Only a few Catholics oppose President Obama free contraception- Right
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
February 21, 2012 10:47pm CST
It seems that the media would have us beleive that only the Strict Catholics oppose the President on free contraception provided by employer. Now it seems that many Protestant Colleges are also opposed to the new rule and are seeking exemptions.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/not-just-catholic-controversy-protestant-colleges-threaten-drop-232819956.html
The MSM would have us beleive that most people are in favor of free contraception. If you keep repeating the same story over and over soon people begin to believe it is true. The MSM believes in this President and his policies so they will only report favorable stories as they did in the 2008 election. Overwhelming the stories about Senator Obama were positive while the Stories of Senator McCain were slightly more negative than positive.
Even now the MSM is focusing on and attacking any one who is opposed to this plan. Is the MSM reporting the news or are they trying to report only one view?
1 person likes this
7 responses
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
22 Feb 12
MOST PEOPLE are in favor of this ruling! Just because some in religious hierarchy oppose it doesn't mean the vast majority of the American people aren't in favor of it. I think everyone knows the Catholic church still opposes birth control and that almost all Catholic women practice it anyway but Protestant churches do NOT have that as part of their core beliefs. In my opinion the fact that we're actually even debating contraception in 2012 is probably the best argument to date for a single payer health care system in this country.
I'm as much for religious freedom as anyone but I'm also for the separation of church and state. Why is it not alright to "trample" on the views of a select few but it's perfectly acceptable to cross that line of separation? Birth control is preventative health care, in fact it's often used for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. The insurance companies, which you'll rarely ever see me defending, have the common sense to realize providing contraception is a win-win proposition for them. On the other hand, while birth control may only cost "a few bucks" by Rick Santorum's standards - not that he'd be likely to even know ho much it costs - it can be rather expensive for many women and couples whose incomes are too high to qualify for any kind of medical assistance but still too low to be able to afford an extra $50-100 bucks each month.
From what Ive seen the "MSM" has been showing both sides of this ludicrous argument. I don't watch Fox News much but from what I have seen since this phoney controversy began they have only shown one side...HUGE surprise, right?
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
23 Feb 12
It looks like this is another case where we'll have to agree to disagree. I think health care is a "right" and birth control IS a vital part of a woman's health care. The churches themselves were exempt from the beginning, by the way.
I disagree with it but I respect the rights of Catholics to be against birth control. I say if it violates their religion then don't use it! I'm afraid this whole debate could end up taking us down a very dangerous slippery slope. I just heard today about pharmacists being able to refuse to dispense birth control if it's against their religious beliefs. I say there's not a pharmacist today who chose that profession before birth control pills existed so if they don't believe in doing their job they should find a new career.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
22 Feb 12
"MOST PEOPLE are in favor of this ruling!"
First off, it's not a ruling. It's a unilateral decision made by a president who doesn't believe in the constitution. Second, "Most people" are irrelevant in this. We don't choose to ignore the constitution based on polls. There is a clearly written procedure for amending it if we disagree with part of it.
"I'm also for the separation of church and state."
Then why do you think it's ok for the state to dictate what the churches do, even when it violates their religion.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
23 Feb 12
For some women, yes it is a vital part of regulating their cycle and a medical necessity.
However, there can be serious side-effects from taking hormones. Some women absolutely cannot take them at all. For others, it simply doesn't work. There have also been some cases where certain implants can cause problems for future pregnancies of women wanting birth control later on. You can read the CDC reports on birth control. I think that these side effects and dangers get ignored.
But the key point I want to make is that it is responsible use of birth control that prevents pregnancies. So, even if women have access to free birth control such as they do on Medicaid, it doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in pregnancies.
The issue is once again, the President forcing companies to give it away for free. This should worry you just for the fact that it is a very slippery slope as you said. If the President makes this free, what else is he going to demand companies to give away for free? What if he decided Coke was the new health beverage and everyone should get a case of coke for free every month? It is the same concept. My point is you could replace the product of birth control in his mandate and it still boils down to the same problem.
You are free to disagree with the Catholics and Protestants on their beliefs about birth control. That's fine.
@crossbones27 (48417)
• Mojave, California
22 Feb 12
We all know each media outlet is bias to one degree or another. That is why people need to take the time to listen to the opposite point of view and see if they have a point. As much as I dislike Fox News, I always watch them every once in a while just to hear their view. It usually does not take long and I have to go find a more moderate Republican point of view. Anyway, you just have to take info from many sources and come to your own decision. If you do not at least listen to both points of view, you are just being dishonest with yourself, and you are helping no one.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
22 Feb 12
I have said before, my whole issue is the demand that it be "free." But the idea that women don't have access is ridiculous. They do. A woman can walk into most clinics or hospitals and walk out with a prescription for one. Furthermore, any pharmacy that they take it to will fill it.
There is such a thing as freedom of choice in this country. It should not be up to the President to make "DEMANDS" that limit this freedom of choice.
It is not the Religious movement "forcing" their beliefs down someone's throat. It is quite the opposite. They are defending their right to have their individual beliefs. It is still up to the individual to choose the church they want to go to, the school they want to attend, the company they want to work for, etc. Yes, the Religious movement has as much right to appeal to their point of view to the Government as the Feminist group does, as the PP group does, as the Environmentalist does, etc.
