"Disagreeing has never been so much fun!"
Arising as a result of Obamacare the Contraception Rule would have forced (and still may) catholic institutions to provide birth control within their insurance plans. Does this impede with religious freedom? You with Obama or in opposition?
Neutral Fans: (2)
View
Neutral Comment
Jeff - 3/5/12 @ 10:54 PM:
Freedom its all about Freedom the Goverment needs to keep their paws out of it as well as the church that is all :)
Side B Comment
Rick - 3/5/12 @ 9:38 PM:
A person should never have to switch jobs or their religion either way. That's just not the right thing to force your parishioners or employees to do. Especially having to change a job in the current economy. The Catholic view on contrapceptives is just outdated. This is 2012, not 1912.
As far as the hypocrisy of many churches go please don't get me started. Federal money isn't allocated for specific reasons unless mandated by that particular institution for the most part, or unless agreed upon by the organization. However, one does not necessarily need to bite the hand that feeds them either. The government shouldn't expect compromise, the employees and patrons should. What is at the heart of this matter I believe is equality and coverage for all. Regardless of faith. That's what universal healthcare means. At least to me it does.
As far as the hypocrisy of many churches go please don't get me started. Federal money isn't allocated for specific reasons unless mandated by that particular institution for the most part, or unless agreed upon by the organization. However, one does not necessarily need to bite the hand that feeds them either. The government shouldn't expect compromise, the employees and patrons should. What is at the heart of this matter I believe is equality and coverage for all. Regardless of faith. That's what universal healthcare means. At least to me it does.
Side B Comment
Rick - 3/5/12 @ 7:22 PM:
Kaz I can only agree with your position to a point. I am a firm believer in the Constitution. I am even firmer on my belief of separation of church and state. What really chaps my hide about most of the organizations involved with this argument is that they claim they don't want to have to offer this type of coverage because it conflicts with their faith, but yet they have no problem holding their hand out for government funding. My view is simple. If you are a religious institution which accepts any type of government funding then you should be prepared to accept the consequences for doing so. If you don't want to have to offer this type of coverage for your own parishioners/students etc. then don't expect the federal government to help fund your church or schools either. It's not right. I don't believe that a person should have to change their faith simply because they wish to use a product like a contraceptive. All this is is just a way for the Catholic Church to enforce abstinence among followers unless actually procreating. Who deserves that right?
Ryan Kazinec - 3/5/12 @ 7:35 PM:
Rival | Side A
What you're referring to is the hypocrisy of the church which is one of things that has driven me further away from religion. While I see your point regarding taking money from the government I don't necessarily agree. Reason being, the money wasn't given with strings attached. As an example, a lot of federal funding is given to the states with conditions required; example: you must do this with this education or welfare program. These types of conditions were not required (guessing) prior to the churches receiving funding. I do think it's a stretch to say they would have to change religions to get birth control though. They simply would have to change professions.
Neutral Comment
Sarah Forester - 3/5/12 @ 7:19 PM:
my question is why? why now? women have been taking birth control for years!
Neutral Comment
Sarah Forester - 3/5/12 @ 6:51 PM:
Maybe the Catholic church should consider a change as they have in so many other areas. On the other hand, I am a woman who has been uninsured and still found a way to get my birth control. There are hundreds of different kinds, many of which are VERY affordable. There are also "government funded" programs such as planned parent hood that give them for free. I personally think it is ridiculous that the catholic church is hanging on to this. Times have changed as has the Catholic church. I still believe the government needs to stay out of our healthcare. NO federal healthcare, lets keep it in the state.
Rick - 3/5/12 @ 7:04 PM:
Rival | Side B
Sarah, I would much rather the government stay out of a lot of our lives, but as I've said before it is often times a necessary evil. Now where we disagree is keeping it at a state level. Allowing the states to control this issue is just a bad idea. At least with the federal government it is a guideline that every state must follow equally. If you allow the states to do so then that only plants the seeds for some states allowing control and others none at all. If it isn't equal then it's not truly fair coverage for all. How fair would it be for Tennessee to remove the coverage, but Georgia to allow it? Then not only would that be unfair it would force some to seek coverage elsewhere. Revenue that could have been kept within another state's border. Something as important as this issue should not be decided among the states. It should be national. I absolutely hate that it comes to that, but it's really just necessity. Side B Comment
Rick - 3/4/12 @ 12:06 AM:
I believe a person has the right to choose contraceptives if they so desire. It's not my right to say that they shouldn't have it, and neither should any religion or organization. The Constitution not only guaranteed freedom of religion, but freedom from religion as well. If a person's faith is in direct contradiction with this type of choice it is still the person's decision whether or not to use it. Not the church. Not the religion. Not the followers. It is the sole decision of the person involved. That is freedom.
Side A Comment
TNinfidel - 2/13/12 @ 9:54 PM:
Bring on the revolution. The "Progressives" have worked hard to marginalize the Constitution. They have instituted programs, agencies, and legislation over the years that are in direct conflict with freedom and liberty. The DHS and TSA are some of the more recent examples of the enemy(domestic) among us, and yes, I am fully aware they were established under G.W. Bush.
Side A Comment
Ryan Kazinec - 2/10/12 @ 9:47 PM:
I'll be the first to admit I think it's ridiculous when doctors refuse to prescribe birth control to their patients for religious reasons which is something I have experienced personally with my wife. I think it's particularly ridiculous when you consider the constantly growing number of welfare babies that continue to follow in their parents footsteps.
Regardless of what I think is ridiculous we had a wonderful freedom; choice! We opted to go to a different doctor who didn't have this religious restriction. Now due to Obamacare our choices are dwindling; the insurance plan I actually liked has transformed into a monster that doesn't kick in until I hit a $3,000 deductable and those who previously opted out of coverage will no longer have that choice. This administration needs to be stopped.
As proposterous as I think it is to refuse to prescribe birth control I do recognize that is their right and if their religion is important enough to lose patients then I in a small way applaud them for that. This rule is disgusting and certainly does impede with the freedom of religion. What's next, drones spying on Americans? Forced inoculations?
Regardless of what I think is ridiculous we had a wonderful freedom; choice! We opted to go to a different doctor who didn't have this religious restriction. Now due to Obamacare our choices are dwindling; the insurance plan I actually liked has transformed into a monster that doesn't kick in until I hit a $3,000 deductable and those who previously opted out of coverage will no longer have that choice. This administration needs to be stopped.
As proposterous as I think it is to refuse to prescribe birth control I do recognize that is their right and if their religion is important enough to lose patients then I in a small way applaud them for that. This rule is disgusting and certainly does impede with the freedom of religion. What's next, drones spying on Americans? Forced inoculations?
Rick - 3/4/12 @ 12:13 AM:
Rival | Side B
Kaz, I don't quite get what you're trying to say here. You sound like you believe in a woman's choice, but at the same time you seem to be condemning it as well by arguing against Obama's health care. It was my understanding that the entire issue was that organizations regardless of their faith would have to offer insurance that covered contraceptive use. You seemed a little all over the place. What exactly is your position? I'm curious.
Ryan Kazinec - 3/5/12 @ 6:00 PM:
Ally | Side A
I was a bit all over the place but to clarify. I am for a woman's choice to choose their physician as well as a religious organizations right to choose an insurance policy that doesn't contradict their fundamental beliefs. In addition to that the employees of the organization have the right to choose to find another employer if they don't want to pay out of pocket for the birth control.
I saw a short clip on the news of a female student at an ivy league school complaining about the cost of birth control claiming it breaks them financially. This argument would have more validity behind if we were talking a single working mother attending a community college. Ivy League = argument failed.
