Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands January 31st, 2012 12:00am

Many Catholics are objecting strongly to the upcoming Federal mandate to purchase health insurance that requires coverage of contraceptives, morning-after pills, etc. Should individuals be able to opt out of the mandate on religious grounds?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment


02/10/12 2:01 pm

the mandate is not forcing Catholics to take contraception, but making all employers, excluding churches but including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools, provide in insurance plans the option for contraception coverage. Catholics do not have to use the coverage nor will they be given cont

Paulitical Missouri
02/10/12 11:42 am

Car insurance is similar to the healthcare mandate in that the risks to individuals are distributed amongst society in order to avoid economic damage to individuals who have insurance by those who do not. Think about it...

affd
02/05/12 3:54 pm

@who the patriot act was ridiculous and needed to go away. Unfortunately it led to the NDAA. Car insurance, however is something completely different than this

dlyliny1 New York
02/05/12 9:51 am

They don't have to USE birth control
(tho many SHOULD "put some chlorine in the gene pool") but still need to carry insurance, esp 2 cover the costs to bear, birth & care 4 all them babies! Another disgusting case of over-entitlement and the need 2b treated "special"! UR not so get over it, ya gits!

jakersw22 Michigan
02/05/12 8:23 am

if you don't want them, don't use them. it's not going to require you to use them, just require insurance to pay for it if you do.


02/05/12 6:33 am

I still don't understand how the healthcare bill is an attack on my freedom. the "patriot act" that was an assault. California requires car insurance, why aren't you protesting?

Zack100 Tatooine
02/04/12 7:52 pm

@wazzup catholics are Christians but christians aren't always catholic! Lutherans, episcopalians, and baptists are christians

Cassidy Nevada
02/04/12 7:15 pm

I don't agree with them, but it would be pretty anti-American if they weren't allowed to do/ not do something for religious purposes.

shredguy Michigan
02/04/12 10:47 am

No. I'm also in favor of churches, mosques, and synagogues paying taxes like everyone else. They all really for profit anyways.

waaazzaap Arizona
02/03/12 11:13 pm

I thought Catholics are Christians :/

Christian1
02/03/12 2:03 pm

I'm not Catholic, but I am a Christian and I don't want to pay for any morning after pills.

Soitgoes Missouri
02/03/12 11:00 am

This whole thing would be easier to swallow if gov't wasn't giving billions to catholic missionary programs in Africa right now. You wanna talk about separation of church and state - we're paying to convert an entire continent!

debob texas
02/03/12 10:16 am

So if the insurance does not cover contraceptives, employees can always go & purchase them for full price. This is comparative to forcing healthcare workers to participate in abortions. Perhaps employees of catholic hospitals need to find a job w/the coverage they want.

Quinnipiac Here
02/03/12 8:11 am

in all fairness, i heard that 98% of catholics use birth control, so...

affd
02/03/12 7:14 am

Place of worship to skip out on taxes? They make laws to protect our rights, that was the point of our govt. healthcare insurance is not a right. so they have no authority to alter that by making buy a product

affd
02/03/12 7:13 am

Necessary and proper while protecting rights. I'll give a better example. We all have freedom to practice our religion right? Well how come I can't stone my kids to death if they misbehave? why can't I marry multiple women? Or... As people have tried, why can't I claim that my house is a

NYevo NY
02/03/12 6:21 am

In my company policy on documentation, the policy refers to our Electronic Record as opposed to stating the name of the software so that when we use new software we dont have to rewrite the policy. Thats why the supreme court is there. To make sure that any interpretations pass constitutional muster

NYevo NY
02/03/12 6:17 am

When the writings are so explicit in some cases, but so broad in others, i'm surprised that you wouldn't conclude that this was intentionally done. These were very smart people. Any policy writer knows that policies often have to be left somewhat unspecific to allow for changes that come along. Its

NYevo NY
02/03/12 6:15 am

@AirforceFD:the power to declare war is explicitly spelled out in the constitution. Other things are not explicitly stated, but may fall within the framework of concepts which are written in the Constitution. You are calling these concepts loopholes. They were obviously left broad for interpretation

NYevo NY
02/03/12 6:00 am

@Airforce: the dozens that I was referring to are the Supreme Court Justices who, surely by now, would have overturned at least one social program by now if it didn't pass constitutional scrutiny

affd
02/03/12 5:36 am

Its funny you two mentioned religion. That's what the "necessary and proper" clause was meant for


