Scylding

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.

You got it MIke, all in the name of having the government either provide or mandate the privision of "free stuff," but we know, a government big enough to give you anything you want, is big enough to take everything you have, including your freedom.

Pasofino15

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.

If you want to eat pork, don't go to a Jewish deli. If you want to use contraceptives, don't force the church to pay for something it doesn't believe.

Brad

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.

If I hear the "Jewish deli" analogy one more time I think I'll throw up. Unless you know something about using sliced ham as a contraceptive that the rest of us don't.

Pasofino15

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 8:42 p.m.

Freedom of religion and conscience is a human right. Everyone is entitled to practice what they believe to be true. Therefore welcome to the reality of life and eternity. It will always be a fundamental truth that everyone should be allowed to believe what they choose.

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 8:34 p.m.

Welcome to the 19th century!

Apoc

Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 2:35 a.m.

I very much agree with that JayJay

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 8:33 p.m.

If an institution, any institution accepts federal money, it must abide by federal mandates. If they do not like the mandates, do not accept the money. If a religious company only hired people from its religion, it might not be an issue. But they do not and they accept federal money, so...

Ed Caldwell

Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:40 a.m.

Plubius did you recently read a Christopher Hitchins book? Funny how the illusion you tear down you build in the same breath.

4Reason

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.

Pray for an end to superstition!

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.

And I'll bet that many of the same people who are arguing that this is a religious freedom issue are the first ones to dismiss all Iranians as bad because Iran is an international pariah, or that all Moslems are bad because binLaden was a Moslem. Thank heaven they are Christians and of the "true" religion -- now remind me again, which Chrisitan religion is it that is the "true" religion? After all, if you have seen one Christian, you've seen 'em all, right? Right? Right?

Newmarket

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:50 p.m.

I for one don't want the government paying for anything for my child or myself. God gave my husband and I what we needed to take care of ourselves & our child. Most people don't believe that God will provide, but simply believe that God will endow us with the guidance and heart & abilities to provide for ourselves. Your statistic is incorrect, by the way. Majority is turning against Obama and the health care plan. There are better ways to offer medical care to those who choose not to buy it for themselves or who can't afford to buy it for themselves. Sparty on!

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:43 p.m.

@Sparty, Please cite your sources. According to the New York Times and CBS polls, by a 50-41% point margin Americans say all employers should NOT have to cover birth control. And then 57-36% point margin Americans say religious employers should NOT be forced to provide birth control coverage.

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.

Too bad that 2/3 of Americans don't support the National Health Care Law. So where your statistics come from, I don't know. However, the religious opposition to the HHS mandate is not to dispensing contraceptives, or whether women should be using them, but to the violation against the First Amendment, religious freedom, and the fact that abortifacients and in fact abortion must be paid for by religious organizations.

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.

Even though I am a member of the Catholic Church, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.

THe HHS mandate does note say that an institution of faityh must provide the morning after pill. All it says is that as part of their health care plan, if they wish to participate in federal programs, that they cannot discriminate against those who hold different beliefs, that certain minimum levels of health care must be provided. Since when does a person looking for a morning after pill go to an institution of faith to get it. It is with that kind of twisted logic that this healthcare issue has been turned on its head and people have tried to make it into a religious freedom and/or contraception issue. Please read the mandate before you speak out against it -- it might assist you in your choice of words.

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 5:55 p.m.

The institutions themselves are not being required to perform abortions. Health Insurance is an external service that companies can provide to their employees. Although there may be religiously-affiliated health insurance companies, I am not aware of any. No one is saying that the church itself must perform anything at all - just that they allow a broader coverage from this external service.

Brad

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.

No, what's absurd is that you seem to think that anyone would be required to perform abortions. Where did you come up with that nonsense?

Ann23

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 5:19 p.m.

Birth control is more easily accessible than blood transfusions and other medical treatment. The Catholic Church not covering it doesnt prevent it from being accessible to their employees. Blood transfusions and other life saving medical treatments that have been mentioned in these comments are not comparable to birth control. If a woman knows her life would be at risk from becoming pregnant and she knows she doesn't want to take that risk, I don't think birth control would be her best option anyway because it is not 100% effective. But, still, I don't see everyone who is opposing this mandate objecting to Jehovah's Witness religious institutions or Christian Scientist religious institutions being able to discern what type of coverage they provide as a benefit to their employees. There are some who are employed in the US who receive no insurance coverage at all from their employers (I am not saying that is a good thing)

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.

thinker: you are parsing religious beliefs. The point is how is their (Jehovah's Witness) belief any less valid in terms of this question than any other religion.

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.

@Brad- Blood transfusions most times do not kill people. Abortifacients and abortions do.

Brad

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.

That's the trouble with things like these. You try to come up with an absurd example to highlight the situation and it is indistinguishable from the real thing.

Basic Bob

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.

Why would you believe they provide any medical insurance? It would be unnecessary!

Brad

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.

So can Jehovah's Witness employers decline to cover blood transfusions? And how would that be different?

James

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.

it's not covered for free.. if you have a health insurance plan at your place of employment you are paying for some of it in some way. either garnished wages, or straight out of your paycheck/salary. besides the last time i checked there were quite a few lifestyle drugs for men covered by a lot of company plan's i've seen.

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:32 p.m.

jayjay, Using your logic, drivers who have car accidents or get more tickets, then shouldn't be charged a higher premium? They should pay the same amount as the person who has a clean record? Again you failed to answer the questions: Can a woman get a prescription for birth control? Yes Can a woman go to a pharmacy to get that birth control? Yes Can a woman go to a community organization to get that birth control at little or no cost? Yes So please tell me how a woman is being DENIED birth control? AND why the government has to MANDATE this to be covered for FREE?

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.

@Brad, Yes, birth control is a lifestyle drug. Birth control was designed and approved by the FDA to prevent pregnancy. It is a choice whether one wants to take it or not to prevent pregnancy. And no, if my medicine was covered for free it would not change my stance. The Federal government should not be stepping in and MANDATING it to be covered for free.

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.

The issue is not one of contraception, per se. Get off this false argument. The issue is one a what basic services all health plans must offer to qualify as health plans. Thank the insurance industry that we are in this mess. Their ability to deny or outright cacel insurance because they find someone to risky or too expensive is the issue. And, btw, did you know that insurance companies regularly discriminate against women, charging them higher premiums because "they go to the doctor more often than men"? The HHS mandate only made basic services available to all, and said if you are going to offer health care, you must meet this minimum standard. That contraception was a focal point is really a red herring. It is an availability issue, and it falls hardest on the poor. So if you work for a religious institution that wishes to deny you access to contraception, find another job? Yeh, and if you don't like you neighbor, buy another house and move out. The HHS mandate was sorely needed. The compromise Obama made was fantastic, but why did only one side have to compromise? Since when is our nation a "my way or the highway" country -- that, dear friends, is not democracy!

Brad

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.

Contraceptives are a "lifestyle" drug? That's absurd. Although I do guess some would consider the avoidance of contraception a lifestyle. Like the Duggars. If your $200/mo meds were covered also would you feel differently?

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:36 a.m.

Actually, the idea is pretty consistent in that contraception leads to a "banalization" of sexuality and reduces procreation. You are absolutely correct that, with the law of unintended consequences, there would be more abortions as a result of decreasing access to contraception.

Pasofino15

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.

Is it so wrong to want to be able to practice what you believe? When all is said and done the matter of this HHS mandate debate is not about contraceptives or "trying to impose their values on the rest of us." It is simply the desire to freely practice religion without the interference of the government. It is why colonists moved to America in the first place. The Pilgrims wanted to practice their religion without the English Church's persecution.

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.

Sir, you have said it all. Unfortunately, we have apparently lost our ability to engage in civil discourse. If I do not like what someone says, if I can insult or otherwise shout them down, I win, right? Have we totally lost all the good that came out of the 60's? Are we back to the 40's and 50's when bigotry was so common in everyday life? And in the name of religion -- Lot's wife looked back and turned to stone -- our religions are looking back and their hearts have turned to stone. What ever happened to Christianity?

4Reason

Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 3:36 a.m.

that paragraph should end:"...... & the decision should be theirs alone."

4Reason

Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 3:35 a.m.

maallen-- Health insurance is absolutely compensation--in the same way stock options, company cars, & 401(k)s are. Not taxed (yet), but yes, indeed, compensation. It's offered to employees to entice them to be employees! Fact is, companies compete for workers with the skills and talents they need. You can thank the free market for that. Companies DO NOT offer insurance out of the goodness of their hearts. If they want to be competitive, they get the best talent they can. In my experience, no company--aside from the usual nepotism and crony-ism, gives anything free to employees--they make them earn what they get. Cash is just not the only form of compensation, & dodging the IRS is just a part of the game they play. Do you see how that might benefit both parties? The company pays the insurance carrier with one big check. Company involvement ends there. The carrier decides what it will & won't cover, according to its business plan & within government regulation. The church is attempting a retroactive take-back that technically interferes with both the insurance carriers business & the rights of the affected employee. Again, many women use hormonal therapy to treat or prevent medical conditions such as fibroid cysts, cancer, & peri-menopausal symptoms. If a woman, her doctor, insurance carrier, and the government all agree on a treatment, why should the church's bias be the deciding factor? Especially in cases where the woman does not belong to that church. Insurance covers many people for many conditions; so, some people get different benefits. Would you deny legitimate treatment to many to punish others when it's none of your business either way? You didn't follow my logic. If the company doesn't offer health insurance, there's no debate. But if they do, then within legal parameters, the totality of compensation the worker earns should be spent in the best interests of that employee, & the decision should be the

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 10:46 p.m.

@4Reason, "But if health care is part of the compensation that you EARN, then your employer has no right to say how you will spend what you've earned." The employer is offering a benefit to an employee that it DOESN'T have to offer. It is not part of your compensation. If it was, the IRS would be taxing the health insurance as such. Since the employer is offering the health insurance, shouldn't the employer have the right to say whether a lifestyle drug should be covered or not? Afterall, it is the employer that is paying all or most of the premiums. Under your logic, then the employee should be able to have a say which mutual funds are included in their 401(k). But what you fail to realize that it is a benefit that is given to the employee, and the employer has the right to take it away. The employee nor the government should be dictating whether a lifestyle drug should be covered or not. Just like which mutual funds should be included or not. It is the employer's choice.

