Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »  (25 total)
Vote Mitt
Restore America Back to Greatness
09:14 AM on 07/19/2012
Thanks O ;bummer. We dont need Odumbocare or the trillions of tax payer dollars it will cost us.
Stop the Madness
Vote Romney
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:23 AM on 07/19/2012
And I don't need to pay for you or your kin when they show up in the emergency room either.
09:23 AM on 07/19/2012
who pays for the 45 mill americans without even basic health? Most of whom reside in TX, MISS, ARK, KY, SC , OK, FLA, etc...all red states, most of these states have to get back 3 dollars for every dollar they send to the FED GOVT. So please stop watching Fox news and try to read!
We're gonna need a bigger boat.
09:13 AM on 07/19/2012
Who is being forced to take birth control pills or use contraception? Wheaton is not being forced to provide contraception to anyone. The insurance company provides for payment if the individual wants to purchase contraception. That is no different than Wheaton giving a paycheck to an employee, then the employee takes that money and goes out and buys birth control pills. Wheaton is still providing the funds for the purchase. There is no logic to their argument.
09:46 AM on 07/19/2012
Something wrong with your basic thought process if you can't see the difference between an employer giving a paycheck to an employee for the employee's discretionary use with no accounting to the employer for that use; and the employer being forced to purchase an insurance plan whose express purpose is to pay for express required services, one of which violates the employer's policies and conscience.

Look, women (I'm one of 'em) want their choice, and they HAVE their choice, so why aren't they exercising it? No one but no one is stopping women from getting birth control! Among "medical" expenses, birth control is laughably cheap; and if a woman still honestly cannot afford it, there are organizations that can subsidize it.

It is inexcusable to force anyone to pay for a small discretionary purchase of your choice. If the employer wants to offer it as a benefit, fine, but you have no business forcing them against their conscience! You also do, remember, have the choice not to work for that employer.
We're gonna need a bigger boat.
03:47 PM on 07/19/2012
You are the one who needs to brush up on insurance requirements. Wheaton is not required to provide ANY health insurance for its employees. If it is a matter of conscience quit providing health insurance. "Conscience" is laughable term to use for churches and schools that hide sexual abuse and support useless wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people. If they don't want to follow government rules, quit taking government money and tax breaks.
We're gonna need a bigger boat.
04:13 PM on 07/19/2012
Also, if you are talking about "conscience," why would an organization that is so against birth control hire someone who uses birth control? You know why and I know why; because they wouldn't get anyone to work for them. That's the same logic the Catholic church uses when it doesn't excommunicate those that use contraception. If a sinner keeps sinning, according to the bible, he needs to be removed from the congregation. Read St. Paul's views on those in the church that do not repent and change their ways.
10:03 AM on 07/19/2012
Your right....
Freedom of Choice is being offered !
Why is it these religious orgs cry freedom of religion,
but not freedom of choice for everyone?!
ms eve
09:13 AM on 07/19/2012
Is it not possible to add a small optional surcharge to the premium that would cover contraception and, if the employee so chooses, she would pay that specific part of the premium? The employer should be aware that the cost of delivering and providing medical care for a child far exceeds the cost of contraception. However, if the employer is receiving no Federal funds or tax exemptions, then it has the right to set its own rules and deny contraceptive coverage.
10:09 AM on 07/19/2012
It is unlikely that including contraceptives or excluding them would make any differerence in an insurance quote, since the medication cost would be offset by lower pregnancy and childbirth costs as well as the lower costs in dealing with health complications from not having access to the medication
09:08 AM on 07/19/2012
If we look back in our history we will find that many of our ancestors fled because of percieved religious oppression of their government leaders. The problem we have now is there are too many of us to flee so I guess we will just have to change leaders in November.
Can't We All Just Get Along?
09:11 AM on 07/19/2012
No, please leave. Give it a try. I'll help you pack.
09:36 AM on 07/19/2012
You don't have enough money to send me let alone the millions who are unhappy with the leadership of this country.
One Nation, Underfed
09:26 AM on 07/19/2012
Really? If we look back in "our" history, the only religion that fled anywhere because of religious persecution was the Mormon Church, and they only made it to Utah. The only other "religion" to flee the US that I can remember was that of the Reverand Jim Jones to Guyana. Every other religion has come and stayed, and for the most part flourished in the US...Even the Mormons.
09:34 AM on 07/19/2012
The Pilgrims were just taking a pleasure cruise when they came here? The Quakers were just looking for a place to sow their oats? Get real and learn some history.
09:08 AM on 07/19/2012
Once churches start paying taxes, then maybe we can have this debate.
09:29 AM on 07/19/2012
Thank you.
10:19 AM on 07/19/2012
Once you have opened your eyes to how much time, effort and resources churches pour into untold and uncompensated social services and benefit, then come back and we can have this debate.
09:07 AM on 07/19/2012
Some of the biggest trouble makers in our society today are alleged "christians". I say a''eged because they don' even live by the teachings of their half man-half god. I say it's time to move on from the archaic agenda of unknown little men from the middle-east 2,000 years ago.
09:30 AM on 07/19/2012
Yes they are the hypocritical trouble makers.
10:22 AM on 07/19/2012
What's striking about your remark is how crudely archaic it is.
08:36 AM on 07/23/2012
How do you mean?...ummm Coon?
09:06 AM on 07/19/2012
If they receive tax payer money, they need to abide by secular laws. Individuals working for them can opt not to use birth control if it goes against their religion. Just as they can opt to not do all sorts of things that go against their religion. However, if the institution is completely self-funded, and only hires and has students from within their own membership, then I suppose they can do what they like.
10:29 AM on 07/19/2012
Your "secular laws" need to abide by the Constitution, which in black-and-white protects free exercise of religion. Which also means that all persons have the freedom not to work for an employer whose religious views they don't agree with.
09:05 AM on 07/19/2012
Funny how the teapublicans here wish to invoke the Constitution when they wish to force their beliefs on others.

