That's apparently what we have to deal with when we recognize that we hold something of value that will let us get something of greater value.

Children do not see the larger realities that the adults have no choice but to deal with.

Children will complain that they might have to sacrifice a bicycle, because they cannot understand the value of the car we might buy.

Children will never understand that we can gain a great deal more than we lose, because they can only focus on the loss and will refuse, kicking and screaming, to look at what we have bought with it.

I'm glad that by now, even my own young children have come to understand such an adult concept. It makes me very sad to see so many 'adults' that have not acquired that level of understanding.

But now I'm sure that some child will complain, and a jury will be appointed.

While you're being so adult, you might try seeing an issue from another point of view, without presuming yours is superior, but merely different.

In theory, there are two rights in conflict here and both are presumed to be "inalienable". Fundamental to the concept of human rights is that it is both wrong, and foolish, to sacrafice an inalienable right merely to be accomodating to someone elses wants. You don't sacrafice a right for a want so to speak.

I do think the original poster is being a touch harsh, although I understand where their lack of trust comes from. But we do have two concepts bumping into each other here. 1) religious freedom and 2) the right to health care. I realize this administration doesn't accept the second as an actual right, and in fact demonstrated as much in their health care debate by outlining exactly who doesn't deserve governmental support in obtaining health care. But for alot of democrats, they still perceive health care as a right.

Working under the presumption that both are rights, the administration does need to try to work out solution, not a compromise, that recognizes both rights. The argument is valid that the religious freedom "ends" when they want to enter the market place. Basically force the churches to decide if they are running religious orders, or schools. If the former, then there should be strick limitations upon them, foremost obviously being a non-profit status but quite possibly strict rules about who they can hire and under what circumstances. Alternately, if they are going to agree to those stipulations, they may "get a pass" on this issue. May get tough for Notre Dame though depending upon how it would affect their football TV contracts though.

I'm not.

I absolutely agree that it's an unacceptable compromise. But I know that the current media and political environment makes such compromises unavoidable.

I live in reality. If that makes me sound 'superior' because I no longer use a coddling tone, then maybe it's incumbent on some people to start living here too.

The tone of those whining about things they've barely bothered to understand before throwing a tantrum is exactly like that of children. The difference is that children recognize they have to grow up. It's sad that so many adults think that development was a finish line they passed years ago.

I still have a ways to go myself. Perhaps being unapologetic for my 'tone' is a flaw, but for the moment the larger flaw is in those who can't bring themselves to face hard reality. So I see no reason to apologize.

You believe that you know something that other people don't. That others are deluded and you are the one with clear vision. And any conflict in which you are involved is because they don't see with your clear sense of vision.

Must be nice to be so much better than so many people.

You called them children out of touch with reality. That's not discussing the issue, that's discussing them and their personalities.

Congrats! I made an observation about the way some people can't manage to understand that Obama has tough choices. I made it not 'about them', but about a prevailing attitude on DU. Your post is about me. Personally. I was discussing an attitude, you're discussing me, now I'm discussing you discussing me.

I stated a position on the position of others and my opinion of how they arrive at that position.

Now, tell me what about my position is wrong.

*I* don't need those rights you wimmenz keep babbling about, so I don't see why you're so upset.

I would never alert on a post like this. The offensiveness is far outweighed by showing exactly what kind of person the poster is.

This may not register through your adopted outrage and righteousness, but what I said has nothing to do with what the issue is about, it has to do with the way that people react so unrealistically to it. I can cut and paste the exact same post in response to virtually any compromise made by the administration and it would be just as accurate.

I should have known at least someone would make this about sexism. Figures.

I mean, you painted women upset that their rights might be compromised away as petulant children. How could that *possibly* be interpreted as sexist?

Isn't it funny how no one is ever a racist no matter how vile the stuff they spew? Apparently the same thing applies to sexism.

Children, yes, women, no.

You are aware that vasectomies are part of the health-care coverage debate?

This is not a women's issue.

Last edited Thu Feb 9, 2012, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

you'd be saying the same thing... but it would be about LGBT folks.

Your need to vilify me is obvious. You don't give a damn who the issue affects, just that you have this lovely opportunity to make it about women instead of the point that I made.