4Reason

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 7:37 p.m.

To thinker: Precisely because employers can give or take by whim, the government should, in the interest of Public Health, determine general parameters that are fair to both sides and in keeping with the idea that the public is best served when health care is accessible. If the Plague or TB or ebola were raging across the country, would you stand in the way of potential carriers getting treatment? In order to insure efficiency and fairness, we need an arbiter with the requisite power to get the greater good done. To maallen: You're correct in that no one is forced to work for a religious institution. They're forced by the economy to take any job they can get. Health care coverage is part of the compensation package that people earn in the course of doing their jobs. If the prospective employer says "no health care offered" then you take or refuse the job on those terms. But if health care is part of the compensation that you EARN, then your employer has no right to say how you will spend what you've earned. They pay the insurance company with one big check, not 2,705 little ones they review for ideological purity before signing. Think of what the worker earns as split into two parts--cash, and a buy-in discount for health insurance. You've earned them both. How you spend them should be up to you, yes?

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.

thinker: You are making the point for universal health care coverage. Otherwise, the logic inferred from your post would lead to a fractured system in which every employee would be at the whim of the religious bent of the organization for which they work.

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.

No one is forced to work for a religious institution. Health care coverage is not a given right to an employee. It is a costly benefit.

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.

4Reason, The health care coverage that employees get is a benefit that is given by the employer and is also a benefit that the employer can take away. Why should the government interfere with it?

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:28 a.m.

Babmay, I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 10:51 p.m.

@jayJay, "... by denying access to basic health care of their employees." Can a woman get a prescription for birth control pills? Yes Can a woman get that birth control prescription filled at a pharmacy? Yes Can a woman go to community organizations to get birth control for little to no cost? Yes So please tell me how an organization is "denying access to basic health care of their employees?"

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:44 p.m.

You, sir, are the one who has missed the point. There is no mandate whatsoever for the church to do anything against its beliefs and teachings. And the compromise worked out actually emphasized that exact point. No, by LAW the Cath Church cannot require you to do anything, I agree. But they can exert a major political influence for their outdated beliefs. And they are trying to impose their beliefs on others -- by denying access to basic health care of their employees (and not their religious members), they are imposing . So is the solution to have the church 1) pay taxes, 2) fire all non-catholic employees, or 3) get out of healthcare. I think it is all of the above. We need an expanded tax base, and anyone who wants to play in the secular world should be taxed. Let's get politicized religions paying their taxes.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:29 a.m.

Larry, are you a priest? A bishop? The Pope? Who put you in charge of telling everyone who can stay in the Church and who should leave?L

talker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:45 a.m.

Larry and Thinker, you miss the point. This is about employers of people of all beliefs not imposing beliefs upon employees of all religions, beliefs, and practices. This is not about preventing anyone from being Catholic and following the Vatican (which many Catholic women don't).

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:23 a.m.

The catholic church operating in this country needs to follow the laws of the country just like everyone else. They cannot pick and choose what they will or will not obey.

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:46 a.m.

And you are free to seek employment OR NOT at a Catholic institution.

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:05 p.m.

jayjay, Have you read the law? Based on your many posts it indicates you haven't read the actual law, but only relying on what the "media" reports. The law is requiring all employers to cover brith control for FREE.

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.

Larry, just read the law. It might help your understanding of what it really is. Then you can give us your opinion.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.

" Obama has mandated BY LAW that the Catholic Church follow practices that violate their faith and teachings. " This is absolutely false.

larry

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:26 a.m.

Loopy: Then change the tax law. Get it? Looks like you miss the point. Again.

Loopy

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:16 a.m.

Why doesn't your church stop running for-profit institutions and asking for Federal money, and then you can stop whining? I'm not in your church, so my birth control or lack thereof is none of your GD business.

Sandie Weathers

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 1:50 a.m.

Ann23 you are a light in the dark! Thank you for being aware of the truth and telling the truth!

Ann23

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.

When the religious institution I was formerly employed by was unfortunately unable to provide the compensation necessary to adequately care for my family I sought employment elsewhere. Although I enjoyed my position, I was not forced to be employed by them.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.

Ann23: Catholic institutions, such as St. Joes, are not obligated to perform abortions. In fact, they don't. St. Joes is also not obligated to provide insurance for its employees and it certainly does not have to hand out birth control. Insurance plans, being regulated by the government, are required to maintain a certain level of basic coverage. That's it. If you want a country in which you could only work for a company that shares your same religion, then continue along this line of argument. And when your boss is Muslim or Jewish, remember that when they impose their beliefs upon you that you got what you wanted.

Ann23

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.

Also, I do have knowledge of how clergy (at least those in this area) and Catholic counselors view the choices of those who are in abusive situations. I have not known a single one to not fully support the choice of a woman in such a situation to leave the man. The man has already broken the marriage covenant with his behavior.

Ann23

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.

@A2centsworth, yet so many AnnArbor.com posters objected to the existence of Camp Take Notice.

Ann23

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.

True, I do not have a deep knowledge of how some of those things are handled in other areas of the United States. What I do know is that Catholic Social Services is a wonderful institution that helps many in situations like those you described. It is the only provider in the area when it comes to some of it's services. It is in areas besides Washtenaw County but, unfortunately there are areas in the United States that do not have an institution such as this nearby. On the other hand I think it is safe to assume free or inexpensive birth control is currently available to nearly all United States citizens who want it but do not have insurance coverage or can't afford it otherwise.

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.

Ann23 -- Washtenaw County is only a microcosm of a much bigger world. Go out into that world, much of it in the Southeastern US if you do not wish to travel abroad and see it. And see what the catholic church does in the name of religion. Women with 10, 12, 15 children and an abusive spouse (when he is available). And the local church falls back on the teachings of St. Paul, and these poor women (and their even poorer children) are locked forever in poverty and hunger. And catholic charities, tell me about them. Go to countries outside the US -- Mother Teresa was an exception, not the rule. Go see what so much of the world lives like, and then tell me that contraception (which isn't even the discussion really) is needed. Tell a 20 year old woman whose husband comes back from the brothel drunk and has spent their monthly money and she has nothing for food, that she has to have her 6th or 7th child -- yep, that's the church we are talking about. Charity, yeh, it happens, but sledom where it is needed.

talker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:40 a.m.

In many places, the only employer for hospital based doctors and nurses is a Catholic hospital that receives Government money as reimbursement for Medicare and Medicaid patients and whose staff members can compete for NIH (National Institute of Health) and other publicly funded sources of research money. In towns surrounding Ann Arbor, there are hospitals that are now part of a Catholic health care organization. Not only do these hospitals serve the public, but the public who are employees in such medical centers make it possible for the medical centers to operate. I'm guessing that many Catholic hospitals and medical centers would not be able to operate without employees of all religions and no religion. Employer situations are far different from Catholic churches as places of worship.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:26 a.m.

hmmm.. I see many homeless people in Ann Arbor.

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:15 p.m.

@1bit, Can a woman get a prescription for birth control? Yes Can a woman get that prescription filled at a pharmacy? Yes Can a woman go to a community organization to get birth controls for little to no cost? Yes So please tell me how an employer is imposing its "doctrine" on its employees when the employee is can get all the birth control pills she wants?

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.

thinker: This is one point where we agree. However, I view it from the opposite direction: the discussion is about protecting employees from the tyranny of their employer's religious beliefs. An employer should not have the right to impose its religious doctrine on its employees.

Jake C

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:10 p.m.

Indeed, it's only somewhat about birth control. What it is is yet another Tea-Party offshoot where it's all about the Almighty Dollar. "The government shouldn't ever take my money to pay for something for someone else" is what is boils down to.

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.

This whole rally was not about birth control. It is about religious freedom and the right of conscience. The liberals and pro-choice groups are trying to make it about birth control. It most definitely is not.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.

thinker: You are right. It's not thousands who die due to lack of health care coverage, it's tens of thousands. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.

Any not-for-profit hospital is required to accept emergency patients even if no insurance coverage. There are many public programs (Medicaid etc) that pay for indigent patient's health care. There are insurance companies that provide cheap, catastrophic health care coverage (ie BCBS Young Adult Blue for $85 per month). How much does it cost to smoke a month? I doubt there are thousands in this country who die due to lack of health care coverage, unless they choose to.

leaguebus

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:42 a.m.

Add the Pro-Life Christians to this too.

Jake C

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.

@Ann: " I don't see any evidence that the vast majority of Catholics support rape. " They don't. Yet the Catholic Church leaders covered up rape for years. And what's going on today? The vast majority of Catholics use and support the use of Birth Control. And again, the Catholic Church leaders are against that too. Maybe that's why so many people I know are leaving the Catholic Church, because an institution that doesn't listen to its members is doomed to failure.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:19 a.m.

what do celibate, unmarried men, (the clergy) who have never had to pay their own way, no less support a family, have any right to tell us what to do, and how to do it. Also the fact that these priest/ child molesters are not all in prison, shows how flagrantly the church likes to ignore the law.

Ed Caldwell

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:26 a.m.

You missed the point entirely.....

Ann23

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:26 a.m.

1. Heart attacks have more causes than just eating meat. 2. I don't see any evidence that the vast majority of Catholics support rape. Especially the raping of children. Can you prove otherwise? I don't know single Catholic who is not truly disgusted by such a thing, and I know many. There are many Catholic institutions that help and support adult and child victims of rape and help protect them from their abusers. 3. If Catholics truly believed that a child is just "property" wouldn't they be for abortion and against adoption?

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:39 p.m.

@Nichole, Premiums will not go down because of the birth control law. If you add brith control to your policy, your premiums go up. That is a fact. Plus, because majority of birth control pills are taken to prevent a pregnancy (voluntary) health insurance carriers still have to plan for those who will stop taking the birth control to become pregnant. Therefore, they can't decrease the premiums because they have no idea when one might become pregnant. They still have to collect premiums to pay for future claims. While I share in your plight on how "expensive" a drug can be (I spend over $200 per month for one drug to keep me alive every day, without it I would die in a few days) I also feel that it is NOT up to the government to be giving out handouts such as this.