What did Jefferson and Madison think about the church?

Establishment Clause Prior to the American Revolution, the English designated the Anglican Church as the official church of their country. The church was supported by taxation, and all English people were required to attend its services. No marriage or baptism was sanctioned outside of the church. Members of religious minorities who failed to abide by the strictures of the church were forced to endure civil and criminal penalties, including banishment and death. Some American colonies were also ruled by persecutorial theocrats, such as the Puritans in Massachusetts.

These English and colonial experiences influenced the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson and Madison. Jefferson supported a high wall of separation between church and state. Furthermore, Jefferson, a student of the Enlightenment (an eighteenth-century philosophical movement whose members rejected traditional values and embraced rationalism), opposed religious influence on the business of government.

Let's try CAPS

09:28 AM on 07/19/2012
My belief is the Founding Fathers didn't want a country with a "Church of England" type of philosophy and that's the true meaning of Separation of Church and State. The State doesn't endorse a specific religion. An endorsement is not a nativity scene at Christmas or a Cross on the side of the road.
09:31 AM on 07/19/2012
Great post.
08:55 AM on 07/19/2012
Many Catholics and Evangelicals use birth control, including employees and college students in the colleges named. The days of using only the rhythm method are long over. They might as well have it covered in their health insurance and stop fighting it. I am surprised to hear the morning after pill is considered official birth control now though.
09:16 AM on 07/19/2012
Great thinking on your part! Just because alot of people are doing something doesn't make it right. Tell your argument to parents who has heard their kids use the argument that everyone is doing it so it makes it right. No one is stopping anyone from using birth control the church just doesn't want to pay for it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:24 AM on 07/19/2012
Simple solution computerfan. If you don't want to do something, don't do it.
One Nation, Underfed
09:28 AM on 07/19/2012
Just because some theocratic leader, who has foresworn sex and marriage says it should be so, doesn't make it right either.
08:52 AM on 07/19/2012
Three questions:
When does the religious freedom of the institution give way to the religious freedom of the individual.
At what point does compensation in the form of health insurance cease to be the property of the employer and become the property of the employed.
Can an institution minimally supported by a religion or religious organization, which receives taxpayer funding, and hires and serves clients without regard to religion, with a business purpose substantially identical to secular institutions, which receives a tax break for providing the compensation, and which even requires employees and clients to contribute to or pay for the health insurance coverage, then deny the individual full access within the insurance to common and legal, monetarily neutral medical treatment their doctors may prescribe
Bob Merlin
alwaysleft toright
08:25 AM on 07/19/2012
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion! Why are these people trying to impose their belief on others? If they want to have a pure institution then they should only allow those of the same belief to attend and work there!
Ofcourse they should end any tax breaks they get also!
09:34 AM on 07/19/2012
Good post. The reason these people impose their beliefs on others is due to their lack of rational thought, no grasp of common sense and that they have their heads so far up their arss's (please get by editing) that they cannot breathe.
11:09 AM on 07/19/2012
There's "one under every bush" in your defective misconception.

Look, the "wall of separation" established in the First Amendment has two sides: (1) no government-established religion; (2) no government interference in the free exercise of religion.

Why are you trying to use government as a weapon to impose your antagonism against religion?

As for "any tax breaks they get," it is again your antagonism against religion that prohibits you from seeing the massive and untold ways that religious organizations devote their resources and volunteer time to social services of all sorts, more than earning any tax benefits.
08:19 AM on 07/19/2012
If, because it "violates religious freedom", the government can't mandate contraception be covered by health insurance, how can in mandate monogamy? Oh, my bad, it's only a "violation of religious freedom if it's YOUR religious freedom.
09:09 AM on 07/19/2012
Then they need to either stop taking tax payer dollars, or they need to start paying taxes.
11:25 AM on 07/19/2012
If all the threads of social service provided by religious institutions were suddenly pulled out of the fabric of American life, then taxpayers would find themselves confronted with unmet needs they would -- guess what? -- have to pay increased taxes for!

Of course taxpayers who happen to be religious have already long known this, which is why the tax exemptions for legitimate religious institutions. But there are other taxpayers blinded by anti-religious antagonism, who are trying to use the government to impose their antagonism on the rest of us, in violation of the First Amendment.
born in the USA
08:10 AM on 07/19/2012
Ya, catholic and evangelical universities. I always that that was an impossibility for any any actual learning to occur there. Only medieval thinking allowed there
08:17 AM on 07/19/2012
Yep, here's some more "medieval thinking" for your own bills. Here's another one...don't violate the Constitution, respect the "conscience clause" freedom OF religion.
09:21 AM on 07/19/2012
Good for you Beth
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:25 AM on 07/19/2012
Yah, Beth. Pay your own bills when your kid gets sick. Oh, wait, you have insurance for that. As to the constitution, seems you forgot the rest of it which includes freedom FROM religion.
09:21 AM on 07/19/2012
I can see higher education eluted you both private and public.
09:35 AM on 07/19/2012
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:09 AM on 07/19/2012
Obama continues to grow in popularity...NOT.
08:09 AM on 07/19/2012
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-Martin Niemoeller, Germany's Minister of Religion before he was arrested in 1937 by the Nazi's

This time around they're coming for the religious people first.
08:35 AM on 07/19/2012
You have NO restrictions on your ability to worship. None. Zero.
What you do not have a right to do is to compel others to follow or even respect your beliefs.
Quit making yourselves out to be victims as you attempt to victimize others.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:03 AM on 07/19/2012
That means I can put the Ten Commandments in schools, and put up a nativity scene on the court house lawn at Christmas. Of course that is not worship, that is offensive to a few people.
11:35 AM on 07/19/2012
Excuse me, but the First Amendment does not say "ability to worship," it says FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION! If free exercise of religion means anything at all, it means the right to obey one's conscience!

What you do NOT have the right to do is use the government as a weapon to impose your ant-religious antagonism on others. What you DO have the right to do is not work for an employer whose obedience to conscience you refuse to resepct.
09:23 AM on 07/19/2012
There is still time to change the regime, vote them out.