their dogmatic morality on those of us with the audacity to disagree with them. It has to end, the Constitution makes it quite clear that America is to be run as a secular society and not a theocracy.

It also frightens me that the Catholic priests are trying to get into my bedroom to impose their morality considering their salacious sexual predilections for abuse.

@mhrjhn, yes PAQ is serious, birth control IS a basic human right. It is not always used just for birth control either, but for medical issues.

Just because somebody has different beliefs than you, that does NOT give you the right to come into your workplace, and try and drag your beliefs with you, and impose them on women who want, or better yet NEED the pill. It's about time they made it so that religious views cannot interfere.

I agree with Howard and dblhelix.

You know isis.....I find it supremely ironic that you say that nobody has the right to go into the workplace and impose their beliefs on someone else when this is exactly what this ruling does. Nobody says you can't have birth control, they're just saying they don't want to forced to pay for it. How about someone legislates that you have to buy a Bible for your coworker?

You know JimP.......I find it extremely insane and moronic that you've misconstrued this in such a way.

That is NOT what this ruling does, it PROHIBITS bosses with certain beliefs to allow their beliefs to get in the way of their employees healthcare, it is NOT imposing their beliefs. It is MANDATING that they pay for BC coverage, REGARDLESS of their beliefs. That is NOT imposing anything, that's having the common sense. Common sense to FORCE the employers to leave their PERSONAL beliefs and issues at home.

I find it supremely ironic that you say that nobody has the right to go into the workplace and impose their beliefs on someone else when this is exactly what this ruling does.The problem is that they are letting their PERSONAL beliefs interfere with everyone else's healthcare, when really, it should be SEPARATE. And that is why they're being forced to pay for it, and I say good. NO employer should deny coverage for birth control just because of what they believe. That is so disgustingly backwards...I'm glad this happened.

This ruling is not imposing any belief. PROVE IT. WHAT belief is the ruling imposing? It is not a belief, it's a principle.

**For the record, the word "you" is used in its universal plural sense.**

Wow, where to start? It's clear to me that you don't understand the concept of freedom and personal responsibility. Why does anyone have to pay for someone else's birth control? Why do you assume that everything must be provided for everyone? Why is free birth control a right? Nobody is saying that you can't have it, just that they shouldn't be required to pay for it. Why should they? Why can't a person who wants to be sexually active have the common sense, as you put it, to buy a damn condom or get a prescription for the pill? Why do you liberals always want someone else to foot the bill for your lack of responsibility?

It is not lack of responsibility, I just think that employers need to learn that they CANNOT let their religious views interfere with their coverage, including birth control.

An earlier poster is right, time to end tax-exempt status for all religious organizations.

The usual dictators that try to impose their views on religious institutions, and hospitals, and clinics that are operated by religious institutions have their rights not be forced against their conscience on something. People that hate religions are always railing against them. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot did a fair job on them, didn't they? China forced couples to have only one child against their conscience. When some of those children died, the families were left destitute. People and conscience manipulators are out to get the churches and church-based organizations that have done so much to help the needy, but they are hated by the do-nothing anti-religious bigots.

And another sad thing -- a significant amount of birth control pills are NOT prescribed as contraceptives, but for other conditions.

They are not refusing a woman's right to do anything. Any woman can pay for the items themselves - the employer's are not attempting to control the decisions that the women (or men) make for themselves. The employers just choose to not pay for it.

Why are so many commenters here squawking about churches telling people what they can or cannot do? They are not trying to control anyone, just declining to pay for the stuff that is not part of their belief system. Why don't we have a federal law requiring all employers to buy pulled-pork sandwiches for all employees? Do you think that might offend some Muslim and Jewish employers? Oh yes, and if they refuse to buy and serve the flesh from hog carcasses, there will be a financial "fine" (tax).

How is pork and medication an analogy?

Don't work for them.

Don't work for them.

That's not the point. They don't have a right to set up a situation where you would have to choose not to work for them. The employer doesn't have the right to override the free choices of their employees based on the employers personal beliefs.

They are an employer not a church.

