Virginia ban on Birth Control

[Guest]

Someone please tell me I misunderstood the news last night on this issue. If I heard correctly, Republican politicians in the State of Virginia are trying to pass a law that would make birth control pills illegal. Have they lost their mind? OMG

I keep hearing from my side (Conservatives) that government is too big and invasive into our lives.

WELL:::::::::::::: When government makes decisions about your reproductive life don't you feel that is more invasive than supporting a healthy lunch for children.

I think we all need to do some meditation and stop believing in someone else's interpretation of GOD's will. All we hear anymore is how you will be punished for this or that. Lets go back to the all loving GOD and focus on the positive for a moment. Like a lady on this site that I respect, she approaches Faith in a positive way and I listen closely to what she says. Then there is the six pac mentality that uses the gloom and doom method of your going to burn without any hope for forgiveness.

Example: (1) I go off the deep end and make a dumb statement.

(2) Katz will correct me and even suggest a better path with kindness.

(3) My 6 pac friend will call me a few slanderous names including liar.

In my opinion, there are two idiots out of three above. Can you pick the one smart person?

Is a wrong OK if it is done by our party.

Is a good thing not OK if it is done by the other party.

In case it is difficult to guess, number (2) is the smart one.

[Guest]

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Blog (http://prochoiceva.wordpress.com/)

[Guest]

TVII, I would love to be able to say that I am speechless! But LOL, ya gotta know that ain't gonna happen, especially on this subject! I can't even take this advice from Honest Abe-"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln 16th president of US (1809 - 1865). Maybe not so smart after all. I also think that you and I both know a loving God who has already taken our punishment upon Himself (YEAH!)...since He and we all know that none of us is perfect.

This from Posh 08's link-'It’s time to show lawmakers that Virginians can see through this insidious attempt to undermine reproductive rights in Virginia and that we reject its goals of outlawing all abortion and attacking women’s access to common forms of birth control like the pill, emergency contraception and IUDs."


Virginia General Assembly: The "Personhood" Bill Passed in the House, Unborn Child A Person At Conception [AUDIO] | KissRichmond (http://kissrichmond.com/the-804/misscommunityclovia/virginia-general-assembly-the-personhood-bill-passed-in-the-house-unborn-child-a-person-at-conception-audio/)

Virginia delegates pass two of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills ever presented to a state legislature - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/virginia-delegates-pass-restrictive-anti-abortion-bills-presented-a-state-legislature-article-1.1023217?localLinksEnabled=false)

:clap2::clap2::clap2:It appears that the Virginina House of Delegates has chosen to pass a law giving rights to the "unborn", basically they are declaring that life begins at conception! :a040:This does not mean that they have banned contraception. Contra is latin for against or opposite + Conceptio is latin for conceive= contraception. Therefore a contraception is something that is against conception, prevents conception, etc...This law is giving rights to the results of conception. Apparently, rights to those whose conception was not prevented. It does not outlaw methods to prevent conception.
I need to point out though, that IUD's are not a true form of contraception. The presence of a foreign body (an IUD-intrauterine device) in the uterus prevents the fertilized egg (conception has already taken place) from properly implanting into the uterine wall where it can gain nourishment and continue to grow and develop. This result in a very early miscarriage and the woman will never know she had even conceived.:ohdear:

[Guest]

Interesting, little publicized "side effects" of abortion...


As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer...
The Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer (http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/)

...abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40 percent...Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link (http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/121749/)


"There is an ominous relationship between the
abortion of your first pregnancy
and later development of breast cancer."...
Abortion Breast Cancer Link - Life Issues Institute (http://www.lifeissues.org/abortionbreastcancer/index.html)

[Guest]

Well, here's a list of those disputing that:

From Wikipedia:

The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies, including the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.


In fact, according to the American Cancer Society:


"The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer in women (lung cancer is the first). Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer."


Now let's look at the list of those supporting the link:

National Physicians Center for Family Resources
Catholic Medical Association
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
The Polycarp Research Institute
Ehtics and Medics
MaterCare International

7 groups, two of which you don't even have to go past the name to know they'll be biased. (CMA and AAPLOG)

It really doesn't surprise me that conservatives will seize upon only those groups who support their political views and ignore the vast majority of research. Not that they're alone in that, I've seen liberals do the same thing.

Off the top of my head, I'd listen to the American Cancer Society before *any* of those listed in the second group.

[Guest]

Someone please tell me I misunderstood the news last night on this issue. If I heard correctly, Republican politicians in the State of Virginia are trying to pass a law that would make birth control pills illegal. Have they lost their mind? OMG.


What kind of paranoid hysterical thread is this? A U.S. State banning birth control?

I know this didn't happen. It's lunacy. There isn't one news story anywhere to support what "you think" you heard.

[Guest]

smells a lot like chum on the waters to me!

btk

[Guest]

I had to check it out.

It would appear that there's a bill working it's way through the VA legislature that defines 'personhood' - that a fetus is a person. The effect of this is supposedly that it would ban many forms of birth control. Here are some quotes I found:

From Main Street Liberal (trying to keep the opinion out of it):


In Virginia, the Republicans backing the personhood measure in that state had a chance to take the birth control argument off the table entirely. A Democratic Delegate Vivian Watts tried to attach an amendment to the Virginia bill that would declare nothing in that bill could be construed to outlaw any form of legal contraception. Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates voted no on that by a huge margin. The vote was 64 to 34 against taking birth control out of the equation.

So, in Virginia, Republicans had a wide open opportunity to say this personhood thing, this bill is only about banning abortion, we do not want to ban birth control.


From Channel 4 in Washington DC:
Afternoon Read: Virginia GOP Stirring Controversy Nationwide | NBC4 Washington (http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/Afternoon-Read-Virginia-GOP-Stirring-Controversy-Nationwide-139390818.html)

The GOP government has lobbied for bills that define personhood at conception, allow private adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples and require women to get vaginal ultrasounds prior to abortions.


So it looks like hormonal birth control (evidently what most women use) would be banned because the law would protect zygotes, fertilized eggs, blastocytes, etc (whatever development term you want to use) and, when given an opportunity to say the bill WOULDN'T ban birth control, the Republicans refused.

I would imagine this would also ban IUDs.

[Guest]

What kind of paranoid hysterical thread is this? A U.S. State banning birth control?

I know this didn't happen. It's lunacy. There isn't one news story anywhere to support what "you think" you heard.

It's true Richie. Check your links. :a040:

[Guest]

Well, here's a list of those disputing that:

From Wikipedia:


In fact, according to the American Cancer Society:



Now let's look at the list of those supporting the link:

National Physicians Center for Family Resources
Catholic Medical Association
American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
The Polycarp Research Institute
Ehtics and Medics
MaterCare International

7 groups, two of which you don't even have to go past the name to know they'll be biased. (CMA and AAPLOG)

It really doesn't surprise me that conservatives will seize upon only those groups who support their political views and ignore the vast majority of research. Not that they're alone in that, I've seen liberals do the same thing.