I'll try one last time, but I know that you can't and won't understand it: What I said is in black and white and has nothing to do with any gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. It has to do with the unrelenting whining from every single Anti-Obama poster on this website. That people refuse to recognize that Obama has, continues, and intends to do far more good than anyone else in his position can is childish

It's a discussion I've had with many, and the end result is always the same: Whining, crying, throwing a tantrum, and ignoring every point of fact that demonstrates the opposite of their 'concerns' about Obama. I have one going on right now where someone I suspect is not at all genuine insists that the indefinite detention provision was Obama's idea. This poster has not brought one shred of evidence to that effect, but insists that they have while being entirely unable to point to a single quote or instance that backs them up. Yet I have brought an exact quote from the President himself that demonstrates his own personal objection to the provision.

Will this person recognize it?

I doubt it. They will continue to believe what they WANT to believe despite all evidence to the contrary. Just like you have decided here because the accusation is a shiny toy you can wave around to establish the reality that you want to perceive. I can't stop you. I don't care to stop you. Because it's just as futile as reasoning with a child.

Now, go and tattle on this post. I'm done with this thread anyway.

But to be wrong AND condescending - that's inexcusable.

Folding on false outrage ginned up by Fox is not a winner, either politically nor with regard to principle. I could go on, but it's been said a thousand times before and nothing changes. If the people who stood up for ideals and principle were listened to two years ago, the House would be democratic hands now. Etc. etc.

Until we do a France and fuck religions then you have to deal with it.

Not all religious people are closed-minded hypocrites. Many of them are liberal people with some views that could seem contrary.

Further more...this is not YOU against religious people or Liberals against religious people. This is a government entity that has to deal with the entire nation. They're duty is to protect and try to accommodate as many groups as possible without denying basic rights. This is where the balance has to be met. I don't see something wrong with this.

I think people seem to forget that the Government is looking out for 330 million people not just them. Or a certain group or another. I think this balance is a delicate one and not always met. They may deny the rights of gays but Obama has worked to legitimize the rights of homosexuals in government despite their disregard. Ditto for the role of women and most of the other things you have said. However it's also tough

If religions are going to run businesses, they have to obey the same rules as everyone else. No special treatment.

I was raised Catholic and even though I was raised by liberals---the church is very much anti much things that are liberal agendas. By forcing a church to follow state laws that goes against it's own moral codes is what we could class as persecution which this nation is far removed from or tries to be since we're seen as a sort of sanctuary.

No special treatment is nonsense. Then I guess you are in full agreement that girls who want to wear the veil in school should not be allowed too because it's special treatment. If so...then this conversation really has no where to go because most people who advocate that are jerks in my book since I'm all about let and let live.

that 90% of their female parishioners ignore. I dont get the live and let live when you are saying that if you are employed by a Catholic church, then you are not entitled to the same benefits as others.

Catholics who supported Obama in '08 are vowing to withhold their votes this time around. Pragmatically, we need to do something to ensure those votes. I sure hope they can come up with something that will appease the opposition AND be fair to the women who need this.

I'm surprised that this is such a big Catholic issue. It's always been my sense that most Catholics weren't that concerned about birth control.

98% of Catholics have used birth control. That's a lot of years in Purgatory.

My dad, a staunch catholic, was a physician and he prescribed birth control pills to his patients with no problem (I doubt he even mentioned it in confession!), so I don't know if this is a new wave of converts, or if Pat Buchanan's buddies are being extra vocal.

It is just some of the conservative bishops raising a fuss. This should be ignored. The ultraconcerned wing of the democratic party tends to worry about people that are already not ever going to vote for us anyhow.

The people fussing over birthcontrol are either A: idiots or B: people that already hate us for supporting abortion.

Birth control do not mind a bit if the unsafe conditions in the factories they own result in many of their cheap hired hands having miscarriages, due to the work place environment being so toxic.

I guess they see the miscarriages that result from their factories' toxicity as being but an act of God...

The members don't care, but it's the only issue the church politicians can think of to keep their jobs and distract the public from their own corruption and malfeasance. Besides you don't need contraception if you stick to sex with prepubescent children. Tax these asshats out of existence. Of course Obama would find a compromise anytime anywhere. Great progress-from the Great Decider to the Great Compromiser. Has their been one issue he has stood firm on, ever?

unfortunately, priests not concerned about Church's tax-free status, so they're 'frightening' their followers.

go to Mass any more.

Don't think liberal Catholics will care. I know several of my friends who are Catholics and they think the church is way wrong on this. Of course, they are women who used birth control in their younger days, but don't most women? I can't imagine a woman voting Repug only because Repugs want to prevent access to birth control?

this is Faux, Rover & Coke-heads (Kochs) trying to drive the news cycle.