So, if you extend the core concept of what you are saying, that means that you would also not allow companies to refuse to hire smokers or require employees to quit smoking. Correct?

Apples and oranges there cede...You are using the wrong 'issues' for comparison...

Smoking isn't just affecting the smoker, smoke directly affects others...(whereas the pill is only affecting that individual who takes it)...

So, yes the companies have to be involved with that 'smoking' decision...

True, but aside from that I don't see how a company has the right to dictate whether a person smokes or not when not at work, except perhaps to charge them more for their insurance coverage.

What are you talking about? They are not forcing any beliefs on anyone - just NOT PAYING for the stuff. In no way does this force anyone to avoid birth control or sterilization. Are you saying that these procedures, devices, and drugs are ONLY available if purchased by a health plan?

theowyn and culheath - these employers are NOT dictating the birth-control behavior of employees. All the employees retain their free will.

these employers are NOT dictating the birth-control behavior of employees. All the employees retain their free will.

Of course they are...they are making it more expensive and difficult to acquire, which is exactly their point.

The best thing some parents can do for there children is to not have them.

"Good Catholic Women" do not treat the teachings of the Church like a smorgasbord. And don't receive Communion if you are living a contraceptive lifestyle, have not confessed it to a Priest and have no intention of doing so. You would be committing sacrilege and adding another mortal sin onto your soul. If you do not embrace all that the Church teaches then join a different church. Don't "play act" as a Catholic.

PurrPurr you have it entirely backwards, a good Catholic IS one that discards the teachings of the church. In case you haven't noticed the CoR hierarchy is a den of immoral snakes.

Marie, even though PurrPurr doesn't get I do. Nowhere in the Bible does it rule against birth control, and while I am not religious, I do believe if there is a God he will respect your decision. I think if there is a God he would appreciate parents being responsible and not having more children than they can support. If you have more children than you can support the children suffer. How can this be right in the eyes of any God?

As far as this particular ruling goes I agree with it. Insurance companies cover all types of prescriptions and the employer will never know if the employee is using the prescription plan for birth control or blood pressure medicine. I have been reading the comments and many people who are against this ruling believe the employer should have the right not to cover bc because they pay for the insurance. I am not sure how other companies work, but in my company I pay a portion of my insurance each time I am paid. When I worked for the Catholic Initiatives Health System in Nebraska I still paid for a portion of my insurance. So, what I am saying is this arguement is invalid. Any company should welcome this ruling. Birth control is not only used to prevent birth, but it also used as maintenance medication for several medical issues women have. I would think any company would want healthy employees who are not taking sick time or maternity leave. I believe the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Marie- I'm exactly the same way. I also have the view that if God wants me to have another child, He'll make it happen no matter what precautions I take. While one of my boys was specifically planned, and the other was not specifically prevented, many in my family are here due to birth control failure. My mom thought she couldn't get pregnant her first time, and ended up with me. My sisters came along later when her doctor failed to tell her antibiotics cancel out the pill. I have a nephew who was conceived while my sister was on depo. And my other sister is currently pregnant with her second child, when she was told her endometriosis was bad enough that she couldn't have another.

Evil Miss Alice I agree completly with your post. What goes on in our personal lives does not concern the employer. I too take BC for medical issues, and without it I would be wasting a lot of valuable work time by being out sick. Like I said in my post above, the employer will never know if you are being prescribed BC or not anyway. Also, in most cases, the employee pays a portion of the insurance. I would consider that the portion the employee pays is what goes to the BC. ( I know that's a little far fetched, but I think you get where I'm going with this) I have no idea why religious organizations would want women popping out babies they can't afford. Married couples do have sex for fun, and they do have the right to do this without risking an unwanted pregnancy.

@veggie - your idea is not far fetched at all. It is perfectly logical to consider that the employees' portion of the healthcare premium is the source of money for birth control, sterilization, and abortions.

Planned Parenthood clinics are funded by a combination of donations, government grants, and patient fees. The government money is used for education, health screenings/exams, treatments for illness and disease, etc. and not for abortions. That function is funded strictly by donations and patient fees.

