Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women - Page 4

twopekinguys · #46 Feb 13, '12, 5:39 pm

No, it doesn't solve or fix anything.

The insurance company is not going to eat the cost of this coverage.

Ultimately it will be passed on through premium increases. Which means the Catholic (or any other religious organization) will still be paying for it indirectly.

I worked in the health insurance industry for way to many years. Believe me, nothing they do is "free".

BGorski · #47 Feb 13, '12, 5:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliee

Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

Washington, DC -- The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/10/o...ugs-for-women/

Another problem as discussed on Relevant Radio is that some Archdioceses are self insured, ie. they apparently insure their employees themselves. The result is as an insurance provider they are required by law to provide contraception services (and I would assume by next year or the next, abortion services), The Archdiocese of Chicago, for instance, will be required by law to provide these services that the Arch diocese of Chicago, as a Catholic structure, finds morally reprehensible.

bogeydogg · #48 Feb 13, '12, 5:43 pm

It solves nothing because the employer still has to pay for insurance. So even if birth control is not mandated, but the insurance can be used to buy birth control, then the Church still winds up paying for birth control.

BTW this is very personal for me. My wife and I, neither of us were practicing Christians when we got married, we quickly had two children and decided to start birth control via the pill. We decided that we didn't like it because it made my wife feel sick and really moody almost all of the time so we quit.

My youngest child is now 7 and we can't get pregnant. My wife has had cervical cancer scares twice and we both suspect that the pill had at least a part to play.

So all those who think birth control is no big deal... think again.

Also all of our friends who decided to "Wait until they were ready" and took the pill into their thirties, are now infertile as well. My wife and don't say anything because they don't agree with our stance, but we both think that its not coincidence.

Of course I know this is all anecdotal testimony, but once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, many times over is a trend.

I pry if you are reading this and are young and wondering whether you should or should not use birth control... don't because you may be deciding for the rest of your life that you don't want children... ever.

God Bless

iloveangels · #49 Feb 13, '12, 6:17 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorningSong51

Good thoughts. I looked up some of the comments you made and remember some of the over seas countries that are using some form of contraceptives, which I had just read up on contraceptive injections, there is a good website to read up on this: http://www.fhi360.org//NR/rdonlyres/...aReportIBP.pdf

When you mentioned about the agenda on universal health care and women's reproduction - I started to remember a health care class that I took awhile back and the discussion about all this. What a trigger, I hope this is not going toward controlling the number of children each family can have?

My guess is that this is what it will come to if we don't fight it, yes. All kinds of very strange things can happen if the government gets to decree what we believe and what we have to put in our bodies.

iloveangels · #50 Feb 13, '12, 6:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BGorski

Another problem as discussed on Relevant Radio is that some Archdioceses are self insured, ie. they apparently insure their employees themselves. The result is as an insurance provider they are required by law to provide contraception services (and I would assume by next year or the next, abortion services), The Archdiocese of Chicago, for instance, will be required by law to provide these services that the Arch diocese of Chicago, as a Catholic structure, finds morally reprehensible.

I have read the same thing, many times over, in the course of the last week.

oneofmany · #51 Feb 13, '12, 6:19 pm

I also wonder how they came up with that stat. I took the pill but for only 6 months and not for birth control. The doctor thought I had a cyst on my ovary so we tried that to make it shrink. I wasn't even married at the time.

I wonder if they are taking this into account? I am sure the church has no problem if the pill is used for medical reasons other than birth control. If they are using that stat it is deceiving.

iloveangels · #52 Feb 13, '12, 6:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneofmany

I also wonder how they came up with that stat. I took the pill but for only 6 months and not for birth control. The doctor thought I had a cyst on my ovary so we tried that to make it shrink. I wasn't even married at the time.

I wonder if they are taking this into account? I am sure the church has no problem if the pill is used for medical reasons other than birth control. If they are using that stat it is deceiving.

No, I'm pretty sure they're not taking things like that into consideration. This 98% figure is an old statistic from Planned Parenthood. And guess who's in cahoots with Obama on this issue?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...n-white-house/

Tighty Whitey · #53 Feb 13, '12, 6:24 pm

I love this issue as it so clearly demonstrates how politicians adopt half truths and posturing in place of morals and principles. So I agree with you that this solves nothing.

**po18guy** · #54 Feb 13, '12, 7:21 pm

Whether large or small, a deal with the devil remains a deal with the devil.

jpjd · #55 Feb 13, '12, 7:28 pm

This from the USCCB blog on why the compromise is unacceptable

http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/...ould-know.html

**po18guy** · #56 Feb 13, '12, 7:32 pm

Dude's tryin' to save his job. Bad.

MorningSong51 · #57 Feb 13, '12, 10:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by iloveangels

My guess is that this is what it will come to if we don't fight it, yes. All kinds of very strange things can happen if the government gets to decree what we believe and what we have to put in our bodies.