(on MSNBC) that Hispanic groups are unhappy with Obama's initial call. You know, if you don't want to use birth control, don't -- but don't keep it from people who want and need it! What's so tough about that? Judge not, and all...

It makes no sense that they are going to compromise.

And the Catholic church has plenty of lobby. I think people forget that the Catholic people is not the Chruch. I was raised in a New York Catholic system. My school supported gay rights, contraception and abstinence. Abortion was the only touchy subject. However otherwise they were very liberal. But my Church and my teachers and priests are not the Church Admin. The church does it's own thing regardless of the people who are part of it.

Many of us who were raised Catholic gave up on the Church. Too much hypocrisy.

Why, it was perfectly okay for decades for the priests to molest the kids. Perfectly okay to support wars that kill people and leave our nation depleted economically and spiritually.

But abortions - my word - those are a SIN! Unless of course the abortion that comes about as a result of an employee working at some gawd-awful job where the factory conditions are abysmal. So they miscarry. We Catholics certainly cannot demand that rich people see to it that working conditions are decent! It would cost too much and impose a huge burden on the factory owners.<sarcasm meant>

suspicious eye at the RW for stirring the pot. It's entirely possible a MINORITY (that 2%) are against it, but the RW is making it sound as though it's much more than that.

but it's the principle of having their beloved church hospitals shoved around that rankles them. The fact that it's the health insurance companies and not the hospitals that are being shoved around is completely lost on them because that's not what they are told in church on Sundays.

Obamacare is a total disaster waiting to happen. It should be 100% scrapped in favor of Medicare for all citizens. It is shameful.

Medicare for all is not happening at this time. If a concerted push had been made by interest groups and the president at the beginning of President Obama's term, maybe it could have been done. But right now, its not even remotely possible.

Scrapping Obamacare in favor of Medicare for all is not currently an option. Would you be in favor of scrapping Obamacare with no replacement at all?

It is a cave to the Insurance Companies. Insurance of Health Care in my opinion is no longer viable. I say get them out of it 100%. It is time for the Government to do it. Even if it has to be rationed. Original Medicare is the way to go. For everybody. And I never thought I would say that.

I am not sure that I disagree. I know that when it passed, I agreed with you, believing that it was worse than no bill at all. I am not certain that I do anymore. I have seen some benefits come about due to the program, and I have as yet not seen anything that has been made worse by the bill.

I am still quite certain that the bill was a capitulation and the throwing away of a rare opportunity that President Obama had to really change the course of our country. Compared to what he could have gotten if he had really pushed, what passed is pathetic. I agree with you 100% that we need to completely nuke the for profit insurance industry. for the good of the country we need to Change. I would be for to medicare for all. Or actual socialized medicine, such as England has. Or a strictly regulated completely non-profit health insurance industry such as I understand France to have. There are a handful of good examples we could follow.

But I am not certain that Obamacare is worse than nothing at all. I am not convinced that "scrap it", when there is absolutely no alternative possible at this time, is the way to go. Purely on a health care level. On a politics level, even less.

But the original medicare was a great plan. Darn good and no baloney. It paid 100% of your Hospital Bill after you paid the first day and 80% of all other bills. As long as it was for an illness or injury.
The "insurance companies" never squawked one bit about Obamacare. That should tell you something. It is time for the Govt. to run it. They ought to butt out of a lot of things they should not be doing. The Health mess is not one of them. Health care is no longer an insurable risk.

Unless you happen to have a way to change out well over 40 congress persons, and at least 10 senators. The republicans alone in either of those bodies have the power and the will to block any attempt at Medicare for all. And I would bet money that there are Democrats that would stand with them.

In an ideal world, Medicare for all is good. As a 10 year plan, Medicare for all seems reasonable.

But right now, its not going to happen. You keep insisting on a false dichotomy: Medicare for all VS Obamacare.

The real choice in 2012 is Obamacare or nothing.

Who do you think will expand medicare?

Why is the Left bailing out on some of their main issues. Medicare worked great before the insurance companies and K street lobbyists got hold of it. The Left never stopped the Patriot Act or the Defense Act. They seem to be lost to me. The Left never even tried to reform and expand medicare. Why are we bailing out Greece and we can't even get our own Medical System fixed? Where is the Left? All they are doing is going round and round over a few points in our insane Tax Code. Get the Lobbyists, Insurance Companies, and Lawyers out of it and let the Docs run it. That is just what I think.

I'm sure we have that many votes, nut I wouldnt guarentee any more between the combined numbers of the house, senate and presidency.

I don't think we could even get all our elected dems on board to pass it, even if every rep decided to stay home and not vote.

