You’re overcomplicating this. They attacked Kerry, his campaign didn’t respond adequately, and partly as a result, Kerry lost.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve not mentioned atheistic voters or god-hatin’ voters.
As has already been mentioned, Obama initially promised Catholics that he would not attempt to take away their freedom. Later he changed his mind and decided to do exactly that. If Obama thinks that this decision is “a public good”, then why did he promise to do the opposite a few weeks ago?
Furthermore, in what way that this policy “enoucrage contraception”? Can you actually name any individual who would have access to contraception because of this decision, but would not have access to contraception without this decision? If not, then can’t we conclude that this decision had nothing to do with access to contraception, and only with sticking a middle finger at the Catholic Church?
Rachel Maddow rebuts this better than I ever could:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46304423
You can watch the whole video, but feel free to skip to 6:30 and listen to the last two and a half minutes for her specific refutation to your claim.
IMO Obama made this decision mainly because he was convinced by Sebelius that it was the right thing to do. In addition, I think he knew this would draw a political backlash, but decided this was a fight he could win. Very few voters who don’t already think Obama is a tyrant would be swayed by this minor exercise of federal power, and now he’s gotten the Republicans leadership to basically condemn birth control (they’re trying desperately to make this a religious-rights issue, but the Catholic Bishops are making that difficult), and the ridiculous over-reaction of certain GOP candidates isn’t exactly independent-friendly:
TA,CW (Too Adorable, Can’t Watch):
Women voters are more important than “Catholic” voters, because women have a more direct and personal understanding of family planning than a bunch of bitter old celibates in funny hats. She’s right.
Obama promised not to “take away Catholics freedom”? I’m not exactly sure what that even means (I’m pretty sure I still can’t buy Catholic slaves) so I’m not really sure what it has to do with our conversation. But the delay was to implement the exception for religious organizations whose primary purpose is religious instruction (basically, Churches). Which seems a strange thing to do if he was going to all this trouble just to piss of Catholics.
According to the panel that made the recommendation to implement the policy “Women citing cost concerns were twice as likely as other women to rely on condoms or less effective methods like withdrawal or periodic abstinence.” I’ve actually had to do this, so I believe it. The pill can be a pretty meaningful expense when your broke.
Just to be clear, do you think the 29 states that have the same regulations also have them just to give a middle finger to the Church? And the doctors on the panel that made the original recommendation, also spent several weeks pretending to process studies and data just were just faking it, since they were just going to base their conclusions on what pissed off the Catholic Church. How many people are spending days and weeks and months working to give the appearance of working for the betterment of public health while really just planning on how they’re going to stick it to an increasingly irrelevant religious institution?
Wait a second, its legal to have sex if you don’t have any money? When did that happen?
Activist judges.
um…
Forgive me if by “people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular” you didn’t mean atheists or “god-hatin’ voters”. I’m not sure who, exactly, you mean if you didn’t mean that, but I’m sure you have a group in mind.
No, he only specified people who hate religious conservatives and especially people who hate Catholics. That’s totally different! … Well, it’s a wee bit different. And I guess we’re supposed to be surprised that part of a Democratic politicians’ base consists of people who don’t like religious conservatives. What a scandalizing accusation. Certainly nobody in the religious conservative base dislikes secular liberals. I eagerly await a cite saying a significant part of Obama’s base hates the Catholic Church.
Yes. Susan Bradshaw, of Topeka, Kansas. Any more ridiculous questions?
One of the advocates for Obama’s decision yesterday said that a popular prescription contraceptive came to over $300 per year. That may not be a lot to you or Mitt Romney, but there actually are people who would do something less reliable, like trust to luck, if it’s not free.
And just to remind people, less contraception means more abortions.
Well if people would just follow the Catholic Church’s desires to not have non-procreative sex, then they wouldn’t need those contraceptives in the first place. Or the abortions.
I’ll assume you’re just being facetious so I’ll just say “yes, they would” to both.
