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.
Requiring Catholic institutions to cover birth control for all employees in insurance plans is NOT the same as requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
Requiring Catholic institutions to cover birth control for all employees in insurance plans is NOT the same as requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
Quote:
In December of that year, days before the law was to go into effect, Romney’s public health commissioner determined that a preexisting statute saying private hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception gave Catholic and other privately run hospitals the right to opt out of the new law on religious or moral grounds.
That ruling sparked widespread criticism, including some by Romney’s lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey.
Days later the Romney administration reversed course.
His legal counsel concluded the new law did not provide any religious exemptions.
You can ride that Romney bus if you want to...
Don't say you weren't warned when you're under it.
Requiring Catholic institutions to cover birth control for all employees in insurance plans is NOT the same as requiring hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
Perhaps not to you, but to the people it actually offended, both are equally repugnant. Both go against Catholic doctrine, both are/were strenuously objected to by Church leadership.
The emergency contraception requirement was particularly offensive to the Church leadership because it potentially required Catholic hospitals to administer a drug that could prevent an already-fertilized ovum from implanting, tantamount to abortion in their eyes and worse than simple prophylactic birth control.
1.Romney vetoed the bill, they pointed out. This is true. Romney wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe defending his veto. And then the Democratic-controlled state legislature overrode Romney's veto.
He then went along on advise from legal counsel but...
2.That's not a blanket approval for using emergency contraception. The Boston Pilot, the official newspaper of the Boston Archdiocese, wrote at the time that "church teaching supports providing emergency contraceptives to rape victims who are not pregnant since it can be considered a form of defense against an unjust aggression."
1.Romney vetoed the bill, they pointed out. This is true. Romney wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe defending his veto. And then the Democratic-controlled state legislature overrode Romney's veto.
He then went along on advise from legal counsel but...
2.That's not a blanket approval for using emergency contraception. The Boston Pilot, the official newspaper of the Boston Archdiocese, wrote at the time that "church teaching supports providing emergency contraceptives to rape victims who are not pregnant since it can be considered a form of defense against an unjust aggression."
So Catholic Hospitals are in favor of providing emergency contraception to rape victims?
If true, it would be another case where Romney exhibits an inconsistency of thoughts on the issues.
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.
lol...
huh?