So, as I said, in a few years if we can replace a few of the r's with d's, and a few of the d's with liberals, then we might be able to do it. But that's not happening this year. The chance we had in 2009 was squandered, and it will take a while to build a new one.

Which means in 2012 it's Obamacare or nothing. I hope 2013 will be better, but it's going to be a hard pull in the senate.

It's just another bit of evidence for those who believe that Obama will stand up for absolutely nothing.

He shows polls that indicate that the idea Catholics are against this is a strawman based on their opinions and usage of contraception here in the US. He did really good coverage of this.

Bishops and pundits have been blasting President Obama over his decision to require all employers—including Catholic institutions—to offer health insurance plans that cover birth control. Peggy Noonan even predicted it would cost Obama the election. But a new poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, shows that the public, including Catholics, largely approves of the move, USA Today reports. Overall, 55% of Americans agree that employers should be required to provide health care that covers contraception.

That number actually jumps to 58% among Catholics. The proposition was especially popular among women, with 62% supporting it, compared to 47% of men. A second poll released today by Public Policy Polling, and conducted on Planned Parenthood's behalf, found similar results: 53% of Catholics polled supported the move, including 62% of Catholic independents.

It's called universal heathcare.

It's inevitable.

Could a company owned by Christian Scientists offer insurance that only covers prayer?

Personally, I wish there was a wall of separation between church and medicine. I wasn't particularly thrilled that a choir was roaming the halls of the hospital singing hymns while I was recovering from a heart attack, but at least it didn't interfere with my medical treatment.

The idea that one should be held hostage to the theological notions of a particular religion disturbs me deeply.

It is one of the reasons I wish we had a secular national health care system.

Not many future envelopes at collection time.

F@#$!!!!!!

There can never just be a clear-cut victory, can there?

who are in the MINORITY, all the "air" time they can handle - and then some.

They're creating a controversy where there isn't any, and they aren't mentioning Sebelius' side, either. This is why there's an outrage out there and some staunch anti-contraceptive zealots are getting away with this bogus topic making a mountain out of a molehill regarding this issue.

besides the fact that they always do?

Plenty of room under the bus for all, backpedaling furiously as we speak, can't upset the bishops y'know. The horror, the horror!

This morning a spokesperson (forgot her name) on MSNBC said that the Administration is not going to change their mind on this. Under any circumstances. They might, however, do something like they do in Hawaii.

I found this piece by Senator McCaskill:

Of course, the media is all about the minorities. On every issue. For instance, we have to spend entire days of our lives hearing about the Republican primary in the Carolinas, when the statistics show that only 35% of the people in So Carolina are even registered as Republicans.

And then if the votes tallied for the winner only give that person some 28% - that is only nine percent of the entire population of all of South Carolina's voters.

If the media was at all honest, they would be continually explaining how very dissatisfied most people are with both parties. Every so often they slip up and mention that Congress has only an 11% approval rating.

COMPROMISING women's health and their lives.

Never hear the church condemning guns, WMDs, or predatory drones. And how about global warming, GMO foods, and fracking?

These religious folk sure pick silly battles.

They're sticking their arrogant noses in politics, attempting to give Republicans some cover for their own financial gains, therefore they should lose their preferred tax exempt status.

Probably.

And I don't understand why the "sheep" cannot make their own decisions vs. the weirdos in the gold-crowns and designer shoes, dictating.

As a non-believer, I never understand.

I don't understand the problem.

Lots of non-Catholics work for the Catholic church.

Surely the Catholics who work for them wouldn't be using the birth control anyway, right? Only the non-Catholics, so what's the big deal?

Of course the reality is that most Catholics do use birth control anwyay.

Yes, I said capitulate, not compromise.

From the Religion News Service via WaPo:

Let the bishops get pregnant first.

I am so tired of nut cases getting their way.

Is having sex with children before they hit puberty.

Why exactly do we need to kowtow to the Vatican on this issue? Most Catholics don't seem to care about it, it's only the hardliners that are throwing a shitfit.

Because you have a problem with religion or the leaders of a religion. The fact remains that this is NOT a cave. This is about addressing religious freedom. If this action is seen to go against moral aspects of a religion even if there are people in the religion who are more open. This religion would then be persecuted for it's beliefs. I'm a bit sickened by your knee-jerk reaction. I'm a person who supports birth control and shit I need it for my health. But also I respect religions and I can see how this is problems as to what is decreed of our country and what America stands for. This is not France which shits on religions. I see this as understandable and I'd love to see more tolerant people around, who look at the whole picture at least.