I mentioned this in the other thread. Say my employer is a Jehova’s Witness owned business. Should they be able to decide that my employer provided healthcare doesn’t cover blood transfusions?
Fuckin’ A, she nails it. Excellent oratory, backed up by facts. I cannot imagine a more clear, concise examination of the situation.
Something I’m a bit curious about.
My wife, at least for a while there, had to take BC pills. Not for birth control, but to help prevent other medical problems.
If she worked for a church, should the church have been able to prevent her from getting those pills (through not covering the prescription with the employer-provided insurance)? Why should their religious beliefs dictate her health?
(I’m sure the answer will be, “She should get a new job!”… which, if you ask me, is sidestepping the question.)
When I said “people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular” I did indeed have a group in mind. Specifically, it was the group of people who despise religious conservatives in general and the Catholic Church in particular. If you don’t understand one of the words in that phrase I’ll be happy to define it for you, but you could also consult a dictionary.
Here’s what it means. At every time up to the current time, Catholic persons and organizations had the freedom to purchase insurance plans that did not cover birth control, sterilization, abortifacents, and other things that they have religious objections to. Because of the decision President Obama made, they no longer have that freedom.
It’s worth mentioning that the concept of freedom for religious people and organizations to make their own decisions is not hard for the Supreme Court to understand. In its recent decision in Hosanna-Tabor ELC vs. EEOC, the Supreme Court ruled that religious institutions do actually have the freedom to do what they choose even if the Obama Administration says they can’t. That was a unanimous Supreme Court ruling and the similarities between that case and the issue being debated in this thread are obvious. Unless five Supreme Court justices completely reverse their position on religious liberty very soon, there’s not much chance that Obama’s current provision will become law. Obama surely knows this even if some other people don’t, which gives further support to the notion that this was a crudge political maneuver on Obama’s part, rather than anything motivated by a desire for more birth control.
Perhaps I’m missing something here. If a woman has access to condoms, she has access to birth control. There are numerous organizations in the United States that give away condoms for free. So how can anyone not have access to birth control?
Has anyone else noticed that almost all of these hot-button social issues, particularly those involving the Catholic Church, are really all about sex?
I’m serious. Contraception? That means folks are having sex without the intention of having children - in other words, having sex for fun. We can’t condone that, it’s a sin! Abortion? The inevitable outcome of sex, particularly when done without contraception (because it’s a sin, see above) and the pregnant woman doesn’t want a child. Gay marriage, or equal rights for gays? Those people are doing icky sorts of sex things with each other, and they can’t possibly have children that way - because they’re doing it wrong!
(I openly admit I’ve simplified the abortion issue here, as there can be moral opposition to that over and above the sex angle - but it all starts there, doesn’t it?)
Chimera is right. The church’s way is absolutely no sex for fun, no sex between unmarrried people (which means by definition no gay sex), and no sex unless it’s for procreation. If everyone followed the church to the letter, contraception and abortion would cease to exist. Of course that isn’t going to happen in the real world, but church dogma isn’t exactly designed for common sense, compromise or flexibility, so it’s really not a good fit for the real world.
It’s a more complicated issue than it appears at first glance. On the one hand, the significant majority of Catholics have no problem with birth control per se. On the other hand, though, the church hierarchy does. And the way most Catholics know about this issue is from their pastor reading the congregation a letter from their bishop. And those letters are written in such a way that suggests this is about abortion, not birth control. So Catholics think that this measure is forcing coverage for abortions, which they oppose, rather than coverage for contraception, which they don’t mind, and are therefore opposed to it, based on their flawed understanding of the facts.
I don’t really see what this has to do with the topic that the OP wants to discuss, but I’ll answer anyway. In my opinion, no one should be able to prevent your wife from getting birth control pills. Needless to say, if there were some church that would not include those pills as medicine under their understanding of the term, that wouldn’t prevent her from getting the pills. Obviously the Catholic Church is not such a one, since a knowledgable person like yourself is surely aware that it has no objection to birth control used for medicinal reasons.
Can you cite a scientific study that proves this?