The strangest thing has already happened - why would the government even approach this with the church? Even though the stats maybe 98%, and what 2% don't use contraceptive, how could the government be able to give this a percentage (in general, the U.S (?)) from the Catholics? Targeting, a specific age group between 30-44 years of age? Where these percentages factoring in what type of insurance coverage they already had, their wages, and professional verses non professional status before they even approached this, as well as, who their employers were? I worked for a professional research company that focused specifically on hospitals, working conditions, and whether these employees were satisfied with their wages and working conditions. The questions, and not being able to give an opinion while conducting the interview - are pretty specific, yet - most of the questions could lean toward how the group, whoever paid for this service, wants them asked. Doesn't that make sense? You can be bias, even on the approach.

**JRKH** · #58 Feb 14, '12, 5:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorningSong51

The strangest thing has already happened - why would the government even approach this with the church? Even though the stats maybe 98%, and what 2% don't use contraceptive, how could the government be able to give this a percentage (in general, the U.S (?)) from the Catholics? Targeting, a specific age group between 30-44 years of age? Where these percentages factoring in what type of insurance coverage they already had, their wages, and professional verses non professional status before they even approached this, as well as, who their employers were? I worked for a professional research company that focused specifically on hospitals, working conditions, and whether these employees were satisfied with their wages and working conditions. The questions, and not being able to give an opinion while conducting the interview - are pretty specific, yet - most of the questions could lean toward how the group, whoever paid for this service, wants them asked. Doesn't that make sense? You can be bias, even on the approach.

Absolutely.
This is the thing about most, what I call, "Random Statistics". Statistics quoted out of context of the specific study and related stats contained in said study.
They really tell you nothing of any value and worse, they give a false impression.
Then you add in the "telegraph effect" of these things being passed around and you have something like this:

"XYZ study found that, of 3,517 women responding who identified themselves as Catholic, 3,440 said that they had used some form of artificial birth control at some time in their life." Of these, 2,174 said it was during a period when they were not practicing their faith, 896 said it was during a period of high stress and family difficulty, and 1,854 say that they now believe they were wrong to have used it.

This what is published in some reputable journal....
But after being passed around and discussed by several people it becomes reported at coffee breaks and over lunch as:

98% of Catholic women use artificial birth control.

NOTE ON ABOVE - THESE NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP BY ME AND REPRESENT NO PUBLISHED STUDY - DO NOT REPEAT THEM OUTSIDE OF THIS CONTEXT!!!

My point being here that even a well conducted study seeking to obtain good clear and useful numbers can quickly become useless by being quoted out of context and without supporting information - usually by people who have little idea of the necessary rigors involved in developing, conducting, analyzing and reporting a good statistical study.

More often these things are used by people with some agenda which this particular number (out of context) seems to support or can be used for shock value.
Then others, who don't recognize the misleading and "out of context" character of the statement, repeat it...and on it goes....

I hate that statistics have such a bad reputation among the masses. Statistical analysis can and does provide much good information. Unfortunately they are too often misused - misapplied - the result of poorly designed experiments and studies - and then they are worse than useless.

Color me frustrated

Peace
James

**JimG** · #59 Feb 14, '12, 7:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trader

I see our president as a lot like the pagan Caesars who had no problem with the native religions of their conquered lands, as long as they also worshiped Caesar. They had no understanding that Jews and Christians could not do that, because everyone else could just add another god to their pantheon.

Sadly, Obama, the secularists, and even many catholics do not understand how fundamental this is to the practice of our faith. Many of us will be called to a kind of martyrdom before this fight is over.

If you need a realistic example of the long term fight we are in, please read this account of the fight the Amish had with Social Security. It took them from 1938 to 1965 to obtain a statutory exemption from Social Security and Medicare on the grounds that forced insurance violated their consciences.

http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm

Yes. I agree with this. The thing is, this HHS mandate was never necessary! The nation is awash in contraception! There is no shortage of it, and no need for mandated coverage by those whose religion and whose conscience it offends. It seems rather like a forced test to ensure that everyone bow at the altar of the state religion of secularism, rather like Caesar requiring Christians to offer incense at his altar as a test of loyalty.

iloveangels · #60 Feb 14, '12, 2:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimG

Yes. I agree with this. The thing is, this HHS mandate was never necessary! The nation is awash in contraception! There is no shortage of it, and no need for mandated coverage by those whose religion and whose conscience it offends. It seems rather like a forced test to ensure that everyone bow at the altar of the state religion of secularism, rather like Caesar requiring Christians to offer incense at his altar as a test of loyalty.

Yes, and of all the medical services that they could offer for free, why these? These apply to only half the population, the female half. Why did they not choose to offer chemotherapy for free instead, for instance? Men and women both contract cancer and that would apply to both men and women.

Why are they targeting only half the population for free services? Why these services and not other services which are also needed, and potentially applicable to the entire population, not just half?