Forcing Catholics to Support Birth Control?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did not read the whole thread , I do know however these policies have been in place a long time . I do know this is how the Republicans tell you of the evils of the Obama Admin:)[/quote]

These policies were not in place for along time. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), insurance companies were essentially free to tailor policies based on the needs of their customers. In this regard, several insurance companies included copays for sterilizations, contraceptives, etc because they were considered electives (when my wife used the Pill to combat abnormal fertility cycles, she needed a doctor’s prescription with diagnosis in order for it to be covered in one of the plans we had…the same company wouldn’t cover elective contraceptive use like implants and the like). Catholic-affiliated institutions have always had the right to choose to remove sterilizations, abortion, and contraceptives from their coverages.

The Affordable Care Act included a provision that all companies provide insurance policies with “preventative care” completely covered, with religious exemptions to be decided by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Further, it provided the HHS Secretary to define what “preventative services” included.

This has nothing to do with R vs D. This is an issue of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, nothing more, nothing less.

243

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did not read the whole thread , I do know however these policies have been in place a long time . I do know this is how the Republicans tell you of the evils of the Obama Admin:)[/quote]

I think you must be lost. These policies are actually brand new.

244

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
Besides that, the Pill and condoms aren’t exactly expensive.[/quote]

Right, and how much are you spending on the Pill?

You’re gorgeous mate.

Absolutely gorgeous.

245

[quote]therajraj wrote:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/documents/Poll.pdf

More than 63% of catholic voters surveyed supported health insurance coverage for contraception

It was carried out by a 3rd party:

Belden Russonello & Stewart conducts survey, focus group and other research for
non-profit organizations, foundations, political campaigns, the new media and others.
BRS has provided hundreds of clients in the US and elsewhere with research and
counsel to help them understand and communicate effectively with the public and their
particular audiences since 1982.[/quote]

This was a study by a pro-abortion group ‘Catholic for Choice.’ They employed a research company to conduct the survey for them. Let’s have a look at the methodology:

Based on telephone interviews by a research company with 923 Catholics.

Methodology:

Would you favor or oppose a new government plan that would make health insurance available to people who do not already have it?

Favor - somewhat or strongly
Oppose - somewhat or stronly

Do you think health insurance policies - whether they are private or government - should cover - contraception such as birth control pills? Condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS? Emergency contraception, also known as the morning after pill?

Not a proper study. These telephone surveys conducted by research companies are completely fraudulent and I know this for a fact.

247

[quote]therajraj wrote:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/documents/Poll.pdf

More than 63% of catholic voters surveyed supported health insurance coverage for contraception

It was carried out by a 3rd party:

Belden Russonello & Stewart conducts survey, focus group and other research for
non-profit organizations, foundations, political campaigns, the new media and others.
BRS has provided hundreds of clients in the US and elsewhere with research and
counsel to help them understand and communicate effectively with the public and their
particular audiences since 1982.[/quote]

It’s a study done by a pro-abortion group called “Catholics for Choice” and carried out by a seedy (market) research company. The way it works is that 98% of normal people don’t want to do a telephone survey. The people who do are sort of coerced into doing it the same way a telemarketer has to sell something. Those sorts of people are the worst possible choice for many reasons including because they are so susceptible to suggestion. Often they just say anything to get it over with also. You also get lots of people who don’t speak English well. Many of the interviewers don’t speak English well either. Market research is the bottom of the barrel.

The interviewees are often helped with their answers. The questions of course have been designed by the pro-abortion group and the management of the research company to get the required result. Social sciences in general is a fraudulant field. Same as statisticians. Even many actuarialists(I know some) don’t actually understand the basics of logic, cause and effect etc.

248

There’s no real point in continuing to assert things without proof. I’m unwilling to just take your word for it.

If Belden Russonello & Stewart are a seedy company (interesting how they’ve been in business for 30 years) then I’d need evidence for that claim.

249

[quote]therajraj wrote:
There’s no real point in continuing to assert things without proof. I’m unwilling to just take your word for it.

If Belden Russonello & Stewart are a seedy company (interesting how they’ve been in business for 30 years) then I’d need evidence for that claim.

[/quote]

ALL telephone market research companies are seedy. However I was mistaken. Belden Russonello & Stewart are even worse. They are a Democrat/liberak lobby group for hire. Here’s there resume of political campaigns:

Alliance for a Better California, 2005

Bruce Babbitt 1988 Presidential campaign

Cook County Board President John Stroger, IL

D.C. Councilwoman Kathy Patterson

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

Democrats for the 90s

Democrats for Montgomery County, MD

Clinton-Gore 1992, New Mexico campaign

Clinton-Gore 1992, November Group, OH

Connecticut Senate Democratic Leadership

Gore for President 2000

No on Amendment A, South Dakota, 2002

Obama for President 2008

U.S. Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA)

U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA)

U.S. Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-CA)

Yes on Amendment E, South Dakota, 1998

Thank for you alerting me to the fact that this study is not even conducted by a market research company on behalf of a pro-abortion lobby group but by a left-wing lobby group purporting to be a research company on behalf of a pro-abortion lobby group. You really know nothing about the real world do you?

