[19 & 21]

Leave it to religious 'authority' to use their refusal of providing quality of life improving services as a grounds to sue anyone who would have them do otherwise. Always a circus act but never entertaining. Just stupid.

[Loofy]

As far as I'm concerned if church's don't stay out of politics they should be deported out of the country and their church's seized by the state. They can play with their fairy tales on their own dime with their own people but once it touches society and influences secular laws it shouldn't be tolerated.

Sounds like discrimination.

human rights come first. then people can believe whatever the fuck they want after.

Really? and how long has this been a human rights issue
4 months at most?
No one in this thread ever had the idea that maybe $10-20 for BC each month should be free before obama threw it out there. And now everyones just jumping on that bandwagon.
When in reality helping women is probably last on his list. As he said your children are a burden, and he doesnt want to pay for it. Even more likely there was some meeting somewhere, some hands were shaken, and now a few pharmacy execs are millions of dollars richer cause the president just put a mandate on their product.

[Dude Abides]

It's not rocket science. The church would be better off not paying for insurance than having to pay taxes and insurance.

It's not the church. Nobody will work for Notre Dame if they don't offer benefits.

This doesn't break the contract if that's what you mean. The deal was they would stay out of each others business. Now, because the religious have an issue with being forced to do something against their religion, they are somehow breaking the contract?

Nope. That wasn't the deal. The government did the religious a favor but they can't seem to behave so the favor should go away. The government's the one in control. It's not a relationship between equals, more like a parent-child arrangement and the government is the parent.

[Zoe]

So more than 1.5 million American women.

I don't think 1.5 million users is enough to call its primary use "secondary". That's almost insulting to the people who do use it for contraception.

[The Technomancer]

Sounds like discrimination.

You are literally making the "its discrimination to say that other people can't be discriminatory" argument.

[Loofy]

You are literally making the "its discrimination to say that other people can't be discriminatory" argument.

No Im pretty sure Stalin also said "If the church's don't stay out of politics they should be deported out of the country and their church's seized by the state." Ive heard this before on GAF, along with 'Religious people should be banned from running for office."

[~Devil Trigger~]

Sounds like discrimination. Really? and how long has this been a human rights issue 4 months at most? No one in this thread ever had the idea that maybe $10-20 for BC each month should be free before obama threw it out there. And now everyones just jumping on that bandwagon.

lol So if an issues is not front page and few people know about it, it means its not a problem?

and in a way you're kinda right, many Catholic Institutions offered Contraception and BC in their programs looooong before 4 months ago... now they have a problem.

[NullPointer]

A religion's moral authority only applies to those who personally choose to live by its strictures.

US Law applies to *all* Americans.

This isn't rocket science.

[Rebel Leader]

They should start paying taxes and then mabye they can have a say

Oh no you didn't.

[Draft]

Obama pls.

Flawless.

[Narcosis]

A religion's moral authority only applies to those who personally choose to live by its strictures. US Law applies to *all* Americans. This isn't rocket science.

AMEN!

In all seriousness, I just had this debate elsewhere on the subject of pharmacists refusing to give out morning after pills. I don't care one way or the other what they believe, but if they're gonna be a pharmacist that serves the public at large then do your job or GTFO. I was amazed at the level of offense the other person took, like it's their right to force their beliefs onto others whether they have opted into their belief system or not.

I'm also a little annoyed at the Catholic institution continuing this war on birth control when they don't do a damned thing to remedy the issues their clergy have had with the children that have already been born.

[Loofy]

In all seriousness, I just had this debate elsewhere on the subject of pharmacists refusing to give out morning after pills. I don't care one way or the other what they believe, but if they're gonna be a pharmacist that serves the public at large then do your job or GTFO. I was amazed at the level of offense the other person took, like it's their right to force their beliefs onto others whether they have opted into their belief system or not.

Yes and every doctor should be forced to perform abortions, and every grocery store has to carry the specific kind of oranges that you demand.

lol So if an issues is not front page and few people know about it, it means its not a problem?

Thats usually how it works. For example the issue of universal healthcare didnt appear over night. Which is why I think obama has other reasons for supporting this. The big pharma kind of reason.

