What the Catholic bishops really want

[August West]

I understand that liberals really want to push this as a birth control issue, but it isn't.

[davester]

Trouble wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
I agree with Spock.

You can agree with whomever you want, but birth control and/or the Catholic sex abuse issue have nothing to do with this. I understand that liberals really want to push this as a birth control issue, but it isn't.
Wow! Those must be really powerful drugs.

[Ted King]

Grace62 wrote:
Anthony Picarello is the attorney for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (that must be a challenging job.)

Anyway, he says that it's not just a religious exemption from birth control coverage that the Bishops want. They want the part about mandatory coverage without copay removed from the health care bill in its entirety. In other words, NOBODY has to offer this.

Why? Because now they say this provision violates the religious freedom of individual Catholics who might own a business that offers health insurance.

Assuming those reports are true, what does that imply about what would have happened if the Obama administration had agreed all along to an extended exemption for religious institutions to include things like hospitals and colleges? To me it implies that the Bishops would still have raised a ruckus - the exemption that extends to hospitals and colleges isn't enough, we want religious exemptions for all Catholic business owners! Maybe Obama saw that coming and decided to offer up less so that he can give in on exempting hospitals and colleges as a compromise - without the Bishops getting the exemption they want for Catholic business owners.

[Trouble]

August West wrote:

I understand that liberals really want to push this as a birth control issue, but it isn't.

You're preaching to the choir. Portraying this as a "birth control" issue is a straw man.

[mattkime]

I'd bet that few catholic parishioners agree. They haven't taken a vow of celibacy.

[Lux Interior]

Grace62 wrote:
Anyway, he says that it's not just a religious exemption from birth control coverage that the Bishops want. They want the part about mandatory coverage without copay removed from the health care bill in its entirety. In other words, NOBODY has to offer this.

When Christians in this country say they are "persecuted," this is exactly what they are talking about. To them, persecution has nothing to do with them being prevented or forbidden from being a Christian. What it does mean is that the government is not letting them force non-Christians (and Christians who don't agree with them) to abide by the rules of their religion.

Legal abortion? Religious persecution.

Legal birth control? Religious persecution.

Gays can marry? Religious persecution.

[Trouble]

Lux Interior wrote: Legal abortion? Religious persecution.

Legal birth control? Religious persecution.

Gays can marry? Religious persecution.

Could you be any more wrong?

[Lux Interior]

Trouble wrote:
Could you be any more wrong?

Yes. A lot more.

[Acer]

It's usually couched in slippery slope terms, though.

1. Allow gay marriage
2. ????????
3. Christians eaten by lions in the Coliseum

[DCrunch]

President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees.

Instead, the White House is demanding that insurance companies be responsible for providing free contraception.

Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama's health care law that he insisted must remain.

But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.

"Religious liberty will be protected," said Obama from the press briefing room of the White House. He said religious groups had "genuine concerns" about the original mandate and criticized those seeking to turn the issue into a "political football."