Off the top of my head, I'd listen to the American Cancer Society before *any* of those listed in the second group.


You never cease to amaze me with your knowledge and wisdom. What would this forum do without you to discern who to listen to and who's name to go right past.

[Guest]

I do not want any more government interference in the private loves of Americans.

[Guest]

I do not want any more government interference in the private loves of Americans.

I heartily agree with you on this. However, I must wonder how you square this with you post on school lunches?

"Obesity and diabetes are at almost epidemic stages. They are hurting our country in many ways and costing you and me billions of dollars and having a crippling effect on our economy. We are a nation of fat pigs. We eat toomuch,we consume to much. Parenting in this country is a joke. Do whatever it takes to break the cycle. Check lunches,charge for healthcare by the pound,embarrass parents. I have no pity or feelings of sorrow."

[Guest]

You never cease to amaze me with your knowledge and wisdom. What would this forum do without you to discern who to listen to and who's name to go right past.

I agree Katz...I've begun to use my scroll wheel much faster now!

[Guest]

This is still ridiculous no matter how one reads the links provided. If they're discussing "personhood", the prevention of that "person" being conceived is not what they're talking about.

Are you telling me they're going to outlaw condoms?

Get real.

If you're talking about terminating a pregnancy as "birth control", then you've crossed a line that's not the subject at hand.

[Guest]

This is still ridiculous no matter how one reads the links provided. If they're discussing "personhood", the prevention of that "person" being conceived is not what they're talking about.

Are you telling me they're going to outlaw condoms?

Get real.

If you're talking about terminating a pregnancy as "birth control", then you've crossed a line that's not the subject at hand.

It's not the subject at hand, but it has been presented by the All-knowing liberal reporting/media to be the subject at hand. Hard to find the right pew, when one is in the wrong church!

[Guest]

As far as I could tell, condoms weren't on the hit list. What WAS on the hit list would be hormonal birth control - specifically the kind that would prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Condoms are something that the *Vatican* wants banned, not Virginia.

[Guest]

As far as I could tell, condoms weren't on the hit list. What WAS on the hit list would be hormonal birth control - specifically the kind that would prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Condoms are something that the *Vatican* wants banned, not Virginia.

If the egg is fertilized, conception has taken place already. Hence, according to this law, this new person has rights-the right to life. This "hormonal birth control" would not qualify as a contraceptive method, since it can not prevent conception. Nuff said!

[Guest]

Of course, you *do* know what the upshot would be with that, yes?

It means that any miscarriage would, by law, have to be investigated to see if there was something like involuntary manslaughter.

I mean, in extreme cases, you're talking about having the Period Police.

According to what I've read, there are a lot more conceptions than you might think. One study said as many as 33% of pregnancies end in miscarriages.

Putting a personal bend on this, my ex-wife might have had to prove she did nothing wrong when she miscarried.

Even *Alabama* just voted down such a referendum.

...because the government would *never* abuse it's powers or try to do any power trips. (..he said while reading another story about TSA abuses)

[Guest]

Given the continual retractions from the medical community on so many issues it does confuse the majority of us. Coffee is good for you coffe is bad for you. Over doing vitamins will damgw your health,,,maga doses of vitamins extend longevity blah blah blah.

Medicine will never be a settled science. In the mean time people live on make errors, commit themselves to the wrong course in life.

Many states have a continual struggle with the legalities of "personhood" or the legalities of "a viable fetus" when it comes to crime and negligent acts.
If a person shoots a pregnant woman or runs over in her in a car accident did the perpetrator kill one person or two?

If I am the surviving father and my expectations of fatherhood had been crushed isn't it likely that i would feel that I lost two people?

One of the complaints of the VA law is that it is intrusive but is it anymore intrusive than an abortion?

Not so obvious is the denigration of a society when the sancity of life is lowered. Evolutionist explain those with the strongest desire to survive do

The case in Virginia will continue to be challenged but it is beneficial dialogue

[Guest]

I think this is really all about who has to pay for it. The laws being considered around the country are to allow insurance companies to just not be obligated to pay for birth control.
It's not to make hormonal birth control illegal.

Birth control would not be illegal, it would just not be covered by insurance. I don't see why it should, logically. What medical problem is it addressing. I think there is a reason beyond just preventing pregnancy that lead to a prescription of birth control pill, but I don't remember what. I'm sure someone is going to remind me.

I remember one snarky comment on this forum in another thread that if this is the case then Viagra shouldn't be covered. But men who are prescribed Viagra are prescribed this drug because of a medical problem and condition. This is not the case with birth control for a healthy woman.

[Guest]

Should vasectomies then not be paid for by insurance? :ohdear:

And there is no medical necessity involved in Viagra..... although some would probably raise it to a life and death issue. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

Should vasectomies then not be paid for by insurance? :ohdear:

And there is no medical necessity involved in Viagra..... although some would probably raise it to a life and death issue. :icon_wink:

:1rotfl:

[Guest]

Should vasectomies then not be paid for by insurance? :ohdear:

And there is no medical necessity involved in Viagra..... although some would probably raise it to a life and death issue. :icon_wink:

Mental health and sexual health is a bonafide medical necessity, I would think. You have a point with vasectomy, though.

Is vasectomy coverage by insurance companies mandated by law?

[Guest]

I'm sorry, but if regulating a woman's period isn't covered, neither should the completely one-sided argument in favor of Viagara be allowed.

Or perhaps it should be but only if the man is married and can supply documented proof that the sex was with his wife and was for procreation only. We can call this The Santorum Ammendment. (He's made statements as to what sex should and shouldn't be for)

[Guest]

Mental health and sexual health is a bonafide medical necessity, I would think. You have a point with vasectomy, though.

Is vasectomy coverage by insurance companies mandated by law?

I don't have a clue. There must be a link somewhere that will tell you. :icon_wink:

[Guest]

I'm sorry, but if regulating a woman's period isn't covered, neither should the completely one-sided argument in favor of Viagara be allowed.

Or perhaps it should be but only if the man is married and can supply documented proof that the sex was with his wife and was for procreation only. We can call this The Santorum Ammendment. (He's made statements as to what sex should and shouldn't be for)

You were just commended by Barefoot in another post, but IMHO this reference to a "Santorum Amendment" is quite "snarky".

[Guest]

Richie: I'll go this far. I'll admit that I can see how someone can interperet that as "snarky". I wasn't intending to be that way. I was intending to point out that Santorum is the only major candidate who is actually on record as for what kind of sex is "ok" (to my knowledge).

Specifically, he said it was for married couples only and for the purpose of creating children. So, if that's the case, in a hypothetical Santorum administration, Viagara shouldn't be covered unless it for sex to produce a kid for a married couple.

[Guest]

Richie: I'll go this far. I'll admit that I can see how someone can interperet that as "snarky". I wasn't intending to be that way. I was intending to point out that Santorum is the only major candidate who is actually on record as for what kind of sex is "ok" (to my knowledge).

Specifically, he said it was for married couples only and for the purpose of creating children. So, if that's the case, in a hypothetical Santorum administration, Viagara shouldn't be covered unless it for sex to produce a kid for a married couple.

You mean Santorum will do this by Executive Order?

[Guest]

I'm guessing Santorum is all for the state-ordered trans-vaginal probe approved by the republican legislature and governor of Virginia, Santorum's home state.

[Guest]

I am just amazed at the folks who are up in arms to have a simple, painless transvaginal ultrasound on women who are pregnant...not virgins mind you. FYI, the size of the probe being used is about the diameter of a slender tampon. I manage an ultrasound department at a teaching hospital, so I have seen the probe. So give us all a break on the inference that the procedure is tortuous.

[Guest]

I am just amazed at the folks who are up in arms to have a simple, painless transvaginal ultrasound on women who are pregnant...not virgins mind you. FYI, the size of the probe being used is about the diameter of a slender tampon. I manage an ultrasound department at a teaching hospital, so I have seen the probe. So give us all a break on the inference that the procedure is tortuous.

You probably have the patient's permission to do these probes, unlike the Virginia law which forces this state-mandated trans vaginel probe on women without their permission.

[Guest]

To have the same party that complains of government intrusion in private affairs mandating such a physical intrusion is quite the irony.

[Guest]

To have the same party that complains of government intrusion in private affairs mandating such a physical intrusion is quite the irony.

It's way way way less invasive than the abortion.

[Guest]

You probably have the patient's permission to do these probes, unlike the Virginia law which forces this state-mandated trans vaginel probe on women without their permission.

They are mandating the ultrasound prior to the abortion. The comparison between what the woman goes through with the ultrasound and the actual abortion procedure is night and day. She won't even feel the ultrasound...and once the abortion is complete, she will wish she had stopped with the ultrasound. Why don't you google what actually happens with an abortion, or check out a youtube video. You might learn something, something very graphic, gorey, and painfully disturbing.

[Guest]

This is mandated terrorism on a woman. Her body, her choice. It is Federal law that gives a woman free choice. A state mandating invasive procedures violates her dignity.

'Nuff said on this matter, too.

[Guest]

I cant believe women will stand by and let theur rights be trampled by these groups. Its their body,their choice.

[Guest]

This is mandated terrorism on a woman. Her body, her choice. It is Federal law that gives a woman free choice. A state mandating invasive procedures violates her dignity.

'Nuff said on this matter, too.

How about the terrorism on the ody of the unborn child? A forcep is put through the artificially dilated cervix to tear each leg and arm off and pull it out. Then the body is crushed and torn from the head to pull it out. The head is also crushed to be pulled through the tiny opening. Talk about pain! Pain for both the mother and the baby. Violation of dignity? Who's dignity? I'd say there are two victims of an abortion. If a slender little probe can give the mom a birdseye view of the tiny face and hands, beating heart and gently closed eyelids-it could save mom a life of mental anguish and give a child a chance to someday read and post on a political forum while sipping a cool drink poolside in America's Friendliest Home Town.

[Guest]

How about the terrorism on the ody of the unborn child? A forcep is put through the artificially dilated cervix to tear each leg and arm off and pull it out. Then the body is crushed and torn from the head to pull it out. The head is also crushed to be pulled through the tiny opening. Talk about pain! Pain for both the mother and the baby. Violation of dignity? Who's dignity? I'd say there are two victims of an abortion. If a slender little probe can give the mom a birdseye view of the tiny face and hands, beating heart and gently closed eyelids-it could save mom a life of mental anguish and give a child a chance to someday read and post on a political forum while sipping a cool drink poolside in America's Friendliest Home Town.

I don't think the liberals can comment on your post. I'm not sure it's in their talking points. Liberals don't really want to know what's in there, they just think they have a constitutional right to kill it.

[Guest]

I think this is really all about who has to pay for it. The laws being considered around the country are to allow insurance companies to just not be obligated to pay for birth control.
It's not to make hormonal birth control illegal.

Birth control would not be illegal, it would just not be covered by insurance. I don't see why it should, logically. What medical problem is it addressing. I think there is a reason beyond just preventing pregnancy that lead to a prescription of birth control pill, but I don't remember what. I'm sure someone is going to remind me.

I remember one snarky comment on this forum in another thread that if this is the case then Viagra shouldn't be covered. But men who are prescribed Viagra are prescribed this drug because of a medical problem and condition. This is not the case with birth control for a healthy woman.

Richie.... so sorry but on this point:

But men who are prescribed Viagra are prescribed this drug because of a medical problem and condition. This is not the case with birth control for a healthy woman.

Birth Control pills are used for conditions other than birth control. In fact in my teens I was given these pills in an attempt to control pain. I am providing a link to support this...

Now to the snarky comment, cause I said it..... The Catholic Bishops will not compromise on this issue. As a person who who was raised as a Catholic I can remember being told "Sex is for procreation NOT recreation." Viagra for men whose wives are unable to have children, under the teachings of the church, would be the same as the use of birth control.

But this brings up a larger point... Birth control prevents, to a large extent, unwanted pregnancies. Something I would think those who are against abortion would support. If the pregnancies are not prevented then the children produced have to be supported. But those who are opposed to birth control seem also to be opposed to safety net.

Seems silly to support the men to create, children but not support women to prevent them.


Sexism is alive and well.

[Guest]

TVII, I would love to be able to say that I am speechless! But LOL, ya gotta know that ain't gonna happen, especially on this subject! I can't even take this advice from Honest Abe-"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln 16th president of US (1809 - 1865). Maybe not so smart after all. I also think that you and I both know a loving God who has already taken our punishment upon Himself (YEAH!)...since He and we all know that none of us is perfect.

This from Posh 08's link-'It’s time to show lawmakers that Virginians can see through this insidious attempt to undermine reproductive rights in Virginia and that we reject its goals of outlawing all abortion and attacking women’s access to common forms of birth control like the pill, emergency contraception and IUDs."