EDIT: Oh looky here. States have been cutting down recently on social programs providing birth control, a $5 billion per year industry. But I guess obama is here to save the day by passing the cost to private institutions.
http://www.investopedia.com/stock-an...#axzz1vee4cYZx
And you guys are all right with that.

and in a way you're kinda right, many Catholic Institutions offered Contraception and BC in their programs looooong before 4 months ago... now they have a problem.

Yes theres a difference between doing something by choice, and being forced to do it. Im sorry if you dont see the problem in that.

[Jintor]

Secular legislative government processes created by democratic processes trumps religious law. Who knew.

[Maxim726X]

Alright GAF, keep making fun of the Catholic Church. Religious institutions shouldn't be strong armed into acting against their beliefs, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Okay, to play Devil's Advocate (pun intended):

I run a religious university, but in my religion the body is sacred and should not be desecrated in any way. Surgery of any kind is in direct contradiction to our religious tenets. In the healthcare that we offer, surgery (of any kind) will not be covered.

Should this be legal? Where, if at all, is the line drawn?

[19 & 21]

Yes theres a difference between doing something by choice, and being forced to do it. Im sorry if you dont see the problem in that.

There's not a problem if a party is willing to do something and it becomes regulation. There's only a problem when an entity such as the Catholic church begins to put itself before the people. Their refusal to adhere to regulation of something they were already doing is a display of selfishness and nothing more. The good news is they will further alienate themselves from reasonable people who at a time identified as Catholic but have been on shaky ground with in recent years.

[Maxim726X]

Yes theres a difference between doing something by choice, and being forced to do it. Im sorry if you dont see the problem in that.

We're all 'forced' to do things-Like pay taxes and car insurance.

You know, laws and such...

[Loofy]

There's not a problem if a party is willing to do something and it becomes regulation. There's only a problem when an entity such as the Catholic church begins to put itself before the people. Their refusal to adhere to regulation of something they were already doing is a display of selfishness and nothing more. The good news is they will further alienate themselves from reasonable people who at a time identified as Catholic but have been on shaky ground with in recent years.

Thats fine I dont really care about the religious aspect.
No private business should be forced into this.

[Chumly]

EDIT: Oh looky here. States have been cutting down recently on social programs providing birth control, a $5 billion per year industry. But I guess obama is here to save the day by passing the cost to private institutions. http://www.investopedia.com/stock-an...#axzz1vee4cYZx And you guys are all right with that.

This has been said at least a million times on GAF but birth control actually saves everyone money. Taxpayers, private institutions, insurance companies.

[Loofy]

This has been said at least a million times on GAF but birth control actually saves everyone money. Taxpayers, private institutions, insurance companies.

That sounds AMAZING!!
I wonder why states decided to cut their subsidies and the president has decided to force the cost onto insurance companies(which will in turn pass it to you) instead. Dont they know it was beneficial for all?

[Chumly]

That sounds AMAZING!! I wonder why states decided to cut their subsidies and the president has decided to force the cost onto insurance companies(which will in turn pass it to you) instead. Dont they know it was beneficial for all?

Joke post? Or are you just dense. They are cutting it due to religious reasons. It has nothing to do with fiscal.

[19 & 21]

Thats fine I dont really care about the religious aspect. No private business should be forced into this.

They should be criticized heavily for denying services they're already willing to provide because they're pouting over regulation. I'm fine with them making this into a much bigger issue than it is. The more it's in the face of the public the worse they make themselves look.

I feel that I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes if I don't agree with the way my tax money is being used. Does that mean I don't have to pay taxes? Of course not. It also doesn't mean that I should sue the government unless I want to make it clear that it's a financial issue and has nothing to do with treading on my rights. They claim they're being forced to compromise their religious freedom with this regulation. How exactly does it make sense to sue if that's what this was really about?

[Loofy]

Joke post? Or are you just dense. They are cutting it due to religious reasons. It has nothing to do with fiscal.

Is this your reaction to everything?
Apparently the catholic church control New Jersey, Texas, New Hampshire, Montana, and other states.

