• Paul

    1) I get why everybody’s anti-ella and plan B. Why in the world would anybody be against sterilization procedures?

    2) At this point, with the Hawaii Compromise in place, there is no “your company, your religious institution” in this argument, unless “your company” is a health insurance company. Health insurance insiders have already admitted that within 5 years, if they eat the cost of contraception on their own, that this will save them money.

    3) given the above, this isn’t a fight about religious freedoms. This is a fight over grumpy old men having control over women.

    4) Enough about the personal freedom talk already. Or at least don’t try that line on any hippie that’s had to spend a night in jail due to draconian drug laws. The right has NEVER been about personal freedom. Don’t say that all of the sudden, you’re about it now.

    • Ryan

      You are judging motives and choosing to believe that those of us objecting to the government mandate are being deceitful. Many of us truly do believe this is a personal liberty issue and have no desire to “exercise power over women.” You may not understand this point of view, but that does not mean that it is a ruse. Please conduct a respectful and reasonable dialogue.

    • Patrick


      There is a discussion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about sterilization. Paragraph 2399 calls it morally unacceptable. Broadly speaking, the Church teaches this because we believe God should be in charge of when and if we bring children into this world. You might make the point that this is an unreasonable belief (and many, perhaps a majority, of Americans would agree). But it is a well considered, sincerely held view of the Church. In fact, we would say the Holy Spirit directed us to this view.

      Given this, I presume you can see that the mandate tells the Church to directly pay for something it has declared and taught to be morally unacceptable. I presume you would agree that it would be unreasonable to believe that the Church would not object to this.

      Your second argument indicates that a health insurance company will make money by providing contaceptives for free. To the extent this is true, it remains true that they don’t currently do this and will only do this if they receive money from the entity that is buying a plan (and probably would only do this if ordered to by the government). The Catholic Church therefore would be a necessary official participant in something it has declared and taught to be immoral. Beyond this, I presume you can see that there should be a reasonable skepticism in people who have been ordered by the government to do something because it will make them money. Understating the matter, the government’s financial forecasting record has been less than stellar.

      I have spoken about how this mandate affects the Catholic Church because I am more familiar with Catholic beliefs and the reasons for them. But this is by no means solely a Catholic issue. Many Protestants (as well as people of no religion or of a non-Christian religion) have come to similiar conclusions on the morality of birth control and related issues. Many who have come to different conclusions understand that the principle (of the government dictating something like this) here is extremely important. Former Governor and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee said “in this, we are all Catholics.”

      Also, this mandate requires business owners to directly purchase something that may also violate their conscience. This is another significant, though not highly publicized, reason that this is an unjust law that violates a person’s freedom of religion, although perhaps not the significantly more narrow “freedom of worship” discussed by the Obama Administration.

      While I do not expect you to agree with our position, I would like you to see that those who hold this position are not doing so out of a deisre to control anyone, but out of a desire to follow their conscience (and a desire to see others able to follow their conscience) on a very significant matter.

    • JohnnyM

      In regards to point #2, if providing contraception free of charge would save insurance companies money, then they would already do it.

  • Barbara

    The whole “old men” thing is far and away the weakest point in the pro-mandate campaign. Not to mention it’s getting, well, old. If white males have no expertise to contribute to a discussion about what is necessary for adequate reproductive healthcare for women, we got a whole lot of gynecological doctors and researchers to shoot.

    • Paul

      strange how arguments “get old” when one doesn’t agree with them.

      Are there knowledgeable men in the field? Of course. But doesn’t it seem odd that on these issues that it’s mainly old white men without medical degrees that want to make decisions about contraception (or really, any medical issue)? if it doesn’t, it should.

      Before we go talking about protecting religious liberties, where’s the religious liberty for Rastafarians to smoke marijuana? For muslims to buy a building and put a mosque in a properly zoned area? For Mennonites to avoid signing up for selective service? Or, is it really religious liberty for really big denominations that tend to vote Republican? Talk to me when religious liberty is applied across the board.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.