Speak Out: Are Catholics a Large Voting Block?

Posted by nolimitsonthought on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 7:53 AM:

The Obama Administration has granted over 1,200 Obamacare waivers to select private entities, but it stuck to its guns forcing Catholic Church employers to sponsor contraception and abortion.

Do you think this policy will hurt Obama in the election?

Replies (204)

  • RELIGION SHOULD NOT MATTER

    -- Posted by good.for.the.gander.good.for.the.goose on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 8:20 AM
  • It will be a sign of how far we've sunk as a nation founded in freedom if it does not.

    This will boil down to a conflict between those who take a stand for morality and freedom and those who want the government to force religion to subsidize sin.

    You shouldn't have to be a Catholic to recognize that you have a dog in this fight.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 8:23 AM
  • I'll be curious to see how those who have been posting about 'moral responsibilities' come down on this one.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 8:24 AM
  • Daily Caller, May 17, 2011

    "Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama's administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's Northern California district.

    That's in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama's Department of Health and Human Services approved.

    Pelosi's district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn't have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers."

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearly-20-percent-of-new-obamacare-waivers-are...

    -- Posted by nolimitsonthought on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 8:36 AM
  • That's true. There should be no such mandate to begin with, and thus no need for waivers therefrom.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 8:59 AM
  • Of course there is a large Catholic Voting Block, and they are responsible for him being elected in 2008. Shame on us!

    Had Catholics stuck to their beliefs instead of their politics, many would not remember the name Barrack Hussein Obama today.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 10:56 AM
  • If anyone thinks that Catholics don't use birth control, they are blind and stupid. We don't see large Catholic families as in the past. This is not by accident. They are two faced and speak with forked tongue.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM
  • I guessing that not much organizing of a formal block of voters goes on inside Catholic churches.

    I think of a voting block as a group that seek a certian condition in exchange for unified support of a candidate, kind of like Hillary and her Jewish or Puerto Rican voters.

    But then again, I never attended a Catholic church.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 11:22 AM
  • If anyone thinks that Catholics don't use birth control, they are blind and stupid. They are two faced and speak with forked tongue. -- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 11:06 AM

    If anyone thinks that "pro-choicers" are for freedom of choice they are blind and stupid. They want to deny Catholic institutions the choice to practice their religious faith freely. So-called "pro-choice" people are two faced and speak with forked tongue.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 11:30 AM
  • Howdy Doody,

    Some Catholics also lie, steal, commit adultery, divorce, and have even been know to commit murder. Are you saying the Catholic Church needs to just get over its opposition to these things, too?

    We are sinners, every one. The role of the Church is to guide us away from our sins. If they are to be forced to subsidize them, then that makes the goal of doing so all the more difficult.

    We are free to go to Hell in a handbasket. But we should not expect the Church to provide the handbasket.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 11:35 AM
  • Howdy,

    How in hell does using birth control relate to voting? I guess I am confused.

    Or... are you saying take your birth control pills because you are going to get s****ed at the polls?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 11:43 AM
  • "...they are to be forced to subsidize them..."

    Actual church officials are already exempt and have a waiver. Non-catholic employees of church agencies such as schools or hospitals should have access to contraception. Whether it is part of the health care package is irrelevant.

    There are numerous categories of health care, wellness endeavors, and preventive medicine that are in normal health care plans that are not used by every single participant. The bottom line is simple, if you object to contraception, don't use it. There is nothing in the health care reform that makes contraception use binding.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 11:57 AM
  • Nolimitsonthought said: "The Obama Administration has granted over 1,200 Obamacare waivers to select private entities,"

    I recall reading that over 95% of all waiver requests were approved. So that would seem to indicate that to qualify as a "select private entity" all one needs do is apply for a waiver.

    ____________________

    This will boil down to a conflict between those who take a stand for morality and freedom and those who want the government to force religion to subsidize sin.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 8:23 AM

    I don't see it. I understand the church is opposed to birth control and abortion. However, Obamacare does not mandate that they use birth control. They leave it up to the individual to use or not use at their own discretion. Now, I understand why the church would oppose this but I can't see this as government forcing religion to "subsidize sin"

    -- Posted by DADES on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:07 PM
  • Common,

    Are you saying that Catholic hospitals should be forced to provide anything that goes against their faith? Has nothing to do with what an individual Catholic might or might not do.

    And are you saying that all Catholic institutions should be forced to provide the money for insurance policies covering items that directly conflict with their faith?

    If you are, and your post indicates that is your feeling, it appears that you are in favor of a socialistic dictatorship for this country.

    The term "Little Hitler" as applied to Obama, is becomming a reality?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:09 PM
  • There is nothing in the health care reform that makes contraception use binding-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 11:57 AM

    That isn't the problem. The problem you are deflecting is that it makes contraception FUNDING binding on Catholic institutions. Got nothing to do with use.

    =========================================

    Now, I understand why the church would oppose this but I can't see this as government forcing religion to "subsidize sin"-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:07 PM

    Again, paying for it IS subsidizing it. Why does your president insist on this?

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:12 PM
  • I don't believe that government should interfere with the right of religious organizations to practice their tenets. Individuals have the right to accept or not accept all the rules of their religion or to move to another denomination if need be.

    Political parties have no right to override the constitution in order to further their agenda.

    -- Posted by InReply on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:25 PM
  • Look at this way:

    Let's say a group of workers decide to take off and go to lunch together. Among them are a Catholic, a Jew, a Protestant, a Buddhist, and a Muslim. The Muslim, who received a promotion earlier in the week, decides to share his joy by buying lunch. But, he says, his faith will not permit him to pay for pork or alcohol.

    Well enough, I would think. The Catholic, who wants a beer with his lunch, is free to order one, but he has to pay for it himself. The Protestant, who wants a pork burger, is free to have one, but has to pay for it himself. The rest are okay with the restriction, and they order their meals sans pork and alcohol.

    Would you say the Muslim, who offered to buy the lunch, should be required pay for the pork burger and beer, since they were part of the lunch?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:36 PM
  • Shap, Are they government workers? :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:44 PM
  • Nil wrote:

    "Don't we already force Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses organizations that buy insurance to cover blood transfusions for their employees?"

    Do they? Did they raise the issue at the time?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:48 PM
  • The Catholic Arch Bishop over military chaplins has been forbidden by the military to bring the Obama Care controversy up in any sermons while in uniform or to uniformed personel.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:53 PM
  • Military censorship or part of the rules?

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:54 PM
  • Would you say the Muslim, who offered to buy the lunch, should be required pay for the pork burger and beer, since they were part of the lunch?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:36 PM

    That's a rather poor analogy don't you think? Comparing healthcare to a ham sandwich. Per your analogy, those of the Jewish faith wouldn't be allowed to shop at Kroger because they couldn't be certain that the dollar they paid for a kosher pickle wouldn't be used to purchase bacon for the deli.

    -- Posted by DADES on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 1:25 PM
  • "Per your analogy, those of the Jewish faith wouldn't be allowed to shop at Kroger because they couldn't be certain that the dollar they paid for a kosher pickle wouldn't be used to purchase bacon for the deli."

    No, that't not per my analogy at all, and if that is what you got from it there's little wonder we can't see eye to eye.

    My analogy holds true. Employers, like the Muslim worker, saw fit to extend a benefit to employees. For the most part, since it was a gift, they were able to tailor the benefit to their own belief. For generations, no one questioned that tailoring - the idea of making religious peoples pay for things that were against their faith was absurd.

    Then, the government involved itself in the dispensing of benefits. They began to mandate the extension of them, and the nature of the benefits as well. Even so, they did not question the concept of Freedom of Religion - religious persons or institutions would not be compelled to pay for services that were illicit or immoral by their established codes.

    Now, however, along comes Obamacare, and the idea that health coverage (not health care) is a 'right'. Couple that with other specious 'rights' such as the 'right to choose', and the government begins to believe that that time-honoured and constitutionally-protected freedom of religion must give way to the desires of the many. People want contraceptives, people want abortions, and people want somebody else to pay for them. Who, then? Why, those people who so generously offered to pay for the before should be required to continue to do so, only they should no longer be able to tailor their generosity to suit their own religious beliefs.

    It doesn't matter whether its a ham sandwich or a vasectomy - nobody that finds it morally indefensible should be made to pay for it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 2:29 PM
  • That's a rather poor analogy don't you think? -- Posted by DADES on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 1:25 PM

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe in the "Great Potato War" your stand was - if you are paid something (like school lunches) then the payer should decide what you can/cannot have on the menu.

    Sounds like we're contradicting ourselves here? Or is it ok for the gov't to pay for school lunches and demand that potatoes be removed since, after all, they are paying for it. But if a Catholic institution PAYS for health care they cannot decided what you can/cannot have in your health care options?

    Hmmm....

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 3:21 PM
  • People want contraceptives, people want abortions, and people want somebody else to pay for them.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 2:29 PM

    No, they want healthcare to be affordable and not a luxury for the privileged. The purpose of Obamacare is to help control the ever increasing costs of healthcare, which have risen disproportionately with the majority of people's incomes. If the primary purpose of Obamacare was to provide birth control then your argument might have some merit. But since it is ancillary to the issue it appears you are merely using it as an excuse to henpeck.

    ____________________

    Sounds like we're contradicting ourselves here? Or is it ok for the gov't to pay for school lunches and demand that potatoes be removed since, after all, they are paying for it. But if a Catholic institution PAYS for health care they cannot decided what you can/cannot have in your health care options?

    Hmmm....

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 3:21 PM

    So your saying that, much like potatoes, birth control should be served at every meal? I know how you love potatoes Dug. Maybe Wheels was a little premature in christening Lumbrg as Mr. Potato Head?

    -- Posted by DADES on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 4:44 PM
  • "The purpose of Obamacare is to help control the ever increasing costs of healthcare, which have risen disproportionately with the majority of people's incomes."

    No, it isn't. If it was, it would address the issues affecting the rising costs, and not merely expand the financing mechanism for it.

    It is the standard approach by Democrats:

    Housing costs are rising? Make mortgages easier to get.

    College tuition is rising? Increase access to student loans.

    Health care costs rising? Make insurance more readily available.

    What do these all have in common? They do not address the cost issue, they merely hide the increases by spreading those costs out over time and taxpayers.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 4:53 PM
  • "But since it is ancillary to the issue it appears you are merely using it as an excuse to henpeck."