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.

Thinker, what may seem like "reasonable prices" to some is not reasonable prices for all. At the risk of divulging private information, I will explain to you that the type of birth control my doctor has recommend for me (for multiple reasons, that I will not go into here), costs about $60/month. Currently, I am the sole bread-winner for my family, and after I pay the bills, the mortgage (on my one-bedroom home), and everything else we need simply to function, $60 is not a small amount for us. Without help from our insurance company, I'm not sure what we would do. We certainly are in no responsible position to have a child at the moment. And, TLB, the money that I pay monthly towards my insurance companies helps pay for medications that I don't need either, so that other people may have them. There is actually evidence (published by insurance companies) that states that they believe that everyone's health care costs would go down, because providing birth control is less expensive than helping with the extensive costs of pre- and post- natal care. So, if money is your concern, than this new bill helps you more than it hurts you.

Jake C

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:06 p.m.

@tlb: "Pay for your own unless it is for treatment of a legitimate medical condition!" That would be a good argument, EXCEPT the problem is that the Catholic Church is LITERALLY refusing to allow an *independent insurance company* (that the employee pays for) to cover the treatment of a legitimate medical condition! You could have a celibate nun who has never had sex in her life who has polycystic ovarian syndrome who needs progestogen to treat her condition, and it will be refused by her employer because it could hypothetically be used for Birth Control! Are you starting to see the problem here?

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:29 p.m.

@Nicole- Shouldn't the religious institution have the right to choose also? Contraception, which is not even the issue here, is available for reasonable prices anywhere, and does not have to be covered by insurance. If a doctor writes a letter to an insurance company, or talks to them, they cover things that are needed medically.

tlb1201

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.

Nichole, I'll tell you what the government is taking away: My money to pay for someone else's birth control. Pay for your own unless it is for treatment of a legitimate medical condition! Religious beliefs aside, why should I have to pay for someone else's routine living expenses?! If you play - you should pay for it yourself!

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:27 a.m.

Thinker, what is the government taking away? The ability for an employer to tell an employee that they cannot have something? How is that at all the same? The government is saying a woman should have the right to choose for herself, rather than have someone else choose for her.

thinker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:54 a.m.

Again I reiterate: the issue is not contraception, but religious freedom. You obviously believe that contraception and the gifting of it is right. What if the government decreed that is was no longer OK to use contraceptives. Wouldn't you feel your beliefs and conscience had been violated?

leaguebus

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:40 a.m.

As Monty Python sang "every sperm is sacred" . It was funny 30 years ago, but not so funny now that people believe it.

Ann23

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:32 a.m.

I guess the opposite of that would be: A FLDS president mandating non-FLDS religions financially support polygamous marriages. Because it is healthier for the men to...

clownfish

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.

best argument yet.

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:34 a.m.

Loopy - Are you implying the Catholic Church supports the Middle East wars? Or that they are somehow responsibile for them? I have never ever seen anything that supports that theory. Your statement about "fake" outrage exhibits hatred and discrimination. Yet I suspect you think you support peace and tolerance.

B2Pilot

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:15 a.m.

the church admitted it was wrong to hide the abuses of some of its priests and paid millions to the victims. A much larger issue is the pedophilia sexual abuse happening in the school systems by teachers- just sayin... as far as Illegal wars were you around 9/11

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:30 a.m.

I agree with your anti-Catholic bias. But not with your theory of getting Obama elected.

clownfish

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:20 p.m.

Or, maybe the purpose was to give women access to birth control via their insurance. Seeing as this new policy has set off this wave of "anti-religious" hysteria, I think your assumption that this was purely politics falls short .

Jake C

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.

"Catholics never stated that they had a problem paying for temporary welfare benefits, clothing, shoes, food, adoption expenses for needy families." @Veronica: Really? I hear exactly that from my Catholic family all the time. They (like many other Conservative) believe that donating to Charities (specifically Christian charities) is okay and is doing God's Work. But when the government "forces" you to pay taxes that go to homeless benefits and food programs for poor children, that doesn't count as a charitable act because you had no choice whether to donate or not. Never mind the fact that tithing 10% of your income is the minimum requested by the Catholic (and other) Churches. And believe me, if you're not paying your 10%, everyone knows and will ask you why you're stealing money from God.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:12 a.m.

Great comment Loopy. Personally I do not know how anyone can trust a religion where so many of their priests have been and continue to molest their own parishioners children. Something is terribly wrong with a system that cannot keep ones children safe from abuse.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.

I have adopted 2 children along with having 4 of my own. What about you Veronica? Taking care of unwanted children with "temporary" help, is pretty sorry.

Veronica

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:29 p.m.

Well, A2centsworth, most bicycle riders and pedestrians use the roads to walk/bike so it's in their best interest to pay those taxes and the last time I checked, Catholics never stated that they had a problem paying for temporary welfare benefits, clothing, shoes, food, adoption expenses for needy families. I see them being EXTREMELY generous to others. How about you?

Loopy

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:13 p.m.

I'd kind of like it if celibate men steered clear of children altogether.

thinker

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:54 p.m.

I think the Catholic church over the last 2000 years and certainly in the last 500 HAS been the one to provide orphanages, feed the hungry, care for the sick, and provide homes for the homeless. If the Catholic church did not provide those services the government share would be much higher.

Jake C

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.

Paying an electricity bill is equivalent to slavery? Seriously? One is a mutual contract where one party agrees to pay another for a service. One is a person being reduced to the level of property where the owner can do anything he wants to "his property" at any time. lol Veronica, thanks for the most tortured metaphor I've heard in a long time.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.

Veronica, we all have choices. We base our choices on our wants and needs. I know many people who live off the grid, and I know just as many who enjoy the fruits of their capitalistic life style. It is THEIR choice, as this should be as well, a choice.

Veronica

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.

I hate to break it to you but slavery has been in full effect in this country since its inception. We are currently slaves to the trillions of dollars of debt that the politicians have placed on our books. When you become employed, you are forced to pay taxes. When you need electricity, gas and other utilities, you become a slave to those items because your consumption makes you a slave. Most people eat three meals per day so you are a slave to proper nutrition. Children need clothing so you are a slave to your children. You need a roof over your head so you are a slave to your employer so you can afford to live. Let's not even talk about employers who are also landlords, utility companies, etc. They are taking your money hand over fist but they should because this is a capitalistic society, which I fully advocate. I'm black.

clownfish

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:18 p.m.

Only if it involves Canadian.

leaguebus

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:36 a.m.

When I was a member at St. Thomas, my son was threatened with banishment when he objected to the "firing" of a female altar server because one of the parishoners objected to girls doing this. Father Tim had to let her go. She was very distressed and so was my son, who quit going to church after this incident.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:31 a.m.

Christians kick gay people out of their churches all the time. Catholics churches have been know to kick out psychics, just because they have different abilities. Let us know forget that religion is man interpreting God. God gives unconditional love, man creates conditional laws.

Veronica

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:41 p.m.

No one wants to kick anyone out of church for any reason. Church is for welcoming those that want to participate constructively and churches and parishioners welcome all people if they are willing to come. Obeying God is the goal of every religion that I have encountered (Christianity, Islam, Jewish, Jehovah Witness) so one can't operate without the other. They are permanently married to each other. I am a Christian and when I have examined other religions I would definitely say that they are a list of do's and don't's but Christianity (with the exception of Catholicism) is the only religion that puts the focus of the faith on a personal relationship with God (spiritualism) over obeying rules to the exclusion of a personal relationship with God (religion). When you have a positive relationship with God you have a true desire to do His will and thus obey His rules (religion) for living a clean and holy life which means that spiritualism and religion go hand in hand and you can't really have one without the other. I don't condemn anyone for their relationship or lack thereof with God so saying that religious people aren't spiritual and spiritual people aren't religious, I simply have not observed that because most people who are engaged in their religion, whether Jew, Muslim or Christian, understand what it means to be "fully surrendered" to God and they obey (religious).

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:37 p.m.

Sad but true, Gill

Sandie Weathers

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 1:44 a.m.

My guess is that there were so many young people there because their good teachers and their good parents want them to learn about their 1st amendment rights and how to exercise their 1st amendment rights. The Obama administration is quilty of government overreach. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amendment I *Preamble to the Bill of Rights * CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Jake C

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:48 p.m.

Or they were kids who were forced to go by their parents and didn't have any "choice" in the matter.

Veronica

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:42 p.m.

Its great that the kids had a chance to participate in a political protest that represents their values and standards for their life.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:09 a.m.

I find it odd that the catholic church does not trust its parishioners enough to allow them to make their own decisions on matters that have to do with their own bodies. Creating rules that take away a womans right to choose, is to create dependency on their institution and take away free will. Is that their goal? Because for centuries they have been killing others in the name of their religion, so it cannot be a moral issue, I am thinking it is a control issue....

larry

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:54 a.m.

larry: then odama should change the tax laws, not try and be a dictator and mandate BY LAW that the Church do things against it's own beliefs. Kinda like mandating BY LAW that YOu go to Church. Everyday. Looks like you need it

Loopy

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:09 a.m.

Larry, then the Catholic church should get out of business and just live on tithes. They don't need Federal money, and then they won't have any conflict of interest. I don't want some archaic church, whether it's Catholic or Muslim or Jewish, dispensing my health care on the basis of their sacred scrolls from 2000 years ago. It is just fine if you want to believe in all that mess, it's not all right for the Federal government to subsidize their businesses and offer them a tax shelter.

larry

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:44 a.m.

You miss the point completely. Obama has mandated BY LAW that the Catholic Church now do things that are against it's beliefs. It is a direct violation of Church and State. The Catholic Church does not require you to do anything by law. Get that straight. Please.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.

