IGX

Gorbachev wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Gorbachev wrote:LOL at the entire issue and reaction. "Special rules for me cos I believe shit and call it religion and the Constitution says I'm special!"

Catholic Church is so fucking far from the original message of Jesus you couldn't make it up. Those molesting, priest-moving, cover-up criminals should be giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, trusting their flock not to do the wrong thing and they should be in sack cloth and ash, atoning for their sins. They have too much power, too much at stake, they have it too cosy and their Jesuitical theologising sickens me to my stomach. BPlaying on " your grandparents built this country for us to be like this" is repulsive and comical.

Wake the fuck up about ALL religions, America. You're a fucking laughing stock. And this shit is dangerous if left unchallenged - it'll bite you hard at some point if it isn't doing so already (Rapture and link to US "influence in ME", anyone?)

The fact that it's the RC church is irrelevant. Americans (at least right thinking ones) don't want the federal gov't dicking around with their religion (or lack thereof), their guns, or their other liberties (especially speech). If that makes the USA a laughing stock, the laughers can rest comfortably in their own paradise of a country.

The laughers in Europe do rest comfortably in their own paradise of a country. There are many of them here and they're all more outward-looking, cultured, multi-layered, complex, richer in history, tradition and culture and generally nicer places to live. What we see on the TV emanating from the US is simply horrifying. You have a circus of a media, a circus of a corporate-lobby-infested "political system" and are still stinking of puritanical zeal when it comes to "freedom of this or that". None of you wish to live in a proper society because you lack the trust to do so. It's me, mine, my and fuck you very much. You'd live in gated castle communities and drive tanks if you could. My reaction was to the letter linked on the page and you come out defending the "Constitooshon". It's cartoon stuff. No where else rabbits on about that shit like you. We get on and live our lives and we don't see ourselves acting out some fucking Greek tragedy on an epic scale every time there's a fucking decision in a court. Get a fucking grip, America.

You guys have had a bad history with religious freedom for the past 1500 years or so, so I don't really expect you to understand.

Stick to your side of the pond.

Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration's proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers' health plans.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had led opposition to the regulation, issued a statement saying that they didn't believe their concerns were addressed by a new policy offered by President Barack Obama on Friday morning to allow religious employers who object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it to insurance companies.

Under the new policy, religious employers that don't want to offer contraception could exclude it from their policies. Insurance companies instead would be required to provide access to contraception for plan participants who wanted it, without explicitly charging either the religious employer or worker.

The shift is intended to ensure that women working at religious hospitals, schools and charities who want to use contraception can obtain it in the same way as women who work for secular employers. It also means the cost of providing the coverage for those women is likely to be spread across all policyholders by insurers.

The bishops had earlier expressed cautious optimism about the announcement, saying that it was "a first step in the right direction" but that they would have to study it.

In their later statement, they said they still had "serious moral concerns," noting that the proposal didn't contain provisions for religious employers who self-insure, meaning the employer takes on the underlying risk of covering employees' health care.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

Apparently health insurance is complicated-- who knew?

baffled wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:

kreator wrote:

Yes, I'm drunk wrote:I'm quite interested in this subject being as I am a Catholic an' all, but I'm not sure if I understand the situation exactly given my ignorance of US healthcare provision.

Have I got it right: The federal government are forcing Catholic institutions that act as employers to provide medical insurance for their staff, under whose cover procedures such as abortions can be carried out?

Almost. I don't think they have to provide for any ol' abortion but contraceptives that work after conception are covered (like morning after pill) which qualifies as abortion to some.

Ok, thanks. So DrDonkeyLove's pork analogy seems pretty apt here, as far as I can see.

Something similar happened a couple of years ago here in the UK re: adoption services, where it became illegal for Christian adoption agencies to refuse to house a child with a gay couple. Needless to say, the vast majority of adoption agencies had to close on grounds of conscience, and the knock-on effect is that were now starting to see a crisis in adoption service, with a massive backlog of cases and shitloads of kids being denied a family because there aren't enough agencies around to cope with the workload.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying that the government messing around in something to try and make things more equal for everyone has, in fact, made things worse for just about everyone? *shocked*.

Interesting situation though. I like it when you post on these things because I find the issues in Europe interesting, and especially find politics in England and the UK in general to be even more interesting than they probably are.

