It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100% of Catholic Bishops Oppose Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Will my insurance company give contraceptives to me for free...or is it only free to those that work for religious institutions?


Yes. Your birth control will be at no cost to you. (When I say "free" I mean without a copay.)


Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
All other taxpayers are footing the bill....doesn't sound like "Free" to me.


Taxpayers aren't footing the bill. You pay your health insurance premium. Some items have a copay. Some (preventative medicine) do not. Most insurance companies already have this rule and it is law in 28 states already. This big hubbub over the whole thing is just a GOP tactic that people are falling for.



The government has NO right to dictate morals to me or any citizen.


I totally agree. They are not dictating morals to anyone.



Nor force a citizen to pay taxes for something they disagree with morally.


That's an entirely different subject. But we have never been allowed to pick and choose where our taxes go. I don't want to pay taxes for the military industrial machine either, but a great deal of my taxes go there.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


It matters not what the Catholic voters think. The Pope and cardinals do not appeal to their parishioners on issues of sin and other moral teachings; it is dictated to them. Accept it as part of your faith, walk away from the faith, or be excommunicated. Those 57% who actually support this have a choice before them; I say excommunicate the bastards.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Today I learned there are 181 too many Catholic Bishops in America.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
If that was true, then the insurance companies would be doing it now, they wouldn't be waiting for a government order to make them save money.


Many are. It's law in 28 states and many insurance companies do. Whether or not it saves money in the long run depends on which study you reference. And some here are probably right. Insurance companies will use this as an excuse to raise their rates.

The Freedom to Use Birth Control



Besides, contraceptive access is already in place in 28 states, and has been the law in New York for a decade, without inflicting the slightest blow to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which has complied.



Isn't it telling the employees what care the institution will pay for? I don't see the problem with that, all companies tell empoyees what benefits they will recieve and which ones they won't.


No. The religious institutions are NOT paying for contraception. The insurance companies are footing the bill. The policies offered to employees of religious institutions do not include birth control. The employees get birth control directly from the insurance company. The religious institution is not involved at all.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

We Catholics view human nature as entirely different as Liberals. Man is not inherently free and independent; we are members of the Body of Christ. Naturally we are social and political animals; requiring law, culture, and religion for proper order. Law is not meant simply to prevent harm but is derived from, and meant to advance, the “good”. This means that the law must be derived from Divine law, restricting human behavior so as to prevent sin and self-destruction; so virtue is necessary both within a legal context and a personal context. Merely protecting the “right”, as the Liberal state does, is not what society is meant to do; it must protect the “good”. However this does not mean the Church and State must be one; rather the State must ground its legal vision within Church doctrine.


I thank God that the State has never grounded its legal vision with Catholic Church doctrine, as that would mean we would have to burn witches at the stake, torture those who are left-handed, and re-instate slavery.


edit on 19-2-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Dear Benevolent Heretic,

It's always a pleasure to talk with you. I always leave with a broader view of things, thanks.

Many are. It's law in 28 states and many insurance companies do.
The thing for me about this 28 state business is that all of the states provide at least two ways to opt out. The Obama regulations don't have those options (or any other)

Whether or not it saves money in the long run depends on which study you reference. And some here are probably right. Insurance companies will use this as an excuse to raise their rates.
So either it will save money and the insurance companies will learn this and do it without the regs, or it wont save money, which means the regs will drive up health care costs, or it will save money and the insurance companies will use it to line their pockets and not thelp the consumer.

Just on the money side of it, it likes like the best thing that can be said about the regs is that they're unnecessary.


No. The religious institutions are NOT paying for contraception. The insurance companies are footing the bill. The policies offered to employees of religious institutions do not include birth control. The employees get birth control directly from the insurance company. The religious institution is not involved at all.
I have a couple of problems here. One is that the insurance company will pay for the birth control through the premiums they take in, the church pays premiums. See the problem? Would you be willing to accept the Obama regulations if they required the insurance companies to charge 5% less on the Church policies than everyone else's to reflect the fact that the Church isn't paying for birth control?