Veronica, your comment that other religions are not advocating because the Catholics "have their backs", assumes you know more than you possibly can know. No one can speak for everyone. Catholics have been trying to convert the world since time began! Look at the Holy Wars! The Crusades! Bullies to the max! Other religions practice what they preach and that is tolerance! When is the last time you saw Buddists protesting our government laws? Living in a country that consideres the good of all, does mean that at times we have to pay for services we do not use. Someone may not drive a car, but is still taxes for the roads. Another person may not have children in the public schools, but still has to pay school taxes. But the Catholic church and its businesses do not pay taxes, so therefore my taxes, and yours are higher because they are not paying their fair share. I am outraged that I have to pay for your religions property taxes and their share of income taxes, but I do it, as it is the law. Catholics are not protesting the fact that everyone is paying for them, therefore I see it as an even exchange.

Veronica

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:51 p.m.

Well, A2centsworth, Christians are the majority in this country so their beliefs will be better represented than the beliefs of others. Also, I do not see other religious groups advocating things such as sex outside of marriage, abortion, same sex marriage and the like. I believe that they remain silent because they know that they are the minority in this country and are hated by some of the majority and they know that the Christians have their backs on the issues that they value most. The religion does not advocate bullying of any kind and the things that I've seen in recent years would point to the fact that other groups are trying to bully Christians through unjust laws such as Health Care Reform and forcing Christians to pay for services that are against their teachings. Christians can pass on what they do not want and they are doing so by protesting those who are trying to force them to pay for the things that they do not want. You are right, vegetarians aren't trying to outright outlaw meat consumption but they definitely wouldn't be outraged if it was outlawed and they are not being forced to pay for someone else's meat.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.

JACK- for starters, the GOP. A Pew study done in 2009 showed that many evangelicals and Roman Catholics (they said "most) "say it's OK to "sometimes" or "often" use torture on suspected terrorists. "

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:24 a.m.

Larry: Ignorance of what the law is mandating defeats any point you are trying to make. Moreover, Marx himself is rolling over in his grave at the assertion that Obama is advocating his ideas. Maybe you should try reading what Marx wrote. Obama is a social capitalist - look it up if you don't know what that means.

talker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:25 a.m.

You do realize that the Church wouldn't be providing the contraception, don't you? It would be available without payment by the Church. President Obama is definitely not a Marxist. You do realize that Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon favored universal health care, don't you? You do realize that people who oppose war pay taxes and now have to pay for deficits that are due to war, don't you? You do realize that former President Kennedy was Catholic, but separated his personal beliefs and practices from Government, don't you?

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:22 a.m.

Clownfish - I am interested in these organizations that you claim favor torture. That's quite a claim. Can you name them?

clownfish

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:18 p.m.

Actually, the govt has had multiple policies over the ages that come into conflict with multiple religions. They have declared war, which many religions oppose. The members of those churches have to pay taxes, which go toward nuclear weapons. The US govt has had policies that amount to torture, detention and even slavery. Surprisingly, many of the same people opposing this new policy were in favor or torture, needless war and detention without trial.

Loopy

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:11 p.m.

Maybe if the church wasn't running a business instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing, they wouldn't be violating their own consciences. I and many other people are annoyed with a tax-exempt organization making profits, taking Federal money, trying to avoid the rules other businesses have to follow, and then bossing the rest of us non-Catholics around.

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:03 p.m.

It is not "the" church, it is "A" church. Something which those caught up in the religious ferver seem to forget. Freedom is not just offered to those who choose to be Catholics, it is offered to everyone. Why do religious people want to instill their values on everyone else? Makes you wonder if it is misery loves company kind of a thing.

Scylding

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 6:03 a.m.

@Oldguy, I can see why you felt the need to abuse the name of the church, "Catholic." Your point was very weak. Gave you a thumbs down.

B2Pilot

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:07 a.m.

Wow how long did it take you to think of that ! Wow okay like I said to league bus nothing else for you to see here move along keep moving go on get out of here.

Ed Caldwell

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:29 a.m.

Oldguy = wrong

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:14 a.m.

I think you are right oldguy.

talker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.

Really? How many men have labor pains? How many men require C-Sections for their own survival and have the recovery period of such surgery? Men can empathize and soothe. Men can participate in "Lamaze" and comfort women. But men don't have direct risks to their own health. A woman I know had to have a C-Section recently in order to save her life as well as the baby's.

Veronica

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:57 p.m.

Not true. Men do have babies and men do get pregnant. The child is as much theirs as it is her's and it is completely disingenuous for you to imply that it is strictly the female's burden because it is not. When I was pregnant my guy had symptoms too like morning sickness and fatigue and that happens often but no one wants to point that out. Men love and want their babies just like women do and they suffer through pregnancy, birth and child rearing just like women do. My husband is so sympathetic that he has said that if he could carry the baby for me he would just to save me the pain and possible complications of pregnancy and child birth. If that's not chivalry, I don't know what is. So, get it right, it's the man's baby too and he wants the child too and a man who truly loves his woman would readily take the pain and inconvenience for his woman.

Michigan Reader

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:47 p.m.

What makes you think morality is gender specific?

Veronica

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:59 p.m.

It is wonderful that Catholic children have a chance to participate in their government so that it represents their values. Doing the right thing isn't always the easy thing to do.

Newmarket

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:41 p.m.

leaguebus, you can't get an abortion or birth control at Planned Parenthood for free or pay on a sliding scale. You can also get some birth control in the A2 high schools. Abortion and birth control as well as sterilization and the after pill are rather different issues than paying taxes for a road or a bridge. the insurance companies aren't going to pay for the birth control, etc. we are. Don't you get it?

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:19 a.m.

Veronica: You do realize that your opinion/solution is contrary to that of the Catholic Church, right?

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:19 a.m.

Leaguebus - Do you really think agreeing with Obama is doing something? Sorry, that's just having an opinion. Everyone's got one.

talker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:18 a.m.

To be really helpful and effective for low income people, the clinics would need to offer birth control. You do realize that birth control is the best way to avoid abortions, don't you? Are you telling married women to avoid marital relations except when they want to become pregnant? Are you assuming rhythm works for everyone? Do you really think that would help raise people out of poverty?

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:17 a.m.

Leaguebus - The Catholic Church has been absolutely wonderful in providing care for children and others. They are, in fact, one of the most charitable institutions on earth. And no, I am not Catholic. Your view is skewed by bias.

B2Pilot

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:04 a.m.

alright league bus you've stated this same rant 3 or 4 times already time to move along nothing else for you to see here move along, keep going.

leaguebus

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:23 a.m.

Sorry Veronica, that is what most industrialized nations in the world do, but ours. Its funny you should put this on me because I back what Obama tried to do. That is what i am doing about this problem. I challenge you and your church to provide all poor people with prenatal care or back universal health care. This would be the Pro-Life thing to do.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:04 a.m.

You're right leaguebus. You and some of your friends should go to those impoverished areas of this country and hand out prenatal vitamins and raise money to provide free health care services to those who are not able to provide it for themselves. I would support you. In fact, we can create some clinics that don't provide abortions or birth control but do provide prenatal care and support for low-income parents. Catholics and Christians would fully support you financially and they would volunteer their time to this noble cause. This would help to reduce the infant mortality rates that you care so much about.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:34 a.m.

No Veronica, sex does not equate babies. Conscious decision making and mature thought, as well as birth control decides whether one has children or not. The catholic church benefits greatly to be against birth control, it is an economic decision. More children mean more parishioners as they grow up, and more money to the church. ..and yes, the ruling people of the church..the men, do consider women subservient in their position within the church, and they work hard to indoctrinate the male parishioners that they are the "head" of their household and women are taught that in order to be righteous must listen to the word of their husband... doesnt like you are going to be making history any time soon if you follow that doctrine....

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:12 a.m.

A2centsworth, you are wrong again. Men don't want to keep women subservient. They need women to work and bring home a regular paycheck just as they do. My guy is religious and he is not interested in having nearly as many babies as I want to have but if you have sex, you have babies. Right? I hate to break it to you but men are usually the ones who are concerned about the financial impact of pregnancy and raising children so they are normally against large families because they don't want to work themselves to death trying to provide for those children.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:07 a.m.

I'm not Catholic but I'm sexually active with my husband and I don't use birth control and I didn't participate in that study. I regularly attend religious services and religion is important in my daily life so I wonder how many other women who post here are in my situation. Let us know ladies. Does this "study" represent you and your values?

clownfish

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.

Birth control is not a grave wrong, it is a fabulous good.

Michigan Reader

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:43 p.m.

clownfish--It's about the religious freedom of an employer to not ENABLE a grave wrong. That's why the government shouldn't set the policy that it has.

clownfish

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.

I don't think the choice of who was interviewed should be used as an argument in this discussion. Evidently there were quite a few women at the event.

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:07 p.m.

Because the men want to keep their women barefoot and pregnant! Look at the article. Only men were intereviewed! How can this not be about so called religious men wanting to keep their women subservient?

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:12 a.m.

The Catholic Church has been fairly consistent in opposing the death penalty, unlike many other institutions.

Ed Caldwell

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:34 a.m.

I didn't know everyone who is a part of the right group is automatically perfect! Thanks Bob.....

leaguebus

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.

How many Pro-Lifers are against Obama Care? Considering what I have read today, many are because it limits their personal freedom. How can they be so Pro-Life and still be for the deaths of 30000 babies in the US each year because the mother has no health insurance and has no pre-natal health care. We are 29th in the world in infant mortality, but spend 1/4 of our GNP on Health Care. We have the most expensive health care system in the world for those that can afford it. People that cannot afford it just lose their babies at a higher rate than 28 other countries in the world. I see a large disconnect in a Pro-lifer who is not for universal health care in this country.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:16 a.m.

I am pro-life (personal values) but also pro-choice (everyone should have the right to choose) and I am completely, totally, fully against the death penalty in any and all circumstances. They should have to look at the pictures of the people that they killed or raped for the rest of their miserable lives, locked in a teeny, tiny cell until they die of natural causes.

Loopy

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:04 p.m.

Michigan Reader - If you're so flexible on execution, then why can't birth control be OK in some cases?

Michigan Reader

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:39 p.m.