    No, it is brought up because it is in the news. I've barely mentioned the broader scope of Obamacare, though I've expressed my views on it clearly enough in the past.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 4:54 PM
  • So your saying that, much like potatoes, birth control should be served at every meal? I know how you love potatoes Dug. Maybe Wheels was a little premature in christening Lumbrg as Mr. Potato Head? -- Posted by DADES on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 4:44 PM

    Got a serious answer to my post?

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 4:59 PM
  • On top of which, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that killing babies and using artificial means to prevent pregnancies are not a part of 'health care'.

    We've expanded the concept of what comprises health care to the point that cosmetics, toiletries, and toys fall within the realm thereof. It's past time that we take a stance.

    Insurance companies do not owe people the opportunity to relieve their sexual impulses without consequence.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 5:01 PM
  • No, it isn't. If it was, it would address the issues affecting the rising costs, and not merely expand the financing mechanism for it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 4:53 PM

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy at all with Obamacare. And I agree that it won't help much to control costs, if at all. But, I am glad somebody has finally done something about it. Even if it is wrong. Continuing to ignore it and hope it gets better didn't seem to be working.

    -- Posted by DADES on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 5:04 PM
  • Dades wrote:

    "But, I am glad somebody has finally done something about it. Even if it is wrong."

    Action for the sake of action alone is stupidity.

    When President Bush tried to do something to shore up Social Security, he was lambasted. The best course, the Democrats argued, was to do nothing. What was your position on that issue?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 5:08 PM
  • Action for the sake of action alone is stupidity.

    When President Bush tried to do something to shore up Social Security, he was lambasted. The best course, the Democrats argued, was to do nothing. What was your position on that issue?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 5:08 PM

    And insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. Certainly I can't deny that healthcare may get worse before it gets better, but just waiting for the worst to happen and then blaming the poor is asinine.

    As for privatizing SS, my feelings are similar. To continue to sustain SS with the current system will require deep cuts to benefits and massive tax hikes or borrowing. I'd rather it not come to that.

    But I feel that there should be some constraints on privatizing as I fear there are too many Homer Simpsons who think they are Gordon Gekko.

    -- Posted by DADES on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 7:26 PM
  • My question is why are all the other religious organizations are being mute? Baptists, Methodists, Jews, Presbyterians all have hospitals, universities, colleges, schools and other entities that will be affected by this "law". Why are they being quiet and letting the Catholic Church carry all the water?

    -- Posted by John in Jackson on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 9:03 PM
  • John in Jackson,

    Most of the protestant denominations do not denounce birth control, as the Catholic Church does. Most, I believe, denounce abortion, and I'm not sure they are silent on that. It's just that the Catholic Church's condemnation of the contraceptive issue is generating the most heat.

    Just because the press doesn't report it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 10:16 PM
  • "And insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."

    Which is why I say the finacial-services approach to affordability is insane.

    "Certainly I can't deny that healthcare may get worse before it gets better..."

    Or it may get worse before it gets worse yet...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 10:18 PM
  • "Well, I am glad you said this Shap! Old John is proposing just that on the other thread."

    I don't know which other thread you're talking about. I don't read them all.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 8:18 AM
  • Or it may get worse before it gets worse yet...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 7, 2012, at 10:18 PM

    It may, but one thing's for certain. There will always be fear mongers ready to bray about the worst-case scenario.

    ___________________

    This reminds me of the new , improved unemployment stats . They do not include people who have gave up looking for work and no longer file for unemployment benefits .

    If they did , the true unemployment count would be alot higher .

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 4:14 AM

    But what is the "true" unemployment count? It's always been an arbitrary measure. You might as well argue that a foot should be an even 10 inches or a yard should be 5 feet.

    You could easily make the argument that the "real" unemployment number is higher or lower depending on who you choose to count as unemployed. And if you ask 100 people who should be counted, you'd likely get 99 different answers. To me it is more important that whatever arbitrary measure you choose to use be applied consistently from year to year rather than haphazardly depending on who's in office.

    -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 9:20 AM
  • To me it is more important that whatever arbitrary measure you choose to use be applied consistently from year to year rather than haphazardly depending on who's in office.

    -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 9:20 AM

    I totally agree with that statement. Watch the gyrations and corrected figures this year after it no longer matters.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 9:27 AM
  • Did you happen to notice who jumped on this arbitrary measure as a positive when it was announced , as if it were a fact ?

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 11:54 AM

    ...Ummmmm, Reagan?

    -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 12:09 PM
  • Regarding Catholics as a voting block: Catholics in the past have voted for Democrats, I believe for peace and justice issues. The hierarchy is now ultra-conservative.

    In the last election some Catholic bishops wanted to deny communion to Democratic politicians and even people who voted for Obama.

    What most people do not know is that a Catholic is obliged to examine his conscience, pray, and then make an informed decision on how he votes. A Catholic does NOT have to vote a certain way just because the hierarchy encourages (tells) him to.

    -- Posted by donacita on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 12:10 PM
  • I saw on 2 differnet tv stations where 98% of Catholics have used contraceprives. I had an inclination they did, but not that extreme. Before you ask for a link. I saw it on Fox and MSNBC. Two very dissimilar networks.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 12:39 PM
  • A Catholic does NOT have to vote a certain way just because the hierarchy encourages (tells) him to.

    -- Posted by donacita on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 12:10 PM

    That is very true... NOR does a Catholic have to do as taught by his religion, the bible or even what the Pope tells him/her to do. Like everyone else they have the Free Will to do what is right or wrong. Anyone claiming to be Catholic though, has the moral obligation to do what is right, I think many Catholics this November will be faced with the decision.... am I a Catholic first, or am a Democrat first!

    Or perhaps a better way to put it... is God in the White House, or is he in Heaven! (Yeah, I know what is coming next... he is everywhere.)

    It should be apparent where Catholics stand when one examines the block numbers after the November elections.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 1:03 PM
  • "I saw on 2 differnet tv stations where 98% of Catholics have used contraceprives."

    I'm not sure how accurate that number is, but it doesn't matter.

    If they were honest, and the question was asked of Catholics 'how many of you have sinned?', the answer would be 100%. We are sinners, every one. Those who use contraceptives do so knowing that it considered a sin.

    The question is not whether Catholics sin, but whether the fact that we are sinners empowers the government to force the Church to abandon its position against sin. The Constitutions says it does not.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 1:34 PM
  • I believe Reagan is dead .

    The correct answer would be Obama .

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 1:18 PM

    Well, you're half right. Reagan is dead.

    But the, as you put it, "new , improved unemployment stats . They do not include people who have gave up looking for work and no longer file for unemployment benefits." have been in effect since Reagan was in office. That's not really what I consider new.

    The Obama administration is merely following the standard that every President has followed consistently since the 80's. So in response to your question "who jumped on this arbitrary measure as a positive when it was announced , as if it were a fact ?" My response is Reagan.

    Conservatives are pointing out the uncounted discouraged workers now because they are trying to spin the positive job growth. Hoping that people wont realize this same policy is part of what made Reagan look so good.

    -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 1:52 PM
  • Dades wrote:

    "Conservatives are pointing out the uncounted discouraged workers now because they are trying to spin the positive job growth."

    Actually, I've heard that more from my liberal friends (who've parroted that ever since the term of Ronaldus Maximus). My liberal friends bring it up as a charge against the Republican Congress, who were going to make creation of jobs their highest priority.

    Some conservatives bring it up, true, but by and large they seem to be repeating a leftist mantra that originated, as you note, during the Pax Reagana.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 1:56 PM
  • Here, for those interested, is a more accurate level of employment that does not concern itself with whether or not the unemployed are looking for work:

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/23/business/economy/economix-23lfpr/...

    It strikes me that the increase in labour force participation seems to have risen markedly during the 'Cold War', and then leveled off and began to drop as the 'Cold War' ended. I have no idea if this is related, I merely note the coincidence.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 2:05 PM
  • Some conservatives bring it up, true, but by and large they seem to be repeating a leftist mantra that originated, as you note, during the Pax Reagana.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 1:56 PM

    Then you can take is as being just as true or false (depending on which side of the political divide you fall) now as it was back then. I was merely pointing out that the genius/fiendish decision to not count discouraged workers was nothing new and wasn't part of some left handed plot as Rick apparently believed. But was more likely a conservative attempt to negate any softening feelings for the current administration in light of the recent jobs news.

    -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 2:13 PM
  • Looks to me like it would be better to note the number of people working. With the unlimited conglomerate of statistics the central government compiles regarding it's subjects, surely a number indicating how many people are working could be compiled.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 2:27 PM
  • That should say: the recent news articles decrying the practice of discounting discouraged workers is more likely a conservative attempt to negate any softening feelings...

    -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 2:29 PM
  • Old John,

    You can find statistics for total civilian employment, unemployment, etc., by following this link and requesting the specific data table:

    http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 3:05 PM
  • Good for Senator Marco Rubio. Hopefully, there are enough like-minded members to make this happen.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 3:53 PM
  • No . If any President was on the up and up , they would have let this stat pass by without a word is my point .

    I'm not bashing left nor right .

    I'm questioning the integrity of Politicians during an election year . I did post any incumbant if you care to go back and re-read my post .

    You seem to be following , or defending , the current President , no matter the circumstance , no ?

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 2:31 PM

    As I said before, you may disagree with the way the unemployment is calculated, but that is the way it has been calculated for the last 30 years. Applying the same measure year after year allows you to compare apple to apples. That is integrity. Saying that the measure that has been used for the last 30 years is now trending positive for the president and therefore should no longer be used is the exact opposite of integrity.

    Feel free to question the integrity of politicians. I certainly do. But you make it very difficult to judge them if you constantly change the stick by which you measure.

    Defending the President no matter the circumstances? No. But there are certainly those who criticize him daily. Have you not noticed? Any criticism I might care to add would quickly be lost in the ocean of vitriol that often pours through these threads. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't join in the daily bashing. Certainly, when compared to them I must look like a devout democrat since I wouldn't rather the country fail than Obama succeed. But I do occasionally enjoy defending him here because there are so few who do and a great many of the criticisms lack merit.

    How about you? I can't recall you ever disagreeing with any criticism of the current President, therefore you must oppose him no matter the circumstances no?

    -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 4:16 PM
  • Any criticism I might care to add would quickly be lost in the ocean of vitriol that often pours through these threads. But I do occasionally enjoy defending him here because there are so few who do and a great many of the criticisms lack merit. -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 4:16 PM

    I thought if you disagree with Obama it's racism - not vitriol. You're confusing me.

