Obviously, I use the word “persecution” differently than it is being used by many on this thread. WHen I agreed with Muf, I hadn’t intended to cause a “fuss.” I simply don’t think that this qualifies as persecution. That is all.
[quote]Last summer the health department decreed that all new health-insurance policies should cover birth-control services for women, including the morning-after pill (which most pro-lifers consider a form of abortion) and sterilisation. Churches are exempt; but church-affiliated hospitals, schools and universities, most of which employ and serve people of many faiths, are not. Once the new rule comes into effect, in 2013, they will have to include such services in their insurance packages, at no extra cost to the employee.
This decision has upset many denominations, but the Catholic church is especially furious. …
Does the new rule really prevent the free exercise of religion? One governor, Maryland?s Martin O?Malley, a Democrat and a Catholic, accuses the Catholic leadership of ?hyperventilating?. Nothing in the new rule interferes with the freedom to worship. Nor will it require anybody to practise contraception against their will (and most Catholics use contraceptives anyway). But the rule will require institutions to pay for contraceptive drugs and services they find objectionable on grounds of conscience. The administration points out that 28 states already impose such requirements, but its critics say the new rules are tougher.[/quote] Obama’s “war on religion” | The Economist
Also, I think that the accommodation/exemption DOES change the “level” of connection between the church and the women’s health products they consider evil. Direct payment to indirect payment IS different, IMO.
[quote]t seemed dubious that any change would placate them, unless Mr Obama scrapped the rule entirely. But the president tried to compromise on Friday morning. Religious institutions such as hospitals and charities would not have to pay for contraception themselves; insurers would bear the costs instead [/quote] And on and on... | The Economist
Further, there is a lot of data which shows that women, men, and society benefit when contraception is easily accessible. The data be damned | The Economist Perhaps the data is wrong or incomplete. But honestly, I don’t think so.
Further, bluntly, it is difficult for me care that an association which purposefully excludes women from the highest forms of leadership is so concerned about the evils (in their opinion) of a women’s health product.
In the end though, I think my opinion simply comes from my experiences and my families’. My wife and I have used contraception. I have a cousin who has used “the pill” for medical reasons not related to family planning.
Just some random thoughts after a few beers and before bed. Have a good night everyone.