[ivedoneyourmom]

This has been said at least a million times on GAF but birth control actually saves everyone money. Taxpayers, private institutions, insurance companies.

Birth control and women's rights are some of the most powerful tools we have ever had in cultivating a modern society, and as you said, saves us tons of money. These movements by various religious organizations to miseducate, deny contraceptive coverage, and manipulate US law are almost criminal, and are very detrimental to our society. They need to stop trying to ruin a good thing.

[Chumly]

Is this your reaction to everything? Apparently the catholic church control New Jersey, Texas, New Hampshire, Montana, and other states.

What are you trying to get it? The catholic church isn't the only religious institution out there. Nor does it mean they are the ones solely in control the state governments. It is conservative republicans often in the name of religious reasons that take away the funding.

[FyreWulff]

Thats fine I dont really care about the religious aspect. No private business should be forced into this.

Everyone is .. okay, everyone is buying hamburgers from Insurance Company Covercorp.

Covercorp has their packages that companies can buy. The Catholic Church, just like every other employer, buys the Total Care Combo from Covercorp. Through bulk purchases and sheer numbers of employees paying for the coverage as part of their employment, Covercorp is able to provide a complete hamburger, fries, and drink to the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities employees.

Except now the Catholic Church has decided they don't like pickles on hamburgers given to women. So now they want a special hamburger made just for themselves, and only for their female employees, because they think pickles are wrong for women to have. Meanwhile, the males are allowed to have pickles, even though the women and the men are eating the pickles for the same reason.

Catholic Church and Catholic Charities does not make the hamburger themselves. None of the persons in the administration of either are forced to eat the entire hamburger. They are not being forced to eat pickles or serve pickles.

Basically what they're doing here is, to strain the analogy even more, if YOU go to Burger King, McDonalds, Subway, Wendy's, Hardy's, or Taco Bell, the Catholic Church gets to put a brick on you ever having pickles in any of your food at any of these establishments, even though it's YOUR money that you're spending and taking out of YOUR check because oh no the money they gave you might go towards having a pickle

tl;dr The Catholic church is full of shit and double standards where women are treated like shit because they can't decide what they do with their own uterus, some old dude who's never had sex gets to. They want to deny coverage to women that the WOMEN ARE PAYING FOR.

[19 & 21]

tl;dr The Catholic church is full of shit and double standards where women are treated like shit because they can't decide what they do with their own uterus, some old dude who's never had sex with anyone legal gets to.

FTFY

[Loofy]

What are you trying to get it? The catholic church isn't the only religious institution out there. Nor does it mean they are the ones solely in control the state governments. It is conservative republicans often in the name of religious reasons that take away the funding.

And they couldnt take it away before? Were they originally created by democrats?

[Chumly]

Heres a few articles while Loofy is stuck with his foot in his mouth.

LINK

According to a new study released by the Brookings Institution, the answer is a resounding yes, to the tune of $1.32 billion. Those are savings that result when family planning access through Medicaid is expanded with a comparatively meager investment of $235 million, reducing unplanned births that will eventually become a burden on the state. The study, authored by Adam Thomas of Georgetown University, made use of a simulation model called FamilyScape, created by Brookings. In addition to the Medicaid measure, Thomas also looked at the effect of what he calls “evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention”—the kind of programs that combine abstinence advocacy with honest, thorough instruction in contraception methods. With an investment of $145 million, the taxpayers would see a return of $356 million in this area. Additionally, a national mass media education campaign costing $100 million would deliver $431 million in savings due to reduced unplanned pregnancies among poor people.

LINK

Actually, not really. The truth is that both insurers and employers who self-insure save money in the long run by covering contraception. So much money is saved that it makes financial sense to waive co-pays and deductibles. A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that not providing contraceptive coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing such coverage.

Again..... Contraception provides relief for Taxpayers, Insurance companies, Employers-Employees.

[Veezy]

And they couldnt take it away before? Were they originally created by democrats?

Do you pay attention to American politics? Have you not observed how the Republican party has become more and more extreme since Obama has come into office, spurring a large amount of misinformation among the populous allowing drastic social policy reductions all over the US at City, State, and Federal levels that's actually costing us more money by removing than it's saving taxpayers?

