Religious Nuts Win; Women Now Have To Pay For Their Birth Control

by Ben Hoffman

Crazy F*cks In Silly Costumes

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration, seeking to rein in a runaway political furor over birth control and religious liberty, is set to announce a possible compromise on Friday that is meant to calm ire from the right about a new administration rule that would require health insurance plans — including those offered by Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and charities — to offer free birth control to female employees.

Source

These crazy f*cks have far too much power.

Advertisements

23 Responses to “Religious Nuts Win; Women Now Have To Pay For Their Birth Control”

  1. Dude, you run one of the most insulting blogs that I have ever come across. Crazy F*cks in Silly Costumes. Really? No one is forcing you to agree with Catholics or any other religion, why do you support a policy that forces them to pay for something they don’t believe in? You are so quick to call right wingers fascists, yet you support a policy that doesn’t allow individuals the right to choose for themselves. Female Catholic or non-Catholics can go ahead and get birth control regardless of their insurance. Everyone should have the right to choose. The policy that the Obama administration originally supported did not give everyone the right to choose.

    Plus, why shouldn’t women have to pay for their birth control? Why does the government or anyone else need to pay for them? This is absurd.

    • Female Catholic or non-Catholics can go ahead and get birth control regardless of their insurance.

      That was my point.

      Plus, why shouldn’t women have to pay for their birth control? Why does the government or anyone else need to pay for them?

      Why shouldn’t it be covered by insurance?

    • No one is forcing you to agree with Catholics or any other religion,

      No, at least not yet. The problem is that the Catlicks and other deluded people seem to want to impose their bronze-age ‘wisdom’ on the rest of us, and frankly, that ruffles a few feathers.

      why do you support a policy that forces them to pay for something they don’t believe in?

      Maybe because women’s reproductive choices are a touch more important than hurting the feelings of the pope and his gang collar clad,boy-buggering, rape enablers.

      yet you support a policy that doesn’t allow individuals the right to choose for themselves

      You don’t get the choice not to pay for roads, or the army or any of a long list of public institutions/services. The fuss being kicked up is about supporting women, or more accurately the lack of support of women by the church – being in control of one’s reproductive destiny just doesn’t sit well with the religiously addled.

      Plus, why shouldn’t women have to pay for their birth control?

      Wow, in your world all women can actually *afford* birth control and there is absolutely no stigmaor negative social consequences in trying to acquire it or other reproductive services – the right choose is a big one for women and it seems by your post that you would agree that women should have access to reproductive health services, such as abortion, as they see fit.

      Please, when you remove your head from your privileged arse, let me know.

      This is absurd.

      Yes, the idea of female autonomy and freedom often makes dudes go all squirlly,

  2. If that was your point, and females can get birth control on their own regardless of insurance, why then, force the church to pay for it? That was my point. It seems that you may be for the mandate.

    insurance providers should be free to choose what they will pay for and customers can purchase what they need. My point again is, no one needs to be forced. But no matter what this President seems to enjoy forcing people to do things.

    • But no matter what this President seems to enjoy forcing people to do things.

      Survey’s show that 75% of people agree that insurance should cover contraceptives. The private insurance industry is failing miserably at providing coverage. It’s overpriced and the quality is often poor. Insurance companies were canceling people’s policies when they got sick. The number one cause for personal bankruptcy is medical bills.

      So there are two options: either a government option or regulation. The president chose the latter.

  3. You are either choosing to miss the point or you are just not reading what I am saying.

    Let us take your factoid that 75% of people agree that insurance should cover contraceptives. Fine. I will take your word on that. However, that doesn’t change the fact that religious employers, WHO ARE PEOPLE AS WELL, (a point you seem to avoid) do not wish to pay for insurance that will also cover contraceptives. The president will force that to happen. So it doesn’t really matter that 75% of people want something, by the way that still leaves 25% that don’t think contraceptives should be covered, 75% shouldn’t be able to force employers through the regulation of government to do something they morally oppose. That is what we call tyranny.

    My next question is why do you refuse to admit this? It is simple logic. Plus, I would take you more seriously if you just came out and were honest about it and said ‘you want to use the power of government to force people to do certain things that they may not want to do’. Have the courage to stand by what you think is right and above all don’t lie to people to get your way and win a debate.

    • were honest about it and said ‘you want to use the power of government to force people to do certain things that they may not want to do’.

      That happens all the time. Companies don’t want to be told they can’t pollute the environment. People don’t want to be told they have to buy auto insurance. We don’t want to be told we can’t drive over a certain speed. But there are rules we need as a modern, developed society to help us flourish.

      The church has its own set of rules, but they’re superseded by laws. The church would like to handle internal investigations and punishment of its child molesters, but federal and state laws override them. And apparently, the church would like to force their “morals” on all their employees. Women would be having 10-20 children each if they didn’t have access to birth control. That’s definitely not good for society.

  4. Well, I think by mandating the church provide birth control, Obama overstepped the separation of church and state. If the church isn’t allowed to dictate politicial policy (and rightly so) why should the state be allowed to dictate church policy?

    Funny how people react when the door swings the other way.

    And what would people think if Pres. Obama dictated that mosque’s provide bacon when there are food events? Or perhaps beef at the Sikh society meetings? He has no place dictating rules like this to a religious organization, regardless of who it is.

    America has freedom of religion, the state cannot dictate what any given religion can or cannot do, and it should remain this way.

    • Frank, if the Church wants to get involved in providing health care, that becomes a public issue with public standards. No one is saying that have to get involved in that business.

      Clough82, to many people (including me) it’s far more insulting for the Catholic Church to try and deny people birth control than it is for Ben to point out that they are, indeed, crazy f*cks. Not to mention hypocrites, as they already abide by this law in many individual states.