Bob Krzewinski--What makes you think pro-lifers are perfect? The Catholic Church says that in some instances, the death penalty is O.K. JUST SOME instances.

rulieg

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.

it's also funny how many people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are also anti-war and anti-capital punishment. I guess hypocrisy is also not in your vocabulary.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:20 a.m.

I completely agree with you Joseph. Religious liberty is not a male or female issue.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:26 p.m.

There is no such thing as "Obamacare". It is a made up term, used by entertainers and politicians. Hard to argue facts when myth is the coin of one side.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:16 a.m.

Veronica: There are a billion things we are forced to pay for in this country that I don't want to pay for. But that's why we have elections. You seem to, like many on this site, be fixated on one person in our government. It turns out that the President has very little power over domestic issues. If you don't like something going on in government, your congressional representatives are the ones upon whom to focus your angst.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.

True, no one is being forced to take contraception but they are being forced to pay for it and that is wrong. Dead wrong. We are entitled to choose what we do and do not want in this country and we are against paying for someone else's abortion, birth control, weight control program, sex change, death panel, etc. I do not want to pay for it and I will not pay for it. Down with Obamacare! I'm young and I have a long way to go and I will be paying much longer than many other people and I refuse to pay. Period. Down with Obamacare!

Scylding

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:52 p.m.

@Joseph Anthony: I enjoyed your post. It is very well written. I am not Catholic, but I attended mass at St. Thomas before the protest. I felt very welcome and made new friends. It was a great experience. I was proud to be among them, and view them as strong allies in this fight!

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:11 a.m.

Joseph: The government is not forcing Catholics or anyone to use contraception. We do not live in a theocracy. If a Muslim organization wanted to impose sharia law on its employees would that be acceptable? Even on the issue of contraception, the Pope has shown some recent change in thought.

johnnya2

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:53 p.m.

So if I am a Christian Scientist. you would be ok with me allowing my child to DIE because my religion does not believe in medical treatments? Be consistent,, or you are just trying to shove your religion down everybody elses throat. EMPLOYERS pay for a lot of things they may not want to. The secular catholic FOR PROFIT institutions are employers plain and simple. If you can not see that fact, you are delusional.

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:11 p.m.

catholics do not have to avail themselves of these options, but being citizens of this FREE country they have to pay taxes like the rest of us, and provide health care for the good of all. This is not a catholic country. Those who want to live under Catholic government can move to Vatican City.

maallen

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 4:12 a.m.

@Nichole, Employers already decide not to cover children/dependents. What they will do is cover you as an employee 100%, but if you want to add a spouse or child(ren) then you have to pay 100% of that premium. The only slippery slope that is being created is by the government. Whether birth control was being covered by an employer or not was NOT an issue. But once the government stepped in (for what reason?) all of a sudden it became a slippery slope. At what point does the government stop interfering?

Newmarket

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.

This isn't a women's issue. It's a first amendment issue of Religious freedom. I don't know why a2.com chose to interview men, but don't men partake in making children and thus have a right to their opinion? Why should a pro life male be sterilized? Why can't he just have responsible sex? And, how do you know that these flag waving men haven't done something personal to help the situation?

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:06 a.m.

Wow. They should not be allowed to have an opinion? Wow. That says it all.

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:21 a.m.

Veronica, to some extent we all have to pay for things that we don't believe in. If someone - like in an earlier post - disagreed with the way the Duggars, or a family like the Duggars decides to reproduce, they'd still have to pay for those children to be covered by health insurance. Could an employer who doesn't believe in having children decide that no children are able to be covered? It's an ugly scenario to imagine and, as I've said before, it's a slippery slope.

leaguebus

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:50 a.m.

Veronica, men may not control your mouth, but they do control your body. The Catholic church is not run by Nuns. Women can't be Priests, nor can they be the Pope. You are not equal to men in your religion and for the foreseeable future will not be equal. My son quit being an Altar Server at St. Thomas when Tom Monahan decided he didn't want the female Altar Servers that Father Tim had added to the roster.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.

Sorry, A2centsworth, but you're wrong again. People are trying to tell us that our "religious freedom" is antiquated and they are trying to force us to go against our religion by forcing us to pay for things that are against our religion and by trying to force us to change our minds about things that we will not compromise on, period. It will not happen here. We are not going to take this laying down, standing up, sideways, etc. I am a woman and I am speaking up. No man controls my mouth. These are my thoughts and actions solely. My guy tries to tell me to keep my opinions to myself because they are not relevant to my bottom line but I don't care anymore. Obedient women never make history and I will be disobedient on this issue. I will stand up and be heard.

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.

It is just my personal opinion that if men want to lead this fight they have to do something, to alleviate the problem. Women are not getting pregnant by themselves. What are these men doing to prevent pregnancy? Are they getting vascectomies? are they adopting homeless children? or are they just waving flags and blaming women?

rulieg

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.

yeah right...like that all-white all-male Supreme Court that decided Roe v. Wade. you just can't trust those awful men to do the right thing, can you? oh wait...

Johnny5k

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.

1. No actually we don't. That is the problem. 2. I don't know why Ann Arbor didn't post stories from the women there. There were more women there than men.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:36 a.m.

That doesn't mean that they use birth control. Maybe they abstain all together. You are not in their bedroom's so you don't know what they're doing. You would drive yourself crazy trying to figure out what people do in their bedrooms so you really shouldn't worry about it.

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:17 p.m.

How many kids do you have Johnny5K?

Johnny5k

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:53 p.m.

Hi Tim, consider my family and me number 2. Maybe you need to meet more Catholics?

jayjay

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:34 p.m.

That is one more than I know, but then how does one follow someone who swears to be celibate which is against our very nature. I could take this elsewhere, but in respect of certain young members of the church, I will not.

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.

Veronica, thanks for your reply. War -- what ever happened to "turn the other cheek"? Where does the bible say we should not rush into war? My interpretation is a bit different, so I am wrong, right? Funny, how this discussion has totally moved away from its message. But that is indeed one way to defeat what you do not like or agree with -- change the subject. That is why this message has changed from one of basic health care to an argument of religious freedom and/or contraception. I feel for you -- may your life continue to be as uncomplicated by the issues as you seem to make it. In ignorance there is bliss!

talker

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:10 a.m.

Great post jayjay. People who don't believe in war pay taxes (and endure huge deficits) to pay the horrendous costs of war in both money and bodies. People who don't believe in smoking cigarettes pay insurance costs and taxes to care for those lung cancer patients (some haven't smoked at all) who smoked cigarettes for many years. People who oppose paying for certain types of care or research want to benefit from the latest research and treatments if they become ill. The point is that none of us knows what will happen to us tomorrow. Will we need blood transfusions that aren't available because some taxpayers oppose blood transfusions? Will a woman who is told it would be dangerous to have another child die because she was denied the morning after pill after being raped? Being pro-life is not as simple as some claim it is. Women's health care decisions should be made between a woman and doctor. Those who fear universal health care could turn into Government intervention are often the people supporting Government intervention that denies women the health care many need. It's happening in various state legislatures now.

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:03 a.m.

If you did not believe in abortion, if everthing in you decried it, saw it as a sin, would you then submit to being told you had to provide it? The issue is not so much its provision, because many do provide it, but who is providing it. I can entirely understand, sympathize and agree with the position of the Catholic Church. BTW, I support a woman's right to choose. This is a different issue and really is about religious freedom.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:42 a.m.

not everyone is christian...

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:47 a.m.

Clownfish, leave the Christianity to the Christians. To judge, as defined by the Bible, means to condemn but to discern, which some people classify as judging, (discern= to know and state the difference between good and bad, right and wrong, clean and unclean) is very much advocated and encouraged in the Bible so get it right.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:44 a.m.

The intolerance by religion comment is not relevant here. No one is proposing that the plan deny anyone the right to choose birth control and/or abortion. Secondly, I see very clearly what is going on here. First they came for the Christians but I wasn't Christian so I didn't do anything. If they take away our right to refuse to pay for things that we do not agree with, that in and of itself is a huge injustice to us. Lastly, the Bible only states that we should not rush into war and we should not delight in war and killing but it does not completely negate war as an option. War is an option. If I had the option not to pay for a war that I don't agree with then I would do so but the government does not allow that, do they? I didn't think so. Get real jayjay.

clownfish

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.

"are you just being a typical liberal and refusing to acknowledge the readily obvious truth?" I think it is in Mathew somewhere: Judge not, that ye be not judged. There is also something in Old Testament Law about bringing false witness against neighbors, not sure it technically applies to applying stereotypes to people in a public forum, but I can see a closer connection than that made for not allowing birth control based on Jesus teachings.

rulieg

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.

it forces the Catholic Church to condone (in the form of paying for) things it doesn't not agree with: specifically, birth control and abortion. do you really not get that, or are you just being a typical liberal and refusing to acknowledge the readily obvious truth?

JBurdock

Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 1:18 a.m.

Sure. So we can all do what we want? Have abortions if we want. Smoke marihuana if we want. This is of course what a 'Libertarian' believes. Me, I'm being sarcastic.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 10:23 p.m.

Veronica, for one that spouts being a Christian, your remarks are getting a bit pointed. Attacking someones maturity level, ... come on, we can have heated lively discussions without getting personal and attacking those that disagree with us. Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:53 a.m.

Yeah leaguebus, you don't have to read these posts so keep your nose out of other people's business and opinions. No one is trying to take away your right to use mighty mouse as your picture which, by the way, shows your maturity level. If you don't want to hear my religious opinion, move to China. They are more than happy to keep religion out of your life. Christians there have to attend an underground church. That's dangerous and uncool. Watch out for the lead and other poisons in your food when you move to China : )

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:48 a.m.

That's right G. Orwell, mandates are wrong. We should show the government that we truly mean business.

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:18 p.m.

Nor do we need Pontiffs to pontificate!

jayjay

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:37 p.m.

Let's keep the governing church out of our lives as well. Their impositions are every bit as bad or worse!

leaguebus

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:16 p.m.

And you need to keep your religious opinions out of my life.

jns131

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.

We need to disband special interest groups and lobbyist. Washington is so out touch with reality it is not funny.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 10:20 p.m.

If one was to go along with your argument, Veronica, it would mean I should not have to pay for things I do not use either. If everyone had that attitude, we as a country could not survive. Your taxes pay for our countrys' defense system which includes nuclear arms, your taxes pay to execute prisoners.. So what I think I am hearing is you have no problem killing prisoners, or "enemies"..even though your bible stipulates that is a no-no. Seems like you are just picking and choosing topics you want, and not staying true to the entire doctrines of your religion. Your religion has nothing to do with the laws of our country.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:04 a.m.

The Dugger's are very nice people. Much nicer than you. I am happy that they have all of those kids because they are valuable to our society. They are taken care of by their parents only and we should all strive to do what they are doing. Their help truly comes from God. Overpopulation is not a relevant issue here. Natural disasters, crime, murder, war, genocide, poverty, accidents, incidents, age, infirmities and a whole slew of other things are doing a wonderful job of controlling the population so stop trying to grossly oversimplify a serious and complex worldwide issue. American's don't have a problem with overpopulation because we have abortion and birth control. Duh. I simply do not want to pay for your abortion and birth control and I shouldn't have to if it is in conflict with my religious right to exclude such things from my tax bill.

JBurdock

Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 1:10 a.m.

Thanks for the advice. It would have been nice if you had identified yourself (like "I'm an extreme right wing catholic"). My favorite is the old "there are no atheists in foxholes". But Atheists are used to being bullied. Except that we are invisible, you-all think we are worse than Gays and Muslims. Good Christians should be in favor of universal health care, like I am.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.

That will not happen because of the Christians of this country. We will not allow any leader to get in and mandate a universal belief in some sort of god and compliance under pain of death. This is what happened to us and is still happening to us in other countries so we wouldn't do it to anyone else. We do not ever try to force you to believe so don't try to force us to not believe.

rulieg

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.

I think you mean an ugly "precedent" but your word choice was also good! spelling aside, you make a good point. non-religious people should indeed be concerned by this ruling. this is about the government telling a church what it can consider a sin. just as religion has no place in governing, so the government should have no place in religious organizations.

jayjay

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:13 p.m.

We had one; his name was Dick Cheney! Oh, he was the VP; I never would have guessed.

bedrog

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.

andy kaufman / latke gravis redux??

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:26 a.m.

veronica, the bible was written by men who were psychically channeling the spirit of Jesus so it is open to interpretation.

Veronica

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:16 a.m.

margo, that is a truly interesting post. First of all, the virgin impregnation was a one time deal. There will be no additional Jesus' born. Second, the Bible does advocate abstinence because the focus of the individual stops being God and His will and their focus begins to become serving their spouse and their children. The Bible states that that it is good to pursue God only but that you must choose this path wholeheartedly and not waver. Therefore, it is a personal choice to follow God only and not marry. Lastly, it is also good and acceptable to be fruitful and multiply but there are two ways to multiply. 1) You can multiply by having children and raising a Christian family 2) You can multiply the kingdom of God by spreading his word throughout the world.

jayjay

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:13 p.m.

If you study the bible and the original languages in which texts exists, it also gave man (yes, sexist as that may be) "dominion" over the earth. Dominion in the original text meant "to take care of". It did not meant to "foul one's own nest" as we have done. The polluted environment, the crime and war we perpetrate, the intolerance and bigotry of people who think differently than we do -- is that dominion? Score another one for organized religion; it sure has served us well. And what about taking care of our fellow persons -- we live in our gilded palaces while so many people go hungry and outright starve. Yeh, tell me about religious freedom.

Soothslayer

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:31 p.m.

Sir you believe in whatever imaginary friends you want but as a Citizen of the United States you and your religion are bound to it's laws. If you don't like it there are plenty of other counries that don't have a separation of church and state (Iran) you can choose from.

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:30 p.m.

The Bible does tell Adam and Eve to multiply - he also says this to Noah. But NOWHERE does it explicitly forbid birth control. And if a little pill will not stop God's Will anyway, then there's certainly no sense in denying it to women who might need it for other reasons.

maallen

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 4:26 a.m.

@A2centsworth, " but refusing to provide basic health care to their workers is infringing on the rights of those workers" Wow. Where was the outcry and the drama that brith control hasn't been covered by a lot of employers for the past 20 years? How come no one, not even you, stood up for these poor women who did not have birth control as part of their health insurance? Where was everyone? Can a female get a prescription for birth control? Yes Can a female get the birth control prescription filled at a pharmacy? Yes Can a female get birth control at a community organization for little or no cost? Yes How is a female being denied basic health care?

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 10:09 p.m.

No, Jack, I just do not buy their reasoning. They can practice their religion, but refusing to provide basic health care to their workers is infringing on the rights of those workers who do not believe as they do. it boils down to the Catholics using their religion to coerse others into abiding by their rules. ... they have long history of doing that....

mermaid72

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:14 p.m.

Freedom for whom? Certainly not me, I am not a Christian & resent them trying to impose their beliefs on me.

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:52 a.m.

A2centsworth - I think you don't quite understand the issue. And it appears to me that you also wish to have your way?

Larry Langly

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:58 p.m.

Whose freedom? Taking mine from me!!

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:47 p.m.

They are not standing up for the freedom of All people. They just want things their way, which takes away the freedom of everyone else.

maallen

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 4:32 a.m.

@leaguebus Wow...Obama is trying to save all these babies. But he supports abortion. So is he saving these babies or allowing them to be killed? Which is it? And to try and use the United Nations statistics to prove your point for Universal Healthcare is laughable. You do realize that Canada, England, and many other countries are moving AWAY from universal healthcare because it costs too much?

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:51 a.m.

LeagueBus - Can you explain your logic here? You're saying that if people support the Catholic Church position they don't care about the welfare of babies? And others, as evidenced by the comment support count, actually support your statement? But if one supports aborting babies, that proves they care about their welfare? One would also have to reach the conclusion that you believe that people who support the Catholic Church's position oppose universal health care? I would love to hear your logic. Please.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:16 a.m.

No one is being forced to take contraceptives. Insurers are being forced to provide basic coverage.

leaguebus

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.

We are 29th in the world in infant mortality. Behind many third world countries. Why, because we do not have universal health care. Women without health care do not visit the doctor while they are pregnant and babies die. Of course, the poor peoples babies die, but the rich who can afford health care have healthy babies. President Obama is trying to save all these babies with somewhat universal health care. It is amazing how people so against abortion, don't care if we lose thousands of babies because of lack of proper health care.

jns131

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.

Far reaching? Might want to bend over and grab your ankles. This is going to be a painful ride.

Scylding

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 5:39 a.m.

@Ryan Stanton. I marched there with over 300 people, and there were already hundreds there. But, since you claim that aerial photos prove otherwise, why don't you provide the link and proof for what time the photo was taken. Prove your point.

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:24 p.m.

Michigan Reader, no one is asking people who don't believe in birth control to take it themselves - or asking employers to directly hand birth control to their employees. They are simply asking that they don't exclude that in their general health care plans. What about women who need birth control to regulate other things about their reproductive system? I know women who are not sexually active - and who do not intend to be until they are ready to have children - who need to take birth control because it prevents ovarian cysts, excessive bleeding, and other painful issues. Do they have to suffer all of this simply because their medication could prevent a baby IF they were sexually active?

Michigan Reader

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:20 p.m.

Leaguebus--Nobody is trying to impose their religious beliefs on anybody, they're trying to express a right to practice their OWN.

leaguebus

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:20 p.m.

So its OK to impose your religious opinions on me?

Ryan J. Stanton

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.

There were nowhere near 2,000 there. Aerial photos confirm that. A few people's observations, including my own rough count, indicate there were a few hundred at most.

maallen

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 4:39 a.m.

@Nichole, Women do have a choice: Can a female get a prescription for birth control if they want it? Yes Can a woman go to the pharmacy to fill that prescription? Yes Can a woman go to a community organization to get birth control at little or no cost? Yes So what choice does a woman not have? And since the government is forcing employers to cover this for free, why stop there. Employees don't have a choice as to which mutual funds are in their 401(k) plans. The government should start mandating away!

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:30 p.m.

Scylding, this is exactly the issue that's currently being debated: whether or not people DO have that right. Currently, no, employers are not REQUIRED to offer benefits to their employees. Does that mean that they shouldn't be?

Scylding

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 5:32 a.m.

@Nicole, you did not answer Michigan Reader's question. From where does an employee derive a "right" to a job benefit? All you did was blather on about what you think is fair, just, and is a right, based on your own judgments, but you didn't substantiate from where the right to benefits legally derives. You have to argue this derivation under the auspices of constitutional law. So, let's hear it.

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:02 a.m.

Larry, no one is requiring anything of "the church" - they are requiring it of employers of all religions. Why should religiously affiliated organizations be allowed to skirt a law that applies to everyone else? I don't believe in everything our government does, but I can't cry "religion" or "principle" and magically get out of it.

larry

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:10 a.m.

ak3647 Couple of things. First of all, your numbers are off. Secondly, you seem to miss the point completely. Odama is mandating BY LAW that the Church do things that violate it's own beliefs and teachings. The Church is not mandating anything BY LAW. Anyone is free to leave or join the Church out of their own volition. It's that simple. Really. I'm not kidding.

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:03 p.m.

Michigan Reader, I believe that any human being DOES have the right to basic health care. And I believe that includes reproductive health. If an employer offers health care, but specifically excludes birth control in that coverage - for reasons based on their own religion and nothing more - I do not believe that that is fair or just.

Michigan Reader

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.

Nichole--Employees don't have a right to ANY benefit from their employers. Where do you get these "rights?" Do you mean employees are entitled to make policy for their employers?

Larry Langly

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:56 p.m.

Rulieg.... nice non-sequitor. I better comparsion would be a Muslim owned business excluding any services performed by doctors of the opposite sex. Obama is forcing any Christian to buy and use contraception......

rulieg

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.

I would love to see Obama mandate that Muslim women must go to male doctors! let's see that happen...but don't hold your breath.

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:10 p.m.

Rob, I am saying that "Religious Freedom" means that people have every right to their own religion, whatever that religion may be. However, an employer's religious viewpoints should not control the rights of their employees. No one is forcing people who don't believe in contraceptives to take them. This law simply asks that people be give the choice, so that they may follow their own moral compass. By definition "Religious Freedom" means that EVERYONE has a right to their own views - why should one group's religious perspective hold control over an external party?

Rob Skrobola

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.

Nichole, You're saying that religion shouldn't have any place in the issue of religious freedom? Or just that religious freedom should just be ignored for any question that actually matters to you? Rob

Scylding

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:19 p.m.

Hey ak3647, if the JW's could buy insurance that excluded blood transfusions to their employees, I would not want the state to make them cover them. If the Christian Scientists wanted to forgo health insurance for their employees, I say the government has no right to make them provide it. So, what selective application are you talking about?

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.

You're exactly right - and at what point do we draw the line? We can't just pick and choose which religions are "right enough". Either we say religion doesn't have a place in this conversation, or we have to bow to EVERYONE'S religious principles... and that gets very messy very quickly.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.

jns: You do realize that it's Congress that passes the laws and not the President, right?

jns131

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.

And we have no say what so ever as to whether or not we want this or not. We get what we pay for and I did not sign up for this. I really hope Obama is out in November. Otherwise, going to be a long 4 years of him.

Johnny5k

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.

There might have been closer to 500 or 700 adults and lot more kids there for a total of well over 1000. They were trying to count everyone by filling out cards but I was there and wasn't able to fill out a card. I'd be curious to see that their count came out to since that would likely be a very good estimate.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:12 a.m.

The government is not regulating religion, it is regulating insurance. If the Jehovah's Witnesses did not want their insurance to pay for vital blood transfusions for its secular employees, would that be allowed? What if a different religion had other exemptions it wanted? No, if the Catholic Church wants to be an insurance company then it must play by the rules of insurers set by the government.

Larry Langly

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.

Pretty much all laws restrict someone's freedom in some way, that is how a civilized country works. Welcome to civilization. Why should your rights/freedoms trump others? That's what this is all about......

leaguebus

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.

During the Vietnam war I got drafted into the Marine Corps. I did not want to go, but I did. There are things good and bad we have to do because we are Americans. If we let every person do what they wanted to do, we might as well dissolve the union. This goes for all not just the religious.

margo

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.

Give to Ceasar what is his and to god what is his.

Johnny5k

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:02 p.m.

They were quite generous though and gave the Catholic church 12 months to modify it's 2000 year old religious principles. (sarcasm) :-p

djm12652

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 6:59 p.m.

Exactly. How would people feel if the Government mandated that they no longer own vehicles or wear only certain types of clothing? It's about the Government forcing people to do things that may go against their beliefs...would it be fair if the Government told people they could only have one child? Oh wait...China already does that...and as soon as the U of M starts paying taxes on the wealth of property they own, the Church will too!

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.

For WHOM is birth control inexpensive? Personally, it is something I have to budget for, even with help from my insurance company. Additionally, how would this effect, say, a teacher in a Catholic school? Would she be denied birth control coverage from her employer, even if she does personally believe in using birth control? There are many deeply religious people who cannot afford to have children and even have difficulty affording birth control on their own, what are their options? To not be intimate with their spouse? Does the Church have the right to say a woman cannot be intimate with her husband if she cannot afford birth control or children?

Sandie Weathers

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 1:24 a.m.

We are asking the government to stay out of the church and stop telling us what to believe! This is government overreach plane and simple. They are trying to do social engineering. Who are they to say they know what is best for everyone. Your rights are also being violated. The next right they go after may be freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the Rights of Conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." Thomas Jefferson

Scylding

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:35 p.m.

@jayjay: as if a plurality of "likes" in Ann Arbor would be the barometer by which I should measure the truthfulness of what I say. What if Martin Luther King had used that kind of a metric to determine the rightness of what he was saying to southern America during the Civil Rights movement?

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 7:19 p.m.

Scylding -- obviously few people agree with you -- look at my voter score here and in the comments. Maybe you should re-think what you wrote.

Scylding

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:18 p.m.

@Nichole: you know, what I said was too broad. From what your write, I can tell you really do care. I'm glad you are a Christian. However, I do maintain that the Biblical interpretation in which you were engaging does not aid your or jajay's argument at all. I, perhaps cynically, saw it as an attempt at an end run around the argument, which is a legal argument, not a theological one. Apparently, that is not what you consciously intended it to be. No offense intended. @jayjay: you wrap your last comment up with telling me to keep religion out of politics. I find that ironic, since my argument above does not depend, in the least, on theological interpretation and Nichole's did, and you found my request of her to remove theology from her argument to be intolerant. You are arguing against yourself, and you don't even realize it.

Lovaduck

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:10 p.m.

Separation of church and state does not mean that Churches cannot speak out in public on what they consider to be moral issues, whether you or I agree with them or not. You really don't understand what the First Amendment is about here. Sorry!

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.

Re-reading scylding's reply to Nicole -- Wow, it is no wonder the nation is being torn apart. The total disregard for her thoughts is disappointing to say the least. To tell her to stay out of interpretting Catholic scripture -- then my dear Mr (or Ms) scylding, whatever you are (almost certainly a Mr. given the vitrolic response to Nicole), you need to keep religion out of American politics. We do not need a theocracy; we do not want a theocracy, though you apparently do. Which church and which teachings would we follow? Ask Rick Santorum -- he'll tell you! And do all non-catholics support that? I doubt it. Nicole, thank you for some very insightful comments. It is a pleasure reading what you write.

jayjay

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.

A couple of comments. First scylding -- sometimes silence is the best answer to a question that should never have been asked. That Nicole took up the banner, I laud her for that. She provided a very cogent and succint response. Second to Ann23 -- No, I do not begin to suggest that only atheists and agnostics should be allowed to have a political say. All I am saying is that when a church or a religion want to have a political voice, like all political voices, they need to pay their far share of taxes. The US revolution started over "taxation without representation". You also should not have "Representation w/o Taxation"! If the Catholic church (of which I am a member) wants to influence politics and impose its tenets, then it needs to pay the taxes it avoids today. And there is nothing that stops anyone (on their own and not in the name of religion) from having a voice. In a democratic society, the common good must outweigh the individual wants, and that clearly is not the stance of the protest movement in Ann Arbor over the HHS mandate.

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:55 p.m.

Scylding, I believe it is unfair of you to state that because my position on this issue is different than your own that I must not care about the Bible. I am a Christian. I was born (quite literally) and raised in the Church. What the Bible says is VERY important to me, and that's why I have read it as intimately as I have. Nowhere can I find a textual basis for your argument - and since so many people debate on when life begins (and the Bible does not tell us), it's much hazier to debate the argument against the morning after pill.

Scylding

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 5:12 a.m.

Now, regarding your little theological excursion into the Biblical pronouncements on contraception, I don't believe for a second that what the Bible says really matters to any of you who are arguing the legitimacy of this law. You're grasping at straws to win an argument. You would dismiss, in a heartbeat, anyone asserting something regarding our law on the basis of the Bible, so you should not be arguing a legal point with Biblical interpretation. The law is founded on the constitution, and the constitution contains the 1st Amendment, which, as Nichole explains, protects the free exercise of religion. That's the argument in a nutshell. It's no business of yours how Catholics go about interpreting scripture. I also notice, however, that you went after what you saw as the weakest link in the Catholic position, contraception. Let's talk "morning after pill," shall we? How sick is it that you all want religious employers, like convents and churches, to have to pay for insurance coverage for the supply of abortion inducing drugs for their employees? Really? You want Obama not to fail that much that you want to force churches to cover that? Keep your argument clean and get out of the theology business. There was a religious sect, back in the 80's I believe (researched it once, not gonna take the time to look it up now), that regularly performed animal sacrifice; they sacrificed live animals on altars. Don't think they were basing it on the Bible. A municipality enacted a law prohibiting their sacrifices. They sued the municipality and the case went to the Supreme Court. They won. The court struck the law down. I'm sure you could find a way to discredit the textual authority for their sacrifices, but your effort would be wasted. You don't get to decide what is legitimate religious practice for them; nor do you get to decide what is sound Biblical doctrine for Christian Churches.

Scylding

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 4:52 a.m.

Ding ding ding ding ding.....Nichole answers correctly for the silent jayjay, the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was first verbalized in a letter from Jefferson to Baptist leaders assuring them that the government would not co-opt their prerogatives. Get that? That the government would not inflict itself on the church, would not invade its turf and boss it around. Now that we all understand that that was the origin of the phrase, let's talk about the direct foundation in our founding documents for the basis of this protection of religious expression, and that is, as Nichole explains, the 1st Amendment, which she quotes accurately. Notice the language about congress being prohibited from passing a law that restricts the free exercise of religion? Well, that's exactly what is happening here, with the government telling the church that it must provide coverage for the morning after pill, an abortofacient (that means "abortion causing"), and for sterilization and contraception. It is a clear over-reach on the federal government's part that totally violates the 1st Amendment and restricts religious employers' ability to exercise their faith freely, as they have since the inception of the nation. Not just contraception, but abortion, also, is anathema to their faith, yet the government is forcing them to conscience it. Totally unconstitutional. (To be continued.)

Ann23

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:04 a.m.

@jayjay Why should people with a pro-God religion stay out of politics? Are you saying that only the opinions of Athiests and Agnostics should matter?

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11 p.m.

Michigan Reader, how is preventing something from happening the same as murder?

Michigan Reader

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:04 p.m.

@Nichole--The Bible bans murder. It doesn't explicitly ban shooting someone in the head with a gun either, does it? The pill causes the death of the human being by not allowing it to implant in the womb.

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:33 p.m.