PS
Isn't Europe supposed to be the model for our current government?

Surprisingly, it's actually the British constitution - or, more precisely, the English constitution - that the American one models itself on. As John Adams himself says:

I only contend that the English constitution is, in theory, the most stupendous fabrick of human invention, both for the adjustment of the balance, and the prevention of its vibrations; and that the Americans ought to be applauded instead of censured, for imitating it, as far as they have. Not the formation of languages, not the whole art of navigation and ship building, does more honour to the human understanding than this system of government. The Americans have not indeed imitated it in giving a negative, upon their legislature to the executive power; in this respect their balances are incompleat, very much I confess to my mortification: in other respects, they have some of them fallen short of perfection, by giving the choice of some militia officers, &c. to the people.

Adams also goes on to say, correctly in my view, that the American constitution improves upon that of the English because:

They have not made their first magistrates hereditary, nor their senators: here they differ from the English constitution, and with great propriety.

http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_20.htm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Contrary to what you said, they are not asking to directly pay, they're asking to indirectly pay (by paying an insurance company which may or may not provide these services depending on whether the employee chooses them). They would also be indirectly paying if they paid an employee's salary which the employee used to buy condoms.

LOL at anyone swallowing the rhetoric of the "compromise". Requiring the Church to pay for birth control coverage and requiring them to a buy a policy from a company that is required to provide birth control coverage has exactly the same outcome. In both cases, the Church is required to pay for services it doesn't agree with. To say otherwise makes you either a liar or an ignoramus.

They might be annoying homosexuals with ulterior motives, but there is a religious freedom issue here.

The practical effect, of course, is that eliminating the insurance means that employees who can afford it will buy it anyway, and employees who can't afford will have more unwanted pregnancies. Let's increase family sizes and/or abortions among poor people. Smart.

Nonsense. Estimates of the price elasticity of birth control suggest it is very low, if not zero. There is no good reason to believe this policy will have a noticeable effect on family sizes or abortions.

Furthermore, this policy is an example of one of the things that's wrong with this "reform" bill. It's advocates don't know what insurance is. Insurance isn't something you buy to pay for regular, expected expenses. Mandating that insurance cover those expenses is inefficient and will drive up costs.

John Cochrane gets this part right:

Cochrane wrote:There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn't add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn't charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You'd have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you'd end up spending more.

How did we get to this point? It all leads back to the elephant in the room: the tax deductibility of employer-provided group insurance.

also

Cochrane wrote:Poor women who can't afford birth control are a red herring in this debate. HHS isn't limiting this mandate to the poor anyway. We all have to pay. The very poor typically don't have employer-provided health insurance in the first place.

This policy is about increasing a distortionary tax break for middle class women. If it had anything to do with "family sizes and/or abortions among poor people" it would be limited to Medicaid. (And it still wouldn't do much.) It wouldn't be mandating free pills for the middle class.

The fact that Obamacare didn't jettison the employer tax deduction is a failure of the reform. The fact that he's adding mandates to both the employer-provided and individual markets makes it worse. (Not to mention the asinine "play or pay" rule.) It also makes the individual mandate, which I support, more burdensome. A young, uninsured male can't simply buy a policy that will protect him from unexpected costs if they arise, he has to buy one that will also pay for birth control pills, diabetes medicine, etc.

Sheldon Richman's got an interesting article on this shit show.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns ... insurable/

Pinky wrote: Furthermore, this policy is an example of one of the things that's wrong with this "reform" bill. It's advocates don't know what insurance is. Insurance isn't something you buy to pay for regular, expected expenses. Mandating that insurance cover those expenses is inefficient and will drive up costs.

i've got three questions:

1-apparently many states have this birth control mandate for health insurance. why was it ok when the states' required it?

2-also, i saw this statement: "contraception has already been legally required in all health-insurance plans since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in 2000 that omitting it was unconstitutional sex discrimination. (The Bush administration did nothing to oppose the ruling.)" how is the obama admin breaking new ground?

3-also i have read that insurance companies will be happy to provide the birth control free because that will be cheaper than covering unplanned pregnancies and births. is there any merit to this view of costs?

dead man walking wrote:

Pinky wrote: Furthermore, this policy is an example of one of the things that's wrong with this "reform" bill. It's advocates don't know what insurance is. Insurance isn't something you buy to pay for regular, expected expenses. Mandating that insurance cover those expenses is inefficient and will drive up costs.

i've got three questions:

1-apparently many states have this birth control mandate for health insurance. why was it ok when the states' required it?