      Finally, I find it ironic that all these conservatives who are worried about Sharia Law coming to the U.S. are perfectly happy to have their own religion mandate the law.

      • Oh those “Christians” worried about Sharia law are the real crazies. Check out Future quake’s past shows (free on their site) for some interesting stuff there.

        Good point, I didn’t really know that about the Church providing healthcare being required to abide by laws. Dumb on me I guess.

    • If the church isn’t allowed to dictate politicial policy…

      Oh, because none of that is happening in America right now… The active religious corrosion of the wall between church and state is happening on all levels of the american body politic.

      • And that corrosion is just as dangerous to Christians who actually follow the Bible and Jesus as it is to you who don’t believe.

        Because at that point, a political disagreemen becomes heresy, then you and I are in the same boat.

  5. Yes, heaven forbid women pay for their own contraception. What is this world coming to? What’s next, men having to pay for their own condoms?

    • That would be an outrage.

      The govt only wants to pay for birthcontrol that kills babies.

      • The govt only wants to pay for birthcontrol that kills babies.

        I must have misread the above statement because it sounds like you want to take the rights of women away, based on the specious conflation that somehow fetus = baby. Women are not broodmares Frank, you don’t get to tell them what to do with their bodies.

      • Arborist, so what in your mind makes killing a fetus OK, yet not a baby, a fully developed adult or and adult with mental or physical disabilities?

        Please help me understand, because the only difference between a fetus and a baby is the location, size and level of development.

        I’m not tryng to be confrontational, I just don’t understand the logic that it’s OK to kill a baby in the womb (fetus) but not a baby outside of it. it’s illogical that one is OK and not the other.

  6. @Matthew, the church isn’t denying anyone birth control. Any citizen is allowed to go down to the drug store and purchase birth control with their own money. What the church is protesting is that that their money will go to a health insurance plan that pays for contraceptives. They don’t want to be part of it and shouldn’t be forced to pay for it. What individual employees do with their money once they get it is their own business.

    Secondly, they are not hypocrites for protesting this federal law. The state’s have certain legal powers under the constitution that the Federal government does not i.e, the states can mandate that you purchase car insurance. When the federal government mandates things of this nature it becomes a constitutional issues. You may say, “well whats the difference or reason for letting the states set laws that the federal government can’t? Well think about it. It is arguably much easier to change a law in your own state then having to convince representatives in D.C. If you are for democracy and people having the authority to change the law then you should be in favor of state and local power because state and local power will be easier to change. It is closer, and unlike the president representing 300,000 million people your governor and state legislators represent a lot less. Therefore, they will be much more responsive to you or a small group of people protesting.

    Most importantly, who’s to say that the church isn’t fighting the laws in these states? and whats hypocritical about trying to stop the law from becoming law of states that don’t have it? Just because one person jumps off a bridge doesn’t mean you have to. It is the same philosophy.

    @Ben, along the same lines of what I told Matthew, just because we already regulate certain parts of the economy is not a logical argument for regulating more or violating people’s 1st amendment rights. All regulations of the environment should be done at the state level, the EPA is unconstitutional.

    I agree with you that the law supersedes religion in some areas, specifically when religious individuals are committing murder, child molestation, etc. kinda common sense stuff. However, all those laws are trying to prevent someone from doing something. This law is pushing someone to do something. That is extremely different circumstances that are very important.

    @Frank and John. Your both on the right track. Frank, your instincts are correct. If you want to read some center right blogs check out mine at bluestatefailure.wordpress . com I try to make it as interesting, thoughtful and reasonable as possible.

    Enjoy.

    • Well, Clough82, if the Catholic Church doesn’t want to fully provide health care, then they should get out of the health care business. No one is forcing them into it.

      • Actually, Obama’s new Health Care law does. That is where all this insanity begins. Big government tells people how to do things regardless of their individual wants and desire. Try the free market and individuals can find the most valuable ways to serve one another!

      • The free market way left a lot of individuals without health care. I guess that’s what the Catholic Church is fighting for in this case, too, to reduce the amount of health care coverage. I don’t quite understand how that’s what Jesus would want, but I some people think he cared more about profit than people.

  7. Arborist, so what in your mind makes killing a fetus OK, yet not a baby, a fully developed adult or and adult with mental or physical disabilities?

    Please help me understand, because the only difference between a fetus and a baby is the location, size and level of development.

    Well thank you for being reasonable with your assertions and your questions. It is sometimes difficult to find space to talk about this issue as it tends polarize peoples’ views quickly. One of the problems is where the two sides tend to focus their arguments. The anti-choice people tend to focus on the fetus and neglect the rights of the mother, while the pro-choice people tend to focus on the rights of the mother while overlooking or neglecting the rights of the fetus in question.

    Here is the thing, if life is so important should we not be regulating all aspects of reproductive health, both male and female?

    I think abortion is necessary fact of life, and women should have easy access to the reproductive services they need when they think they need them.

    I realize Frank that I have not directly addressed the question you are asking, but that is because I consider it to be not very important or productive to the debate overall. Splitting hairs when life begins and what we call ‘viable’ or not viable only serves to the purpose of giving ammunition to those who want to take away women’s right to their bodily autonomy.

  8. buy your own birth control libtard tool not my problem, weak bitch liberals when the shite hits the fan just hide behind the real men with the women and children we will protect you from yourselves, i need a new hat some shoes every month water billed payed its called personal responsibilty and just sit in the chair libtard we will feed ypou baby food and go goo goo because you idiots couldnt fight your way out of a wet paper bag or wipe your own asses, im not put on this earth to manage your half ass life grow a pair bitch a manage your own life if not then die and let evolution take over and let the better of our species live on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: