Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Krill]

The problem with that, IIRC, is that it's considered unacceptable to even direct a person to somewhere that would provide the service of selling them. Which is bad

[Elok]

i hate to break it to you but so do we over here in commie land. i would be fine if they just said: sorry we dont have that here but you might have better luck at the gas station.

I meant no offense; I just meant that I've heard a lot of non-Americans remark on our obsession with absolute rights.

EDIT: See, for example, our abortion debate, which is between the woman's utterly unalienable right to control her body and the fetus's utterly unalienable right to live, with no middle ground. I'm told it's a bit different in Europe.

[Elok]

To me that comes across as "you can stay in your box, but if you come out of it, you aren't going to force your values onto your customers/clientele/patients". I figure this is more of a protective measure.That said, I don't think I fully understand the idea of medical benefits in the US, so I should probably shut up now.

The people affected here aren't customers, clientele, or patients. They're employees, and the employer isn't asking to force its values in any way AFAICT. Nor is it asking/being asked to sell or not sell contraceptives directly, or prevent their employees from acquiring same with their salary or by any other means. It's just a matter of covering the cost of said employees' contraception. E.G., Ann Smith buys some birth control pills, gets her employer to reimburse her for some or all of their cost in some manner.

The employer doesn't want to buy Ann Smith's pills because it's against the employer's values? Too bloody bad, unless the employer is a temple or monastery or the like. Then, apparently, it's protected under the First Amendment. But we're to believe a church stops being a church the moment it does anything but pray. No maintaining your identity while engaging the community or serving society in some way--STAY IN YOUR BOX!

[Elok]

The problem with that, IIRC, is that it's considered unacceptable to even direct a person to somewhere that would provide the service of selling them. Which is bad

Agreed, but that's an entirely separate issue from the contraception mandate in question.

[SlowwHand]

The people affected here aren't customers, clientele, or patients. They're employees, and the employer isn't asking to force its values in any way AFAICT. Nor is it asking/being asked to sell or not sell contraceptives directly, or prevent their employees from acquiring same with their salary or by any other means. It's just a matter of covering the cost of said employees' contraception. E.G., Ann Smith buys some birth control pills, gets her employer to reimburse her for some or all of their cost in some manner.

The employer doesn't want to buy Ann Smith's pills because it's against the employer's values? Too bloody bad, unless the employer is a temple or monastery or the like. Then, apparently, it's protected under the First Amendment. But we're to believe a church stops being a church the moment it does anything but pray. No maintaining your identity while engaging the community or serving society in some way--STAY IN YOUR BOX!

All points are valid.

[Barnabas]

Ordering not only the C Church, but any company, to give free condoms to its employees, seems deranged to me. If you want condoms buy them yourself, they are cheap.

[giblets]

The people affected here aren't customers, clientele, or patients. They're employees, and the employer isn't asking to force its values in any way AFAICT. Nor is it asking/being asked to sell or not sell contraceptives directly, or prevent their employees from acquiring same with their salary or by any other means. It's just a matter of covering the cost of said employees' contraception. E.G., Ann Smith buys some birth control pills, gets her employer to reimburse her for some or all of their cost in some manner.

The employer doesn't want to buy Ann Smith's pills because it's against the employer's values? Too bloody bad, unless the employer is a temple or monastery or the like. Then, apparently, it's protected under the First Amendment. But we're to believe a church stops being a church the moment it does anything but pray. No maintaining your identity while engaging the community or serving society in some way--STAY IN YOUR BOX!

The nice thing about the box is that anything that happens in there doesn't affect people who don't believe your myths

[DinoDoc]

Hello Kid.

[Elok]

Like I said, he's trolling. He's not actually that stupid in my experience.

[Dinner]

Ordering not only the C Church, but any company, to give free condoms to its employees, seems deranged to me. If you want condoms buy them yourself, they are cheap.

That's not the issue. There are two issues the first issue is all employers will soon be required to carry health insurance for their employees and by law that health insurance must include contraception unless the employer is an exempt group (which is very strictly defined). The second issue is hospitals and health care providers are now required to provide contraception when a patient asks for it; Catholic hospitals don't like it but I have zero sympathy for them because they need to either do the whole job or find a new line of work. There is no in between here, do the job or find another job.

[Boris Godunov]

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BC-Employers-Religion1.png

~60% of Catholics agree with the Obama Administration's rule.

And no, it doesn't require religious organizations to pay for condoms as Elok said, it requires them to provide insurance plans that will cover contraception.

Dismissing contraception as cheap-o is a rather ignorant dismissal of the issue:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202080001

Access to subsidized birth control has been shown to significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies (and that means fewer abortions, folks):

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1104373

[Boris Godunov]

IIRC, something like 80% of American Catholics ignore the Church's teachings and use birth control. So the notion that this ruling is going to anger large numbers of Catholics against Obama doesn't seem to hold much water.

BTW, 28 states alread have similar rules on the books and the RCC has followed them without an uproar:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/?mobile=nc

[DaShi]

That's because those states had the good fortune to not be Obama.

[Elok]

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-co...-Religion1.png

~60% of Catholics agree with the Obama Administration's rule.

An even larger percentage of Catholics ignore the church's teaching on contraception in the first place. Irrelevant. A religious organization doesn't want to act against its own teachings. That a large percentage of its flock is disobedient is neither here nor there. As is my own belief, and yours, that those particular teachings are utter nonsense.

And no, it doesn't require religious organizations to pay for condoms as Elok said, it requires them to provide insurance plans that will cover contraception.

Which works out to the same thing. Their money is paying for contraception.

Dismissing contraception as cheap-o is a rather ignorant dismissal of the issue:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202080001

Access to subsidized birth control has been shown to significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies (and that means fewer abortions, folks):

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1104373

Reasonable points, but still not justification for requiring a church to go against its own teachings. And $50 per month IS pretty damned cheap, and your report said that was at the high end. You pay more than that for cable, FFS. If you can't afford that, that's an argument for raising the minimum wage, not for insurance covering the pill.

This is assuming the government doesn't just subsidize the bloody things itself, or pay for an NGO like PP to do it. That might open up a "not with my tax dollars" can of worms, but I doubt it. Most objections I've heard to government funding of PP involve its abortion activities and the silly fig leaf that is the Hyde Amendment (though at $500 a pop I doubt the abortion part really needs funding anyway; odds are all the funds are in fact going towards other services).

Most of all, though, I don't like the specious distinction between churches and church-run institutions. It's not their place to say what is or isn't part of the church's core mission.

[Elok]

IIRC, something like 80% of American Catholics ignore the Church's teachings and use birth control. So the notion that this ruling is going to anger large numbers of Catholics against Obama doesn't seem to hold much water.

Not necessarily, if it's viewed as a matter of religious liberty. However,

BTW, 28 states alread have similar rules on the books and the RCC has followed them without an uproar:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...ans/?mobile=nc

That does make the whole scandal rather ridiculous, if it's true. I don't think it should be required of them, but if many institutions are already offering it, obviously there's something screwy about the whole objection.