Virginia General Assembly: The "Personhood" Bill Passed in the House, Unborn Child A Person At Conception [AUDIO] | KissRichmond (http://kissrichmond.com/the-804/misscommunityclovia/virginia-general-assembly-the-personhood-bill-passed-in-the-house-unborn-child-a-person-at-conception-audio/)

Virginia delegates pass two of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills ever presented to a state legislature - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/virginia-delegates-pass-restrictive-anti-abortion-bills-presented-a-state-legislature-article-1.1023217?localLinksEnabled=false)

:clap2::clap2::clap2:It appears that the Virginina House of Delegates has chosen to pass a law giving rights to the "unborn", basically they are declaring that life begins at conception! :a040:This does not mean that they have banned contraception. Contra is latin for against or opposite + Conceptio is latin for conceive= contraception. Therefore a contraception is something that is against conception, prevents conception, etc...This law is giving rights to the results of conception. Apparently, rights to those whose conception was not prevented. It does not outlaw methods to prevent conception.
I need to point out though, that IUD's are not a true form of contraception. The presence of a foreign body (an IUD-intrauterine device) in the uterus prevents the fertilized egg (conception has already taken place) from properly implanting into the uterine wall where it can gain nourishment and continue to grow and develop. This result in a very early miscarriage and the woman will never know she had even conceived.:ohdear:

Good post KatzPajamas. My mother had an illness at birth which seriously harmed by development during the first six years and me very slow to develop after that. I am not operating on a whole brain from what I hear. But, then again, I think that can be said of a lot of people about and IN politics.

[Guest]

TVII, I would love to be able to say that I am speechless! But LOL, ya gotta know that ain't gonna happen, especially on this subject! I can't even take this advice from Honest Abe-"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln 16th president of US (1809 - 1865). Maybe not so smart after all. I also think that you and I both know a loving God who has already taken our punishment upon Himself (YEAH!)...since He and we all know that none of us is perfect.

This from Posh 08's link-'It’s time to show lawmakers that Virginians can see through this insidious attempt to undermine reproductive rights in Virginia and that we reject its goals of outlawing all abortion and attacking women’s access to common forms of birth control like the pill, emergency contraception and IUDs."


Virginia General Assembly: The "Personhood" Bill Passed in the House, Unborn Child A Person At Conception [AUDIO] | KissRichmond (http://kissrichmond.com/the-804/misscommunityclovia/virginia-general-assembly-the-personhood-bill-passed-in-the-house-unborn-child-a-person-at-conception-audio/)

Virginia delegates pass two of the most restrictive anti-abortion bills ever presented to a state legislature - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/virginia-delegates-pass-restrictive-anti-abortion-bills-presented-a-state-legislature-article-1.1023217?localLinksEnabled=false)

:clap2::clap2::clap2:It appears that the Virginina House of Delegates has chosen to pass a law giving rights to the "unborn", basically they are declaring that life begins at conception! :a040:This does not mean that they have banned contraception. Contra is latin for against or opposite + Conceptio is latin for conceive= contraception. Therefore a contraception is something that is against conception, prevents conception, etc...This law is giving rights to the results of conception. Apparently, rights to those whose conception was not prevented. It does not outlaw methods to prevent conception.
I need to point out though, that IUD's are not a true form of contraception. The presence of a foreign body (an IUD-intrauterine device) in the uterus prevents the fertilized egg (conception has already taken place) from properly implanting into the uterine wall where it can gain nourishment and continue to grow and develop. This result in a very early miscarriage and the woman will never know she had even conceived.:ohdear:

Good post KatzPajamas. My mother had an illness at birth (some kind of fever) which seriously harmed my development during the first six years of my life and made me very slow to develop after that. I am not operating on a whole brain from what I hear. But, then again, I think that can be said of a lot of people about and IN politics. Your links are very good too.

[Guest]

Richie.... so sorry but on this point:

But men who are prescribed Viagra are prescribed this drug because of a medical problem and condition. This is not the case with birth control for a healthy woman.

Birth Control pills are used for conditions other than birth control. In fact in my teens I was given these pills in an attempt to control pain. I am providing a link to support this...

Now to the snarky comment, cause I said it..... The Catholic Bishops will not compromise on this issue. As a person who who was raised as a Catholic I can remember being told "Sex is for procreation NOT recreation." Viagra for men whose wives are unable to have children, under the teachings of the church, would be the same as the use of birth control.

But this brings up a larger point... Birth control prevents, to a large extent, unwanted pregnancies. Something I would think those who are against abortion would support. If the pregnancies are not prevented then the children produced have to be supported. But those who are opposed to birth control seem also to be opposed to safety net.

Seems silly to support the men to create, children but not support women to prevent them.


Sexism is alive and well.


The point is; does the law require insurance companies to pay for Viagra?

It it doesn't, your argument is a moot point.

Also, no one on this forum has come out against birth control. Only the forcing of the Catholic Church to have to forfeit it's First Amendment Rights to pay for these drugs.

You're conveniently avoiding this Constitutional Issue.

[Guest]

The VA will provide Viagra free to you. That is Federal government. It is not being forced on men but is there free if they want it. Even Catholic priests could get free Viagra from the VA if they had served in the US Armed Forces (no questions asked as for their need).

[Guest]

The point is; does the law require insurance companies to pay for Viagra?

It it doesn't, your argument is a moot point.

Also, no one on this forum has come out against birth control. Only the forcing of the Catholic Church to have to forfeit it's First Amendment Rights to pay for these drugs.

You're conveniently avoiding this Constitutional Issue.

Ok....so if the Obama Adminstration came out and mandated that the Catholic Church provide boner meds to all men then you this would be ok.

Did I get that right?

[Guest]

Forget that cause I knew I could count on the hypocricy of the CHURCH!!

Catholic Health Insurance Covers Viagra - Insurance - Families.com (http://insurance.families.com/blog/catholic-health-insurance-covers-viagra)


They pay for boner meds.....

[Guest]

I hope the republican party and some posters keep up this charade about contraception. The vast majority of Americans support a womens right to contraception. 90% of catholic women use contraception. In most places it is not a big deal. And to constantly bring up abortion when the topic is contraception and trying to tie the two together is a greta Fox move but totally bogus. The catholic church is just stupid about this and if they are going to preach about it on Sunday then I say lets start taxing them.

[Guest]

I hope the republican party and some posters keep up this charade about contraception. The vast majority of Americans support a womens right to contraception. 90% of catholic women use contraception. In most places it is not a big deal. And to constantly bring up abortion when the topic is contraception and trying to tie the two together is a greta Fox move but totally bogus. The catholic church is just stupid about this and if they are going to preach about it on Sunday then I say lets start taxing them.


How is it logical that if the Catholic Church preaches against birth control drugs that they should lose their tax exempt status? Because you think it's stupid?

Do you not believe in Freedom of Religion? Or is it just the Catholic Church you want brought down?

[Guest]

How is it logical that if the Catholic Church preaches against birth control drugs that they should lose their tax exempt status? Because you think it's stupid?

Do you not believe in Freedom of Religion? Or is it just the Catholic Church you want brought down?

Richie...

The Catholic Church has the right to make its doctrine, however no church can impose its doctrine on others. No one is trying to make Catholic Hospitals perform abortions.... However, if they want to use the Affordable Healthcare Act as an employer then the should cover birth control pills as most insurance companies do. The compromise is to not make the Catholic Church PAY for these pills which then should relieve them off the moral burden. They are not taking nor paying for the pills.