Shall we modify all our laws to suit the religious? What about ones that use illegal substances? Do we make allowances for them? No, of course not. The drug war is far too important to compromise on.

Only when it comes to keeping women and gays in their place do we coddle religions. We were coddling them on keeping minorities in their place for a while, but we're mostly beyond that now. We'll be beyond this eventually, if people are willing to fight against it. Insisting it's about respecting religion isn't fighting against it, it's fighting to maintain the status quo.

Besides, if religion wants respect it can show that it's worthy of it. Respect isn't a given, it's earned. (And lost.) How bout they deal with their kiddy fiddlers first and the rest of us will take them a little more seriously as arbiters of morality.

No we aren't France that shits on religions, we're America that cower before them (As long as they're white and wealthy enough) and do whatever they ask as long as the subgroup they're trying to grind to dust isn't powerful enough to create a backlash. In Fascist America Religion Shits on You.

Is nothing but chum in the water to religious and ideological extremists.

That will stop this.

IF you want to get my vote. No FUCKING COMPROMISES. Lives and livelihoods are at stake here!

are making more noise about this than the Catholics- the fundies have more pull in our government.

it costs to pay for these moms to have the babies, the babies who end up in the NICU for weeks and months on end, and the costs of having the children and all their dependent cares as they grow to adulthood, then fine. But I'm guessing they don't want to help so much with that (nor could they).

It's fine the way it is. They got their exemption if they are largely all from one group. End it there. Stand your ground Mr. Obama!

They don't do jack but shit for women. Sure, there WIC and a handful of charity they disburse, but it's paltry compared with the needs and medical expenses. Planned Parenthood does more to address the real issues women (and sometimes consequently men) have to face than the church.

I wish we could exempt Catholics and anyone else who identifies with anti-contraception religions from medicaid and tell them their church is responsible for the costs, but knowing that the church would leave them to suffer, that just wouldn't be fair.

Tea heads where I work have to say about this issue. This debate is not about contraception or abortion, the way that they are framing this is that the issue is about the governments ability to force an entity such as, in this case, the Catholic church, to do something that its hirearchy does not morally agree with, whether we agree with the issue of contraception or abortion is moot. In other words this is about individual freedom and liberty. They go further with threats that this country has fought wars to protect its relgious freedom and they will not be sitting idlly by while the government forces the church to pay for contraception and abortions.

I think people forget how important that is and we're nation that fights for those rights. Right now in France religion is met with pariah-like destruction in the government. Obama even spoke out against the rulings to deny Muslim women to wear their veil in school or public institutions.

no, thank you.

that according to the TeaKlanners, this is about "individual freedom and liberty" yet these are the same geniuses who want to ban abortions, prevent gay marriage and all use of cannibus. They're the low-information voters the PTB (both parties) pray for (or is it prey on) -- easy to manipulate and easy to urge into action (amounting to several thousand twits -- pun intended) . And these are the people with whom Obama endlessly "compromises." I'd suggest you confront them with their hypocrisy but it's like trying to teach a pig to sing -- it's a waste of time and it only frustrates the pig.

to bad the president thinks he needs to "compromise" to the pope.

There is a seperation of Church and State but it is nothing like in France. Our state also respects religions and forces the hand of the government to recognize specific religious doctrines. Otherwise we'd be shitting on people like they do in France. I couldn't wait to see the uproar over that in this country.

nor is anyone "shitting on people like they do in France." it's the church who is doing the shitting, and it's rather disingenous of you to suggest otherwise. nobody is buying the shit you're peddling.

In '94, my husband and I went through the Catholic "Pre-Cana" marriage class in order to be married in the Catholic Church. I'm a recovered Catholic, but we decided to marry in the Church just to keep both sets of parents from going apeshit. Anyway, the married couple that was teaching the class told us that "we have to teach the party line, but we know what really goes on." So, the laypersons know what the deal is.

you are not abridging anyone's religious freedom. On the contrary, to not offer birth control to women who work in your businesses, is forcing your religion onto them. Duh!

Wonderful.

And the headline is woefully commonplace with this Administration. They don't compromise on the surveillance state or letting Bush-era crimes go un-investigated, but BY GOD they'll compromise on social issues at the drop of a hat. ANY hat.

I'm waiting for forced tithing and mandatory prayers.