Who said it was OK then? It's stupid at any level of government, as are many other mandates. Coverage of drugs for self-inflicted diabetes is one of my favorites. (The result is fatter diabetics.)

2-also, i saw this statement: "contraception has already been legally required in all health-insurance plans since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in 2000 that omitting it was unconstitutional sex discrimination. (The Bush administration did nothing to oppose the ruling.)" how is the obama admin breaking new ground?

I don't think that's true. If it is, that's also quite stupid. In any case, previously employers were simply encouraged to provide insurance by a boneheaded tax exemption. Obamacare adds an even more boneheaded "play or pay" policy. (Job Killer.) Now, if an employer (with some exceptions) decides they don't want to provide insurance, they are fined.

3-also i have read that insurance companies will be happy to provide the birth control free because that will be cheaper than covering unplanned pregnancies and births. is there any merit to this view of costs?

If true, the mandate is pointless. But it's very likely not true. First of all, I don't think it's uncommon for birth control not to be covered. Secondly, as I mentioned before, the price elasticity of birth control is extremely low. That means that making it more or less expensive for the women taking it will have very little affect on unplanned pregnancies, making it unlikely that an insurance company will save much by giving out free contraception. Similarly, this mandate will have little/no affect on pregnancies, abortions, etc.

How many women do you imagine are sitting around saying, "I'd really hate to get pregnant now, but I'll risk it because birth control is just too damn expensive"?

Pinky wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Pinky wrote: Furthermore, this policy is an example of one of the things that's wrong with this "reform" bill. It's advocates don't know what insurance is. Insurance isn't something you buy to pay for regular, expected expenses. Mandating that insurance cover those expenses is inefficient and will drive up costs.

i've got three questions:

1-apparently many states have this birth control mandate for health insurance. why was it ok when the states' required it?

Who said it was OK then? It's stupid at any level of government, as are many other mandates. Coverage of drugs for self-inflicted diabetes is one of my favorites. (The result is fatter diabetics.)

by ok i meant that insofar as i know there wasn't a brouhaha when the states mandated the coverage. why the storm now, not then?

thanx

Pinky wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Contrary to what you said, they are not asking to directly pay, they're asking to indirectly pay (by paying an insurance company which may or may not provide these services depending on whether the employee chooses them). They would also be indirectly paying if they paid an employee's salary which the employee used to buy condoms.

LOL at anyone swallowing the rhetoric of the "compromise". Requiring the Church to pay for birth control coverage and requiring them to a buy a policy from a company that is required to provide birth control coverage has exactly the same outcome. In both cases, the Church is required to pay for services it doesn't agree with. To say otherwise makes you either a liar or an ignoramus.

There's the matter of "why they don't agree with it." Using contraception is a sin in the R.C. faith, which nobody is being forced to do. Literally nothing about indirect expenditures that go to insurance companies that provide these services. Why not insist on boycotting any insurance company that provides birth control, whether their plan covers it or not? Why claim the right not fire any employee who admits to using it?

Occasionally these guys start trying to inject themselves into the political debate; e.g. denying Communion to pro choice politicians. Not politicians who have actually had abortions, just the ones who won't try to write religion into law.

Setting the appropriate boundary isn't easy, but this one is pretty obvious. Trying to impose your faith on other citizens isn't a 1st Amendment right.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Contrary to what you said, they are not asking to directly pay, they're asking to indirectly pay (by paying an insurance company which may or may not provide these services depending on whether the employee chooses them). They would also be indirectly paying if they paid an employee's salary which the employee used to buy condoms.

LOL at anyone swallowing the rhetoric of the "compromise". Requiring the Church to pay for birth control coverage and requiring them to a buy a policy from a company that is required to provide birth control coverage has exactly the same outcome. In both cases, the Church is required to pay for services it doesn't agree with. To say otherwise makes you either a liar or an ignoramus.

There's the matter of "why they don't agree with it." Using contraception is a sin in the R.C. faith, which nobody is being forced to do. Literally nothing about indirect expenditures that go to insurance companies that provide these services. Why not insist on boycotting any insurance company that provides birth control, whether their plan covers it or not? Why claim the right not fire any employee who admits to using it?