But as I have said before the Bishops do NOT compromise.

[Guest]

Forget that cause I knew I could count on the hypocricy of the CHURCH!!

Catholic Health Insurance Covers Viagra - Insurance - Families.com (http://insurance.families.com/blog/catholic-health-insurance-covers-viagra)


They pay for boner meds.....

Such childish language on an adult forum :ohdear:

[Guest]

Such childish language on an adult forum :ohdear:

Whatever!!!

[Guest]

Ok....so if the Obama Adminstration came out and mandated that the Catholic Church provide boner meds to all men then you this would be ok.

Did I get that right?

No, you didn't. I'm just wondering if the government mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for E.D. medications. If they don't it's not analogous to the conversation about compelling coverage for birth control pills.

If the insurance companies are providing coverage of their own volition for marketing purposes, that's removes it from this discussion about forced coverage.

There was no need to be snarky. I keep getting accused on this forum of being mean and angry or some other nonsense. How am I supposed to respond to personally directed comments is beyond me.

[Guest]

You know, the catholic Church is allowed to keep a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in donations *TAX FREE*.

*Sometimes* I don't think I'd mind having my First Ammendment rights 'trampled' in such a manner. Go ahead - oppress me the same way.

[Guest]

You know, the catholic Church is allowed to keep a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in donations *TAX FREE*.

*Sometimes* I don't think I'd mind having my First Ammendment rights 'trampled' in such a manner. Go ahead - oppress me the same way.

The issue I have is that the Catholic Church uses some of that tax free money to help dictate political decisions made by our tax payer elected law makers. I know that REVEREND WRIGHT is doing the same thing and I say he is just as wrong as the Catholic Church.

[Guest]

You know, the catholic Church is allowed to keep a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in donations *TAX FREE*.

*Sometimes* I don't think I'd mind having my First Ammendment rights 'trampled' in such a manner. Go ahead - oppress me the same way.

Start a church and apply for official recognition and you're on your way to your dream.

Let me know how it goes.

[Guest]

I am starting a New Church, the First Church of Many Donations. First meeting is tonight. Bring lots of money. :pray::pepper2::bowdown:

[Guest]

No, you didn't. I'm just wondering if the government mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for E.D. medications. If they don't it's not analogous to the conversation about compelling coverage for birth control pills.

If the insurance companies are providing coverage of their own volition for marketing purposes, that's removes it from this discussion about forced coverage.

There was no need to be snarky. I keep getting accused on this forum of being mean and angry or some other nonsense. How am I supposed to respond to personally directed comments is beyond me.

Richie... I really not trying to be snarky...you used that word. In this case the Catholic Church, in contradiction, of their own teaching pay for ED medications.....but when it comes to women and birth control no matter what the reason they, as an employer, will not provide it.

Its the old double standard...one set of rules for the boys and one set for the girls.

[Guest]

Richie... I really not trying to be snarky...you used that word. In this case the Catholic Church, in contradiction, of their own teaching pay for ED medications.....but when it comes to women and birth control no matter what the reason they, as an employer, will not provide it.

Its the old double standard...one set of rules for the boys and one set for the girls.

I'm sorry Cologal, but I believe you're wrong on this again. The Church does not ban E.D. medications because they promote conception.

The Church bans birth control pills because they prevent conception by artificial means.

Did you know that the Church officially has a ban on the use of condoms for the same reason as they ban birth control pills? Because condoms artificially prevent conception.

There is controversy in the Church at it's highest levels because of the Aids problem in the world and the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of that disease. The debate go on in the Vatican as we speak.

[Guest]

Richie: Being raised Catholic I'm more than a little familiar with the topic.

You *are* aware of the following facts, yes? Specifically:

1) The Catholic Church apparently will cover Viagara if you are a single male. *Clearly* against Church teachings.

2) They will cover Viagara without "checking" on the wife as to whether or not she can have or even wants children.

3) They'll cover it for men who have remarried. This is despite the fact that, in the eyes of the Church, unless they got an anullment first, they are bigamists since the Church does not recognize civil divorce. To be fair, they do not ask if the man has remarried after the death of his wife - getting married after the death of a spouse is, of course, recognized.

The Viagara / Contraception debate further exposes the hypocrisy here.

[Guest]

Richie: Being raised Catholic I'm more than a little familiar with the topic.

You *are* aware of the following facts, yes? Specifically:

1) The Catholic Church apparently will cover Viagara if you are a single male. *Clearly* against Church teachings.

2) They will cover Viagara without "checking" on the wife as to whether or not she can have or even wants children.

3) They'll cover it for men who have remarried. This is despite the fact that, in the eyes of the Church, unless they got an anullment first, they are bigamists since the Church does not recognize civil divorce. To be fair, they do not ask if the man has remarried after the death of his wife - getting married after the death of a spouse is, of course, recognized.

The Viagara / Contraception debate further exposes the hypocrisy here.

Great post. Thank you.

[Guest]

Richie: Being raised Catholic I'm more than a little familiar with the topic.

You *are* aware of the following facts, yes? Specifically:

1) The Catholic Church apparently will cover Viagara if you are a single male. *Clearly* against Church teachings.

2) They will cover Viagara without "checking" on the wife as to whether or not she can have or even wants children.

3) They'll cover it for men who have remarried. This is despite the fact that, in the eyes of the Church, unless they got an anullment first, they are bigamists since the Church does not recognize civil divorce. To be fair, they do not ask if the man has remarried after the death of his wife - getting married after the death of a spouse is, of course, recognized.

The Viagara / Contraception debate further exposes the hypocrisy here.

I have no first hand knowledge of any of that. I can provide links to everything I said in my post to illustrate the church's teachings, which is what I'm talking about. I don't know the particulars of the discrepancy of the Church's actions to it's teachings. How about providing some proof, or at least some compelling testimony.

[Guest]

I'm sorry Cologal, but I believe you're wrong on this again. The Church does not ban E.D. medications because they promote conception.

The Church bans birth control pills because they prevent conception by artificial means.

Did you know that the Church officially has a ban on the use of condoms for the same reason as they ban birth control pills? Because condoms artificially prevent conception.

There is controversy in the Church at it's highest levels because of the Aids problem in the world and the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of that disease. The debate go on in the Vatican as we speak.

The Church has said forever that "Sex was for pro-creation not recreation" ...They need this statement because it forms the basis of the "Gay unions are imperfect doctrine."

ED medication for any man whose wife is over child bearing year would be used for sexual recreation.

DONE.....

[Guest]

The Church has said forever that "Sex was for pro-creation not recreation" ...They need this statement because it forms the basis of the "Gay unions are imperfect doctrine."

ED medication for any man whose wife is over child bearing year would be used for sexual recreation.

DONE.....

In your postulation, sex itself for couples over child bearing age would itself be forbidden and you know that's not the case. Married Catholics are never forbidden intimacy. If E.D. medications foments the continuation of this sanctified intimacy, it's in the interests of the couple and thus the Church.

Conception restrictions are hardly the reason for the forbidding of homosexual unions by the Church.

[Guest]

I wonder what the Catholic thought would be of a former Catholic Army chaplain - now a priest - getting Viagra prescribed to him by the VA? Hmmm?

[Guest]

I wonder what the Catholic thought would be of a former Catholic Army chaplain - now a priest - getting Viagra prescribed to him by the VA? Hmmm?

I would think the Church would be against that. The Church has no power over the VA though, do they?

[Guest]

In your postulation, sex itself for couples over child bearing age would itself be forbidden and you know that's not the case. Married Catholics are never forbidden intimacy. If E.D. medications foments the continuation of this sanctified intimacy, it's in the interests of the couple and thus the Church.

Conception restrictions are hardly the reason for the forbidding of homosexual unions by the Church.

There is no point continuing this.... I know what I have been taught in Catholic schools, CCD classes and finally a Catholic college.

From the Vatican website....

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

[Guest]

There is no point continuing this.... I know what I have been taught in Catholic schools, CCD classes and finally a Catholic college.

From the Vatican website....

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

That's interesting, as I've never read that sentence and I went through 12 years of Catholic education and read much on my own.

I knew homosexuality, or more specifically the physical acts themselves, was considered against the natural order and a perversion that was against the will of God and forbidden.

I will accept your above quote as I trust your honesty. I guess I learned something.

But, the facts as I presented them regarding the inviolable First Amendment Rights of the Roman Catholic Church remain unchanged.

[Guest]

Would the Roman Catholic Church have First Ammendment rights if they were still doing Inquisitions? Or if the Mormons still believed people of African descent were 2nd class citizens (old tenet was that blacks could get into heaven as the 'servants' of whites) ...or if an Islamic committed an honor killing? (Oh, wait, they still do that in the Middle East)

The reason I bring that up is - where do you draw the line between the First Ammendment and stating that a given practice is illegal REGARDLESS of religion?

[Guest]

Would the Roman Catholic Church have First Ammendment rights if they were still doing Inquisitions? Or if the Mormons still believed people of African descent were 2nd class citizens (old tenet was that blacks could get into heaven as the 'servants' of whites) ...or if an Islamic committed an honor killing? (Oh, wait, they still do that in the Middle East)

The reason I bring that up is - where do you draw the line between the First Ammendment and stating that a given practice is illegal REGARDLESS of religion?

You draw the line in the place where your rights are impinged by the practice of another. There are no rights being trampled here.

You have your rights, and the Church has theirs. You have no Constitutional Right to the Church's money.

This isn't that difficult DJ.

Take same sex marriage. Suppose the highest court decides that same sex marriage is a right. You wouldn't be able to force the Church to perform this ceremony, or to recognize it's validity. The Church wouldn't have any power to prevent civil ceremonies or any other denomination's decision to perform one.

[Guest]

Well, Richie, I'm glad you have a spot where you draw the line.

You and I differ in that, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter if I worked for St. Joseph's Hospital or Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital - the laws should apply to me equally at either employer. If I worked at Alvirne High School here in Hudson NH, I should have the same protections as if I worked at Bishop Guertin High School in Nashua.

I certainly agree with you that, if I chose to work *in a church*, the rules may be different.

[Guest]

You draw the line in the place where your rights are impinged by the practice of another. There are no rights being trampled here.

Take same sex marriage. Suppose the highest court decides that same sex marriage is a right. You wouldn't be able to force the Church to perform this ceremony, or to recognize it's validity. The Church wouldn't have any power to prevent civil ceremonies or any other denomination's decision to perform one.

Dang it, Richie - Just about every time when I start shaking my head and muttering aloud about your postings, you come up with a very good answer to someone. You hit this one out of the ballpark.

[Guest]

Well, Richie, I'm glad you have a spot where you draw the line.

You and I differ in that, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter if I worked for St. Joseph's Hospital or Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital - the laws should apply to me equally at either employer. If I worked at Alvirne High School here in Hudson NH, I should have the same protections as if I worked at Bishop Guertin High School in Nashua.

I certainly agree with you that, if I chose to work *in a church*, the rules may be different.

I don't quite understand your point here. Are you saying that one Church organization had different beliefs than another Church organization? Does it have anything to do with Church Doctrine?

In any case, you cannot trample Freedom of Religion with secular laws.

[Guest]

No, I'm not saying that Church Doctrine should be different in different cases.

Without getting into all the OTHER problems I have with the Church, I'm saying that when the Church is "playing outside it's own protected sandbox", it should have to play by the public's rules.

In other words, if the Church wants to operate a hospital, they have to abide by the rules governing hospitals.

In an example I have experience with, my wife is a member of the Light of the World Christian Church. For many years they operated the Milford Christian Academy. They still had to abide by all the rules that govern any school in New Hampshire. And while the Church was exempt from taxes, their employees certainly were not. (Not picking on the Catholic Church when I say I find it ironic that Jesus said "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and yet *all* Churches are exempt from doing exactly that)

[Guest]

Amended Virginia Ultrasound bill Clarifies that there is no requirement to do what was never required
Amended Virginia Ultrasound bill Clarifies that there is no requirement to do what was never required | NRL News Today (http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/02/amended-virginia-ultrasound-bill-clarifies-that-there-is-no-requirement-to-do-what-was-never-required/)

[Guest]

No, I'm not saying that Church Doctrine should be different in different cases.

Without getting into all the OTHER problems I have with the Church, I'm saying that when the Church is "playing outside it's own protected sandbox", it should have to play by the public's rules.

In other words, if the Church wants to operate a hospital, they have to abide by the rules governing hospitals.

In an example I have experience with, my wife is a member of the Light of the World Christian Church. For many years they operated the Milford Christian Academy. They still had to abide by all the rules that govern any school in New Hampshire. And while the Church was exempt from taxes, their employees certainly were not. (Not picking on the Catholic Church when I say I find it ironic that Jesus said "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and yet *all* Churches are exempt from doing exactly that)

You are picking on the Catholic Church no matter what your intent is. I think your attempt to justify a forfeiture of First Amendment Rights by The Catholic Church because they operate in the public arena is outrageous.

There's no justification for your position; none at all.

[Guest]

if the catholic church wants to play they should pay like everyone else. Oh thats right they have to save their money to settle the child molestation cases.

[Guest]

One other thing that a letter to the editor in the local paper brought up.. To be honest, I'd forgotten about this aspect.

It's not the Catholic Church's money. It's part of the compensation package given to the employee. I mean, when I get my pay stub, not only do I see my deductions, but I also see what my employer pays - and this includes the employer-paid part of my health insurance.

