• So, for you, this is about her comment on paying for contraception. You attach a 'happy' connotation to that word--sexual intercourse--so therefore, it is opional behavior.

    How do you feel about a person who can't pay for their medication that is not used as contraception? That is not optional? Medication that is required, in some cases, to keep someone alive--heart meds, asthma meds, etc. If they can't afford it, is it just too bad for them?

    March 4, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.

  • LOL, once Fluke started talking about the tragedy of a college student or law student being unable to fork over $3000.00 for their own contraception, it kind of made getting something for nothing an issue. I realize the debate is about something on a much larger level.

    March 4, 2012 at 4:58 a.m.

  • Jason! Rein yourself in!

    You say: "Get off their rear, find a job and save up their money because if they want to play, they need to pay for the fun with their own money. I'll take number 3 every time."

    You say: "Edith, believe it or not some people are lazy and refuse to do anything to help themselves."

    You say: "At what point do these incompetent people start accepting a little responsibility for themselves Edith?"

    You say: "I agree, it was a poor choice of words on my part. Please replace "incompetent people" with "freeloaders"."

    You say: "I - Want folks to "Earn their cake" and eat it to."

    We are talking about the contraceptive portion of the Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010. The AHA deals with EMPLOYER provided insurance benefits. You can't have an EMPLOYER without being an EMPLOYEE. EMPLOYEES have JOBS! I did not realize employees had to earn insurance benefits.

    If you want to rag on folks receiving welfare benefits, then that another matter. But, stop and take a deep breath and figure out what's what!

    Otherwise, you once again, have no idea what you are talking about!

    March 3, 2012 at 10:10 p.m.

  • We can fight this battle until the end of time.

    In a nutshell...

    You - Want folks to "have their free cake" and eat it to.

    I - Want folks to "Earn their cake" and eat it to.

    That includes Women and Men, all colors, and any other form of United States human resident you can think of.

    You want to try to make me out to be a controller of womens bodies who hates women. That is so absurd I cannot even believe you write it.

    If some idiot man had gotten on that TV the other day and started whining about not getting something for nothing I would have been just as eager to attack him as well.

    Think anout this one, if Rush had attacked a white republican man and called him a few duragatory names, would it have become a "newsworthy" event that millions were up in arms about? Would a President have been called in to console the poor white republican?

    What do you think?

    March 3, 2012 at 9:51 p.m.

  • I agree, it was a poor choice of words on my part.

    Please replace "incompetent people" with "freeloaders".

    Thank you for spotting that.

    March 3, 2012 at 9:38 p.m.

  • Insulin dependent diabetics are incompetent?

    Somehow you got derailed from insurance companies covering the cost of contraceptives and eliminating co-pays to folks on public assistance. These are non-related items as far as the AHA is concerned. The AHA has nothing to do with private insurance.

    March 3, 2012 at 9:23 p.m.

  • I have to believe that when our forefathers wrote something about "The pursuit of happiness", they didn't intend that happiness to come off the backs of others.

    The intent could only have been - if you want to pursue a little happiness then get off your rump and pursue. Not to let other do all the pursuing so you can do all the enjoying.

    March 3, 2012 at 8:47 p.m.

  • thank you JasonBourne!! there is something terribly wrong with anyone who thinks it's okay for able bodied people to sit at home and sponge off the governement. i know there are people who truly need the assistance. what is sad though is the people who indeed need help (the elderly who cannot afford their meds and healthcare, the soldiers and veterans, the disabled, etc.) cannot get it. i work in the medical field and had a young girl come in asking how much certain things cost. i told her and she then asked if we took payments in which i said we did not. i was totally shocked when she said "i do not have medicaid or anything." not i don't have insurance or make a lot of money but "i don't have medicaid". that is the mind set of some people nowdays. it's okay to sit at home and let the government take care of everything. their children grow up and think it's okay to do the same thing. it's becoming a vicious cycle that needs to stop! i know that this comment is a little off the subject but needed to be said. thanks again jasonbourne for your oh so true comment

    March 3, 2012 at 8:45 p.m.

  • Yeah as shocking as that may be to you it is exactly what I meant to say.

    From here on out we can get as outrageous as you would like with examples and what ifs.

    At what point do these incompetent people start accepting a little responsibility for themselves Edith? Come on, just ballpark me a guess. When they are 30? 40? 50? Never?

    March 3, 2012 at 8:43 p.m.

  • Are you sure this is what you meant to say: "Having IDD is a health issue. Providing contrceptives so someone can enjoy sex like everybody else is not a health issue."?

    I have good reading comprehension, so I am seeing that Insulin Dependent Diabetic women who do not want to risk their health, possibly death, any further, should expect to remain celibate in marriage. Making sure they have access to contraception is not an option in your world. If they didn't have access to contraception and got pregnant, would an abortion be appropriate in this case, i.e., 'health of the mother'?

    March 3, 2012 at 8:22 p.m.

  • EdithAnn, lets go back to this one for a moment.
    "Should a (for Gary's sake) married IDD expect to not have an intimate sex life with her husband because she shouldn't get pregnant?"

    I'll make this simple for all the Democrats roaming this website.
    Lets just say "if you do this, it will kill you". They now have a choice to make, 1) play and pay for it with their life. 2) Don't play and eliminate all risk. 3) Get off their rear, find a job and save up their money because if they want to play, they need to pay for the fun with their own money.
    I'll take number 3 every time.

    People are born with what they are born with. What you describe above has nothing to do with health isues and everything to do with a person wanting everyone else to cough up the dough in order for them to be able to fulfill themselves.

    This country is slowly changing into a place where you simply have to whine loud enough, get someone to feel sorry for you and the government will race in and do their darndest to try and fix all your woes.

    At what point do we stop catering to everyones needs? At what point?

    Edith, believe it or not some people are lazy and refuse to do anything to help themselves. It's great, you don't have to do anything and the rest of the Americans that are pulling their weight are going to make sure you have everything they have. You gotta love it!

    Read this next part slowly...
    Having IDD is a health issue. Providing contrceptives so someone can enjoy sex like everybody else is not a health issue.

    March 3, 2012 at 8:05 p.m.

  • [Inch by inch...step by step...]

    So if all these women are claiming other reasons for obtaining birth control pills or other contraception than actual contraception, what is the problem?

    They are either going to lie about it, or outright defy the Church, both of which they have probably been doing forever. I'm thinking the much ado has been about nothing.

    March 3, 2012 at 7:07 p.m.

  • @Maryann, yes. We are very blessed. I call Fr. Bob a master liturgist and master homilist. Victoria is on the verge of a Catholic revival, keep praying for our priests!

    @EA, contraception as a treatment for another illness or disease (if it cures one that I am not aware of) is not contraception but medication that has an unintended side effect. I am concerned with the coercion of the state to provide contraceptive coverage, not medication for an actual illness that needs what is normally used as contraception. How would a hospital deal with this? It all has to be documented in patient records, the doctor writes a prescription for the illness he records. QA is found in all hospitals. I doubt a priest has ever seen a prescription from a doctor that states "A patient is suffering from a hormonal imbalance causing an early onset of pre-menopause and suffers heavy three week menstrual cycles." so that woman can give to the priest like a kid has to provide a note from the dentist.

    @will, could the reason the Church's institutions receive a tax break be because they provide a service that is necessary for the common good?

    @Rebecca, it is at least the same amount. I do think you have a cool point with the home birthing. Lots of great information out there now on that.

    March 3, 2012 at 6:31 p.m.

  • I'm not hearing you defend the exceptions.

    That's my point.

    March 3, 2012 at 3:41 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 3, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.

  • Tophat--Just so we are clear here--you only want to focus on the birth control aspect of the AHA. I want to discuss the larger aspect of women's health. Correct? I believe that is what you are agreeing to.

    March 3, 2012 at 2:50 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 3, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.

  • Twenty years ago, it was about 10,000.00 to have a baby without insurance. I wonder if that's changed. I haven't had a baby in ten years, and insurance helped with 80% of that expense, when I had insurance. Of course, if I had been more knowledgeable about midwives, doulas, and home births, I might not have had all the debt.

    March 3, 2012 at 2:03 p.m.

  • My insurance doesn't cover prenatal care or labor & delivery & we have the top tier plan that is offered with my husbands company. I just sat in on my companys health insurance coverage meeting & none of the plans available cover prenatal/labor/delivery either. If I want to have a child then I have to cover the costs that are involved with that decision.

    I suffer from allergies, the medications I am on are not on my plans formulary, in order for me to get them, my Dr. has to call in/fax over a prior authorization, then I am able to get them but at a higher cost to me. I need these meds to be able to breathe.