    -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 4:38 PM
  • Rick, In 2008 the economy was like an F15 Eagle in a freefall at it's maximum altitude where the best remedy is to pull back on the throttle and let it fall into the heavier air below where it can again be controlled. Full throttle attempts to recover only deplete needed fuel to level off and gain the speed needed for reassent.

    I think the one to be criticized the most is GW for going along with the histeria of the left that led to the false bailout we will be paying for years to come.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 5:06 PM
  • I think GW will be looked upon as another president said when he left, [paraphrasing] After a few years history will look kindly on the accomplishments of this administration.

    Of course it will take me a while to snuggle up to the idea of expanding federal control over education and implementing a new entitlement program without regard to funding.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 5:21 PM
  • Are catholics a large voting block? you bet they are in a big way.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 5:51 PM
  • Swamp, I think it depends on if they

    "all" announce they will all vote the same way due to a particular issue.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 6:39 PM
  • Old John,

    What I understand of a voting block.... any particular group related by some common denominator could be considered a block. Their vote is an individual decision but is influenced by some common factor or belief, or sympathy etc. etc.. In the case of the Catholic voting block, it remains to be seen if the lay people as individuals see this latest afront to their religion as being serious enough to have an effect on how they mark the ballot in November.

    I think there is no question, Obama and his handlers have calculated that it will not have a serious effect, or he being the political animal he is, would not have orchestrated this confrontation in an election year. He has made mistakes before, let us hope this is another one. There is no question that Catholics who voted for him in 2008 were in greater numbers than those that did not.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 7:05 PM
  • DADES

    Are you asking if I believe two wrongs make a right ? No , I do not . Continueing to use this trend to make oneself look good is not right , no matter if a President is Republican , Democrat , Independant , or other wise .

    Are you asking if I believe the current President's performance is as he promised in 2008 ? No , I do not . Our country was obviously in a severe tail spin , he had visions and ideas to lead the way back .

    His first priority was mandated health care instead of jobs and the housing market . A very poor choice of priorities . A partisian Congress passed his health care very quickly . He now accuses a partisian Congress for no jobs and other issues facing our country . Why didn't he address the jobs issues when the partisian Congress were willing to act so quickly ? Congress are to blame for this ?

    The overall performance is not good , so no , I do not support him and do not understand those of you who insist he is the real deal .

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 4:41 PM

    But Rick, the current method made him look bad until the latest data and now they have a problem with it. You don't see the double standard here? The jobs data that has been used to measure unemployment for the past 30 years and has made Obama look pretty bad up until now, is starting to turn around and shine a little light on the current administration so therefore we should switch from one arbitrary measure to another arbitrary measure just to make the current administration continues to look bad? But you think that it's Obama who's trying to take advantage of the system? Hmmmmm.

    As for Obama, I'm not sure you have realistic expectations. Has he been able to keep all the promises he made? No. But name one President who even came close. If that's the criteria by which you judge the President then you must equally hate all who came before him and most likely all who will come after. You might as well complain you can't walk to the moon. It's certainly a fact, but good luck finding anyone to take your complaints seriously.

    And Obama has kept many of his promises and done some good. He has passed Obamacare. Clinton couldn't do it. An no conservatives to my knowledge even thought it was worth pursuing. Taxes are lower than they have ever been. He inherited a recession and managed to keep us out of depression and even managed to grow the economy a little. I don't know what else you were expecting.

    -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 7:11 PM
  • -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 7:11 PM

    All this "success" (debatable) at a cost of $5 TRILLION dollars. That's the part that's never brought up by his defenders. It's the same with the great "saving" of the auto industry - at a cost of $23 BILLION taxpayer dollars. Hell, they could have bought Anheuser-Busch cheaper than that and turned a profit a lot quicker.

    If he spent another $5 TRILLION we would have unemployment around 4% maybe. Is that success??? Is that leadership???

    -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 7:26 PM
  • Actually, haven't we been seeing a lot of 'Change' the past couple of years? I guess Change doesn't necessarily mean 'for the better,' like some of us thought it meant.

    Although ... no doubt some Change has benefited some people/groups ... just not the majority, I guess.

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 11:01 PM
  • Hi Mom, good to hear from you again. Tell Pops Hi!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Feb 8, 2012, at 11:51 PM
  • Have you had enough change yet?

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 6:06 AM
  • "I give Bin Laden a hell of a lot of credit for thinking ahead .

    "He dam near ruined America's economy . His actions took away a huge part of American's personal rights from the US Constitution due to the threat of terrorism."

    All he did was knock over a couple of buildings. How we responded, over-responded, or under-responded was of our own doing. He may have anticipated the response, though I think not entirely, he was probably expecting a Clintonesque response - a $1,000,000 missile up a camel's butt - not a full-scale war. His final intercepted message at Tora Bora indicates that he was expecting the level of response.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 8:05 AM
  • Rick,

    Five trillion? Actually about a trillion of that was a part of Bush's 2009 budget but of course that still leaves 4 trillion on Obama. Obama inherited two separate wars and an economy in recession and threatening depression. We were losing 700,000+ jobs a month. The financial industry was on the verge of collapse. The housing industry was on the verge of collapse. The auto industry was on the verge of collapse. So you tell me, what's the going rate for turning around a country in crisis?

    Certainly the conservatives will tell you they could have named that tune for 3 trillion or maybe 2 or the cost of a grand slam breakfast at Denny's if it will get your vote. And maybe they could have. I'm not saying that this is the best we could have hoped for. All I'm saying is that despite the steady diet of sour grapes that is served up daily on this site, he actually hasn't done that bad of a job.

    -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:28 AM
  • GM cost $25 billion? What do you think the cost would have been to let them and all the other businesses and companies that support them and rely on them to fail? You really think we should have added them on top of the 700,000 monthly jobs we were already losing? Ford actually survived without subsidy because they were so poorly managed that they actually failed before the economy went bad. They were able to spin off their bad assets and debt while the economy was still good and thus they were able to recover on their own. In essence, they got lucky to fail when they did because it put them in a perfect position to weather the down economy.

    -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:31 AM
  • You say he should have focused on jobs? He did. He passed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Council of economic Advisors and private-sector forecasters, "created or saved 3-4 million jobs, and up to 5 million full-time equivalent jobs. It had also boosted gross domestic product by up to $560 billion and reduced the unemployment rate up to 1.8 percentage points." Of course, conservatives say that isn't true. Who should we believe?

    -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:38 AM
  • "You really think we should have added them on top of the 700,000 monthly jobs we were already losing?" Yep!

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:39 AM
  • Why do I feel a change at this time is bad? I assume you are talking about a change in the way unemployment is calculated? I'm not against changing it to something better. But I don't know anything that is going to provide a more accurate result. Sure, the current method excludes discouraged workers. The alternative method, which includes discouraged workers as unemployed, also includes people who have willingly removed themselves from the workforce. So either way you numbers will be skewed. Just seems to me the current method, which excludes people who aren't looking for work as being counted as unemployed, is more logical. Feel free to disagree.

    -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:42 AM
  • "You really think we should have added them on top of the 700,000 monthly jobs we were already losing?" Yep!

    -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:39 AM

    It certainly was an option. But then you would be complaining about how Obama let the unemployment rate get to 20%. As I said, he inherited a pretty bad situation and there are no quick fixes. Anything he did, whether something or nothing, would come at a price.

    -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:45 AM
  • "Five trillion? Actually about a trillion of that was a part of Bush's 2009 budget but of course that still leaves 4 trillion on Obama."

    Actually, no it wasn't. In a normal year, that would be the case, but 2008/2009 were not normal years, since Ms. Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the checquebook. President Bush submitted a budget request in February 2008, as required by law, but no budget was passed by the Congress for that year. Also, Ms. Pelosi did not submit the spending bills for FY2009 to President Bush, limping along on continuing resloutions until Mr. Obama took office in 2009.

    The reason, of course, was simple: Ms. Pelosi knew that deficit spending was going to balloon under her pen, and she did not want any deficit projections issued before the election - since that would reflect negatively on the Democrats running for office against the 'fiscal irresponsibility of the Republicans'. The largest Republican deficit had been less than $500 billion. It is hard to prove they were irresponsible when the Democrats were carrying a deficit nearly triple that amount.

    The Omnibus Spending Bill for FY2009 was signed by Mr. Obama in March of 2009, and his Stimulus Bill was signed in February of 2009, effectively giving Mr. Obama responsibility for all spending that occured after that time.

    Mr. Bush does not get credit or blame for spending that he did not authorize. Since he did not sign the spending bills, he did not authorize the spending.

    He does get blame for the bailout moneys, or at least $350 billion of it. But, as Mr. Obama notes, those were loans to be returned to the Treasury.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:57 AM
  • "It had also boosted gross domestic product by up to $560 billion and reduced the unemployment rate up to 1.8 percentage points."

    YOu can only make the claim if you accept that the stimulus was responsible for all growth that occured in the past two years. That's a pretty difficult claim to support.

    "Of course, conservatives say that isn't true. Who should we believe?"

    Neither.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 10:11 AM
  • I feel like I used up about two weeks worth of posts above so I'll try to keep this short.

    Shapley,

    I will defer to your wisdom on the first trillion then.

    I asked whom we should believe and you replied, "neither". --Good answer.

    You said, "That's a pretty difficult claim to support." Certainly. But most economists agree that we wouldn't be where we are today without the stimulus.

    ____________________

    Rick,

    I don't recall attacking Bush in my posts above. Why is your first response to defend him?

    You said, "I'm saying is things aren't as nice and comfy as he leads the voters to believe." --When has he tried to lead voters to believe that things are nice and comfy?

    I'm not trying to convince you to vote Obama. Honestly, I don't know that I will vote Obama. Just because I don't spend my day on here trashing him doesn't mean I must support they guy. But I was pointing out that he has addressed many of the things you say he should have focused on. If you've fallen into the "anybody but Obama" crowd, that's cool. Vote your conscience.

    -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 12:01 PM
  • "But most economists agree that we wouldn't be where we are today without the stimulus."

    I'll agree with that, too, but I don't call that a good thing. Some say we are better, some worse, than without the stimulus, but I doubt anyone says there was no effect all from it.

