…

Sources say it will involve health insurance companies helping to provide the coverage, since it’s actually cheaper for these companies to offer the coverage than to not do so, because of unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications.

Uh, so the administration response will be tell insurers for religious organizations to take on the costs themselves without passing it along to the religious organizations that pay for the policies?

Ed

Yeah…hopefully the insurance companies still have enough economic freedom to tell O’Bonehead to go fu*k himself. Giving away money is for wealth-redistributing leftists, not free market enterprises.

This single issue is going to lose Obama the election.

John the Libertarian

How can that be? So many republicans keep assuring us that no one cares about social issues.

So its okay for Viagra to be covered but covering womans contraception violates your tender religious senses?! Oh, okay…. (o-0)

Politricks

Translation: I saw someone else make this lame argument, but I’m not smart enough to recognize how lame it is, so I’m going to use it too, lol.

Thank you, kind masters, for accomodating my religious practices!

Herald of Woe on February 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM

THAT is what is so insidiously evil about this. Big government passing laws, rules, and regulations that incrementally destroy liberty and sh*t all over the constitution, then the wise leaders “back off” a little bit by “accommodating” certain groups or “granting” waivers or exemptions. “Accomodating”, “granting”, or “exempting” implies the right to do so and deflects the conversation off of the original issue of constitutionality.

Evil, pure evil. This is how dictatorships start and freedoms die.

So its okay for Viagra to be covered but covering womans contraception violates your tender religious senses?! Oh, okay…. (o-0)

Politricks on February 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Viagra corrects a physical dysfunction – which is its primary use.
Correction of physical dysfunctions is not the primary intention of birth control pills nor abortifacients.

You fail. Try again next semester.

Then, when my organization gets large enough to need employees, can I only hire believers in my God, or is that discrimination? Then when I hire non-believers who just want a job, at which point must all my organizational beliefs be changed to meet the needs/wants/beliefs of the employee?

Sure seems like Obama is moving towards Unionism of Non-believer Employees of Religious Organizations.

see the example of polygamy. I am against it and I support the government constitutional right to impose laws that constraint religious freedom for the greater good of society.
the greater good of society is to be decided by democratic means. and my view is that if prolifers would become a large majority of the country, then lets forbid abortion. And if there was a “pro-abortion” religion, they should not have an exception to the law.

nathor on February 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Saying you cannot do something is very different from saying you must do something. That government can forbid certain activities that certain faiths believe in is not controversial. The federal government telling employers they must include xyz in employee compensation packages is wrong, not to mention unconstitutional, by itself. When that employer is a church and that xyz goes against church doctrine, that’s a whole new realm of wrong and unconstitutional.

So, how’s that “pass then find out” thing working out for you?

/sarc

That is exactly what odummy said to do.

Even if the Church paid zero for all their coverage, they would still be facilitating their employees getting sterilizations, abortifacients and artificial birth control. All sins to the Church.

Elisa on February 10, 2012 at 1:09 PM

argument can be made that the church is facilitating sterilizations, abortifacients and artificial birth control by paying employees that live in countries where such actions are permitted.

Requiring insurance companies to supply the Catholic organizations with this coverage for free is not Obama “caving in.”

This should also be unacceptable to the Church.

Even if the Church paid zero for all their coverage, they would still be facilitating their employees getting sterilizations, abortifacients and artificial birth control. All sins to the Church.

But insurance companies do not pay for things themselves. Companies pass it on to ALL their subscribers in increased premiums. Like covering all 26 yr old children being required. We all pay a little bit of that.

So, while the Church will be paying less for that coverage than they would have, because it will now be divided up between all subscribers, the Church will still be paying a portion of that coverage in their premiums.

Nope, it had an opt out.

cozmo on February 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

In that case, consider my argument fully retracted.