    Birth control pills are cheap, the old triphasals at least. It seems the girls these days prefer the monophasals, which are substanially more expensive. Just like with me & my medications, they too must pay the difference if that's what they insist on taking. Of course, I am being kind in comparing my inability to breathe with their wish to avoid their issue is life & death, theirs is merely one of convenience.

    I have no opinion, one way or another, on this issue. I was surprised to know insurance didn't cover B/C pills. To me, it doesn't make sense, especially Medicaid. Just think how much money the States could save on Medicaid if it did cover oral contraceptives. Private business, on the other hand, should have a say in what their employer provided coverage pays for. Insurance is a BENEFIT, not a right. Employers pay a larger share of the cost of insurance than the employee does, if the employees wish to force employers to cover more of their choices then employees should be ready to share in the increased costs.

    March 3, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.

  • .I think that there should be a separation of Church and Businesses. Face it, these MEGA churches are businesses.
    They enjoy not paying ANY TAXES, which mean I PAY more because my Neighbor is dumb enough to join a cult.
    Church owned Banquet halls, hospitals, daycare centers and several other organizations are in direct competition with the private sector. Thats unfair! They have huge holdings and cash, then come in to my store to buy party goods TAX FREE!
    A church should be a place of worship. Period. Not a Tax shelter for the likes of Church of Scientology.
    Church Leaders are LIKE THE GAY POPULATION, wanting special consideration because of what they are. People choose to be religious, just like gay or bi-sexual.
    They get to hide behind their status. Oh poor poor churches. BS. Follow Business rules or GET OUT OF BUSINESS AND PRAY. NOT PREY!

    March 3, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.

  • Tophat--it is this kind of statement that you made: "Simply because I refuse to buy you something you want (because I find it offensive to my beliefs) is a fact of life" that makes it look like this is just about preventing pregnancy and leads me to my conclusion. To once every 5 posts causally toss in "and there could be exceptions" is not enough to counter the many reference you make to it being a matter of birth control. Wants and needs are two different things.

    If the Catholic church does not find the 'exceptions' offensive, then you must be focusing on the birth control aspect only.

    March 3, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 3, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.

  • Tophat--all I can say is you are missing the point.

    You, and others, are trying to reduce this issue down to '"I don't to have a baby and I want someone else to prevent that."

    Until you are willing to budge a bit and look at this as a women's health issue, any point you try to make is really moot.

    There are a variety of health reason why one should use contraceptives. Insulin dependent diabetics are adviced to not get pregnant. It makes them extrememly high risk. Should a (for Gary's sake) married IDD expect to not have an intimate sex life with her husband because she shouldn't get pregnant?

    March 3, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.

  • Jared, I used to hear Father Bob's homilies a few times a year as we would be in Shiner for various reasons. I wanted to shout, "Amen, brother!" a few times when he brought up Church teachings on contraception, etc. All I can say you all in Victoria are incredibly blessed!

    March 3, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 3, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.

  • So how is the Catholic Church going to monitor my prescriptions for 'acceptable' and 'sinful'? Will I have to provide a copy of my diagnosis and prescription to my Parish Priest for his approval and blessing before I get it filled? I'm pretty sure it none of his business!

    My crystal ball is in the shop, but I am going to predict that there is going to be a sudden surge in pre-menopausal HRT in Catholic women. Maybe not--that may be what that 97% is already doing!

    March 3, 2012 at 9:31 a.m.

  • EA, that makes all the difference in the world to us because the pill prescribed to heal or cure a disease or illness is not contraception. I am pretty sure that would not be denied. It is the use of the pill as contraception that is the issue for Catholics.

    March 3, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.

  • Yes, by not covering the cost of contraception, it can be a denial of access. Pharmacies can be stocked to the brim, but if I cannot afford it, I am denied it.

    Do you realize that less than half of the birth control pills prescribed are actually used as birth control? The majority of the prescriptions are written for other health reasons. Does that not make any difference to you?

    March 3, 2012 at 8:17 a.m.

  • Very well said Jared and Tophat.

    March 3, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 3, 2012 at 7:20 a.m.

  • EA, that is a great question. Is there a part of this argument that blocks your access to a place that sells contraception? Are Catholic hospitals going to force employees to wear a monitor that shocks them when an RFID tag on contraception is passed over a scanner at a pharmacy?

    March 3, 2012 at 6:59 a.m.

  • Edith Ann.

    Good Question?

    March 2, 2012 at 10:36 p.m.

  • Why should my employer's religion dictate my access to contraception?

    March 2, 2012 at 9:06 p.m.