General Discussion

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts) Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:03 PM Jun 2012

Catholic Hospitals Refuses to Compromise on Birth Control

"Mother Church" really demands that it be only for mothers.

http://www.care2.com/causes/catholic-hospitals-reject-compromise-on-birth-control.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation’s Catholic hospitals are rejecting President Barack Obama’s compromise for providing birth control coverage to their women employees.

In a letter Friday to the government, the Catholic Health Association says the administration’s proposal to have insurers bear the cost would be “unduly cumbersome” and “unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns” of its members.

The hospital group was a key ally of Obama’s in the battle to win congressional approval of his health care overhaul, defying the opposition of church bishops. But it does not believe church-affiliated employers should have to provide birth control as a free preventive service, as the law requires.

The letter says the government should either broaden an exemption for religious employers, or pay directly for the birth control coverage.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Catholic Hospitals Refuses to Compromise on Birth Control (Original Post) Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2012 OP

Then they should give up all government moneys GarroHorus Jun 2012 #1

They're directly defying presidential orders. Time to make 'em pay. Initech Jun 2012 #2

what is so galling is that they were doing this before rurallib Jun 2012 #3

It's ingrained in the history of the Catholic Church GarroHorus Jun 2012 #8

+1 Dawson Leery Jun 2012 #11

Are they suggesting Medicare for all? HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #4

This is simple, don't want your religious beliefs, then don't accept government funding, tax payers Thinkingabout Jun 2012 #5

Wish they would quit using the term "religious liberty". mmonk Jun 2012 #6

Stop the check . . . stop the chatter madashelltoo Jun 2012 #7

Throw the baby out... MightyOkie Jun 2012 #10

Right. People suffer. madashelltoo Jun 2012 #12

once again the church restores my belief that.... madrchsod Jun 2012 #9

GarroHorus

(1,055 posts)

1. Then they should give up all government moneys

Reply to Tierra_y_Libertad (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:04 PM

Jun 2012

Then change their corporate charter to be a church instead of a secular corporation (which all "Catholic" hospitals are).

Initech

(100,107 posts)

2. They're directly defying presidential orders. Time to make 'em pay.

Reply to Tierra_y_Libertad (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:07 PM

Jun 2012

rurallib

(62,461 posts)

3. what is so galling is that they were doing this before

Reply to Initech (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:11 PM

Jun 2012

the reich wing said anything.
Why the catholic church carries water for the neo brown shirts is beyond me.

GarroHorus

(1,055 posts)

8. It's ingrained in the history of the Catholic Church

Reply to rurallib (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:46 PM

Jun 2012

After all, Pope Pius XII carried water for the REAL brown shirts in his day.

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)

11. +1

Reply to GarroHorus (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:51 PM

Jun 2012

HubertHeaver

(2,522 posts)

4. Are they suggesting Medicare for all?

Reply to Tierra_y_Libertad (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:16 PM

Jun 2012

Or at least Medicare for reproductive care?

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)

5. This is simple, don't want your religious beliefs, then don't accept government funding, tax payers

Reply to Tierra_y_Libertad (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:25 PM

Jun 2012

Don't want to pay for your beliefs. They don't want government interference then pay your own way, it costs to be the boss

mmonk

(52,589 posts)

6. Wish they would quit using the term "religious liberty".

Reply to Tierra_y_Libertad (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:29 PM

Jun 2012

They are saying that employees of other faiths in their employ must abide by Catholic Doctrine by force on matters of independent secular health insurance coverage by having it denied of them.

madashelltoo

(1,703 posts)

7. Stop the check . . . stop the chatter

Reply to Tierra_y_Libertad (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:41 PM

Jun 2012

The day the federal check is not deposited into their coffers they will do as Issa has done . . . give them more time to consider our wishes.

MightyOkie

(68 posts)

10. Throw the baby out...

Reply to madashelltoo (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:40 PM

Jun 2012

...with the bath water (no pun intended). So you cut off government funding of church-affiliated hospitals. Then the hospital closes or the providers with religious views bolt. Where do patient's go? And if you tie receiving federal funding to their complying with certain religious/non-religious views, where does the slippery slope end? Point is, there is without a doubt a symbiotic relationship between government support and religious-based health care institutions that is far more complex than merely reproductive rights in my opinion. I guess I do not have the brain power to reconcile it.

Ducking, donning Kevlar.

madashelltoo

(1,703 posts)

12. Right. People suffer.

Reply to MightyOkie (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:28 PM

Jun 2012

You accept monies from the Federal government you follow federal laws. For the church to strong arm the government by holding sick people hostage is hideous to me. The slope isn't slippery, they have decided to grease it. The president negotiated with them in good faith and they struck a bargain that they did not have to participate if it was contrary to their doctrine, but the insurance companies could not deny the coverage. Now, they have decided to not honor the agreement.

Those hospitals make a profit for the church too. They won't break their neck shutting the door. And, if they do, so be it.

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)

9. once again the church restores my belief that....

Reply to Tierra_y_Libertad (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:26 PM

Jun 2012

they should be taxed. they are a foreign state religion that refuses to follow the laws of of this country.

Reply to this discussion