    Many argue that the bailouts and the stimulus slowed both the collapse and the recovery, though few agree as to how much of either, and whether the sum total is good or bad.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 12:30 PM
  • The thing to consider is not how many catholics are there, but rather how many catholics don't practice birth control.

    From a voting stand poing, I bet you there were just as many releived as there were horrified.

    Also, its not just the catholic church. All catholic entities and charities don't offer birth control. The St. Francis for example.

    However, I disagree 100%. with this policy. Birth control coverage should not be dictated.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 10:03 AM
  • The "Little Hitler Wannabee" is going to throw the Catholics a bone today. Let's see if the Bishops have the power of their convictions, and tell him to stuff it.

    The sooner an all out confrontation to his Socialistic Ideals takes place, the sooner we have a chance to reverse the damage he is doing to this country.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:22 AM
  • -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:22 AM

    Was that aimed at me?

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:40 AM
  • No Lumber, it was not aimed at you.

    It was strictly my observation based on what I have seen on the news this morning. In my opinion, Obama is going to throw a bone to the Catholics, in my opinion this was preplanned and it was a matter of when to throw the bone as the White House knew there would be objection when they dictated the policy.

    The whole issue was calculated out well in advance of issuing the mandate. No different than a game of checkers.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:46 AM
  • However, I disagree 100%. with this policy. Birth control coverage should not be dictated.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 10:03 AM

    Lumber and I agree with that. Let government dictate what happens in the bedroom and the next thing you are going to have is government dictating to a newly married couple how many children they may have to control population. China ringss a bell with me!

    The whole mess smacks of breeding a herd of cattle.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:51 AM
  • Rick, Wheels,

    Did I miss somthing. Did he reverse himself?

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:51 AM
  • Lumber and I agree with that. Let government dictate what happens in the bedroom and the next thing you are going to have is government dictating to a newly married couple how many children they may have to control population. China ringss a bell with me!

    The whole mess smacks of breeding a herd of cattle.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:51 AM

    I agree.

    However, I think it can go a step further. I think the government should offer a financial incentive for sterilization. It will save money in the long run.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:53 AM
  • Lumber,

    Not yet, and not completely as I read it this morning. However he would if he thought it would cost him the Catholicc vote in November. His biggest concern is getting elected to a 2nd term. If he does, and he does not have to worry about the various voting blocks.... watch him go then.

    An announcement is due sometime today, if what I read is correct.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:54 AM
  • WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:59 AM
  • -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:54 AM

    I just wish the republicans would try to keep him from getting a second term.

    As it is, the only one who seem to be helping are the republicans.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:00 PM
  • However, I think it can go a step further. I think the government should offer a financial incentive for sterilization. It will save money in the long run.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 11:53 AM

    Sorry but I cannot agree with that. We are lowering ourselves to the animal level. There is more to life than offering money to get people to do something, even if it saves money.

    Quit subsidizing the oversexed masses for having children they cannot take care of and they will figure it out for themselves. I do not believe people are so stupid that they cannot figure out that they are ******** themselves out of a seat at the table. Let them work out how they do it between themselves and their God. Get government out of it completely.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:02 PM
  • As it is, the only one who seem to be helping are the republicans.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:00 PM

    Certainly would not disagree with that!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:03 PM
  • Rick,

    The words "it will force" rang a bell with me immediately. That is what a dictatorship is all about. If people do not stand up on their hind legs and demand it stop.... that is where we are heading. It may take a while, but if things continue in the direction they are... hide and watch!

    Got to go.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:27 PM
  • Forcing the insurance company is the same as forcing the church to finance unless the church offers medical expense coverage as a self insured entity. If the insurance company is forced to pay for birth control as a benefit that will be reflected in it's premium that the church pays.

    Or the way it will be spun is that it is not unlike higher car insurance premiums for teen age drivers and the Catholic church will get a break on premiums due to less expected claims.

    But wait, those Catholics that defy the church doctrine and use artifical birth control could be percieved as having a pre-existing condition and Obama care is supposed to end discrimination of pre-existing conditions costing higher premiums.

    I suspect the ruler has spoken and the neocons will be appeased.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:58 PM
  • lumbrgfktr

    I actually believe this goes beyond Religeous belief although it was the Catholic church who yelled the loudest . You know , the queakiest wheel gets the oil .

    To me , it's a couple of things .

    First , issues in the 3,000 page National HealthCare Act the Public knew nothing about are coming out piece by piece and the Public doesn't like them .

    Second , it's a power play of control over the Public's private life by the Government . I read this morning on CNN a growing number of Democrats are starting to have doubts about this issue due to voters in their district demanding it be stopped and changed immediately . It is election year , I guess the voters have their attention now .

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:07 PM

    You are wrong.

    the 3,000 pages you mentioned...is just the table of contents to the Healthcare Act.

    But in all seriousness, the national Healthcare act is one thint that scares me about Obama...And Romney.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 2:08 PM
  • You say he should have focused on jobs? He did. He passed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Council of economic Advisors and private-sector forecasters, "created or saved 3-4 million jobs, and up to 5 million full-time equivalent jobs. It had also boosted gross domestic product by up to $560 billion and reduced the unemployment rate up to 1.8 percentage points." Of course, conservatives say that isn't true. Who should we believe?

    -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Feb 9, 2012, at 9:38 AM

    Dades - please explain this. If it boosted gross domestic product by $560 BILLION then why did it cost $1 TRILLION? You can ignore my posts all you want - I know, they're tough questions. For the 10th time liberals praise saving GM - $27 BILLION cost to all of us and our kids. Saved "3-4 million jobs" (an Obama admin figure) for $1 TRILLION. He could spend $5 TRILLION more this year and unemployment will fall and he will "save" more jobs.

    Next time you want to invest $100 and expect a return of $56 let me know. I'll be glad to "invest" that money for you. Heck, I'll repay you on the spot.

    Running up the deficit and spending money we don't have is NOT leadership or vision. It is a formula that will a) ruin the United States and b) get Obama re-elected. Take your pick.

    -- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 2:17 PM
  • Sorry but I cannot agree with that. We are lowering ourselves to the animal level. There is more to life than offering money to get people to do something, even if it saves money.

    Quit subsidizing the oversexed masses for having children they cannot take care of and they will figure it out for themselves. I do not believe people are so stupid that they cannot figure out that they are ******** themselves out of a seat at the table. Let them work out how they do it between themselves and their God. Get government out of it completely.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 12:02 PM

    You disagree? Watch the movie idiocracy...

    But I agree with you.

    Also, what if benefits (welfare unemployment) wasn't renewed in the form of a payouts, but in the form of low or no interest loan?

    Do you think people would modify how much they recieved if they have to pay it back. Do you think those receiving free housing would do less damange if they were had to pay it back?

    Basicly, you are put on a list until that loan is resolved...you can't purchase cell phones. You can't fiance anything, etc.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 2:23 PM
  • Lumber,

    When humans start being degraded down to the animal level, I think it is time to rethink modern day civilization. Remember when Hitler was going to create the "Master Race"... he was literally breeding human beings for that purpose. How far away from that do you think we are?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 3:54 PM
  • I don't think Roman Catholics are any more a voting block than say the Southern Baptists or the Methodists.

    My own church has lost so many members over the years due to flirting around with "liberal" ideas that we could not be considered a voting block of much value to anyone excdept in the tightest of elections.

    In the argument at hand, I side with the Roman Catholics.

    -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 4:51 PM
  • I never understood how a low interest loan amounts to such benefit with interest rates already relatively low. Could it be that the loans aren't expected to repaid or is the low interest loan rates are so low people get paid to borrow from government?

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 5:00 PM
  • If I had not sat across a library table from two young teenagers discussing when their mothers would condone them having out of wedlock children in order to receive welfare, I would probably be more inclined to feel sorry for those who might be hurt should we quit subsidizing the birthrate. At the time, I was young myself and horrified at the idea as, I think, was one of the young ladies involved in the conversation. However, her horror stopped at graduation from high school. It seemed she felt her mother would "kill" her if she got pregnant before she got her diploma. After that, it was okay to go after that "free money". Somehow, with our relaxing of societal morality, I imagine it isn't nearly as taboo this day and time, but, rather, more and more the thing to do.

    -- Posted by InReply on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 7:05 PM
  • InReply, In a time past the rare event was dealt with in a discrete way. Many a childless couple were blessed at about the same time little Suzie came home from an extended visit caring for a sickly aunt.

    I'm reminded of the gal that called out to govenor Ventura saying "Well I'm a single mom".

    I too was witness to a conversation recently. Brother's unemployment runs out next month and he needs a little inside talk up to get a job here.

    I work with a lot of losers but at least they work. Many are very good employees that have bought into the liberal mantra that they have been short changed on what they are entitled to, thus figuring somekind of limitation applies to their future.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 8:27 PM
  • It seems Obama has partially backed off again. That man wont stick to his guns if it will cost him a vote.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 8:43 PM
  • No, he hasn't backed off. He just spins it differently forcing his rule in another way.

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 8:59 PM
  • His priorities change with the wind. How can anyone trust him?

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 10, 2012, at 9:06 PM
  • "....Administration believe mandating the health care insurance commerce to pay for "free" services will be a pliable (viable) solution?"

    First of all, there is no "free" service. The logical solution that has been offered is to simply include birth control as part of basic women's preventive health services. All that means is that no separate charges will be assessed. As for the insurer, it is far cheaper to pay for birth control that it is to pay for a woman's pregnancy and child birth costs.

    This will be a particularly significant benefit to Catholic women, since about 98% of them use birth control at some time. That is what is so strange about the entire matter, it has absolutely nothing to do with any objection to religion, it is purely a birth control issue which is favored by all women. It is humorous that almost all of the complainers and whiners are male.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 8:40 AM
  • commonsensematters: good comment.

    -- Posted by donacita on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 8:51 AM
  • Is the 98% talking point a real number or did someone just make that up?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 9:14 AM
  • When will this administration stop trying to run peoples personal life. Anymore it seems everyday they are trying there best to dictate to the people on how to manage and run their personal affairs. The office of the presidency consist of protecting and defending the borders of our country from both forgein and domestic enemies and working to have a good economy for all. More and more I'm starting to see the american citizenship liberties taken away it is something every day. The President had no right stepping in to this religion issue at all, his own V.P. told him that.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 9:42 AM
  • I actually say a Cardinal on TV yesterday say that 98% of Catholic women have used birth control. This is a self admission on his part. One woman, who is Catholic said when you elect a woman pope, call me. When you appoint a woman Cardinal or Bishop, call me. Otherwise please stay out of my uterus.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 9:47 AM
  • Howdy,

    That woman needs to start her own religion. Then she can believe and do as she pleases.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:04 AM
  • Ok, I'll answer my own question. The 98% comes from a Guttmacher syrvey. They are funded by some big guns such as the Hewlett foundation and others that promote green technology, planned parenthood other controversial causes and some not so. Guttmacher seems to me to be dedicated to preventing any unwanted birth regardless the method but advocating education and contraceptives as first choice.