Scylding, how come it is ignorant and pig-headed for the government to ask employers to cover birth control for their employees, but not ignorant or pig-headed for an employer to deny an employee health coverage that they may need? However, you are right - the Constitution does not declare a "separation of Church and State". Thomas Jefferson first brought it up (in the context of the United States - it's actually a very ancient notion) in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It was again brought up by the United States Supreme Court in 1878 and numerous times since. Many point to The First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as proof of "separation of Church and State"... it comes pretty close, I'd say. TheGerman is also correct. Nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly prohibit birth control. Many point to Genesis 38:8-10, which reads, "Then Judah said to Onan, "Sleep with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death also." This, to me, is a little more debatable. Is Onan wrong because he spilled seed? Or wrong because he spilled seed after God told him not to? So, okay, maybe the State never explicitly calls for a separation between itself and the Church. But nor does the Bible explicitly ban birth control.

TheGerman

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.

Scylding - Please point me to the exact verbage in the Bible that prohibits birth control.

a2cents

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:19 p.m.

and if someone objects to paying for birthing Catholics, what then?

Scylding

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.

To say that a law forcing religious employers to pay for abortions and other things which their religious beliefs strictly prohibit is not a violation of religious freedom is unbelievably ignorant and pig-headed. Also, jajay, since you know so much about this "secular issue," why don't you show me where the words "separation of church and state" exist in our founding documents. Not that I'm saying there aren't protections that prohibit the state from co-opting the prerogatives of the church, because there are, I just want to see you point out where that phrase exists in our founding documents. I'll watch for your answer.

Sandie Weathers

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 1:10 a.m.

Thinker, I helped organize the rally yesterday. We handed out cards and ask those attending to report how many people they brought with them and the tally was over 1,100. Unfortunately we ran out of cards very early because the attendance was so much greater that we had anticipated. Based on the 225 balloons, 250 signs and 3 dozen flags we handed out, by looking at the pictures you can tell the number was probably well more than 2,000 in attendance because we also ran out of the balloons, signs and flags very early.

A2centsworth

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:31 a.m.

@ Jim Osborne- The church policing themselves? Not very effectively indeed.

Jim Osborn

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:28 a.m.

@"Susie Q" (Afraid to use your real name?) You'll be waiting a very long time since 10 years ago many Americans in the Catholic church did indeed protest this unfortunate chapter in the chuch's past. Many changes were made as a result. If you are not Catholic you would not have witnessed it since it happened inside the church and was not something to which where a protest to those outside of the church would be directed. This imposition by the Obama Administration to require the Catholic church, via its hospitals and universities and schools to provide abortions and other medical procedures is different since it is someone outside the church (Obama) affecting it and not someone inside it (priests). Please

Susie Q

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:56 a.m.

I am still waiting to see the protests and outrage over the priest pedophilia cases. I don't remember the "Church" being as outraged about their priests routinely victimizing children as they are about adult women filling contraceptive prescriptions. Religious freedom? Give me a break. Freedom to molest?

johnnya2

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 11:49 p.m.

So if I as a Rastafarian choose to violate the LAW based on my "religous freedom" and smoke marijuana, you will protest outside a building? OR, if my religion calls for the sacrificing of virgins to "honor" my god, you will give me your child to do this? Nothing in the law says you MUST use birth control. I have to pay for MANY things your religion foists on us. You build a church on property that you pay no taxes on. You are allowed to run your funeral processions throughout the streets and delay me from my comings and goings while wasting gas and resources. You are allowed to not have alcohol sold on Xmas day, even though I believe I have the right to have it any day I PAY for it. I also pay for things like putting people to death in wars and death peanlties I do not believe in. Your entire group are lying if you look at FACTS. The CHURCH does nott actually have to proivvide it for their employees (the church being that which spreads RELIGION), BUT their secular BUSINESSES (hospitals, schools, universities) must provide it for the employees who choose it.

Scylding

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.

Thinker, I went to mass at St. Thomas and the whole congregation processed from there to the protest. I did a rough count of the congregation at the church and 300 would be a light estimate, maybe closer to 350. When we got to the protest, there were already hundreds of people there. I think that, with us included, there had to be at least 600 or 700 people there.

Brian Kuehn

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 6:07 p.m.

My untrained estimate is less than 1,000 and probably about 3-400 people. There may have been some coming/going so total attendence would be higher. A generally orderly crowd and it was composed of a broad spectrum of ages. This was from my observation as I walked by at 12:30pm.

Top Cat

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:28 p.m.

Don't ya love it. It's like throwing a firecracker into a bees nest.

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.

If you'll notice, I also said that I don't believe we should simply follow the principles of our founding fathers without question. They lived in a different world, at a different time. And they were simply men. Fallible, imperfect men, with their own prejudices. To simply say "Well, our Founding Fathers would have disagreed with this issue, so we should too" is to allow ourselves to be governed by people who lived and died more than 200 years ago - who lived in a world radically different from our own. I'm not saying we should throw it all out the window, I'm just saying we shouldn't theorize about what positions they may have had on an issue that their time never saw. And we certainly shouldn't use their prejudices to govern our own.

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 11:43 a.m.

Jack, I certainly do not think that being anti-Catholic is a good thing. I simply meant to state that many of our founding fathers were not conservative Christians - that many opposed religion of some sort or another. I don't necessarily agree with all the principles of our founding fathers, but I do think we'd do well to remind ourselves that they were not Puritanical and that some were rather radical.

Paul Epstein

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 10:18 a.m.

What was America founded on-----abstinence till age 43?

Jack

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 3:34 a.m.

Nicole - I certainly hope you are not suggesting that being anti-Catholic is a good thing? You statement sounds like it.

Nichole

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:58 a.m.

Larry, I do read my facts. I wrote that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were anti-Clerical, not that they were not Christian. Both DID self-identify as Christians. Additionally, many Deists also consider themselves Christian. For the record, plenty of Christians (myself included), can be modern, forward-thinking, AND believe in birth control. They are not mutually exclusive. So, please, explain to me which part of this is liberal lies?

larry

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 1:50 a.m.

Nichole: Check your facts. Quit spewing liberal lies. Out of the 55 Founding Fathers, 53 were Christian. Read your currency -- it says: In God We Trust. Top Cat: Great post. You can see by the Votes that the libs dominate this board. Thank God for the Church. These people are running this country into the ground, and they think THEY are somehow superior...

maallen

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 12:47 a.m.

1st 106 of 108 Universities in U.S. were Christian. Harvard was founded as a Christian school. The student handbook Rule #1 states: "Let every student be plainly instructed & earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is to know God & Jesus Christ; therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments 1777 Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles distribute throughout the 13 colonies. 1782 U.S. Congress declared "The Congress of the United States recommends & approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools" Pres. Washington's 1st Address gave thanks to God, mentioned God many times throughout speech. Proclaiming a National Day of Thanksgiving he said "...to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, humbly to implore His protection & favor" Pres. John Adams -a national day of fasting & prayer March 6, 1789 After signing the Dec. of Independence, Samuel Adams said "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." Thomas Jefferson wrote "I am a real christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrine of Jesus. Noah Webster: "In America, the foundational religion was Christianity. it was sown in the hearts of Americans through the home & private & public schools for centuries. Our liberty, growth, & prosperity was the result of a Biblical philosophy of life. Our continued freedom & success is dependent on our educating the youth of America in the principles of Christianity" "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ,His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, & benevolence; which acknowledges in every person, a brother a sister, & a citizen with equal rights. Th

clownfish

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.

I was waiting for Obamas jack booted thugs to roll in and enforce Marxist law. Turns out it was as much of a myth as his taking my guns, Wiemar scale inflation, death panels, Socialist school speeches, his "Muslim roots" and his Kenyan birth.

A2centsworth

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.

Yea Nicole! The voice of reason! Wonderfully intelligent comments!

leaguebus

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:59 p.m.

Nichole is one hundred percent correct in all she says. In this country, Christians have the opinion that God exists, while many, many, other people have different opinions. Why should I, if I work at Saint Joes Hospital not be able to purchase birth control pills with the Health Care that "I" pay for. Why, because Catholics have the opinion that birth control, for whatever reason is against their religion (even if over 90% use it). So you restrict my freedom because of your beliefs. Turn about it fair play. If you are in the business of health care you have no business making me abide by your opinions.

jns131

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:39 p.m.

topcat? You are so on the money. By the way don't we give HHS to Queen Elizabeth? Interesting thought in that article.

TommyJ

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:17 p.m.

I agree. Obama IS anti-freedom and anti-American.

djm12652

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 7:01 p.m.

Oh topcat you started it now..

Nichole

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 6:51 p.m.

TopCat, I think it may be you who has no understanding of the principles on which America was founded. Our "Founding Fathers" were not Puritans. They were extremely modern, forward-thinking people. If you have any doubt of the fact that fellows like Benjamin Franklin believed in the use of birth control, I suggest you look up some of his love-letters. Let's also not forget that most of our Founding Fathers were adamantly against Catholicism. Both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were completely anti-Clerical, and Thomas Paine (as well as a few others) were Deists. Moreover, despite what anyone believed over 230 years ago, times DO change. Afterall, you're receiving this news via the internet, not by horseback rider. John Locke set out the four principles that summarize the foundational concepts of the American experiment: that we are a land of liberty, a constitutional republic, a free market, and a free society. What does denying birth control to women who need it (for any reason, from any employer), have to do with those principles?

Aaron Harburg

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 2:02 a.m.

Here are some photos I took of the event. https://picasaweb.google.com/100619255474096230233/032312RallyForReligiousFreedom?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCL-E4tK48o2iPw&feat=directlink

Ben Connor Barrie

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.

I think the pictures were taken from the windows of the office buildings on Liberty and 5th and Liberty and 4th.

Johnny5k

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 6:48 p.m.

Why were there no pictures taken from across the street where you can actually see how many people were there? They did a good job of every angle but missed the most important shot. Looks like it was on purpose.

thinker

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 5:48 p.m.

Your site is so full of misinformation! There were more than a few nuns and families! Also, contraception is NOT safer than pregnancy. Most women are pregnant but a few times in their lives, and that protects them from breast cancer, unless they have an abortion, in which case the rate of breast cancer goes up. Birth control pills cause breast cancer, blood clots and infertility for when a women does want a child. And many women are on the pill for years, so the risk rises.

Ben Connor Barrie

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

Gah! Curse you new comment system! Let's see if this works: http://www.damnarbor.com/2012/03/contraception-protest-in-front-of.html