catholics vs obama?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...lar_ones_.html


interesting article from slate that says no...

then there's this, from the wash post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z3


knowing that more than half the states already require conformity in benefits, i'm not sure how boehner can try to play this as anti-catholic, or anti-religious. i think it's just another way for reps to stoke the far-right zealots. we must control the women-folk!!!

[Danzig]

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...ption-decision


oh, not just the republicans after all. what a shock!

[Riot]

Georgia is one of the states that has had this same law since 1999. A good editorial comment on the faux outrage:

Yes, the law was originally passed back in 1999, four years before Republicans gained control of Georgia’s government. But Republicans have had ten years in which to change the law if they thought there was a problem with it; yet, it has remained intact through ten Republican-controlled legislative sessions.

And with no stated exceptions, this law applies to mega-employer Saint Joseph’s Hospital, a 410-bed acute care facility in Atlanta with several subsidiaries including an employed physician’s group and research facilities, with a total of 3,000 employees. And the law also applies to Saint Mary’s Hospital, a 196-bed acute care hospital in Athens, GA.

Both hospitals are members of the Catholic Health East system.

Yet not once have we heard a pastor, preacher, priest or politician utter one peep of an objection to the law.

No pronouncement from Newt Gingrich that Governor Nathan Deal or the Georgia legislature has “declared war on religion.”

No one-woman crusade by Georgia Diva Karen Handel to reverse this law during the three years from 2007 to 2010 that she served as Secretary of State under the gold dome with the Republican-controlled legislature.

No fit-pitching about “attacks on our religious freedoms” by Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory.

Nothing. Nada.

Quite as a church mouse.

Until President Obama does the same thing.

And quite frankly, I would be much more impressed with the Catholic Church’s conscientious objection to Catholic employers having to provide an insurance policy which covers contraception, if the Catholic Church had collectively been this upset; expended this much energy; expended these many resources; and focused this much attention on rooting out and ending pedophilia among the priesthood. There are countless thousands of lives which have been irreparably destroyed because the Vatican and church leadership in America chose to protect, hide and cover-up instead of immediately rooting out this evil from the Church. They were more concerned with the Church’s image and trying to do damage control than they were with the many thousands of lives which have been destroyed.

So when they let evil like that fester in the Church and then go all out on a massive campaign to castigate President Obama based on a gnat-straining notion that regulating a woman’s ovulation cycle is murder while raising no objection to policies paying for erection-giving man drugs, I have no sympathy whatsoever for their argument.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...yes&via=blog_1

[Clip-Clop]

States are not countries. Federal laws and the umbrella they provide, like it or not, are too far reaching. Let the states decide what they want to do within the parameters of the Constitution. Easy.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

States are not countries. Federal laws and the umbrella they provide, like it or not, are too far reaching. Let the states decide what they want to do within the parameters of the Constitution. Easy.

agreed

[Riot]

Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 06:30 PM EST
Employers have had to provide birth control coverage since 2000
by Joan McCarter

Did you know that, by federal rule which has been upheld in the courts, employers and insurers have had to provide birth control as part of preventive care for women? And that that's been the case since 2000, throughout the Bush administration?

Lost in the firestorm the far-right has started, and that the traditional media can't resist blowing up, is the fact that coverage of prescription contraception is remarkably run-of-the mill and has been controversy-free for over a decade.

Mother Jones reports:

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.

That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today ...

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives.

It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

The only thing that's changed in the mandate is that the coverage be provided a no cost, like all the other preventive care programs covered by the Affordable Care Act. Well, that's the only thing that's changed in terms of the policy. That, and that now 90 percent of employer-based plans offer contraceptive coverage. Oh, and that President Obama's plan allows for an exemption for religious institutions. The EEOC ruling does not, and nary a peep has been raised about that in 12 years.

What's really changed is that this expansion of the rule was done by a Kenyan Muslim socialist president.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...000?via=blog_1

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...-proposal.html


not sure how an insurance co. offering birth control is an infringement of religious liberty. you don't have to use the stuff!
hey, catholic church...i know for centuries upon centuries you've tried to insert yourself (no pun intended, really!) into peoples' sexual lives...well, except when it's your priests sexual misbehavior. but really, it's none of your business!
why, oh why, does the church still care that women (gasp) are able to control whether to get pregnant? why is sex such an issue? well, at least when it's between men and women that is...
why does the church still feel that the best thing to do if you don't want to get pregnant is to just not have sex? husbands and wives-really..is that the best way? i'm thinking it's not, and i'd imagine my husband would agree! but then, i had a tubal years ago. guess i better line up asbestos underwear for the after life.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...-proposal.html


not sure how an insurance co. offering birth control is an infringement of religious liberty. you don't have to use the stuff!
hey, catholic church...i know for centuries upon centuries you've tried to insert yourself (no pun intended, really!) into peoples' sexual lives...well, except when it's your priests sexual misbehavior. but really, it's none of your business!
why, oh why, does the church still care that women (gasp) are able to control whether to get pregnant? why is sex such an issue? well, at least when it's between men and women that is...
why does the church still feel that the best thing to do if you don't want to get pregnant is to just not have sex? husbands and wives-really..is that the best way? i'm thinking it's not, and i'd imagine my husband would agree! but then, i had a tubal years ago. guess i better line up asbestos underwear for the after life.

We've come a long way since 1960. Back then, BEING CATHOLIC nearly cost JFK the election; took some creative vote-counting in Illinois for him to win. Now, it seems, the Catholic vote (or lack of it) might cost BO the election in 2012.


Ocala Mike (lapsed Catholic)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

We've come a long way since 1960. Back then, BEING CATHOLIC nearly cost JFK the election; took some creative vote-counting in Illinois for him to win. Now, it seems, the Catholic vote (or lack of it) might cost BO the election in 2012.


Ocala Mike (lapsed Catholic)

no, we really haven't come that far. mitt romney is discounted by many because of his religion. many won't vote for him solely because he is a mormon. i mean, don't you know what they believe?? why, it's a cult! we don't want that church running things. you know, just like what was said when kennedy ran-nobody wanted the pope in charge. altho nothing untoward happened because a papist was in charge, we still have those who just know...KNOW.. that something bad will happen.
there are those who are convinced that obama is a muslim. because, goodness knows, we're a god fearing christian nation. we can't be having non-christians like a mormon or a muslim in charge. that's why we're suffering now, we've turned our backs on gawwwd.


and i prefer the george carlin 'i'm a recovering catholic' line to 'lapsed'.

[Danzig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIBfN...eature=related