    The first I read on their website about the survey starts out "The survey was designed....."

    May be some truth in the findings but I suspect this is not an unbiased source.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:37 AM
  • How about women pay for their own birth ccontrol instead of expecting someone else pay for it?

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:42 AM
  • How about women pay for their own birth ccontrol instead of expecting someone else pay for it?

    -- Posted by Live & Let Live on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:42 AM

    What a novel approach! Bet nobody in the White House thought of that. And I agree 100%. If a person wants any kind of crap... no matter what it is, go buy it. No money.... no problemo, get a freakin job! Or modify your desires.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:57 AM
  • Look out Wheels you going to up-set some of these modern day democrats on here such as Howdy.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 12:00 PM
  • "...an issue of the Government to force , or mandate , the general Public's personal decisions."

    It is nothing of the sort. As most women use birth control, there is no reason not to include it in the basic package. No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything. If a lady does not want to use birth control, that's fine, neither the government nor anybody else says she has to. As mentioned before it is not a cost issue.

    And don't worry about your wallet, birth control will not be part of your basic coverage. You are welcome to "take (your) personal Liberties serious(ly)" but preventive health care for women in no way infringes on your liberty.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 12:20 PM
  • "This will be a particularly significant benefit to Catholic women, since about 98% of them use birth control at some time. That is what is so strange about the entire matter, it has absolutely nothing to do with any objection to religion, it is purely a birth control issue which is favored by all women. It is humorous that almost all of the complainers and whiners are male."

    You clearly understand neither morality nor religion. A 'benefit' to Catholic women? Are you saying the Catholic Church should be happy that their female membership no longer has to pay for their own sins? Methinks that runs entirely counter to the concept of Religion.

    Sin without consequence, and now without cost. What, exactly, is supposed to be the 'benefit' to Catholics thereof? What, exactly, makes that not a matter of religion?

    ____________

    "As most women use birth control, there is no reason not to include it in the basic package."

    What? How does that reasoning make sense. If most women are already using it without the Churches being required to pay for it, why change the rules and pick this fight when it is clearly not needed. Apparently, those that want to use it are finding the means to pay for it. What makes it incumbent to shift the payment to those who find it morally objectionable? It can only be a desire to punish them for their stance.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 12:41 PM
  • Shapley, "What makes it incumbent to shift the payment to those who find it morally objectionable?"

    It sets another precedent of federal and executive power over competitive free enterprise and religous freedom?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 12:55 PM
  • "You clearly understand neither morality nor religion."

    Are you honestly expecting anyone to believe that using birth control methods is some type of moral infraction? Are all Catholic women immoral and sinners if they use birth control methods?

    --------------------------

    "Sin without consequence, and now without cost."

    If they are already paying for it, and it's added as a basic service, women still pay for birth control.

    -----------------------

    "...shift the payment to those who find it morally objectionable?"

    If 98% of Catholic women are using birth control who is it that finds it morally objectionable? Apparently not Catholic women. And if most women are already using it, what difference does it make if it is paid for as part of a separate payment, or part of a basic service? In either case the Catholic church is not paying for it.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 1:50 PM
  • The government should not be paying for it period commonsensematters and this should not have ever been in the health care reform act law in the first place. This is where government over steps it's bounds. We do not need government telling us what health care to choose this is why Obamacare will be repealed in the U.S. Supreme Court come June of this year.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 2:28 PM
  • "...government should not be paying for it period..."

    The government is not paying for anything. The only change from prior years is the that birth control coverage is in a basic plan. No one is telling anyone "what health care to choose" and no one has "overstepped bounds."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 2:58 PM
  • birth control is a personal decision , not women's preventive health care . this cost should be paid by the women as it is her choice and no one else .

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 3:18 PM

    You're right, birth control is a personal decision. But if she can't afford it and you demand it not even be an option, then you are in effect making her personal decisions for her. Are you not?

    I'm all for paying your own way. If you want a little red Corvette then by all means you should have to work for it. But I don't believe that healthcare should be a luxury only afforded to the wealthy.

    -- Posted by DADES on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 3:47 PM
  • Why do posters use the word "Methinks"?

    -- Posted by donacita on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 4:42 PM
  • Methinks because they want to.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 5:48 PM
  • Why do posters use the word "Methinks"?

    -- Posted by donacita on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 4:42 PM

    Because medo.

    Sorry, just can't help myself sometimes and you asked. Of course, Shapley may do it because he can.

    -- Posted by InReply on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 6:23 PM
  • You're right, birth control is a personal decision. But if she can't afford it and you demand it not even be an option, then you are in effect making her personal decisions for her. Are you not?

    I'm all for paying your own way. If you want a little red Corvette then by all means you should have to work for it. But I don't believe that healthcare should be a luxury only afforded to the wealthy.

    -- Posted by DADES on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 3:47 PM

    Oh, please. She also has the option of abstinence or insisting on the man using condoms. I don't know about your family but lots of families have one, two, or no children through choice and they have never had their sex life financed. The best birth control measure this country could practice would be to stop paying women to have children.

    -- Posted by InReply on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 6:29 PM
  • it has absolutely nothing to do with any objection to religion, it is purely a birth control issue which is favored by all women. It is humorous that almost all of the complainers and whiners are male.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 8:40 AM

    More liberal spin. Catholic institutions don't want to pay for health care coverage that includes abortion or birth control. Your president and liberal democrat friends like McCaskill want to force religious institutions to pay for things against their religious beliefs. Funny thing is - if this were an offense to Muslims you and your party would wet your pants and apologize.

    -- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 7:57 PM
  • But if she can't afford it and you demand it not even be an option, then you are in effect making her personal decisions for her. Are you not? -- Posted by DADES on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 3:47 PM

    Another classic liberal belief. If YOU don't pay for someone elses "WANTS" not "NEEDS" then you are making personal choices for "her". Just reread the post Dades made and read it carefully. If "she" can't afford it and "you" won't pay for it then you are making "her" personal decisions for her. Isn't that about the most warped thing you can imagine? Sadly, it's par for the course with today's liberals.

    Stay out of my pockets Dades. Go pay your own way.

    -- Posted by Dug on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 8:01 PM
  • Look out Wheels you going to up-set some of these modern day democrats on here such as Howdy.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 12:00 PM

    Swamp,

    Me upsetting???..... Heavens to Meratroid! That is what getting older is, the freedom to upset people who need upsetting. ;-)

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 8:26 PM
  • Dades,

    Do you really think affordability has anything to do with this issue? If so, wouldn't one 6-pack a week less, or one carton of cigarettes less a month solve that problem? I'm suggesting choices and priorities.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 8:29 PM
  • Of course it's not about affordability. The gov't hands out free birth control like candy on Halloween. It's about the left's belief that 1% of the population owes the other 99% free stuff, and that gov't should force the 1% to comply.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 8:45 PM
  • "...what about men's choice of Viagra..."

    This has nothing to do with health care, it's like cosmetic surgery.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "... and condoms?"

    Last I looked, they were not prescription items.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "...why has this issue not been addressed by the President?"

    Because they are not health care matters.

    - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "...should these be considered as male preventive health care?"

    Of course not. I have yet to see or hear of a male getting pregnant.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "...how can the President "demand" the health care insurance commerce policies?"

    It is not a question of demanding anything. It is simply moving a service to the basic plan.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "...also , you seem to find liberties as some sort of joke."

    I do not find liberties a joke. I do find some humor in people making mountains out of molehills, particularly when the issue of birth control is one that has existed for many years.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "She also has the option of abstinence..."

    I am sure you can sell that approach to millions of men and women....

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "...people are making personal decisions and actions and then expecting everyone else to pay for them ."

    Once and for all, why should you claim that anybody is "expecting everyone else to pay." For example, say a woman has an insurance policy that only covers birth control as an extra and pays a few dollars for it. Now birth control is in the basic policy so she pays a few dollars more. No change in who is paying.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    "When a person can make as much on entitlements , unemployment benefits plus food stamps plus medicaid as they can for an entry level job , they will take the entitlements."

    Another classic conservative belief, that is not true.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:19 PM
  • Another classic conservative belief, that is not true.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:19 PM

    Can you prove that for us Common?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:39 PM
  • "...should these be considered as male preventive health care?"

    Of course not. I have yet to see or hear of a male getting pregnant.

    Common, have you ever heard of STD's?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 10:46 PM
  • "If 98% of Catholic women are using birth control who is it that finds it morally objectionable? Apparently not Catholic women. And if most women are already using it, what difference does it make if it is paid for as part of a separate payment, or part of a basic service? In either case the Catholic church is not paying for it."

    If the Catholic Women who are using were the ones being asked to pay for it, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? The Catholic Church, and the institutions it operates (hospitals, charities, universities, schools, etc.) are being told they must provide the service. They are also the ones who find it morally objectionable.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 11:04 PM
  • "Are you honestly expecting anyone to believe that using birth control methods is some type of moral infraction? Are all Catholic women immoral and sinners if they use birth control methods?"

    The answer to both is 'yes'. Have you not been following any of this? The Catholic Church considers the use of artificial birth control methods immoral and sinful. That has been its position for only about 2,000 years. If that policy is to Change, it has to be changed ex cathedra. Mr. Obama has no authority over the Church's dogma.

    --------------------------

    "Sin without consequence, and now without cost."

    "If they are already paying for it, and it's added as a basic service, women still pay for birth control."

    Nonsense. If the mandate says that the institutions must provide birth control and abortificants as part of the health care package, then they are saying the instutition, not the women, must provide it and, in many cases, pay for it.

    If, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas College provides health coverage for its employees, and that health coverage must now cover birth control and abortificants, then St. Thomas Aquinas College must pay for birth control and abortificants. If not, what is the purpose of the mandate?

