Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Out of the public GOOD, they service and provide for non-Catholics. Want them to deny services because of obama's usurpation of the constitution? Just think how devastating that would be to communities around the country.
How does this work in Illinois?
Are they denying services because of your state's mandate that they have to provide access to these services?
No, they aren't and suggesting that they would is blackmail, pure and simple.
What "theocratic bullying"? You're getting a bit over the top aren't you?
Contraceptives are against the Church's religion. Therefore, they do not want to distribute them to their employees or clients. That's it.
How is that bullying? If you want contraceptives just work for or patronize a different service provider.
You know, it's funny - you got one thread going on about Vanderbilt's denying Christian clubs the ability to limit their membership to people who are actually, you know, CHRISTIANS. And you got liberals going "What's the big deal? Just make a club that isn't an official student organization and do what you want"
But now in this thread when the Church wants to not provide contraceptives at its own institutions, you get liberals going "They're trying to establish a theocracy!"
When you want to tell them they can't freely associate with each other, they're paranoid for being upset. But when they just want you to go somewhere else to buy your birth control, they're trying to put you in a religious dictatorship.
It's hypocritical nonsense.
1) They are not being asked to 'distribute them.'
2) Many Catholic hospitals and universities already provide contraception benefits to their employees.
Several have, and you point is? When the agreement comes about, what do you suppose these Dems will do?
I'm not a Dem - I'm a conservative independent voter.
But I thought I would share the contents of email I sent to one of my PA Senators this morning to enlighten you about what will happen to those politicos that supports Obobo the Socialist Clown on this issue:
*********************
Senator Casey:
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to your support of Obama’s heath-care decree to force Catholic Service organizations, which provide health care insurance to cover services, which are unsupported by their religious beliefs.
My main gripe is not religious in nature.
Instead, I am personally offended by your willingness to support Obama, whose Socialist tendencies trample upon the Constitution like it was a floor mat.
I take great pleasure in informing you that your actions on this matter will have severe ramifications – your ouster from elected office in the next election cycle. You will be rightfully punished for your complete abandonment of our rights, our belief systems, and the core tenants of our great republic.
I have never voted for you, and never will. Like Obama, you represent the corrupt, career politician types who never earned an honest dime through hard work. Only difference I see is his father was a deadbeat Communist womanizer who gave him no assistance toward gaining office.
You on the other hand, used your father’s name recognition, money & connections to buy your way in.
Besides my NO VOTE come next election, I will make a point to discuss this matter with every person I encounter – and strongly urge them to vote you out of office – if for nothing else than to protect our sacred Constitution that you and the Obama Regime seem hell-bent on destroying.
Furthermore, once you are officially retired, I suggest that you ante up some of your money to pay for that narcissistic marker recently installed as honorarium for your father in your hometown Scranton. – Which was created and installed in typical liberal fashion – with other people’s money.
p.s. – oh wait a minute, if you do pull from your own pocket, the funds would be those you leached from your handsome taxpayer-funded Pension. You’ll carry that habit to your grave.
I hate to bring this up, but it seems to be relevant:
October 1, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court today turned down a request by Catholic Charities of New York to review a state court decision requiring insurance companies to include contraceptive coverage in drug benefit packages. The Court's refusal to hear the case leaves in place a law that promotes women's health and addresses gender discrimination while appropriately protecting religious freedom.
"Religiously affiliated organizations, such as Catholic Charities, that employ and serve people of diverse beliefs should not be able to discriminate against their female employees by refusing to cover basic health services," said Louise Melling, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project. "Religiously affiliated organizations that provide nonreligious services to the public must play by public rules."
The law at issue, the Women's Health and Wellness Act, requires insurance companies to cover women's preventive health care, including mandating that insurance plans that cover prescription drugs do not exclude contraceptives from that coverage. The law exempts religious employers such as churches, mosques, and temples, whose main purpose is to promote a particular religious faith and who primarily employ and serve people who share their religious beliefs.
"This law ended the practice of treating birth control, which only women use, differently than other commonly used prescription drugs — a practice that contributed to disproportionately high health costs for women," said Galen Sherwin, Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Rights Project. "The Supreme Court's decision not to review the case ensures that the state of New York can continue to protect women from this form of discrimination."
Catholic Charities appealed a 2006 decision by the Court of Appeals for the State of New York, New York's highest court, that concluded that the Women's Health and Wellness Act was a neutral law designed to advance both women's health and the equal treatment of men and women. That court also held that "when a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit."
Ten religiously affiliated organizations brought the challenge against the Women's Health and Wellness Act. The organizations included Catholic Charities of Albany and Ogdensburg and other Catholic and Baptist social service organizations. The ACLU and the NYCLU filed friend-of-the-court briefs at every step of the state court proceedings in support of the Act.
In October 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down a request by Catholic Charities to review a similar law, the California Women's Contraceptive Equity Act. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in that case, Catholic Charities v. Superior Court, as well.
I'm sure he will put your AM radio infotainer puking of extremist talking points in the trash can with other trash.
If you can't articulate a letter in a mature manner based on issues rather than throwing out "socialist" and "commie" then you need to actually get informed on the issues and policies of the lawmakers.
Out of the public GOOD, they service and provide for non-Catholics. Want them to deny services because of obama's usurpation of the constitution? Just think how devastating that would be to communities around the country.
From what I've read/heard, this is not about providing services. It is about an employee benefit - health insurance - covering contraception and other women's health care.
If the employer is the Catholic CHURCH, they are exempt from the mandate. However, if the employer is a Catholic affiliated hospital, school, or university, they must comply. The Catholic affiliated entity is not required to provide a service. They are required to provide their employees with health insurance, which the employees can then use as they wish. Much like they provide their employees with a salary, which the employees then use as they wish.
There is no public GOOD involved, just employee benefits.
Out of the public GOOD, they service and provide for non-Catholics. Want them to deny services because of obama's usurpation of the constitution? Just think how devastating that would be to communities around the country.
Read post #326. This policy and law pre-date Obama. Obama is merely restating long padded legal ground.
Well then I don't understand all the uproar about this
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