$50-$70 a month IS big bucks for a lot of people. and that is above and beyond however much they are 'contributing' towards their employer 'provided' health care. when people are paying into their own health plans should be afforded the same coverage everyone else is going to be entitled to.

Or they could work somewhere else.

mhrjhn: if your local hospital is run by a religious organization, you won't have enough nurses or other medical professionals to keep the hospital open if you take out the staff who don't have the same beliefs as the organization they work for. Your idea of "or they could work somewhere else" is not a valid argument.

In this discussion we need to separate a religion from a business associated with a religion. One enjoys protection from government interference, the other is subject to the Commerce Clause.

If someone is on BC for contraception, sure, fork out twenty bucks or so for some basic generic type. But women who take BC to treat medical conditions often require a specific type, and then the cost spikes.

@mr jhn,

Stop telling people to work somewhere else! Can you read?! Do you know about the unemployment rate? If you have a job that actually offers you benefits, why would you work somewhere else? And why should you have to work somewhere else, because the person who pays your salary chooses to believe in something that says you should not use birth control? Religion is a choice!

Come up with another argument already. You just sound stupid now, telling people to get another job. Do you even work?

God performs many more abortions than people do thousands a day so logically he must like them. Get right with god. Have an abortion.

Of course they could keep their legs closed and not get pregnant.

Mhrjhn - What happens in the case of rape? You're arguing that women are not allowed to have the pill to prevent pregnancy that comes as a result of forced sex?

Pfffft. Please. Scumbags like you need a reality check.

A woman can't exactly KEEP her legs closed if she's being raped. And in the event she gets pregnant from it, what do you want her to do? Carry a child she never even planned nor consented to have to term?

People like you are why this planet is running out of supplies.

Terror yes, Armageddon is the apex of and is fundamental to all Christian religions. Hence their desire to rape and pillage the Earth in ways such as the denial of birth control. There cannot be such a thing as a "moderate" religion that has as one of its fundamentals the destruction of the Earthly realm.

Mhrjhn~ so you're saying that a married woman should keep her legs closed if her husband would like to have intercourse with her??? Not everyone on BC is some sleeze who is out having sex with every man she comes across. Many women are on BC for medical issues. Many women in secure and stable relationships are on BC. And many married women are on BC. Also, as Crimson stated above, what about a woman who is raped? You would deny her the morning after pill so she can bring an unwanted child into this world? You are probably the same person who will vilify the welfare mother living off the state.

What I find amusing is that many (not all) pious and self righteous "religious" people automatically dive deep into the gutter with their thinking on birth control. When I read this article I though "hurray! now my expensive BC will be covered" not "hurray! now I can go out and boink every guy I see". It seems YOUR mind went straight to the gutter. You may need to repent for your impure thoughts.

Yeah. Makes me sick that religion thumps male supremacy. As a man myself, it makes me sick to my stomach that some tome says I will rule over my future wife.

Like hell! My wife and I don't agree on something, then we'll argue and debate and try to work out our differences. And in case we don't come to a resolution, I'll let her have the win since I dislike getting all forceful on peeps.

Besides, some guys and girls just don't deserve to have sex (pedophiles and mentally insane psychopaths).

And in the case that said religious locale is their one and only shot at survival? You want people to choose to give up their lives over submission to the Fairy King in the sky? Even if that's the ONLY thing that guarantees them a shot to life?

Do me a favor. Figure out the monetary value of life in this planet, and don't come back until you have put a price on every living creature on this planet.

Assuming you live to price each and every living organism in existance of course!

What if there is only a Catholic hospital in your area?

Mhrjhn, once again your thinking is skewed. In Kearney, NE where I lived for 15 years of my life there is ONE hopital. Good Samaritan Hospital is part of the Catholic Health Initiatives (or whatever it is called). It is the ONLY choice the good citizens of Kearney have for hospital care. Sure, they can go to St Francis in Grand Island, but once again it is a CHI facility. So, what's their next choice? Lincoln or Omaha, which are aprx 2.5-3.5 hours away. If they choose to go to Lincoln or Omaha there is a good chance their insurance will not pay because Kearney has a perfectly good hospital right there. Where health care is concerned religion should NOT play a part.

veggie,

So how have the employees of the ONE hospital in your area been surviving until now if they have not been provided birth control through their insurance plan all these years?