    ___________

    If a bartender or party host provides drinks to a patron who drives away intoxicated and kills a child through is drunken driving, the bartender or party host is considered both legally and morally responsible for the death. How, then, can you claim that the provider of birth control and abortificants is not responsible for the death (or prevention of life) of a child by means of the birth control or abortificant he provides?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 11:17 PM
  • What's the next step? Will all employers be required to provide medical insurance for workers? Will all medical insurance be mandated to pay for abortion services? Breast augmentation, tatoo removal, hair transplants?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 11:20 PM
  • "...abortion services? Breast augmentation, tatoo removal, hair transplants?"

    The answers are no, no, no, and no. Why should you want these covered?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 5:03 AM
  • "Are all Catholic women immoral and sinners if they use birth control methods?"

    Per SH... The answer to both is 'yes'."

    Now there's a slippery slope. If 98% of Catholic women are then serial sinners and immoralists, having used birth control (many continuously over a long period of time) why does the church allow them to remain in the church? Also, are not the men who knowingly allow (or in some cases demand) their wives use birth control equally sinful and immoral. What about women who have hysterectomies or men who have vasectomies, are not they equally guilty? It may be time for the church to rethink this policy, since apparently no one but priests and nuns abide by it.

    * * * * * * * *

    "...its position for only about 2,000 years."

    Minor point, but there really was not a Catholic church in the year 12. More notably artificial or medical birth control was not an issue, as natural birth control worked so well. Consider life spans of 20 to 30 years, a high rate of natural pregnancy failure., a high death rate of infants and mothers at birth, and low probability of all children surviving to adulthood.

    * * * * * * * *

    "...the institutions must provide birth control..."

    It is the insurance companies providing the coverage, not the Catholic institution. Why would they do that? Because it less costly to the insurance company to provide birth control at no cost, than it is to pay for a pregnancy and child delivery.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:37 AM
  • Rick, This has been ruled upon. Obama is the ruler over the Pope and Catholics need to just accept it.

    "...abortion services? Breast augmentation, tatoo removal, hair transplants?" Common, if Obama said so, I'm sure you would say "yes yes yes!" :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 10:27 AM
  • The President is only human , he's gonna make a mistake once in awhile . Why can't you just admit he did this time ? He has , he's changed his total stance on this issue .

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 9:06 AM

    Rick,

    Why would Obama want to admit he was wrong, so long as he has his number one *** kisser... Common (and others like him) to defend his every action???

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 11:44 AM
  • "...somebody calling me a liar when I know I'm right."

    I do not know who is "calling (you) a liar. My only point was that the contention that people can make more on welfare that they can by working is a classic conservative belief, that is not true. Obviously you may find "welfare queen" examples where some can make more on welfare that by working, but they are an extremely tiny minority.

    I have already been to North St. Louis, know people in North St. Louis, and I know there are people in North St. Louis are on welfare, and in addition I know there are people in North St. Louis that game or cheat the system to increase their benefits. The fallacy is the conservative suggestion that there are millions upon millions of those "leeches" that drain the entire country dry, that the single goal of the North St. Louis "leeches" is to grab as much conservative money as possible. That type of outlook is what I object to.

    * * * * * * * *

    "and it's public puppets , tearing my freedoms away..."

    How about listing all of these freedoms you have lost.

    * * * * * * * *

    "Where do you suppose babies come from?"

    What does that have to do with the impossibility of males becoming pregnant?

    * * * * * * * *

    "He demanded that insurance companies..."

    Sorry, but your reference from an article by an AP writer, using his own interpretation of how the President said something. If there is a direct quote from President Obama saying those words I have not heard it.

    This is part of what the President said...

    "...the insurance company -- not the hospital, not the charity -- will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

    Covering contraception is cost neutral for insurance companies since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. The President said that nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it."

    Not really a "demand."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 12:17 PM
  • "...somebody calling me a liar when I know I'm right."

    I do not know who is "calling (you) a liar. My only point was that the contention that people can make more on welfare that they can by working is a classic conservative belief, that is not true. Obviously you may find "welfare queen" examples where some can make more on welfare that by working, but they are an extremely tiny minority.

    I have already been to North St. Louis, know people in North St. Louis, and I know there are people in North St. Louis are on welfare, and in addition I know there are people in North St. Louis that game or cheat the system to increase their benefits. The fallacy is the conservative suggestion that there are millions upon millions of those "leeches" that drain the entire country dry, that the single goal of the North St. Louis "leeches" is to grab as much conservative money as possible. That type of outlook is what I object to.

    * * * * * * * *

    "and it's public puppets , tearing my freedoms away..."

    How about listing all of these freedoms you have lost.

    * * * * * * * *

    "Where do you suppose babies come from?"

    What does that have to do with the impossibility of males becoming pregnant?

    * * * * * * * *

    "He demanded that insurance companies..."

    Sorry, but your reference from an article by an AP writer, using his own interpretation of how the President said something. If there is a direct quote from President Obama saying those words I have not heard it.

    This is part of what the President said...

    "...the insurance company -- not the hospital, not the charity -- will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

    Covering contraception is cost neutral for insurance companies since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. The President said that nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it."

    Not really a "demand."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 12:17 PM
  • Sorry about that, must be so important that it needed to be said twice.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 12:18 PM
  • Remember "...ready to rule on day one."

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 12:20 PM
  • We're up to 99% now. Are 1% of all women nuns or does that include the very very ugly and old women too? :)

    That part about reaching out; are we going to start hearing public service announcements about this paid for by the insurance industry?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 12:31 PM
  • "...Viargra as birth control..."

    If you check a bit more carefully you may find that Viagra is kind of the opposite of birth control.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 1:53 PM
  • "...why do you insist on calling human beings "leeches" ?"

    The term "leeches" is used by many in the Speak Out group for anyone receiving a government check. I certainly don't think that myself, but am just writing in a language that many of your fellow President Obama super-critics understand.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 1:57 PM
  • There are those that believe that gov't know how to spend your money better than you do.

    Increased taxes will be used for new spending. The Nat'l debt will be left for our grandchildren to worry about.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 2:33 PM
  • "... my thoughts and opinions are my own."

    They may well be, but if you happen to read some of the other posts, you will obviously see how you fit right in to the group, i.e. those who are filled with pessimism about the future of the country because President Obama is supposedly doing everything wrong and on top of that is determined to force socialism on the nation. That of course is total BS but many have alleged the same party line for 3 years.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 2:51 PM
  • My only point was that the contention that people can make more on welfare that they can by working is a classic conservative belief, that is not true.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 12:17 PM

    Just last week it was announced that the average "welfare queen" or king draws $32,750/year. The average earner takes home $32,500 after taxes. To disagree with this FACT is a "classic liberal belief that is not true".

    Also:

    when someone is considered "lionhearted" doesn't mean that have a heart from a lion

    when someone is considered "wise as an owl" doesn't mean they go to school in the forest

    when someone is considered a "leech" doesn't mean they suck blood.

    People who are lazy, entitled and draw $32,750/year from other hard working people are leeches. They ride on the back of others and suck the life-blood of their hard earned wages out of them. Sorry if "leeches" offends your liberal politically correct speech.

    -- Posted by Dug on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:18 PM
  • "...it was announced that the average "welfare queen" or king draws $32,750/year."

    Who is the "it?" How many average "welfare queens" or kings is the "average" based on. If the average draws $32,750/year then what is the median, maximum and minimum.

    Your story reminds me of the cab driver who dropped off a passenger. The rider asked the cabbie, "what's the average tip you usually get. The driver replied "Oh, about $10." The passenger said, "That seems pretty high for an average, but here." As he gave him a $10 bill, the cabbie replied, "Thanks buddy, you're the first guy ever to come up to the average."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:40 PM
  • "Now there's a slippery slope. If 98% of Catholic women are then serial sinners and immoralists, having used birth control (many continuously over a long period of time) why does the church allow them to remain in the church?"

    You assume they use it over a long period of time. That is not suggested by the poll, which merely reports that they have used it.

    There are certain sins that are excommunicatable, the use of birth control is not one of them.

    Why do they let them remain in the Church? Because we are sinners, every one. We don't limit our membership only to saints and angels. The Church seeks to save the sinners, and it can't do that if it won't let them in the door.

    __________

    " Also, are not the men who knowingly allow (or in some cases demand) their wives use birth control equally sinful and immoral. What about women who have hysterectomies or men who have vasectomies, are not they equally guilty?"

    Yes, and yes.

    ___________

    "It may be time for the church to rethink this policy, since apparently no one but priests and nuns abide by it."

    And who made you Pope? People lie, steal, and commit adultery every day, too. Do you think the Church should rethink those 'policies' as well? The Church is not a democracy. That people sin is well known. That some sin often is also well known.

    People drive drunk all the time, should the government rethink its stance on drunken driving? Obviously not, you might say, because lives are stake. So, too, with birth control and abortion - lives are at stake. The fact that you don't recognize that does not mean it is not so.

    ________

    ""...its position for only about 2,000 years."

    "Minor point, but there really was not a Catholic church in the year 12."

    What part of the word 'about' do you not understand?

    __________

    "More notably artificial or medical birth control was not an issue, as natural birth control worked so well."

    Abortion is mentioned in Coptic texts dating back to the era of the early Church, and the Church developed its stand against it. Other forms of artificial birth control also have existed for ages. The Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus, dated to about 1800 B.C., mentions various forms of birth control known at that time. So, yes, the practice was known and the Church has taken a stand against it. I take it History is not your strong suit.

    _______

    "It is the insurance companies providing the coverage, not the Catholic institution. Why would they do that? Because it less costly to the insurance company to provide birth control at no cost, than it is to pay for a pregnancy and child delivery."

    It is the institution paying for the insurance, therefore it is the institution paying for the services. Not to mention that some instutitions are 'self insured'.

    When one buys insurance, one selects a package of services provided. One should be able to 'opt out' of coverage for immoral practices. They have always been able to do so in the past, but Ms. Sebelius has decided they should no longer be able to do so, on the grounds that they do not meet the definition of 'religious' unless they meet a very narrow set of criteria that few Churches meet.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:41 PM
  • -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:40 PM

    Cute but didn't address the fact. You are truly "lionhearted" in your courage to defend the defenseless - the defenseless, of course, being Obama. Sorry for the name-calling.

    -- Posted by Dug on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:42 PM
  • ""...the insurance company -- not the hospital, not the charity -- will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles."

    Apparently, you believe in free Bubble-Up and Rainbow Stew. It is not 'free of charge', it is 'at no cost to them'. It is charged to someone else, most notably the institution that pays the premium. Thus, the Church's position.