The second problem is for institutions who self-insure. They are their own insurance company. So if a convent self-insures, the regulations require the convent to buy birth control policies. Would you support an exemption for self-insurers? (Since almost all work in a convent is done by the nuns, I can imagine the giggles they'll have being required to pay for condoms and contraceptives.)

With respect,
Charels1952



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
The thing for me about this 28 state business is that all of the states provide at least two ways to opt out.


For now they might. But the federal law will apply to these states as well, once it takes effect.



Just on the money side of it, it likes like the best thing that can be said about the regs is that they're unnecessary.


That's a valid opinion.

However, as regards the necessity, I have a different opinion. Preventative medicine saves money and lives. It's the best thing we can do for our health as a nation. The more proactive control we can take over our health, the better. Birth control is in the same category, medically, as a colonoscopy, blood pressure check, prostate exam, immunization, mammogram, etc.

The only reason birth control has been excluded in the umbrella of "preventative medicine" to this point is because of the religious objections. The women of this country deserve better.


Would you be willing to accept the Obama regulations if they required the insurance companies to charge 5% less on the Church policies than everyone else's to reflect the fact that the Church isn't paying for birth control?


Just to be clear, church policies are already completely exempt from this regulation. The big fight is over Catholic hospitals, who hire and treat people of ALL religions. If THEY were allowed a 5% reduction, yes, I would accept that. I'm not about punishing religion, no matter what some people may think. I just think they shouldn't have the authority to dictate their non-Catholic employees' medical coverage.



The second problem is for institutions who self-insure. They are their own insurance company. So if a convent self-insures, the regulations require the convent to buy birth control policies. Would you support an exemption for self-insurers?


Again, a convent is already completely exempt from this rule.
I believe there IS an exemption for those who self-insure, hire only their religion's members, or are a certain size (small). I'll see if I can find it.

Here it Is



The amended interim final regulations specified that, for purposes of this exemption, a religious employer is one that:
(1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;
(2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;
(3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and
(4) is a non-profit organization described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code.


So, a church and a convent both teach religion as their main purpose, primarily employ and serve people who share their religious beliefs and they are non-profit.

A hospital does not meet the exemption criteria.

.
edit on 2/19/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

Thanks for pulling me up short when I get sloppy with my writing. Let me have another chance.

I have seen the 28 state argument presented this way. "The regulations proposed are no big deal because the majority of the states have them in place anyway and nobody complains." Nobody complains because they all provide ways of opting out, thus giving people choices. I know that the federal law will replace all the state laws. The effect is to eliminate those opt out provisions and eliminating choice. I'm not so happy about that.

Preventative medicine saves money and lives. It's the best thing we can do for our health as a nation. The more proactive control we can take over our health, the better. Birth control is in the same category, medically, as a colonoscopy, blood pressure check, prostate exam, immunization, mammogram, etc.
I don't understand how it is in the same category, please explain. All of the procedures you mention are designed to detect or prevent disease. Birth control seems designed to prevent pregnancy, which is not a disease. The Church has no argument with regular gynecological screenings, diseases will be caught.

The only reason birth control has been excluded in the umbrella of "preventative medicine" to this point is because of the religious objections.
or maybe it's because the condition it's designed to deal with is optional and not a disease.

The women of this country deserve better.
They deserve better than what? Having to pay for their own birth control?

Just to be clear, church policies are already completely exempt from this regulation. The big fight is over Catholic hospitals, who hire and treat people of ALL religions.
And Catholic schools, and Catholic Charities, and St. Vincent de Paul thrift stores, and food kitchens, etc.

If THEY were allowed a 5% reduction, yes, I would accept that. I'm not about punishing religion, no matter what some people may think.
I suppose that was trick question on my part. I know you don't like punishing religion, but how would the country react if the President announced he was going to give a 5% discount only to Church insurance policies and not to anyone else? The Church might accept it, but I don't think the country would.

I just think they shouldn't have the authority to dictate their non-Catholic employees' medical coverage.
They're dictating their coverage to all their employees, not just the non-Catholic ones. It seems like you're saying that employers shouldn't be allowed to decide how much medical insurance to buy for their employees. I don't see that.

Again, a convent is already completely exempt from this rule.
You're probably right. Let's use the other examples I gave above. None of them would be exempt. And no exemption for small size, no exemption for self-insurance, at least in the regulation you posted.