Occasionally these guys start trying to inject themselves into the political debate; e.g. denying Communion to pro choice politicians. Not politicians who have actually had abortions, just the ones who won't try to write religion into law.

Setting the appropriate boundary isn't easy, but this one is pretty obvious. Trying to impose your faith on other citizens isn't a 1st Amendment right.

Barring the Obama regs, why not start their own RC compliant insurance company? It's not like they're lacking funds and high level business talent. "Own a piece of the Rock"

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Contrary to what you said, they are not asking to directly pay, they're asking to indirectly pay (by paying an insurance company which may or may not provide these services depending on whether the employee chooses them). They would also be indirectly paying if they paid an employee's salary which the employee used to buy condoms.

LOL at anyone swallowing the rhetoric of the "compromise". Requiring the Church to pay for birth control coverage and requiring them to a buy a policy from a company that is required to provide birth control coverage has exactly the same outcome. In both cases, the Church is required to pay for services it doesn't agree with. To say otherwise makes you either a liar or an ignoramus.

There's the matter of "why they don't agree with it." Using contraception is a sin in the R.C. faith, which nobody is being forced to do. Literally nothing about indirect expenditures that go to insurance companies that provide these services. Why not insist on boycotting any insurance company that provides birth control, whether their plan covers it or not? Why claim the right not fire any employee who admits to using it?

Occasionally these guys start trying to inject themselves into the political debate; e.g. denying Communion to pro choice politicians. Not politicians who have actually had abortions, just the ones who won't try to write religion into law.

Setting the appropriate boundary isn't easy, but this one is pretty obvious. Trying to impose your faith on other citizens isn't a 1st Amendment right.

Sorry but you're way off the mark here.

There are people who try to impose religion into law in the U.S., but this is not one of those cases. It's funny that you say they are imposing their faith on others when in fact it's the govt that's imposing the law on employers against their will.

The Church is not requesting any law. They are trying to prevent one from being enacted.

The fact that one of the provisions of the law has religious consequences is a side effect. It shouldn't matter if the gov't is forcing employers to have insurance that covers birth control or free pony rides. Either way, it's gov't coercion in a situation that is completely unnecessary.

It's funny that you say they are imposing their faith on others when in fact it's the govt that's imposing the law on employers against their will.

Government has been doing that since forever, it's one of the essential functions of government. See: OSHA, EPA, etc.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Contrary to what you said, they are not asking to directly pay, they're asking to indirectly pay (by paying an insurance company which may or may not provide these services depending on whether the employee chooses them). They would also be indirectly paying if they paid an employee's salary which the employee used to buy condoms.

LOL at anyone swallowing the rhetoric of the "compromise". Requiring the Church to pay for birth control coverage and requiring them to a buy a policy from a company that is required to provide birth control coverage has exactly the same outcome. In both cases, the Church is required to pay for services it doesn't agree with. To say otherwise makes you either a liar or an ignoramus.

There's the matter of "why they don't agree with it." Using contraception is a sin in the R.C. faith, which nobody is being forced to do. Literally nothing about indirect expenditures that go to insurance companies that provide these services. Why not insist on boycotting any insurance company that provides birth control, whether their plan covers it or not? Why claim the right not fire any employee who admits to using it?

They are being forced to pay for something that they believe it is a sin for people to use. Your question about boycotting any company that provides the coverage to others only shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Their complaint isn't that companies offer plans that cover birth control. it's that they have to pay for a policy that covers birth control. There's nothing inderect about this. They will be forced to pay for birth control, and nothing in Obama's "compromise" changes that.

kreator wrote: The Church is not requesting any law. They are trying to prevent one from being enacted.

Unfortunately, they seem to just want to be granted an exemption to this part of the law. They don't care that this is very clearly an idiotic policy even if you ignore any religious implications.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Occasionally these guys start trying to inject themselves into the political debate; e.g. denying Communion to pro choice politicians. Not politicians who have actually had abortions, just the ones who won't try to write religion into law.

You know better than this Spells.

From a Catholic perspective, the idea of putting the entire burden of sin on individual decision makers while lawmakers get a free pass-- is nonsense. Lawmakers have an obligation to write good laws, and their vocation comes with a responsibility to make good laws-- directly funding and encouraging (even indirectly) laws and policies that contradict the good of the people is inherently sinful. When the consequences of a law/policy are negative but reasonable unanticipated and unintended-- that is one thing. When the consequences of a law/policy are known to be wrong, then politicians have a responsibility to oppose those policies.

