The Black Vault

I remember a time when most programs did not cover birth control, as it wasn't considered manditory medicine.
But then immediately pils like Viagra were? (i think)

If those religious organizations are paying for pills like Viagra(not sure if they are)..which is a way of tampering with natural procreation, fyi..then they can cover birth control.

Religious people can the decide for themselves if they want to use it or not.

It's not like they are being forced to provide birth control, just to offer it.
Obama is not saying, "you must force these women on birth control!!" No, just if women are usign it, it should be covered.

I do realize the religion vs. state argument that is being made, though..religious freedom, et all.

But there are limits..and if certain religions want to continue to lie to themselves and be hypocrites, then maybe they should be forced out of their denial, a bit.

In case you all hadn't noticed the population of the planet is WAY out of control.

How many religious people publically pretend to not believe in birth control , but when it comes to them or their sons and daughter, secretly push for it, I have to wonder?

Also, as a young woman I was often told on the downlow..never have a baby in a Catholic hopsital. I don;t know if things hav echanged these days..but it was rumored in my youth that if you shoudl have complications..they will let you die rather than risk the baby's life. Crazy.

ricardo wrote:providing access and availability for ' programs' by organizations that benefit from massive government funding / tax exemptions... should not be interpreted
as imposition of services.

nor on their face value be in conflict w/ religious beliefs. my opinion. don't you think it's dubious attempting to interprit gods intent insofar as procreation is concerned ?

if that were the case , would not the time honored 'withdrawal method' be a part of the curriculum ? no pun intended. ( kats are trying to take over the world.)

Abstinence is what we should all strive for. It's proper and guarantees no "mistakes" as Obama calls unwanted babies.

But it's not practical to expect abstinence. Primal urges are primal urges. So here we are. Now if any of you thinks that it's a-ok for someone to fund your abortion when they have a deep-seated religious belief against it, then you're being very narrow-minded if not bigoted. You want an abortion? Fine. Just don't do it on my dime. That ain't cool.

On the flipside, how would the country feel if Christian Churches insisted that we all tithe to them through the government? What? Not fair because you don't support their beliefs? EXACTLY.

bionic wrote:I remember a time when most programs did not cover birth control, as it wasn't considered manditory medicine.
But then immediately pils like Viagra were? (i think)

If those religious organizations are paying for pills like Viagra(not sure if they are)..which is a way of tampering with natural procreation, fyi..then they can cover birth control.

Religious people can the decide for themselves if they want to use it or not.

It's not like they are being forced to provide birth control, just to offer it.
Obama is not saying, "you must force these women on birth control!!" No, just if women are usign it, it should be covered.

I do realize the religion vs. state argument that is being made, though..religious freedom, et all.

But there are limits..and if certain religions want to continue to lie to themselves and be hypocrites, then maybe they should be forced out of their denial, a bit.

In case you all hadn't noticed the population of the planet is WAY out of control.

How many religious people publically pretend to not believe in birth control , but when it comes to them or their sons and daughter, secretly push for it, I have to wonder?

Also, as a young woman I was often told on the downlow..never have a baby in a Catholic hopsital. I don;t know if things hav echanged these days..but it was rumored in my youth that if you shoudl have complications..they will let you die rather than risk the baby's life. Crazy.

I can't believe you're serious.

So, you're saying that paying taxes to fund helping impotent and older men get an erection is the same as us paying taxes to fund abortion? Yes, that is what you said?

I'm .... I don't know what. At a loss for words I guess.

how hypocritical and dubious logic. I thought Catholics; especially, had distributed guilt down to a fine art form. you want my penny for your tax exemptions but women whom at no conscious fault of their own may have medical necessity for an abortion. that's contested ?

distributed guilt- you not going to know which clients of "medical necessity"
have the government funded abortion . that conversation is sacrosanct ,
between god and his flock. the argument is moot.

ricardo wrote:how hypocritical and dubious logic. I thought Catholics; especially, had distributed guilt down to a fine art form. you want my penny for your tax exemptions but women whom at no conscious fault of their own may have medical necessity for an abortion. that's contested ?

distributed guilt- you not going to know which clients of "medical necessity"
have the government funded abortion . that conversation is sacrosanct ,
between god and his flock. the argument is moot.

No Catholic church is taking a single penny from you. So your argument falls flat straight out of the gate.

frrostedman wrote:

ricardo wrote:how hypocritical and dubious logic. I thought Catholics; especially, had distributed guilt down to a fine art form. you want my penny for your tax exemptions but women whom at no conscious fault of their own may have medical necessity for an abortion. that's contested ?

distributed guilt- you not going to know which clients of "medical necessity"
have the government funded abortion . that conversation is sacrosanct ,
between god and his flock. the argument is moot.

No Catholic church is taking a single penny from you. So your argument falls flat straight out of the gate.

em ... what they don't pay in taxes , we collectively make up for , in services
in kind, additional taxes for their sucking the life blood out of local utilities,
land use displacement, pollution , police courtesy use , shall I go on brother.
if you will just admit it. I'm not adverse to working something out in the tax code.
it's not like the protected religions don't earn a profit.

Even the Muslims get this ! I figure w/ fuzzy math phobia .

since the inception of our country you owe the American govt

a millian zillion quatrillian dollars plus interest. but if you pay on time,

we can wave 15% if paid in cash or gold or recently appraised real estate.

greeney2 wrote:And you tell me I do not understand the constitution. If you do not see it as a clear violation of a religious belief, as do most of the country, I can't explain it any further.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Forcing the birth control issue prohibits religions from the free exercise of considering use of them is a sin and against religious teaching. It does no matter if you agree with the belief, other religions do, and they are being violated by this law.

So did eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin and if dead you were sent to hell
There is nothing wrong in birth control.

The truth is
“The vast majority of Catholic women are on birth control, support birth control and think it should be part of their health care plan. So, it just seems striking to me that someone would say this is a risky decision because it’s the right thing to do and it’s mainstream,” Quigley said Thursday on Capitol Hill.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/09/congr ... z1m71K1Fp4


http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/09/congr ... %99-video/

greeney2 wrote:Becasue it passes a law that interfers with a basic religious right concerning birth control within a religion, and that is what OT posted the other day about "Congress shall pass no laws-----". That is an example of separation of church and state being violated by the state. The state can not mandate any law that conflicts with a basic belief in any religion. It would be forcing the Catholic Church to condone birth control when it is clearly seen as a mortal sin in that theology, by providing insurance coverage for it. It also forces religions to provide abortion insurance coverage I believe.

Greeney as a fervent catholic how did you manage to have only one child John if you did not used contraceptives in your life time.

I guess you and your wife did not used conctraceptives because it is a sin and The Catholic Church is against it

This is about the Federal governmnt mandating a law, that violates the Constitution.