(Erie PA) and can tell you first hand that the right wing of the Catholic Church is going positively apeshit right now. These nutbags have been on the local Topix board making veiled threats against former representative Kathy Dahlkemper. We have a liberal morning AM radio talk show host here, his conservative co-host read the anti-Obama letter in full on the air and the next day the liberal had his hours cut on air from 3 to one hour, while the conservative is still on for 3. I expect the liberal host to be gone soon, translate our nutcase Bishop Trautman using his business contacts to censor free speech, just as he tried to blackmail Mercyhurst College into not letting Hillary Clinton speak there in 2008. The dean ignored him and she spoke there anyway. The Bishop then boycotted this Catholic College's commencement. What a dried up, bitter old man.

Part of the nuttiness is because these dangerous extremists are beginning to realize that the gop is NOT taking back the White House this year, and may well lose most of their gains in 2010 due to voter remorse. Their anger is completely over the top. I can only hope the juustice department is keeping a close eye on the more violence prone segments of these loons.

...but it will never happen.We must "compromise", remember? And leave us in the trenches with a machete to fend for ourselves.....

I think people have forgotten something. The Catholic Church has it's own rules and regulations. Anti- contraception, birth control, abortion, and homosexuals is their thing. That is the Church. The church is it's own heirarchy and system of politics and drama. They have a massive lobby. While they can barely keep their schools going they will try to inforce their religious doctrine politically. Shit they don't even need money to do it.

However, I find that most Catholics are liberals. Well I'm from New York so that could be why. I have heard some Catholics from the south are frightening. In any event catholic people don't control what the Catholic Church does. The only person really even advocating taking back the Church is Sinead O'Connor the other followers ignore the church's politics by and large.

So while people say this or that about polls they've seen of the Catholic people. Keep in mind the people have no authority over what the Church leaders decree. So I understand very well why there may be a compromise.

That's what's always puzzled me. Why would anyone want to be part of an organization that is so recalcitrant to the will of the lay people?

It's like a battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Why maintain the bond?

My mum demanded a manifesto and I got my way. Anyway she's anti the church but she remains a devout Catholic. Although she's against most of their 'moral' teachings.

if 98% of catholics admit to using contraception, then what's the beef? the beef is with the hierarchy, and i will GLADLY take a shit all over them.

The posts on this thread suggest enough that people don't see a separation of the two but that's brilliant how you push that onto me.

And the heirarchy is what the government is dealing with because the 98% aren't really speaking out against those archaic teachings are they? Which was another aspect of my point.

people have pointed out throughout this thread that the VAST majaority of practicing catholics do not adhere to the HIERACHIES demands that they refrain from using contraception. you're the one turning this into a persecution of all catholics.

7th day Adventists not to cover blood transfusions? What next: allow polygamy for the Mormon church?

This is puzzling and disturbing. Not caving is about respect for women. All women who want to should be able to have access to birth control. I could not care less what the catholic church thinks about it. Interestingly, this is exactly the same question that made the Catholic Church become irrelevant in Western Europe and particularly in France. May be it will become irrelevant in this country as well.

The bishops may win the PR war for the moment but they lose influence and they will not get their Republican president.

the earth is over populated and straining to support those on the planet now, so why are churches so hung up on centuries old rules about no contraception. Okay, that is rather rhetorical because we know it is really about power and the more parishioners they have the more powerful they believe they are.

If they want to decide what one can and cannot do then they should refuse all government funds - that goes for churches, schools and universities. They should then ex-communicate all those that have used birth control at any time and, of course, refuse to accept funds from those that have used birth control.

It is 2012 - women are just as good as men and we do not need churches or other religious groups to tell us how to behave and what to do.

PS - Axelrod read the bloody blogs and surveys - I am going to use Catholics as an example here - 98% of Catholics use some sort of non-natural birth control. The ordinary Catholic woman wants to be able to obtain birth control, want the church to butt out of her sex-life. Do not give in to the Church - all religions - they are antiquated and very out of touch with their base. Hmm - Axelrod you may also want to consider that for yourself.

the rhythm method, simply don't have sex while the woman is Ovulating, so would it be so hard for a Catholic Organization to provide instructional Material on how to use the rhythm method. the rhythm method is flawed to be true but a teenage Boy putting on the condom has as much success.

there compromise.

but if a female employee becomes pregnant, she must be given fully paid maternity leave at the same pay rate she was earning when she announced her pregnancy from the first day that her pregnancy is confirmed to six months after her baby's birth.

That would be a fair compromise in my opinion.

15 months paid leave with full salary.

Fund a Planned Parenthood center next to every Catholic hospital and give away birth control for free

The man has no spine and no principles.