If that position isn't filled, the money isn't paid. Again, it's part of the EMPLOYEE's compensation. It's the EMPLOYEE's benefit - and in many good companies, you get to choose which plan you want. If you select NO health insurance (maybe you're covered by your spouse) you actually get a raise.

Just as conservatives want to claim that it'll be an 'accounting trick' to give 'free' contraception coverage (forcing the insurance companies to cover it 'gratis'), someone more liberal could make the claim that the Church is trying to tell you how to spend your own money.

I mean - think of it this way - if it was just a voucher for health care insurance - and that voucher went to a plan that covered contraception and abortions - would the Church have the same basis for argument?

[Guest]

You are assuming that the employee pay the entire premium or nothing is paid at all. At my employer, the employee pays 30%; Mr. Katz employer pays 100% of the premium=paystub show no money has been taken out. Does anyone know what the deal is with the employees of the Catholic Church? Plus, the employer negotiates the contract with the inusurance company, often getting discounts accoording to the size of the population the plan will be covering.

[Guest]

One other thing that a letter to the editor in the local paper brought up.. To be honest, I'd forgotten about this aspect.

It's not the Catholic Church's money. It's part of the compensation package given to the employee. I mean, when I get my pay stub, not only do I see my deductions, but I also see what my employer pays - and this includes the employer-paid part of my health insurance.

If that position isn't filled, the money isn't paid. Again, it's part of the EMPLOYEE's compensation. It's the EMPLOYEE's benefit - and in many good companies, you get to choose which plan you want. If you select NO health insurance (maybe you're covered by your spouse) you actually get a raise.

Just as conservatives want to claim that it'll be an 'accounting trick' to give 'free' contraception coverage (forcing the insurance companies to cover it 'gratis'), someone more liberal could make the claim that the Church is trying to tell you how to spend your own money.

I mean - think of it this way - if it was just a voucher for health care insurance - and that voucher went to a plan that covered contraception and abortions - would the Church have the same basis for argument?

Your analysis only makes the slightest sense if the law, contrary to those same First Amendment protections, mandates that the Church has to provide employees a health insurance package that included these provisions banned by religious doctrine and teaching. The State has no means under our Constitutional First Amendment protections to do this.

It's really so simple it's ludicrous that this conversation has gone on so long.

[Guest]

The church provides health insurance.
The Doctor decides on patient needs.

SIMPLE:

Dr stay out of religion.
Church stay out of the patient Dr relationship.

I am retired Military, but I refuse to take a generals vision of what my health need are. This church BS is nothing more than men dominating women.

[Guest]

Chum on the water is exactly what it is. Obama's record is so bad they can't even talk about it and when they do it's nothing but lies and made up numbers. Thus, you will see deflections, diversions and redirects by liberals at every turn for the next 9 months. They want to talk anything BUT the last 3 years of distruction.

The whole discussion about banning birth control is totally bogus. This was a calculated political strategy started by Obama himself and carried out by the lamestream liberal media. There will be many more over then next 9 months.

Obama fiddles while Rome burns.

[Guest]

Chum on the water is exactly what it is. Obama's record is so bad they can't even talk about it and when they do it's nothing but lies and made up numbers. Thus, you will see deflections, diversions and redirects by liberals at every turn for the next 9 months. They want to talk anything BUT the last 3 years of distruction.

The whole discussion about banning birth control is totally bogus. This was a calculated political strategy started by Obama himself and carried out by the lamestream liberal media. There will be many more over then next 9 months.

Obama fiddles while Rome burns.

Absolutely. EVEN if it were the subject...When the topic is to murder unborn babies at the whim of the mother, the cry is to stay out of my womb! When the subject is asking the Catholic church to do something against it's beliefs, where is the cry to stay out of my religion?!?

What do the women who are Catholic think? If they think the Catholic church is wrong, they need to change it to be more to their liking OR leave it! There is no law preventing them from choosing one of those options. Some have posted percentages on this forum stating that 99% of Catholic women use birth control. So why do these ladies stay in a church that they don't agree with on this subject? Maybe, it's not a deal breaker with them! On the other hand, where are these %'s coming from AND are they even true! Most Catholic ladies that I know are having huge families and loving every minute of it! They are the most stable, hardworking, gracious people who show love for their own children and for the less fortunate among us! I am amazed how they hold to their faith and defend their church. Maybe we should hear from some of these Catholic ladies of childbearing age on this forum. More POWER to them.

[Guest]

Absolutely. EVEN if it were the subject...When the topic is to murder unborn babies at the whim of the mother, the cry is to stay out of my womb! When the subject is asking the Catholic church to do something against it's beliefs, where is the cry to stay out of my religion?!?

Or our kids lunches. They will jump all over a totally bogus premise about banning birth control but seem to fully support the government food police confiscating our kids lunches on a whim.

As usual, nothing but hypocrites who will protect their anointed one at any cost... even at a cost to America. Its beyond comprehension how so many can be so brain dead... or should I say assimilated.

[Guest]

Regarding Congresswoman Kathy Hochul of Ney York's 26th District.

"When Hochul spoke in support of the President, the crowd booed. Many in the audience carried signs, including one that read: “Kathy why have you betrayed our Catholic institutions?” One woman in the crowd told Hochul: “This President has lied to us repeatedly when he proclaims support for conscience protection in his infamous speech at Notre Dame as well as in the executive order he signed following passage of the health care law. He is not worthy of your support in this matter.”


Breitbart.tv » Dem Booed At Town Hall Over Birth Control Mandate (http://www.breitbart.tv/dem-booed-at-town-hall-over-birth-control-mandate/)

[Guest]

Height of hypocrisy from the left pointed out at Arizona debate...
They want to ridicule the Catholic church over birth control, but COMPLETELY OVERLOOK Obama's SUPPORT of INFANTICIDE! ...but this moderator isn't going to spend alot of time on it...

Birth control question booed at CNN Arizona debate - YouTube (]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r69tEHGBskU)

[Guest]

Being a Virginian this has gotten to be embarrassing. When morons take over the floor in these hollowed halls. Read all of it before you fire back. If you really have a dog in this fight you are Virginian.

Virginia GOP Delegate’s Wife Refused To Have Sex With Him Over Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/virginia-gop-delegates-wife-refused-to-have-sex-with-him-over-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill/)

[Guest]

The church provides health insurance.
The Doctor decides on patient needs.

SIMPLE:

Dr stay out of religion.
Church stay out of the patient Dr relationship.

I am retired Military, but I refuse to take a generals vision of what my health need are. This church BS is nothing more than men dominating women.

The Church has nothing to say about what the doctor and the patient decide to do. You're right and nobody has said different.

The patient is free to accept whatever treatment she wants.

What does that have to do with this subject? We're talking about the Church's First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. The church cannot be compelled to pay for procedures or treatment that goes against it's doctrine and teaching.