Once upon a time when I was taking BC pills, my insurance didn't pay for it. I felt it was important enough to PAY FOR IT MYSELF.

o'really - and your point?

Once upon a time I was eighteen and didn't have health insurance and so I had to use all of my savings ( a few hundred dollars) to go to a doctor and get antibiotics for a ear infection that had kept me awake with pain a few days - should I not expect my insurance to cover doctors appointments and antibiotics?

That was some twisted logic. Nobody is saying it's a right, they are saying it is mandatory as part of insurance coverage. You understand the difference? The former is an entitlement, the latter is part of the cost of operating a business, if they don't like it they can find a new job.

PurrPurr, birth control is often times used as a maintenance drug for certain woman's issues such as extremely painful and debilitating menstrual cycles. For some woman there is no choice but to take birth control. Maintenance drugs can be expensive and believe it or not, not everyone can afford their drugs without their insurance prescription plan. No one is saying contraception is a right, but it should be covered under insurance just like any other maintenance drug. The employer will not even know what your prescriptions are and it's not their business. I would think they would welcome this change as it could help cut down on maternity and sick leave.

What makes you think that free contraception is your right?

Requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control is NOT free. The women PAY premiums to have this insurance; the women often times have to PAY deductibles (some plans have prescription deductibles; other don't); the women often times have to PAY co-pays. Insurance makes the cost of birth control more affordable for women - it doesn't make it free.

There is access to free birth control for women who qualify (income restrictions) AND can get to a clinic that will provide free birth control (such as Planned Parenthood). But, women with access to health insurance, typically, do not qualify for free birth control, even if there is a clinic in their area that they can get to.

And the company PAYS a large amount of the health insurance as well. Depending on the company/sector and quality of the benefits the actual employee premium payment may be as little as 10-15% - the company is paying the remainder.

I must say - I missed part of the article (that's what I get for reading too quickly). It states that the provision being discussed is that preventative health care must be free to the employee, and this does include preventative medication.

I'm happy to see religious organizations exempted from providing insurance coverage for any reproductive services they don't like when the said religious organizations stop trying to force their religious views on secular society and laws.

They want religious freedom...but not for anybody else.

I totally agree with the beating the Bill of Rights has taken but what does that have to do with this? The Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals, the Feds get the right to regulate commerce, aka the Commerce Clause, hence their ability to impose this condition.

Don't try and throw freedom of religion at it either, these are businesses affiliated with churches we are talking about, not religions.

Amen.

What prompted this decision?

The HHS FINALLY decided to have birth control/preventative care covered without a co-pay when previously viagra was cheaper to get. Which led them to considered should they still give a pass to religious affiliated (not the actual church) health insurance providers (who's job is to provide insurance not some sort of twisted moral high-ground, that's the churches agenda) like they usually do, yet other businesses that aren't affiliated have to follow this rule.

Was the employee's crying for birth control, no. But was it within the government's rights to give more people rights and make birth control MORE accessible (even though they found someway to get it before it's easier now), yes.

I agree making someone sell something they don't want is overreach but telling someone they have to sell something when their job is to sell it in the first place isn't.

It's like going into the car business selling cars but according to the religion your affiliated with you believe God determines everything and if you die it was in God's plan so all of the cars you sell have everything except seat-belts or airbags which you take out (when every other nonaffiliated car dealer have to have them), and these are the cars you provide for your employees. Sure they don't have to buy it but would you still say the government is overreaching if they implemented a law (if there wasn't one like that already) saying that all cars sold have to have seat-belts, airbags, and anything needed to protect the life in the case of an accident that includes religious affiliated car dealers.

My gosh isn't it so intrusive the way the government looks out for our best-interests by making sure we all have access to all kinds of life-saving products (sarcasm).