And you're leaving out the idea of conscience objections-- these have been written into law for a long time.

Pinky wrote:

kreator wrote: The Church is not requesting any law. They are trying to prevent one from being enacted.

Unfortunately, they seem to just want to be granted an exemption to this part of the law. They don't care that this is very clearly an idiotic policy even if you ignore any religious implications.

IMO it's better that the Church, with it's resources and political clout, take on this fight. What would be unjust is if individual Catholic business owners had to take on the government over this-- they would lose and lose badly.

And they're not trying to prevent a law from being enacted, they are trying to prevent a discretionary provision of the law from being implemented.

This paper brings out a couple of the issues: targeted dumping of employees and faulty cost estimates.

Pinky wrote:They are being forced to pay for something that they believe it is a sin for people to use.

Nice use of pronouns.

1. Who specifically is "they?" The bishops are not being forced to pay, and they are not the employer. The bishops do not speak for all Catholics or all Catholic employers. The CHA has dropped its objection.
2. Let's say they didn't. Why is paying for insurance policies that that may provide contraception to people who have no religious objection to using it a sin?

If it were a sin for a Catholic employer to pay for health insurance that might cover birth control, that has been going on already for a very long time in private businesses owned by Catholics, and nobody's ever heard a word about it. I don't know of any rules about a Catholic hospital being "extra Catholic" and requiring extra-special observances that other Catholics are not subject to. So what's the deal?

The answer is: It's a fabricated argument that doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. It only makes sense if you can claim a religious objection "Because those guys said so." If this is real, you may as well be able to invent "Pinky's Church of Jesus Said 'Fuck Taxes'," name yourself Pope, and refuse to pay taxes on religious grounds.

Your question about boycotting any company that provides the coverage to others only shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

I can't tell if you're shooting from the hip and really don't know much about the actual arguments or parties involved, or if you are trying to cram anti-Obamacare arguments into 1st Amendment/religious ones.

I recently read that

"Of the world's three universal religions, one is based on a profound insight into human psychology and one is based on a profound insight into the kind of social structure that is necessary for people to live in peace and harmony...........The other world religion is an insane collection of primitive magic and mumbo-jumbo, with cadavers resurrecting and walking around with holes in them, lepers suddenly healing and the blind suddenly seeing, vigins giving birth and snakes that talk."

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Occasionally these guys start trying to inject themselves into the political debate; e.g. denying Communion to pro choice politicians. Not politicians who have actually had abortions, just the ones who won't try to write religion into law.

You know better than this Spells.

From a Catholic perspective, the idea of putting the entire burden of sin on individual decision makers while lawmakers get a free pass-- is nonsense. Lawmakers have an obligation to write good laws, and their vocation comes with a responsibility to make good laws-- directly funding and encouraging (even indirectly) laws and policies that contradict the good of the people is inherently sinful. When the consequences of a law/policy are negative but reasonable unanticipated and unintended-- that is one thing. When the consequences of a law/policy are known to be wrong, then politicians have a responsibility to oppose those policies.

Uh, no. By that logic a Catholic President would not be religiously obligated to obey the Vatican, which would DQ him from holding office. When a random bishop or priest decides to deny Communion to a politician, it's always done extremely selectively. E.g., they deny it to a pro-choice politician, but not a pro-death penalty or one who voted for GWII. It's just political meddling.

And you're leaving out the idea of conscience objections-- these have been written into law for a long time.

For the same reason that theologian in the article did: Catholic policy on birth control is "Don't follow conscience on this one." You can't logically claim a conscience objection for some people (employers paying for contraceptives) while denying it to others (employees using contraceptives).

Spells:
1. That theologian is not putting forward an argument that's consistent with Church doctrine. No Catholic theologian worth anything would put forward an argument without fairly defining what they're arguing against-- any training in the Catholic intellectual tradition demands this.
2. You're presenting a straw man-- birth control and abortofacients are different but related issues; and different degrees of sinfulness.
3. The Catholic president argument is so pathetic that I doubt you thought it out before typing it. Pro-choice and pro-death positions are very different. Is supporting or putting in place the death penalty a mortal sin? No. Never has been.
4. Now the important questions. What is the acceptable range of conscience objections? Why should the Church and it's institutions be required provide and pay for services that Church doctrine says they should not? Should businesses owned by religious Catholics be required to provide insurance coverage for their employees when the doctrine of the Church they belong to says that they shouldn't? What about Protestants?