    I see now why you are confused. You believe that insurance provides free services. Have you never wondered how they've remained profitable all these years?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:47 PM
  • "Covering contraception is cost neutral for insurance companies since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services."

    Euthanasia would save them money on geriatric care, too. Do you then support that also? At least you're now admitting its all about the money. To Hell with morality, we're talking money here, right?

    "A government that can take control of the economy for the sake of the people will end up taking control of the people for the sake of the economy." - Sen. Bob Dole -

    I think we're seeing that happen now. The government is no longer content to merely tax the people to pay for the things it wants to provide them, but now has decided to order them to buy things it wants them to have, i.e. health insurance. They have apparently also decided to take control of their religion, defining morality and dismissing their own historic views of it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:59 PM
  • ""It may be time for the church to rethink this policy,..."

    Surely you can see the arrogance of this statement...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 8:02 PM
  • -- Posted by ~~Rick on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:35 PM

    Rick,

    Seek Counseling! ;-)

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 8:14 PM
  • "Surely you can see the arrogance of this statement..."

    I do not see any arrogance in my suggestion....

    It would appear that the church has already considered the issue. Looks like the vote on the use of contraception was 65 for and 7 against, with the Pope making the final "against" decision.

    Per Wikipedia...

    "A Papal commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. According to the majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method.

    "However, Paul VI explicitly rejected his commission's recommendations in the text of Humanae Vitae, noting the 72 member commission had not been unanimous (4 theologian priests had dissented, and 1 cardinal and 2 bishops had voted that contraception was intrinsically dishonest."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 9:01 PM
  • Thinking about the title of this thread which asked if Catholics are a large voting bloc, it finally dawned on my poor thick scull. While they not be large enough to make a big difference, I would think that most Spanish-American immigrants, legal and illegal, are Catholic. It would be dumb of Obama and his Democrat party to court them with one hand and push them away with the other, especially when they need them to create more little Democrats.

    -- Posted by InReply on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 10:49 PM
  • Getting out of the boat now. I meant skull.

    -- Posted by InReply on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 10:51 PM
  • InReply

    That's it. Obama will sell you out for a vote.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 11:12 PM
  • Catholics generally do not vote for President as a large bloc; there are so many issues that are important to Catholics--pro-life issues as well as the social justice issues being just a couple. On this issue, I really think the President has underestimated how many Catholics will react. Most Catholics, as well as other religious persons, are going to think that it is Government overreaching to mandate a religious organization provide abortions in its employee health insurance.

    -- Posted by tom on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 12:07 AM
  • This policy statement from the Obama Administration leaves little doubt--if they have their way, health insurance policies provided by employers under Obamacare would be required to cover abortions, not just for the poor but for everybody. What's next, Government mandated smart phones and large flat screen TVs for everybody? It's time to bring some common sense back to America and elect anybody but Obama on November 6.

    -- Posted by tom on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 12:43 AM
  • The fact that he now mandated the people without religious objection make the contraceptives free with no copay. Now who gets to pay for that one? ObamaCare need to be flushed.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 12:43 AM
  • "I do not see any arrogance in my suggestion...."

    Then you are truly blind.

    You, who are not a Catholic, have no understanding of the workings of the Catholic Church, no understanding of its History, presume to tell the Church that it is "time to rethink its policy", and you don't see that as arrogant.

    You then point out that the Church has rethought the policy, and rejected it (yes, the Pope as head of the Church, has the final say, We are not a democracy or a democratic republic), so you were clearly wrong in your implication that they do not. Yet, you still cling to your arrogant version of things. Your own mind cannot comprehend the policy, therefore the Church should consider changing it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 7:56 AM
  • Dades,

    Do you really think affordability has anything to do with this issue? If so, wouldn't one 6-pack a week less, or one carton of cigarettes less a month solve that problem? I'm suggesting choices and priorities.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Feb 11, 2012, at 8:29 PM

    A lot of people seem to be implying that the cost of birth control is going to drive up the cost of their health insurance. But what do you think the cost of 9 months of doctor visits, lab work, sonograms, prenatal vitamins, etc are going to do you the cost of your health insurance? Then on top of that you'll have another 21 years of check ups and treatments for various ailments and misadventures.

    Your dollars go a lot farther when applied towards prevention rather than treatment.

    But then again, I'm not a Catholic and if I were then I might feel differently on this subject. However I have known Catholics who used birth control so maybe I wouldn't.

    -- Posted by DADES on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 8:54 AM
  • "A lot of people seem to be implying that the cost of birth control is going to drive up the cost of their health insurance. But what do you think the cost of 9 months of doctor visits, lab work, sonograms, prenatal vitamins, etc are going to do you the cost of your health insurance? Then on top of that you'll have another 21 years of check ups and treatments for various ailments and misadventures."

    None of which is germaine to the discussion. Are you saying the Catholic Church must sacrifice its view of morality in favour of saying insurance dollars?

    "Your dollars go a lot farther when applied towards prevention rather than treatment."

    Pregnancy is not a disease. The implication that one 'treats' pregnancy in the manner one 'treats' a cold or the flu is indicative of how far America's view of the the life process has strayed from the Catholic viewpoint of the sanctity of life.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 9:11 AM
  • Dades

    Do you really believe any government officials when they tell you something is cost neutral or even that it saves money. My point is, if you intend to use birth control measures, that is between you and your conscience, so pay for it.

    The point could just as legitimately be made that it saves the inividual money in co-pays etc. by not having to visit the doctor... so pay for your birth control items yourself and quit whining.

    And we haven't even spoken of the abortion costs. Do you really thing those costs are going to be cost neutral.

    The government needs to butt out!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 9:17 AM
  • "...presume to tell the Church that it is "time to rethink its policy", and you don't see that as arrogant."

    Talk about hitting a nerve....

    Expressing my opinion is most certainly not arrogant. And why would you think I was presuming "to tell the Church" anything. I was definitely not addressing my comments to the church.

    I am sure that you are aware that the church has changed its position on any number of issues over the past roughly 2000 years. Whether they reconsider their current position on birth control in the future is completely up to the Catholic church. I really am totally neutral on the issue, having merely pointed out a few facts.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 9:21 AM
  • "Pro-life isn't a political issue, it is a moral and personal issue. If you want to stop abortion, from a moral standard, I am with you."

    Theorist,

    Surely you cannot believe that.

    When the government sticks their nose into it in any fashion it becomes political. Obama has forgotten the part about seperation of Church and State that the liberals so often hang their hat on.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 9:22 AM
  • "I really am totally neutral on the issue, having merely pointed out a few facts."

    Common,

    "Facts" or "Opinion". Just because you make a statement on an issue you do not understand does not make it a fact.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 9:28 AM
  • Arrogance: "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions"

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 9:33 AM
  • ""Facts" or "Opinion". Just because you make a statement on an issue you do not understand does not make it a fact."

    He's never understood the distinction.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 9:34 AM
  • This is getting a bit tedious....

    I do not need a definition of arrogant, though providing it may be a bit "arrogant."

    Furthermore I also did not make a "statement on an issue (I) do not understand." The issue is hardly as complex as some would make it. But as far as facts and opinions go...

    Fact -- Many Catholic women use birth control methods that the church disapproves of.

    Fact -- The Catholic church considered changing their stance on artificial birth control in the past.

    Opinion - The church might reconsider this action in the future.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 11:27 AM
  • "Furthermore I also did not make a "statement on an issue (I) do not understand." "

    More "Opinion"!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 11:34 AM
  • "The Catholic church considered changing their stance on artificial birth control in the past."

    They considered it, and rejected it. They may consider it again, however, your prior statement that "It may be time for the church to rethink this policy,..." is presumptuous on your part. It will be time when the Church decides it is time, not when Mr. Obama, Ms. Sebelius, or commonsensematters thinks it is time.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 11:36 AM
  • This is what you are up against. If you really want to understand common, caddy, dades you need to see this video. The head of the DNC denies that unemployment has gone up since Obama took office. A bold-face lie on national TV. Watch below - only 40 seconds and it will explain the lengths that defenders of Obama will go to say anything to support him. It will be the campaign tactic this year:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQW8elNLq...

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 12:35 PM
  • Ike,

    Conscientious Objector. Have you heard that term before? It kept people out of the military... why is this any different?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 1:25 PM
  • The question then becomes one of whether or not providing birth control and abortions are part of the 'the relevant concerns of a political society'. However, it also assumes that mandating coverage, and then claiming that those who provide it, by virtue of complying with that mandate are so obligated.

    The intent appears to be to drive the Catholic Church out of the health care business, since several bishops have said they will shutter the doors to their facilities rather than be forced to comply with this mandate. If that is the case, how are the 'relevant concerns of a political society' met by reducing the access that those facilities provide?

    Or is it the intent of Mr. Obama to nationalize them as a response to the crisis he would thus create?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 1:47 PM
  • So we kick Obama out in November and deep six Obamacare.

    Then we can get on with a life in a more free country.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 1:50 PM
  • It's worth noting that the Scalia quote was in reference to a group that wanted to be able to ingest Peyote and not suffer the consequences heaped upon those who are otherwise discharged for drug usage.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 1:52 PM
  • At they time they entered into the commercial activity, this restriction was not in place.

    Now, it may be argued that they can opt out of the commercial venture as a result of the mandate, except that the government mandates that, as employers, they provide insurance. Thus, it would no longer be a matter of 'choice'.

    The question here, also borders on Ms. Sebelius' redefinition of what constitutes a 'religious institution', since the law does exempt religious institutions. Ms. Sebelius' redefinition, however, has redefined them to the point that most religious institutions do not meet the definition of a religious institution.

    The law is makes the Obama Administration self-contradictory, since it only exempts institutions that serve members of their own faith while, at the same time, they have been fighting to change the exemption that religious institutions have against employment discrimition on the basis of faith.

    As usual, the left hand knoweth not what the left hand doeth.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 2:28 PM
  • What do you think would happen if we took birthing out of the hospitals and put it back into the home as a matter of law, accepting that it is a natural function of all animals of which we are but one. And then took babies from people who could not afford them and group raised them.

    Would Catholics then apply pressure on their ruling heirarchy?

    You may remind me that what I suggest was what was common at one time; however, I would rejoin with the thought that we have had time to test the alternative.

