Let’s clear this up. The ruling does NOT say that the hospital has to hand out prophylactics to patients, or anything like that. But “the pill” has to be covered under the health care plan for the hospital’s employees. That’s all. Churches are exempt. Hospitals are not, regardless of who owns them.
Unless you’re just one of those anti-pill fundamentalists, I cannot see how any outrage is justified.
I am not an anti-pill fundamentalist. I think that the pill should be legally available to anyone who needs it. However, I am still outraged that this administration wants to require that an organization which holds life sacred and feels that sex is part of the “natural law” of humanity; to procreate. I don’t agree with them, but I respect their belief.
My wife purchased her birth control pills when we were dating and up through when we decided to have children. Even with our low income, it was not difficult to afford it “because we thought it was worth it”. (I chose a vasectomy after children because I like child free sex as much as the next guy).
I just called my pharmacy and asked how much the pill costs without insurance co-pay. The answer? $15 bucks for a months supply. If someone wants to have sex without getting pregnant, is that really a high price to pay? I think that, if I were a woman, I would find a way to afford that. Nothing worth having comes without some price.
I keep finding articles describing the Catholic faith as evil, in regards to this issue (and many others). Here’s a case where, again, hate and name calling has taken the place of compassion and reason for anothers views.
“However, I am still outraged that this administration wants to require that an organization which holds life sacred and feels that sex is part of the “natural law” of humanity; to procreate. I don’t agree with them, but I respect their belief.”
We’re talking catholic hospitals covering these for their employees. Some of which are, surprise, surprise not catholic. It’s still well within their right not provide these services at the hospital but, you must treat your employees equally and free of religious discrimination. So again. This is a non issue and the rage over it is uninformed/disingenuous.
As for respecting their belief. That’s something to be earned, and not simply given due to some kind of special privilege they think they are entitled to. The catholic church has done nothing to garner such a place. Quite the opposite.
If a church wants to own and operate a hospital, that is a use of their own funds. The governmemt does not get to tell a church how to spend their money.
If an employee needs to get some pills, there are other jobs with other facilities that will cover them, or one could simply buy them on their own.
“raises serious moral concern” Hahah, oh catholic church. I think this works out best for everyone. People are covered and the church thinks it’s bad. Win-win.
Subscribe
This is very clever, Eric. You’ve got some really sharp wit.
Thanks, Dave. Glad you liked it.
Let’s clear this up. The ruling does NOT say that the hospital has to hand out prophylactics to patients, or anything like that. But “the pill” has to be covered under the health care plan for the hospital’s employees. That’s all. Churches are exempt. Hospitals are not, regardless of who owns them.
Unless you’re just one of those anti-pill fundamentalists, I cannot see how any outrage is justified.
I am not an anti-pill fundamentalist. I think that the pill should be legally available to anyone who needs it. However, I am still outraged that this administration wants to require that an organization which holds life sacred and feels that sex is part of the “natural law” of humanity; to procreate. I don’t agree with them, but I respect their belief.
My wife purchased her birth control pills when we were dating and up through when we decided to have children. Even with our low income, it was not difficult to afford it “because we thought it was worth it”. (I chose a vasectomy after children because I like child free sex as much as the next guy).
I just called my pharmacy and asked how much the pill costs without insurance co-pay. The answer? $15 bucks for a months supply. If someone wants to have sex without getting pregnant, is that really a high price to pay? I think that, if I were a woman, I would find a way to afford that. Nothing worth having comes without some price.
I keep finding articles describing the Catholic faith as evil, in regards to this issue (and many others). Here’s a case where, again, hate and name calling has taken the place of compassion and reason for anothers views.
Another good cartoon. Thank you! “And where you saw only one set of footprints in the sand, there I was trampling your civil liberties underfoot.”
@DaveInDC, You sir, have posted a comment above that I agree with whole-heartedly.
Well said.
Yes, well said, DaveInDC.
I love it when commenters take the time to thoughtfully rebuke someone. Saves me time and frustration and I tend to ramble.
@DaveInDC
“However, I am still outraged that this administration wants to require that an organization which holds life sacred and feels that sex is part of the “natural law” of humanity; to procreate. I don’t agree with them, but I respect their belief.”
We’re talking catholic hospitals covering these for their employees. Some of which are, surprise, surprise not catholic. It’s still well within their right not provide these services at the hospital but, you must treat your employees equally and free of religious discrimination. So again. This is a non issue and the rage over it is uninformed/disingenuous.
As for respecting their belief. That’s something to be earned, and not simply given due to some kind of special privilege they think they are entitled to. The catholic church has done nothing to garner such a place. Quite the opposite.
Interesting statistics regarding contraceptives in the united states.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
“Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.”
That’s everyone, not just Catholics. Not covering is just looking irresponsible now. But, hey lets look at the Catholics anyway…
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/04/13/index.html
“Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family planning; this is true even among Catholic women who attend church once a month or more. ”
TWO PERCENT.
Once again, why is this even an issue?
“Seperation of Church and State” Sound familiar?
If a church wants to own and operate a hospital, that is a use of their own funds. The governmemt does not get to tell a church how to spend their money.
If an employee needs to get some pills, there are other jobs with other facilities that will cover them, or one could simply buy them on their own.
Doesn’t work that way for public offices. Of which they receive funding from. In any case it’s moot now.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html
“raises serious moral concern” Hahah, oh catholic church. I think this works out best for everyone. People are covered and the church thinks it’s bad. Win-win.
It’s moot because Obama said so. Yeah, that’s real moot.
*sarcasm off*
Thanks again for conceding?
Is it really a concession when the result is dictated to one, in the face of all legal and historical precedent?
It is when you bring nothing new to the table. Unable to refute, back up, or cite any type of response. So yeah, thanks for conceding.
No, now I have the last word.
*grin*
Anonymous