250

Show me a study/poll/survey they conducted, where it is CLEAR they cooked their data and/or tainted the conclusion.

That’s what I’m asking for.

251

A point. This guy above is indeed correct in his exposition of Catholicism which in relation to this immediate dialog amounts to “vaaaaast numbers of professing Roman Catholics are so in name only and are in de-facto excommunication from the Church”. So what they say does not represent the gospel according to Rome. I actually agree. Just like VAAAAAAAAST numbers of professing protestants testify by their life and beliefs that they are utterly devoid of anything even vaguely resembling the historic gospel of Christ. There’s a number of these right here on this site.

Neither represent their roots. There is a defining difference though. I’m still prayin on how to proceed, but this is the discussion I’m dyin to have with Sloth. Jist dyin. Not so I can beat up on him. I hold him in very high regard, no matter what he thinks. Always have, but he is wrong. Despite being an impressively capable and principled man or actually because of it, I think he is beginning to hear the crackling in his foundation.

I also think he put me on ignore after my last PM which I assure you people was heartfelt and affectionate. That seems to be the Catholic method when pinned. That broken religion sadly diminishes men that are by God’s grace much better than their beliefs will allow them to be. I don’t care how corny it sounds, I have actual pain in this. As I told him. He has become more to me than some words on a screen. Nonetheless. “Here I stand. I can do not other”

252

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
A point. This guy above is indeed correct in his exposition of Catholicism which in relation to this immediate dialog amounts to “vaaaaast numbers of professing Roman Catholics are so in name only and are in de-facto excommunication from the Church”. So what they say does not represent the gospel according to Rome. I actually agree. Just like VAAAAAAAAST numbers of professing protestants testify by their life and beliefs that they are utterly devoid of anything even vaguely resembling the historic gospel of Christ. There’s a number of these right here on this site.
Neither represent their roots. There is a defining difference though. I’m still prayin on how to proceed, but this is the discussion I’m dyin to have with Sloth. Jist dyin. Not so I can beat up on him. I hold him in very high regard, no matter what he thinks. Always have, but he is wrong. Despite being an impressively capable and principled man or actually because of it, I think he is beginning to hear the crackling in his foundation.

I also think he put me on ignore after my last PM which I assure you people was heartfelt and affectionate. That seems to be the Catholic method when pinned. That broken religion sadly diminishes men that are by God’s grace much better than their beliefs will allow them to be. I don’t care how corny it sounds, I have actual pain in this. As I told him. He has become more to me than some words on a screen. Nonetheless. “Here I stand. I can do not other”

[/quote]

Well, I hadn’t ignored you, but now I will. The sandwich-board wearing, Calvinist street-preacher (forum-preacher), schtick is beyond old now. And save the sentiments, I have enough friends. They’re actually respectful, too.

253

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
A point. This guy above is indeed correct in his exposition of Catholicism which in relation to this immediate dialog amounts to “vaaaaast numbers of professing Roman Catholics are so in name only and are in de-facto excommunication from the Church”. So what they say does not represent the gospel according to Rome. I actually agree. Just like VAAAAAAAAST numbers of professing protestants testify by their life and beliefs that they are utterly devoid of anything even vaguely resembling the historic gospel of Christ. There’s a number of these right here on this site.
Neither represent their roots. There is a defining difference though. I’m still prayin on how to proceed, but this is the discussion I’m dyin to have with Sloth. Jist dyin. Not so I can beat up on him. I hold him in very high regard, no matter what he thinks. Always have, but he is wrong. Despite being an impressively capable and principled man or actually because of it, I think he is beginning to hear the crackling in his foundation.

I also think he put me on ignore after my last PM which I assure you people was heartfelt and affectionate. That seems to be the Catholic method when pinned. That broken religion sadly diminishes men that are by God’s grace much better than their beliefs will allow them to be. I don’t care how corny it sounds, I have actual pain in this. As I told him. He has become more to me than some words on a screen. Nonetheless. “Here I stand. I can do not other”

[/quote]

Well, I hadn’t ignored you, but now I will. The sandwich-board wearing, Calvinist street-preacher (forum-preacher), schtick is beyond old now. And save the sentiments, I have enough friends. They’re actually respectful, too.[/quote]before you go (or I go? ) Could I ask what it is that you see as disrespectful in my treatment of YOU. You held for the longest time that, unlike some other Catholics here, you accepted that my disdain for your church did not necessitate disdain for YOU. You said that. The only thing different now is that we’ve moved toward a discussion that you know you cannot win. Everybody else is scratching their heads, but you’ve already done it in your mind. Tell me I’m wrong. That is not disrespect, but a mere statement of fact.