You're welcome to bust out your Catechism and show me where I'm wrong.

And I agree that denying communion to politicians is done way too selectively. I support no Kennedy exceptions.

Aight, last post on this, there's too much work to do.

Turdacious wrote:Spells:
1. That theologian is not putting forward an argument that's consistent with Church doctrine. No Catholic theologian worth anything would put forward an argument without fairly defining what they're arguing against-- any training in the Catholic intellectual tradition demands this.

His point about conscience was reasonable. Can't claim conscience argument for employers and deny it for employees.

2. You're presenting a straw man-- birth control and abortofacients are different but related issues; and different degrees of sinfulness.

I didn't draw up their objections for them. They object to birth control, so it's not a straw man to say so.

3. The Catholic president argument is so pathetic that I doubt you thought it out before typing it. Pro-choice and pro-death positions are very different. Is supporting or putting in place the death penalty a mortal sin? No. Never has been.

And having an abortion is. But that's on the mother, not the guy who's declining to write his religion into law. If a politician becomes religiously obligated to legislate the tenets of his faith when it contradicts his own conscience, he should be DQ'd from holding office. Which is fine, Jesus was against power-seeking anyway.

4. Now the important questions. What is the acceptable range of conscience objections? Why should the Church and it's institutions be required provide and pay for services that Church doctrine says they should not? Should businesses owned by religious Catholics be required to provide insurance coverage for their employees when the doctrine of the Church they belong to says that they shouldn't? What about Protestants?

Well, start here:

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.

look at how freely the Catholic Church operates, and how long Catholics have already been providing this exact coverage to their employees without being told otherwise, and I think the bishops lose the argument handily. But we'll see.

Spells, you're conveniently ignoring the Catholic definition of conscience (this has been pretty clearly defined for about sixteen centuries FWIW). Also you're ignoring something else: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Pinky wrote:They are being forced to pay for something that they believe it is a sin for people to use.

Nice use of pronouns.

1. Who specifically is "they?" The bishops are not being forced to pay, and they are not the employer. The bishops do not speak for all Catholics or all Catholic employers. The CHA has dropped its objection.

The bishops are objecting to Catholic organizations being forced to pay. And you're dodging the issue.

2. Let's say they didn't. Why is paying for insurance policies that that may provide contraception to people who have no religious objection to using it a sin?

They're objecting to Church-run organizations being forced to pay for something that the Church says is wrong. That's not quite the same issue as whether or not it would be a sin for a Catholic employer to pay for something they're forced to pay for. You either don't know what you're talking about, or your trying to avoid actually arguing the point while still asserting your conclusion.

The answer is: It's a fabricated argument that doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. It only makes sense if you can claim a religious objection "Because those guys said so." If this is real, you may as well be able to invent "Pinky's Church of Jesus Said 'Fuck Taxes'," name yourself Pope, and refuse to pay taxes on religious grounds.

More nonsense. It's a very simple issue. This administrative ruling forces Catholic organizations to directly pay for something that the Church says it is a sin to use. I don't agree with most of their beliefs, but I certainly understand why they would be upset by this ruling. It's also clear that the "compromise" did nothing to address their concerns.

Your question about boycotting any company that provides the coverage to others only shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

I can't tell if you're shooting from the hip and really don't know much about the actual arguments or parties involved, or if you are trying to cram anti-Obamacare arguments into 1st Amendment/religious ones.

Really? What do you think the actual arguments are? It's clearly not about the fact that some plans offered by insurance companies cover birth control, as your ridiculous boycott example suggests. In that case, Catholic organizations could simply choose policies that did not cover birth control and be charged accordingly. Under the administration's ruling, they won't be able to choose such policies. No one will.

And I don't need a 1st Amendment argument against any part of Obamacare. As I've said previously in this very thread, there are very good arguments against this specific policy that have nothing to do with religion, and the religious objections likely do nothing to help the rest of us.

Pinky, since Spells is done here, let me present his argument in a coherent form:



You're welcome.