Should the church be allowed to only provide insurance policies that only cover events in results of sin not occurring before the injury/sickness? Why is birth control outlandish but covering me injuring my penis because I do some crazy stuff to myself would be okay (because, well, it is)?

What are you arguing at this point?

[Loofy]

They should be criticized heavily for denying services they're already willing to provide because they're pouting over regulation. I'm fine with them making this into a much bigger issue than it is. The more it's in the face of the public the worse they make themselves look. I feel that I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes if I don't agree with the way my tax money is being used. Does that mean I don't have to pay taxes? Of course not. It also doesn't mean that I should sue the government unless I want to make it clear that it's a financial issue and has nothing to do with treading on my rights. They claim they're being forced to compromise their religious freedom with this regulation. How exactly does it make sense to sue if that's what this was really about?

I dont really know what you want me to say to this.
Yes if the church loses the case then yes they will have to obey the law. They have in the past forced a compromise by the government at the state level. They might as well try it again now.

[Veezy]

I dont really know what you want me to say to this. Yes if the church loses the case then yes they will have to obey the law. They have in the past forced a compromise by the government at the state level. They might as well try it again now.

Why should the Catholic church be allowed to only provide insurance plans that deny coverage based upon their particular religious beliefs? Should a business run by a Jehovah's Witness only have coverage that doesn't include transplants or blood transfusions?

Can you not see that the Church has a particularly odd outrage when it comes to having to provide birth control, but no problem providing plans that cover Viagra for single men?

[Loofy]

Do you pay attention to American politics? Have you not observed how the Republican party has become more and more extreme since Obama has come into office, spurring a large amount of misinformation among the populous allowing drastic social policy reductions all over the US at City, State, and Federal levels? Should the church be allowed to only provide insurance policies that only cover events in results of sin not occurring before the injury/sickness? What are you arguing at this point?

Yes I follow the news. Do you follow the economy?
I read "Texas legislators who backed the 66-percent family planning cuts say they had no choice - the state budget was in crisis and many worthy programs suffered."
Somehow you read "JESUS CHRIST OMG"

My point is that obama is saving his big pharma buddies while not increasing the budget by forcing other people to pay for it. Heres another article on the subject. Seems Im not the only person to have thought this up.
Big Pharma’s Role in the Contraception Debate

[Veezy]

Yes I follow the news. Do you follow the economy? I read "Texas legislators who backed the 66-percent family planning cuts say they had no choice - the state budget was in crisis and many worthy programs suffered." Somehow you read "JESUS CHRIST OMG" My point is that obama is saving his big pharma buddies while not increasing the budget by forcing other people to pay for it. Heres another article on the subject. Seems Im not the only person to have thought this up. Big Pharma’s Role in the Contraception Debate

So, your argument, at this point or the entire time, I'm not sure, just so I'm clear, is that it's fiscally irresponsible to require any business to have a particular type of health care coverage. Co0l.

Okay, the rebuttal to that is, facually, it's cheeper for the actual insurance companies and the State as a whole to have free birth control.

[Pollux]

Can you not see that the Church has a particularly odd outrage when it comes to having to provide birth control, but no problem providing plans that cover Viagra for single men?

This is a stupid argument, try understanding the Catholic position on something before making terrible analogies. From the Church's point of view Viagra is fine, and they don't advocate it for single men, b/c it promotes contraception. Birth Control is the opposite.

