Quote:
Originally Posted by janmcn
This is what confuses me too. President Obama came up with a compromise that said the church would not have to pay for contraceptive care, that insurance companies would pay. I have not heard one insurance company complain, probably because contraception is less expensive than pre-natal care or abortions.
This is the confusing part. For some reason, some in the Catholic Church said that is not good enough. They didn't want to pay for it, they don't have to pay for it, what is the argument? I know nothing about the Catholic Church, and I have no dog in the fight for birth control.
|
thanx for the response, janmcn; i think we are on the same page...and the next bruhaha was that if ins cos had to pay the freight and provide the covg, the church and any other employer would likely see a rise in their cost for the ins premium since the ins cos were not likely to just donate this portion of coverage...and NO one wants to pay more for ins covg these days!
so, indeed, if the prob is as we understand it do be...how on earth did this get turned into an attack on women/women's health/reproductive rights and create a production such as the op presented? no one is denying women that right...they just have to pay for it...kind of like a user fee.