02/02/12 11:18 pm

It's like saying 'I'm a satanist, so I should get to sacrifice babies, because it's my religion.'
(I don't know what satanists do, but that seems pretty close)

Flooded Virginia
02/02/12 10:18 pm

sooo can I start my own religion and opt out because of that?

affd
02/02/12 9:02 pm

I should say interpretation... Not loophole lol

affd
02/02/12 8:59 pm

What I'd congress suddenly felt it was necessary and proper to give the power to declare war to the president. Although it strictly states that only congress can declare war... That loophole could allow them to do that, correct?

affd
02/02/12 8:57 pm

Dozens devoted their lives to studying? So many of our so called congressmen don't even know what the constitution says. A teacher I had his 9 and 12 year olds speak with congressmen. These children stumped them on constitutional law. It's pretty straightforward.

NYevo NY
02/02/12 8:35 pm

@airforceFD: seems to me that you're just choosing your own interpretation over that of dozens that devoted their lives to its study. There would have been a 5 to 4 decision by now against at least one social program if it didn't pass constitutional muster.

Soitgoes Missouri
02/02/12 6:57 pm

@swanson EXACTLY!!!! I'm currently paying these same Catholics to teach abstinance to Africans instead of sending them AIDS medication. Can I opt out of that???

affd
02/02/12 6:56 pm

My interpretation is pretty black and white. If it wasn't explicitly written then it can't be mandated. That loophole is only as broad as they have made it. Mandating that someone buy a product isn't "necessary and proper"

NYevo NY
02/02/12 6:48 pm

@Airforce: you think that huge loop hole was an accident? Are you sure that its not just that your interpretation is different than supreme court justices?

NYevo NY
02/02/12 6:46 pm

@AirforceFD: as conservatives have seen at least a few times, a Judge that you choose to vote a certain way, doesn't always oblige.


02/02/12 6:22 pm

A mandate to purchase. I wonder which pharma company sucked obamas dick long enough.


02/02/12 6:19 pm

I opt out of paying for the war if we're getting choices now.


02/02/12 6:13 pm

I don't see many Catholic families with 15 kids? It's still a personal choice wether its free or you pay. Less unwanted pregnancies sounds like a win win.

affd
02/02/12 6:04 pm

What do you expect to happen when the supreme court justices are nominated by the president and them approved by congress. As a president why would you nominate someone who is against what you believe

affd
02/02/12 6:02 pm

@ny why can't everyone agree on what the bible says... Because everyone interprets it differently. Unfortunately at the end of article 1 section 8 there is a HUGE loophole that is so broad. It's gone back and forth many times in the supreme court.

NYevo NY
02/02/12 5:54 pm

@AirForceFD: if all social programs are unconstitutional, please tell me why they are not successfully defeated in scotus? Surely people who have devoted their entire lives to the study and defense of the constitution should be able to know when something is or is not constitutional.

rudogg
02/02/12 5:02 pm

The question is not truly indicative of the issue, it's not individual Catholics who are objecting, it's the Church who doesn't want ti provide the coverage that also allows for contraception to be covered.

wickedgirl
02/02/12 4:27 pm

I don't get to opt out of paying into the stash all the breeders use to keep having children.....

affd
02/02/12 2:33 pm

Lol you're the 2nd person I've seen from AZ on here

waaazzaap Arizona
02/02/12 1:34 pm

AirfirceFD , 'high five' fellow Arizonan LOL! Although we disagree , but nevertheless


02/02/12 11:58 am

Without standardized services religious beliefs can and will come back to bite us all. If a service is legal it has to be supplied

affd
02/02/12 11:21 am

Using the first amendment as an argument might be viable... It's not a strong one in this case. At least I don't think it is

waaazzaap Arizona
02/02/12 10:41 am

I am Against provoking the 1st amendment and that what this bill will do ,, I am also a Muslim 0_0

Think Lovin Life
02/02/12 9:49 am

hmmm ... I thought Dems were all about choice ... oh, wait only when you choose their twisted agenda!

Phocion
02/02/12 7:22 am

They're getting the insurance, not the contraceptives. It seems ridiculous to let them opt-out of something on a religious objection that isn't actually forcing them to buy the things they're opposed to.

one80 California
02/02/12 1:51 am

Many Catholics or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops? I'm a Catholic woman and whoever has a problem with reproductive women's healthcare does not speak for me. Sometimes individuals in the Catholic Church hierarchy have a hard time understanding reality and their congregation.


02/01/12 11:50 pm

Excuses, excuses. Get a job, you nuns.