You are thinking that "forcing" a company to give away a "FREE" product isn't restricting that company's choices. But it is exactly the opposite.
In fact, it is the people who want "FREE" birth control that are forcing their beliefs on the Religious groups. Because, they are "forcing" a company to go against its own policies of what they believe.
This is not about the choice of women to go on birth control. There are so many places that will give it to them. In some cases, it is "free." (PP clinics, low cost clinics, and anyone on Medicaid.) (The Medicaid example is a good one to counter the argument that it will "save" companies money if it were free.)
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
22 Feb 12
Actually, there are already a couple of lawsuits that have been filed (not by Catholics) but by Protestants. A few of those are Religious colleges. They are also considering dropping student insurance because of this mandate. That's political bias that is just what they are planning on doing.
So, no it isn't only Catholics. But they are the loudest voices in the media.
Don't be surprised if you hear other groups jumping on board. Even the feminists should be leery of this because if the President makes the demand on birth control what else could he make demands about? There could be a request that they don't like on that list. They are oddly quiet on this and they aren't exactly the quietest group either. Yes, they support it but it sets a dangerous precedent that in the future could easily turn against them.
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
22 Feb 12
If today's liberals had a lick of sense (they don't because they aren't really liberal) they would be against it too. It comes down to the rights of all, not just those one agrees with. That's the problem with the pseudo-liberals.
@irishidid (8688)
• United States
23 Feb 12
I agree crossbones, but I'm still pointing at the liberals because they, by the essence of who they claim to be, shouldn't be acting the way they are.
@crossbones27 (48417)
• Mojave, California
23 Feb 12
I actually think both sides our guilty of that.
@Kenorv (343)
• United States
22 Feb 12
Religious based hospitals, universities, insurance companies, etc. etc. shouldn't be forced to cover birth control if they don't want to. Secular groups certainly don't like it when religious groups try to force their beliefs on everyone so the secular groups should show the same respect to those religious groups that they expect in return. Otherwise the secular groups are just hypocrites.
Honestly I don't even see why this ever got to this point. There are so many non-religious based hospitals and insurance companies that will gladly cover birth control so if anyone wants birth control then just switch hospitals and/or insurance companies. That's the way that a free market system is supposed to work. Businesses are able to operate the way that they want to, within reason of course, and the consumers get to choose which businesses that they buy their goods and services from. If an insurance company doesn't want to cover birth control for example, then they shouldn't be forced to. And if the consumer doesn't like it then instead of crying to the government to force that company to provide coverage for birth control, the consumer should just look for an insurance company that does cover birth control. Again, that's how the free market system is supposed to work.
This is the biggest problem with Obamacare. Not only are they forcing everyone to buy health insurance but they're also trying to force insurance companies, religious based or not, to cover everything that Obama wants covered. That's not free market and that's not what this country was founded on.
I guess we should all be glad that the single payer system didn't pass in Congress or else the government would control the entire health care system and they'd be able to force everyone to do exactly what they want them to do. It wouldn't just be forcing everyone to buy insurance but they'd be forcing everyone to buy the exact insurance plan that the government wants you to buy, ie you wouldn't be able to choose for yourself, and because there's no competition, then you would be forced to pay exactly what the government wants you to pay.
So the people thinking that this is about birth control are missing the point entirely. It has nothing to do with birth control and everything to do with the government intruding on the rights of individuals, religious groups, etc. etc.
@jjzone44 (917)
• United States
22 Feb 12
I think media likes to grab onto any story that will get them readers or viewers, truth is not necessarily part of the equation. One sided stories are quite common.
What I find interesting is that you cannot erect a religious themed holiday display on government property as that may indicate a government bias, and is a violation of the Constitutional separation of Church and State. So how is it that the State can compel the Church to offer something that is in direct violation of it's principles? What happened to the separation? Even in the act of confession, the Seal of the Confessional prohibits a priest from disclosing the confessions of a penitent. They can encourage a penitent to report illegal activity to the authorities, but the priest cannot disclose the information themselves.
@jjzone44 (917)
• United States
22 Feb 12
The government should have no authority over the practices and teachings of a religious institution. The Constitution specifies a separation of Church and State. What I was saying is why is that separation only invoked for certain matters, like holiday displays, and not others, like the current controversy over health care provisions? There is a proverbial "line in the sand" when it comes to religion and government, and the government should not cross that line by forcing religious institutions to adopt something that is against one of their basic tenets.
@mariab2000 (740)
• Canada
22 Feb 12
I don't read MSM and haven't read a lot about this news of opposing the free contraception. However, I don't doubt that news media is biased depending on what is favorable to them and what is mostly to their benefit. So, it could very well be that MSM is modifying or presenting this news according to what they want the people to believe in. They just want to grab people's attention in any way or means possible so they could be just presenting one side of the news...
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
22 Feb 12
Well that load of crap about it being just Catholics was carefully calculated. See, Catholics are a minority. Who cares if we violate the rights of a minority if it means the rest of us get free stuff right?
Had he acknowledged that protestants and Jews were on the same side as Catholics, that would have made it a much harder sell since suddenly you're dealing with a majority.
I want free stuff as much as anyone else. I'm just not willing to trample on someone else's rights to get it and that's the way a lot of protestants and other non-Catholics who oppose this crap feel.