Benevolent Heretic, I have a great admiraton for you and your work, hope to see you again.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I know that the federal law will replace all the state laws. The effect is to eliminate those opt out provisions and eliminating choice. I'm not so happy about that.


I see. I'm sorry I didn't get your point before. Here's my thought on that. Sometimes government intervention to insure equal treatment of its citizens is necessary. Let's take a restaurant owner, for example. He has certain federal standards that he must meet, one being that he must not discriminate in those he services, based on race, religion, gender, etc. He doesn't have a choice in that. Whereas, at one time, he could proudly display a sign saying, "Whites Only" or "No Jews", that choice has now been eliminated.

When the "choice" is made to discriminate, I don't think it's a bad thing for the government to eliminate that choice.


All of the procedures you mention are designed to detect or prevent disease. Birth control seems designed to prevent pregnancy, which is not a disease.


Preventing disease isn't the sole purpose of preventive medicine.

Johns Hopkins


The American Board of Preventive Medicine (ABPM) defines the discipline as "that specialty of medical practice which focuses on the health of individuals and defined populations in order to protect, promote, and maintain health and well-being and prevent disease, disability, and premature death."


No one is claiming that pregnancy is a disease. But it is a condition that many women want to prevent, nonetheless. And seeing as how we have the technology, it should be available to every woman.



... how would the country react if the President announced he was going to give a 5% discount only to Church insurance policies and not to anyone else? The Church might accept it, but I don't think the country would.


The President's not giving discounts. What makes you think the religious hospitals wouldn't pay a smaller price for their plan, since it doesn't include birth control?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

Thanks for sticking with me on this.

Sometimes government intervention to insure equal treatment of its citizens is necessary. Let's take a restaurant owner, for example. He has certain federal standards that he must meet, one being that he must not discriminate in those he services, based on race, religion, gender, etc. He doesn't have a choice in that. Whereas, at one time, he could proudly display a sign saying, "Whites Only" or "No Jews", that choice has now been eliminated.

When the "choice" is made to discriminate, I don't think it's a bad thing for the government to eliminate that choice.
A Church institution isn't discriminating against anyone. It will serve all comers equally and it treats all its employees equally. The religion of it's employees makes no difference at all.

No one is claiming that pregnancy is a disease. But it is a condition that many women want to prevent, nonetheless
There a conditions I want to prevent, too, including losing my hair, and a sagging stomach. I don't think anyone will demand that my employer pay for Rogaine, or hair transplants. Just because we want something is no reason to require someone to pay for it.


. And seeing as how we have the technology, it should be available to every woman.
Because we are able to do something, we can demand everybody gets it and somebody else should pay for it?


The President's not giving discounts. What makes you think the religious hospitals wouldn't pay a smaller price for their plan, since it doesn't include birth control?
You're right, I only have negative evidence. In all this excitement I haven't heard anyone mention discounts. And if they don't give discounts, that means the Church's premiums are going to pay for birth control, since premiums are where the insurance would get its money to pay for birth control.

With respecct,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





I don't understand how it is in the same category, please explain. All of the procedures you mention are designed to detect or prevent disease. Birth control seems designed to prevent pregnancy, which is not a disease.The Church has no argument with regular gynecological screenings, diseases will be caught.


In fact, contraceptives may be an effective cancer preventative treatment for celibate women (like nuns, for instance).

source


If there’s one group of women who shouldn’t need to worry about birth control, it’s Catholic nuns, who have taken a vow of chastity to better serve the Church. But now researchers in Australia argue that these very women could benefit greatly from being on the pill, not for contraception, but for reasons of health.

Kara Britt at Monash University and Roger Short of the University of Melbourne, writing in the journal Lancet, argue that the scientific evidence is strong enough to consider whether nuns, who do not bear children — a lifestyle that puts them at higher risk of certain reproductive cancers — could be protected by taking the birth control pill. The Catholic Church, however, rejects any form of artificial contraception.

edit on 19/2/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
There might be some evidence of problems with hormonal contraceptives.

There are side effects to just about all medications.

Some may have been ignored in favor of "business" concerns.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join