This is only about money.....M..O..N..E..Y

What is this.......the 100th time I've had to remind people what this is all about? It sure seems like it.

[Guest]

But you didn't answer the question - what if it was a voucher? I know how much my employer pays for 'their' share of my health insurance premiums, just as I know how much 'I' pay.

But in reality, it's all coming out of one big bucket of employee compensation.

I'm curious.. If the Church handed the employee a voucher that the employee would hand to the insurer of choice - would that be the same violation of Church policies or morals or ethics, etc? There *is* a slight difference between the Church writing a check to the insurance company and the Church stamping a voucher - I grant you that.

But it DOES point out that things are more fuzzy and grey. The Church is expending money for the services of an employee. Is wanting to control what an insurance company does with it so different from hypothetically wanting to control what an employee does with it afterwards?

[Guest]

The Church has nothing to say about what the doctor and the patient decide to do. You're right and nobody has said different.

The patient is free to accept whatever treatment she wants.

What does that have to do with this subject? We're talking about the Church's First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. The church cannot be compelled to pay for procedures or treatment that goes against it's doctrine and teaching.

This is only about money.....M..O..N..E..Y

What is this.......the 100th time I've had to remind people what this is all about? It sure seems like it.

It is not about money, it is about dictating what doctors can or cannot advise their patients. How else can I say this to get you to understand.

[Guest]

I just wonder how my Uncle Charlie voted on that bill.....Haven't be able to find out.

In case you are wondering who my Uncle Charlie is, he is the longest serving senator in the history of Virgina.

The Honorable Senator Charles Colgan. (D) Manassas

[Guest]

It is not about money, it is about dictating what doctors can or cannot advise their patients. How else can I say this to get you to understand.

You're absolutely wrong in you statement above. It's not about that, it's only about monetary recompense. I don't know where you came up with this one.

The church doesn't have anything to do with a women's choice of her doctor. What in blazes are you talking about?

[Guest]

But you didn't answer the question - what if it was a voucher? I know how much my employer pays for 'their' share of my health insurance premiums, just as I know how much 'I' pay.

But in reality, it's all coming out of one big bucket of employee compensation.

I'm curious.. If the Church handed the employee a voucher that the employee would hand to the insurer of choice - would that be the same violation of Church policies or morals or ethics, etc? There *is* a slight difference between the Church writing a check to the insurance company and the Church stamping a voucher - I grant you that.

But it DOES point out that things are more fuzzy and grey. The Church is expending money for the services of an employee. Is wanting to control what an insurance company does with it so different from hypothetically wanting to control what an employee does with it afterwards?

You want me to answer a "what if"......."WHAT IF"???.....seriously??

[Guest]

You want me to answer a "what if"......."WHAT IF"???.....seriously??

I think he was just trying to give you an alternate way of looking at an issue in an atempt to help you understand.

[Guest]

I think he was just trying to give you an alternate way of looking at an issue in an atempt to help you understand.

I understand perfectly. You're the one in an intellectual fog here.

[Guest]

I understand perfectly. You're the one in an intellectual fog here.

Maybe, but when Long speaks it makes sense and when I read your posts I am often left with a scrunched look on my face.

[Guest]

Maybe, but when Long speaks it makes sense and when I read your posts I am often left with a scrunched look on my face.

I think that's gas.

[Guest]

i think that's gas.

lol

[Guest]

Richie - Well, I've been asked some "What if" questions and tried to answer them to my best ability - even when one of those was "You know, I really don't know WHAT I'd do.." ...and no, you weren't the one asking (I think it was chacha but I'm not sure).

I just got reminded of that because of the conservative push for vouchers as part of Medicare reform. The couvher was to give the INDIVIDUAL the choice - but, and I don't mean to sound to snarky here - that choice isn't good when the individual chooses something you don't like?

Tell me that the following wouldn't happen.. A voucher system goes in place for health insurance - some of those plans include covering abortions. Tell me that someone isn't going to screm bloody murder about their tax dolalrs going (directly or indirectly) to fund abortions or to cover the tax deduction on those insurance vouchers.

[Guest]

Richie - Well, I've been asked some "What if" questions and tried to answer them to my best ability - even when one of those was "You know, I really don't know WHAT I'd do.." ...and no, you weren't the one asking (I think it was chacha but I'm not sure).

I just got reminded of that because of the conservative push for vouchers as part of Medicare reform. The couvher was to give the INDIVIDUAL the choice - but, and I don't mean to sound to snarky here - that choice isn't good when the individual chooses something you don't like?

Tell me that the following wouldn't happen.. A voucher system goes in place for health insurance - some of those plans include covering abortions. Tell me that someone isn't going to screm bloody murder about their tax dolalrs going (directly or indirectly) to fund abortions or to cover the tax deduction on those insurance vouchers.

When a voucher system of health care comes along we'll deal with it. I'm sure the anti-religeous factions of the liberal establishment will try to mine-field such a proposal in an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church, which they despise above all other religions. That too will be defeated. Our Constitution is a wonderful and simple piece of legislation to the constant annoyance of the liberal establishment.

[Guest]

Richie: It's all in who's ox is being gored. Would you be as fervent in defending what you would call the First Ammendment rights of Islamic churches?

[Guest]

Richie: It's all in who's ox is being gored. Would you be as fervent in defending what you would call the First Ammendment rights of Islamic churches?

If it's a First Amendment Rights issue, of course; remembering that yelling "fire" in a theater, or committing "assault", in a legal sense, are not protected.

Protecting our First Amendment Rights is everybody's "ox"

[Guest]

Richie: It's all in who's ox is being gored. Would you be as fervent in defending what you would call the First Ammendment rights of Islamic churches?

I am a Catholic, but would I be as "fervent" in support of Islamists in a similar situation?........no.........but I would be in support.

If it's a First Amendment Rights issue, of course; remembering that yelling "fire" in a theater, or committing "assault", in a legal sense, are not protected.

Protecting our First Amendment Rights is everybody's "ox"

[Guest]

According to Kathy Hochul, it's not about the Constitution either.

"We're Not Looking to the Constitution" when it Comes to ObamaCare Mandates - YouTube

[Guest]

According to Kathy Hochul, it's not about the Constitution either.

"We're Not Looking to the Constitution" when it Comes to ObamaCare Mandates - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IARyq7WdZ2U)

What a joke this liberal Congresswoman from NY is. Her buffoonish twisting in the wind trying to weave her agenda around Constitutional freedom is laughable.

[Guest]

Interesting article.

Women's Strike Force: Pro-Choice PAC Starts Up In Virginia To Defeat Backers Of Ultrasound Legislation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/womens-strike-force-pac-virginia-ultrasound_n_1305150.html?ref=politics)

[Guest]

The dreaded Ultrasound... (done at 16 weeks)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O77Tj8A4ezc