It speaks directly neither to my brilliance nor your inferiority in any way. It is the nature of the case itself with a non moron on either side. Show me and everybody else I’m wrong.

Where have I disrespected YOU.

EDIT: BTW. Our dearest Christopher does street preaching literally exactly as you describe. I have no problem with that actually.

254

As expected, the controversy over the Obama mandate is not dying down. And that makes sense as the contraceptives mentioned by the President are not free. Someone will be paying for them. In this case it will be insurance companies buying. And to obtain their money back, insurance firms will be charging Catholic institutions higher premiums. So in a sightly indirect way Catholic churches are paying. That is hardly a compromise.

“Groups rail against contraceptive coverage ‘mandate’ despite rule change”

255

It’s a form of preventative care which in the long run doesn’t necessarily mean higher premiums.

256

[quote]Menthol wrote:
As expected, the controversy over the Obama mandate is not dying down. And that makes sense as the contraceptives mentioned by the President are not free. Someone will be paying for them. In this case it will be insurance companies buying. And to obtain their money back, insurance firms will be charging Catholic institutions higher premiums. So in a sightly indirect way Catholic churches are paying. That is hardly a compromise.

“Groups rail against contraceptive coverage ‘mandate’ despite rule change”

The ‘accommodation’ has already been rejected. Our forefathers didn’t come across the sea seeking religious liberty (among other things) only to have it trampled on for their descendents. The bishops have spoken loud and clear on this ‘accommodation.’ Thanks but no thanks. Obama bit off more than he can chew, and now he’ll have to suffer a second crushing defeat over religious liberties.

257

On another related level, this is what institutions get for accepting public funds in the first place. That is not directed at RCC outfits as such. Plenty of other groups, some of which I otherwise agree with on quite a bit, are just as beholden and thus guilty.

259

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
A point. This guy above is indeed correct in his exposition of Catholicism which in relation to this immediate dialog amounts to “vaaaaast numbers of professing Roman Catholics are so in name only and are in de-facto excommunication from the Church”. So what they say does not represent the gospel according to Rome. I actually agree. Just like VAAAAAAAAST numbers of professing protestants testify by their life and beliefs that they are utterly devoid of anything even vaguely resembling the historic gospel of Christ. There’s a number of these right here on this site.

Neither represent their roots. There is a defining difference though. I’m still prayin on how to proceed, but this is the discussion I’m dyin to have with Sloth. Jist dyin. Not so I can beat up on him. I hold him in very high regard, no matter what he thinks. Always have, but he is wrong. Despite being an impressively capable and principled man or actually because of it, I think he is beginning to hear the crackling in his foundation.

I also think he put me on ignore after my last PM which I assure you people was heartfelt and affectionate. That seems to be the Catholic method when pinned. That broken religion sadly diminishes men that are by God’s grace much better than their beliefs will allow them to be. I don’t care how corny it sounds, I have actual pain in this. As I told him. He has become more to me than some words on a screen. Nonetheless. “Here I stand. I can do not other”

[/quote]

You know, you could stay on topic in this thread. If you want to have that discussion, go to a thread where it’s the topic, or make one. This thread is about a political move and its absolutely unconscionable clash with religious liberties. Not about Calvin vs. Luther vs. The Pope or whatever.

And for the record, when somebody tells me they “are my friend now more than ever” or “holds the utmost respect for me” and then proceeds to do what you have done repeatedly, I call that disrespectful. Such people are never my friends. When your words and actions don’t match up, that’s called hypocrisy. Or backstabbing. Or any number of other nasty things. It is one thing to call out bad doctrine/beliefs/etc. That is called disagreeing and/or trying to correct misunderstandings. But it is another thing entirely to advertise the fact you are doing so with loud billboard type signs and words about how pious you are (“i just got back from praying/right to life rally/church seminar/theology lecture/whatever”)…especially IN THREADS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT SUCH SUBJECTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. I can’t count how many threads get hijacked in this manner by you. Please stay on topic. What do you think about the accommodation Obama talked about?

260

[quote]Aragorn wrote:<<< and then proceeds to do what you have done repeatedly, >>>[/quote]Which would be_____________[quote]Aragorn wrote:<<< words about how pious you are (“i just got back from praying/right to life rally/church seminar/theology lecture/whatever”) >>>[/quote]My life is filled with Christian practice. It’s not what makes them that, but it’s what Christians do. It was also directly relevant to the then point at hand AND the foundational point regarding this topic among others. You may eventually see why. Sloth already does.[quote]Aragorn wrote:<<< What do you think about the accommodation Obama talked about?[/quote]Not much. EDITed out last sentence to go to PM’s.