[Chumly]

Yes I follow the news. Do you follow the economy? I read "Texas legislators who backed the 66-percent family planning cuts say they had no choice - the state budget was in crisis and many worthy programs suffered." Somehow you read "JESUS CHRIST OMG" My point is that obama is saving his big pharma buddies while not increasing the budget by forcing other people to pay for it. Heres another article on the subject. Seems Im not the only person to have thought this up. Big Pharma’s Role in the Contraception Debate

You obviously don't read the news

A 'War On Birth Control' These cuts are less about saving money and more about abortion and contraception. Evangelicals and Tea Party supporters are ascendant in Texas, and Perry is their champion. These cuts are evidence of their political power as well. The goal is to get government money out of the abortion process, and if contraceptive services have to suffer a bit of collateral damage in the process, so be it. When The Texas Tribune asked state Rep. Wayne Christian (R-Nacogdoches), a supporter of the family planning cuts, if this was a war on birth control, he said "yes." "Well of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything — that's what family planning is supposed to be about," Christian said. Family planning clinics are routinely referred to by many Texas Republican legislators as "abortion clinics" even though none of the 71 family planning clinics in the state that receive government funding provides abortions. Texas and federal law prohibits that, but most women's health clinics will refer women or teens who want an abortion to a provider. "They're sitting here, referring women out to receive abortions," Christian said in an interview with NPR. "Those are the clinics, including Planned Parenthood, we were targeting." Perry's spokesman did not reply to requests for comment for this story, but Christian said there's no question the Texas governor is an advocate, enthusiastically signing this approach into law. "Gov. Perry has supported the pro-life agenda consistently throughout his time in office," he said. The State's Family Planning Solution The budget cuts to family planning clinics won't in the end save Texas money. The state estimates nearly 300,000 women will lose access to family planning services, resulting in roughly 20,000 additional unplanned births. Texas already spends $1.3 billion on teen pregnancies — more than any other state. In San Antonio alone, unplanned children born to teens would fill 175 kindergarten classrooms each year. What's particularly galling to family planning advocates is that part of the money, $8.4 million, that was cut from family planning will now go to Crisis Pregnancy Centers around the state. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are part of the pro-life movement's answer to family planning clinics.

[Veezy]

This is a stupid argument, try understanding the Catholic position on something before making terrible analogies. From the Church's point of view Viagra is fine, and they don't advocate it for single men, b/c it promotes contraception. Birth Control is the opposite.

No, it's a fantastic argument.

The Catholic Church does not condone the use of any type of contraceptive. Aparently it's a sin. Therefor, being forced to offer insurance plans that have free birth control is wrong and a violation of their religious rights. Despite what their non-Catholic employees believe, they don't have the option to receive a plan with birth control coverage.

However, I'm also under the impression they're not too cool with premarital sex. However, Viagra, regardless of your marital status, is under their insurance policy.

What they advocate is irrelevant. There's no such thing as a "this is our health insurance plan and it only covers you under events that you didn't sin because otherwise our religious beliefs are being offended."

How come it's a huge deal for them to provide health insurance that covers birth control, but none of their plans avoid coverage for other cases of what they consider immoral and against their religious code? Like, say, acquiring an STD? I'm not trying to be pedantic, I really want to know. How come they're not fighting for the right to have sin free insurance policies?

[Pollux]

No, it's a fantastic argument. The Catholic Church does not condone the use of any type of contraceptive. Aparently it's a sin. Therefor, being forced to offer insurance plans that have free birth control is wrong and a violation of their religious rights. Despite what their non-Catholic employees believe, they don't have the option to receive a plan with birth control coverage. However, I'm also under the impression they're not too cool with premarital sex. However, Viagra, regardless of your marital status, is under their insurance policy. What they advocate is irrelevant. There's no such thing as a "this is our health insurance plan and it only covers you under events that you didn't sin because otherwise our religious beliefs are being offended." How come it's a huge deal for them to provide health insurance that covers birth control, but none of their plans avoid coverage for other cases of what they consider immoral and against their religious code? Like, say, acquiring an STD? I'm not trying to be pedantic, I really want to know. How come they're not fighting for the right to have sin free insurance policies?

Honestly I have no idea. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud or anything. I was just trying to point out the difference between birth control and viagra, if you really want to know you could shoot an email to your local Archbishop/Cardinal, they usually respond to that sort of thing. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston is very good at responding to emails with questions, and he usually gives good responses. I have no idea why they advocate one or the other or anything else with regards to insurance, I do know why they approve of Viagra and not birth control though. If you're curious as to why the Church is against birth control read Humanae Vitae, I know you want agree with any of it, but it would at least give you a chance to TRY and understand what the "other side" thinks.

[Veezy]

Honestly I have no idea. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud or anything. I was just trying to point out the difference between birth control and viagra, if you really want to know you could shoot an email to your local Archbishop/Cardinal, they usually respond to that sort of thing. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston is very good at responding to emails with questions, and he usually gives good responses. I have no idea why they advocate one or the other or anything else with regards to insurance, I do know why they approve of Viagra and not birth control though. If you're curious as to why the Church is against birth control read Humanae Vitae, I know you want agree with any of it, but it would at least give you a chance to TRY and understand what the "other side" thinks.

Appreciate the link.

To be 100% honest, if they were consistent it would still be unacceptable but then it would be understandable. The church doesn't like sin. They don't feel any of their funds should even have the potential to lead to sin. Therefor, they want sin free polices. Right now, I get that they have a problem with the pill, but I don't see why they aren't Johnny on the Spot in public about any other potential sin (insert sex scandals here).

Now, the idea of them having a way to create something like that without violating every type of privacy law ever is completely unrealistic, but at least then they'd have consistent message.

[Loofy]

Oh wow level 60 AH has alot of activity. Ill do a search and over the half the page will say 'sold.'

Inferno hates melee. Came across a unique shaman that had minions with always on invulnerability, they never turn off.

[Tamanon]

Oh wow level 60 AH has alot of activity. Ill do a search and over the half the page will say 'sold.' Inferno hates melee. Came across a unique shaman that had minions with always on invulnerability, they never turn off.

LOL

[Pollux]

Appreciate the link. To be 100% honest, if they were consistent it would still be unacceptable but then it would be understandable. The church doesn't like sin. They don't feel any of their funds should even have the potential to lead to sin. Therefor, they want sin free polices. Right now, I get that they have a problem with the pill, but I don't see why they aren't Johnny on the Spot in public about any other potential sin (insert sex scandals here). Now, the idea of them having a way to create something like that without violating every type of privacy law ever is completely unrealistic, but at least then they'd have consistent message.

Yeah, I do understand where you're coming from. But, being a huge apologist for the Church, I tend to irrationally defend them for a lot of stuff on GAF. *shrug* I chalk it up to the fact that I don't like unfair fights, and if nobody else is willing to at least play Devil's Advocate it's like watching a game of T-Ball. Sorry if that doesn't make any sense.

[19 & 21]

I dont really know what you want me to say to this. Yes if the church loses the case then yes they will have to obey the law. They have in the past forced a compromise by the government at the state level. They might as well try it again now.

I don't want any outlined response. I'm merely saying that the second they decided to sue they showed their hand. It isn't an issue of whether or not they disagree with the regulation, it's strictly a money grab. If you want to approach this as a private business having regulations enforced upon them, that's fine. However you can't have it both ways. It's either an issue of business or an issue of having religious freedoms trampled upon. The church has shown that they consider it a business issue. They wouldn't be after money otherwise.

[Loofy]

LOL

Woops

[Amibguous Cad]

Alright GAF, keep making fun of the Catholic Church. Religious institutions shouldn't be strong armed into acting against their beliefs, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Should animal cruelty laws apply to religious sects that believe in ritualistic sacrifice?

[Vaporak]

Alright GAF, keep making fun of the Catholic Church. Religious institutions shouldn't be strong armed into acting against their beliefs, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

When acting in accordance to their beliefs means breaking the law then yes, they should be strong armed into acting against their beliefs. The separation of church and state doesn't make the religious a privileged class, it means they get treated just like everyone else.

[Amibguous Cad]

No, it's a fantastic argument. The Catholic Church does not condone the use of any type of contraceptive. Aparently it's a sin. Therefor, being forced to offer insurance plans that have free birth control is wrong and a violation of their religious rights. Despite what their non-Catholic employees believe, they don't have the option to receive a plan with birth control coverage. However, I'm also under the impression they're not too cool with premarital sex. However, Viagra, regardless of your marital status, is under their insurance policy. What they advocate is irrelevant. There's no such thing as a "this is our health insurance plan and it only covers you under events that you didn't sin because otherwise our religious beliefs are being offended." How come it's a huge deal for them to provide health insurance that covers birth control, but none of their plans avoid coverage for other cases of what they consider immoral and against their religious code? Like, say, acquiring an STD? I'm not trying to be pedantic, I really want to know. How come they're not fighting for the right to have sin free insurance policies?

Well, there's an important distinction there, in that under Catholic doctrine it's possible for there to be legitimate use of viagra, while every use of birth control is immoral. That might make a moral difference.

Actually, scratch that, if I recall correctly Catholic doctrine is cool with the birth control pill when it's taken for medical reasons (people can take it in order to make periods less painful or normalize hormone levels and other things, I'm told), so I guess there is a licit use according to the pope. Still, it's probably true that the majority of uses of viagra are cool by Catholic standards while the majority of uses of the pill aren't, and that might matter.

[Loofy]

Heres a few articles while Loofy is stuck with his foot in his mouth. LINK LINK Again..... Contraception provides relief for Taxpayers, Insurance companies, Employers-Employees.

1. I already said it would save costs. "But you guys are fine with his reasoning that he doesnt want you to have babies, cause he's assuming your a deadbeat that'll end up on welfare." He's doing it by treating Americans like idiots rather than actually fixing the damn system.
Condoms are a safer way of contraception, wheres the mandate on that? no trojan lobby at the white house perhaps?
Also, you live in a MESSED up country when the government is actively convincing you to not have babies. Next up, 1 baby per family.

2. He could have fixed that by making BC a subsidized product for low income or welfare individuals. But no, he wants big pharma to get as much money as they can.

3. He could have fixed that by not forcing the cost on on employers. But obviously 'republican war on woman' sounds ALOT better than 'Increased budget in welfare spending.'

[Angry Fork]

No Im pretty sure Stalin also said "If the church's don't stay out of politics they should be deported out of the country and their church's seized by the state." Ive heard this before on GAF, along with 'Religious people should be banned from running for office."

They should be banned imo, but that doesn't make me stalinist. Stalin wiped out religion so he could have a monopoly on it and claim himself/the state as it's own religion. North Korea mastered this and is now the most religious country in the world.

I just think someone who doesn't have the proper ability to recognize lies and fairy tales shouldn't judge the laws people live by. The debate on monotheisms is over. I don't have a problem with people being deists or something similar but theists shouldn't run countries imo, luckily most legit smart politicians likely aren't practicing theists and just say that to secure votes.

Call it discrimination if you want I'm fine with discriminating against the religious whenever they mix their beliefs with secular laws and religious people will do that eventually. It leaks everywhere. Believe it in your own home if you want but it should not touch secular society. One of the best things Lenin ever did was completely decimate the influence of the catholic church. It's a shame it can't be done today in America.

[bonesmccoy]

The thing is, the Church will simply refuse to offer insurance plans until the law is repealed. It's not going to cause an exodus of employees from Catholic institutions, the Church will still be the Church, and Obama will still be a dummy for making this into an unnecessary election issue that's managed to unite the Catholic Left and Right.

To the people saying "Well, why doesn't the Church get worked up about issue X?" The other thing is that it does, and it does all the time. It's just that the mainstream press rarely reports on it. And from their perspective, why would they? Reportage is not their cause, it's profit via entertainment.

edit: Angry Fork,

[Chumly]

1. I already said it would save costs. "But you guys are fine with his reasoning that he doesnt want you to have babies, cause he's assuming your a deadbeat that'll end up on welfare." He's doing it by treating Americans like idiots rather than actually fixing the damn system. Condoms are a safer way of contraception, wheres the mandate on that? no trojan lobby at the white house perhaps? Also, you live in a MESSED up country when the government is actively convincing you to not have babies. 2. He could have fixed that by making BC a subsidized product for low income or welfare individuals. But no, he wants big pharma to get as much money as they can. 3. He could have fixed that by not forcing the cost on on employers. But obviously 'republican war on woman' sounds ALOT better than 'Increased budget in welfare spending.'

Keep moving those goal posts. BTW....... I know you must be tired of being wrong by now but condoms are not a safer form of contraception.