    -- Posted by InReply on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 2:28 PM
  • Shapley, "Or is it the intent of Mr. Obama to nationalize them as a response to the crisis he would thus create?"

    Yep!

    It is the intent of Obama to run the private insurance industry or run it out of business.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 2:30 PM
  • "Would Catholics then apply pressure on their ruling heirarchy?"

    Are you saying it is the intent of the Obama administration to apply 'nation building' to democratize the Vatican? Will drone attacks be next?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 2:48 PM
  • "People are not idiots . Smoke and mirror changes become apparent quickly ."

    Rick,

    I'll comment on that after I see what happens in November.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 2:52 PM
  • I just had an interesting thought. Maybe we should all support public funding of contraception. The result? More and more lazy liberal democrats will take them and in about 10-20 years their numbers will have shrunk so low that we can turn this socialist downfall around.

    Support gov't funded contraception and turn the USA around! Between that and "gay" marriage there will be fewer of them in the future.

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 7:35 PM
  • Journal of Medical Ethics: 19 January 2012

    "What Makes Killing Wrong?"

    by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Franklin G. Miller

    http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/01/19/medethics-2011-100351.full

    "What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities. This account implies that it is not even pro tanto morally wrong to kill patients who are universally and irreversibly disabled, because they have no abilities to lose. Applied to vital organ transplantation, this account undermines the dead donor rule and shows how current practices are compatible with morality."

    ____________________

    This is where we are headed. The authors are saying it may make more sense to kill and harvest the organs of irreversibly disabled persons than to let them live. Those persons are, they argue, no better than dead, so we might as well get some use out of them, though they don't put it quite so bluntly.

    In the days of my youth, such an argument would have been unthinkable, and would immediately draw parallels to Hitler and Nazism, both still fresh in the minds of those who fought against them. Nowadays, however, the parasites that seek to prolong their own lives at the expense of others are gaining a foothold in society.

    This is the thinking that says there is nothing wrong with aborting babies and using them for medical treatments for the benefits of those who were fortunate enough to be born. Now, not content with the blood and tissue of youngsters, they seek the living organs of living beings to keep their bodies alive a few months longer.

    Then, of course, there is also the 'bottom line' of the doctors who perform the transplants and the facilities in which they occur. Billions are being lost that could be added to their 'bottom line' if only they had more organs to harvest & transplant. They see those bodies languishing there, like living warehouses of organs that could be providing them a Summer house or a new sports car, if only we would surrender our curious definition of 'murder' and simply let doctors kill people who are underutilizing those organs.

    Our movie-going and video-game-playing public has developed an attachment to the idea of a Zombie Apocalypse - the idea that humanity will be overrun with creatures that feast on the living organs of humanity in order to keep their own soulless bodies alive a little longer. Is this a case of life imitating art, or art imitating life?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 9:13 AM
  • How many pro-abortion people are against the death penalty ?

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 9:22 AM

    Yes Rick, better we kill the innocent and coddle the guilty.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 10:04 AM
  • Your argument might be valid if not for the fact that a religious exemption is part of the law - It was included by the Congress in order to win passage. The argument, as I noted, is not whether religions should be exempted, that being clearly part of the law, but whether or not Ms. Sebelius' narrow definition of 'religious' complies with the historical application.

    But, yes, the First Amendment will get you out of following unconstitutional laws. That is why we take laws to court in the first place.

    If the courts fail us, there is always civil disobedience. I seem to recall that being very popular with Civil Rights activists in the 1960s. Many laws were changed as a result of it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 10:09 AM
  • Spaniard - again, January 2012 decision from the Supreme Court - a "precendent":

    The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's claim to sue Hosanna-Tabor for firing former teacher Cheryl Perich, upholding the church's right to control its religious message and protect it from government tampering.

    You see, the Supreme Court *unanimously* rejected the government argument solely on the basis of it's standing as a religious institution. There IS a constitution and it DOES protect religious beliefs. In this case, the church is in the BUSINESS of education - your sole argument is church getting into business. It doesn't hold water. Even in a "business", the church has constitutional rights SEPARATE from those that are not affiliated with religion.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 10:44 AM
  • Again, you are ignoring the fact that the law specifically includes a religious exemption. The question remains whether or not the Secretary of HHS has the authority to define 'religous institutions' so narrowly that there will be few, if any exemptions.

    Of course, it is our desire not to have to rely ont the fickle nature of the courts. If we cannot get Mr. Obama to pressure Ms. Sebelius to change the definition, which he indicates he will not do (but he has not been known to remain true to his word, so his final word is seldom his final word), then there is the legislature which is usually known to succumb to pressure, especially during election years.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 10:48 AM
  • I didn't say anything.... -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 12:00 PM

    Uh oh. Did a "sock puppet" just get outed??? :-)

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 12:43 PM
  • Much as you would like not to believe it...there are many people who disagree with you and you words!-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 12:51 PM

    First, I don't post here to gain popularity. I guess you do? Both you and Obama would disagree with me and mine (sp) words. I'm in good company.

    Second - you're the first person to point out personal attacks and the last person to admit them (see your comments above)

    Lastly, Rick was speaking to Spaniard and you said "I didn't say anything". Made no sense to me.

    And lastly lastly - do you not know what ":-)" means?

    Do we have a chip on our shoulder?

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 1:30 PM
  • Dug posts as Jog on the STL Post opinion page.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 1:33 PM
  • Dug posts as Jog on the STL Post opinion page.-- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 1:33 PM

    Oh the humanity! howdydoody also posts on the STL Post opinion page. Question howdy. I am in Joanne Emersons district. I was raised and live in SE Missouri. Where do you live?

    So if you want more of my views/opinions go to stltoday.com and look for posts by "jog".

    When liberals get upset (Theorist/HowdyDoody) they start this personal stuff to get people to shut up. I shut up in 2008 when all you Obama lovers were foaming at the mouth about how "Hope and Change" was going to save the US. I won't do that again.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 1:48 PM
  • It's actually no different than this. It's a bunch of threads where people post comments. Here is the web site:

    www.stltoday.com

    Then pick your subject and comment away. I commented lastly on the Blunt story and his support of the church in the Obama forced contraception issue.

    Howdy - I also had an account at the WSJ site and used to comment on there but I think it's expired. I think I have one at ABCNews.com as well. Don't have any active ones other than here and stltoday.com but if I sign up for another I'll make sure and pass it on so you can follow me.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 2:40 PM
  • Dug:

    It was just a guess on my part about you posting as "Jog". But, thanks for living up to it.

    Facts are:

    1)I do not post on the STL Post site under the name Howdydoody or any other name.

    2) I live in the 8th district, which is a different district than Emerson lives in.

    3) I live in the city of Cape where I was born.

    4) I was raised in Jackson by a union family who worked hard to achieve a lot.

    5) I coined the phrase "love the fetus, forsake the child" which applies to the right wingers who want to control every woman's uterus.

    6) I am and will continue to be a proud liberal helping those less fortunate than me.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 5:07 PM
  • Howdy, Just wondering since you are in a telling mood; Were you reared as a spoiled brat or do you just come off that way as part of your Howdy identity? :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 5:58 PM
  • I am and will continue to be a proud liberal helping those less fortunate than me.-- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 5:07 PM

    And I am and will continue to be a proud conservative helping those less fortunate than me. I do it with my money and extensive volunteer time, however, and not everyone else's. As I've always said, charity comes from the heart, not the government.

    I did believe you have posted under the howdy name on the PD site. I said so in another thread here (last year) and you didn't dispute it. Interesting you read all the comments on the PD site but don't post?

    As for the "living up to it" - I don't hide or run from my opinions or shy away from them. If I do post somewhere else do you want to know my avatar so you can follow?

    I was raised in a union family as well. Parent retired with 40 years service in a union and is a conservative who loathes Obama and liberal democrats. They were strong Kennedy supporters but the new democrat party is closer to Lenin than Kennedy.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 6:07 PM
  • Posted by ~~Rick on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 11:04 AM

    Rick, your making way too much dam sense. Better stop it before someone accuses you of being the brightest bulb in the box.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 6:27 PM
  • Theorist, What's judging got to do with it?

    But hey, who can't take a little kidding?

    I wasn't even kidding you but for some reason you respond. What's that all about? :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 9:24 PM
  • Rick, your making way too much dam sense. Better stop it before someone accuses you of being the brightest bulb in the box.

    -- Posted by Live & Let Live on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 6:27 PM

    Yeah, sometimes he scares me that way, too. :)

    -- Posted by InReply on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 10:41 PM
  • "Why do republicans spit in the face of the catholic church on issues such as the death penalty and unemployment benefits and war?"

    Are you saying the Republicans are supposed to be beholden to the tenets of the Catholic Church?

    Republicans believe in freedom of religion, they also believe in separation of Church and State.

    That they recognize the difference between 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom from religion' is what sets them apart from the majority of liberals.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 9:31 AM
  • Why do republicans spit in the face of the catholic church on issues such as the death penalty and unemployment benefits and war?

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 9:12 AM

    Why can't liberals separate "rights" from "paying" for something? The catholic church - and others - do not pay for war. If there was a tax that forced the catholic church to pay for war then you would have an uprising. Can you seriously not understand the difference or are you flippantly spinning remarks?

    -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 10:05 AM
  • Perich vs. Hosana Tabor dealt with exemptions under the ADA.

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 9:30 AM

    I did read the article but apparently you didn't read my post. The point is (read slowly) - the supreme court has upheld that religious institutions have SPECIAL protections provided in the constitution whether they are "in business" (hospitals, health care, education, etc) or not.

    Your whole point posted above was premised on the church getting "in business" then losing rights associated with their faith/beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth and the decision - ADA related or not - was made solely on the basis of religion. ANY other entity in the same situation that was not affiliated with a religion would have lost the supreme court case.

    -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 10:10 AM
  • Rick - your attempt to get Spaniard to answer a question is futile. Libs don't answer questions - just like Obama.

    -- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 16, 2012, at 5:13 PM
  • De ja vu or what ever it's called. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 18, 2012, at 11:50 AM
  • . But I think we have more and more citizens who really do not need help but are taking it anyway just because they can .

    -- Posted by ~~Rick on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 10:22 A

    Absolutely correct. And why wouldn't they if it is a legal procedure. Would you recommend that people and corporations not take legal tax deductions. Once something becomes law, it gradually erodes what may have been ethical.

    -- Posted by InReply on Sat, Feb 18, 2012, at 3:46 PM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration: