"0bama's War on Religious Liberty"

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Any human being born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. If a child is born to a mother who is broke, a drug addict, or doesn't want a child for any reason, I think it's a heck of a deal for the American taxpayers to give that girl birth control instead of having to pay the bill to raise the #######. Only a religious nut job would be pro birth. And yes, it's pro birth, not pro life, because the Reptilians give a sh*t about what happens to the child once it's born. All they want is that it is being born, whether wanted, unwanted, healthy or deformed, a product of rape or incest. Once that thing is being born, it can go to hell or worse.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Brother Hesekiel

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No RATIONAL person IS surprised, or upset! And I am sure you will be most relieved to find that not a single individual is mandated to use any form of birth control whatsoever! You and every single catholic and member of any other religion will remain free to follow the dictates of your religion and your conscience on matters pertaining to reproduction. What Obama and 'the liberals' will not stand for is for the catholic church to have the 'religious liberty' to use the power of the government to help the bishops enforce religious rules that are being flouted by the vast majority of members of that church!

True enough. Of course this would be true even if Obama did not tell the insurance companies they had to pay for it.

They are currently flouting it by paying for it themselves.

[Leatherneck 693]

No RATIONAL person IS surprised, or upset! And I am sure you will be most relieved to find that not a single individual is mandated to use any form of birth control whatsoever! You and every single catholic and member of any other religion will remain free to follow the dictates of your religion and your conscience on matters pertaining to reproduction. What Obama and 'the liberals' such as NARAL, NOW, the anti-religious and the Feminist Majority Foundation will not stand for is for the catholic church to have the 'religious liberty' to do is use the power of the government to help the bishops enforce religious rules that are being flouted by the vast majority of members of that church! mandate, coerce and compel by force religious hospitals, schools, charities, and other health and social service providers to provide "free" abortifacient pills, sterilizations, and contraception on demand in their insurance plans. It simply violates their moral conscience and teachings.

This is not about "You and every single catholic and member of any other religion will remain free to follow the dictates of your religion and your conscience on matters pertaining to reproduction." This is about religious liberty, however, the individual members are also free to exercise 'free will', regardless of the teachings of their religion. that mandate attacks the organization.

The Obama administartion is deaf to religious sensibilities and the Constitution, they got served a resounding defeat on January 11—when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Administration's reading of the First Amendment as "extreme," "untenable," and having "no merit"—couldn't unplug its ears. The Court held in Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC that the government could not meddle in the internal affairs of religious organizations. Then 9 days later they drop another abortion on the nation-no pun intended.

The First Amendment unambiguously says that government "shall make no law" prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It makes no exception for some laws trampling the free exercise of religion, it says no law.

Why those four words are so complicated for "liberals" defies logic.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Leatherneck

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I look forward to religious organizations dictating what can and can't be covered. I'd like to see the other sins dealt with - oh, and male sexuality. After all, sex is only for procreation, right?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Ensuring freedom of choice and access to contraception is the OPPOSITE of CONTROLLING the populace!!!

The problem I have with government is that they are always trying to control one thing or another. Choosing Republicans only changes which direction the control goes, it does not change the desire TO control.

However, single payor with contraception covergae would accomplish this without the need for the government to order private companies to pay for any particular health care. That is why our state dumped this mess and went with single payor. The congress had the option to pursue single payor, rejected it and went with the mess we have now

Edited February 22, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Leatherneck 693]

Ensuring freedom of choice and access to contraception is the OPPOSITE of CONTROLLING the populace!!!

Who is being denied "freedom of choice and access to contraception?"

Any woman that seeks to have an abortion, can in fact have the procedure done and no one that is of legal age is denied "access to contraception."

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

####### pill coverage = okay

Helping women control endometriosis = not okay

Got it.

[luckytxn 2,264]

This is not about "You and every single catholic and member of any other religion will remain free to follow the dictates of your religion and your conscience on matters pertaining to reproduction." This is about religious liberty, however, the individual members are also free to exercise 'free will', regardless of the teachings of their religion. that mandate attacks the organization.

The Obama administartion is deaf to religious sensibilities and the Constitution, they got served a resounding defeat on January 11—when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Administration's reading of the First Amendment as "extreme," "untenable," and having "no merit"—couldn't unplug its ears. The Court held in Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC that the government could not meddle in the internal affairs of religious organizations. Then 9 days later they drop another abortion on the nation-no pun intended.

The First Amendment unambiguously says that government "shall make no law" prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It makes no exception for some laws trampling the free exercise of religion, it says no law.

Why those four words are so complicated for "liberals" defies logic.

Exactly. The Socialists have no qualm interfering with religious freedom of worship. I remember communism was Atheistic and it seems we are being forced to be the same by our government. We have a Constitution for a reason. It is insane to see the anyone that is an American to not see where Obama the Socialist just took this country.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I had to laugh at this though.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Exactly. The Socialists have no qualm interfering with religious freedom of worship. I remember communism was Atheistic and it seems we are being forced to be the same by our government. We have a Constitution for a reason. It is insane to see the anyone that is an American to not see where Obama the Socialist just took this country.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Sousuke

[james&olya 1,121]

This is not about "You and every single catholic and member of any other religion will remain free to follow the dictates of your religion and your conscience on matters pertaining to reproduction." This is about religious liberty, however, the individual members are also free to exercise 'free will', regardless of the teachings of their religion. that mandate attacks the organization.

The Obama administartion is deaf to religious sensibilities and the Constitution, they got served a resounding defeat on January 11—when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Administration's reading of the First Amendment as "extreme," "untenable," and having "no merit"—couldn't unplug its ears. The Court held in Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC that the government could not meddle in the internal affairs of religious organizations. Then 9 days later they drop another abortion on the nation-no pun intended.

The First Amendment unambiguously says that government "shall make no law" prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It makes no exception for some laws trampling the free exercise of religion, it says no law.

Why those four words are so complicated for "liberals" defies logic.

You must be one of those RWNJ's that agree with Mitt that 'corporations are people'! Most of us interpret the bill of rights as pertaining to real, live, walking and talking humans. Nothing in this regulation will interfere in ANY way with the right of the INDIVIDUAL to practice his religion free of government coercion! And Obama even went further in making clear that the religiously affiliated employers would not themselves be paying for contraceptive services. Rather it is the insurance companies themselves that are expected to provide this. You may ask how is this possible? Simple. It is CHEAPER for the insurance company to cover contraception than the otherwise increase in pregnancies that will result! It is currently the law in many states that all insurers must do this and without excepting even the churches themselves. Massachussets is one of those states and your Mitt didn't register any objection when he sat in the governor's chair! This is a manufactured issue and one that will guarantee a loss for the republicans in November.

[james&olya 1,121]

The problem I have with government is that they are always trying to control one thing or another. Choosing Republicans only changes which direction the control goes, it does not change the desire TO control.

However, single payor with contraception covergae would accomplish this without the need for the government to order private companies to pay for any particular health care. That is why our state dumped this mess and went with single payor. The congress had the option to pursue single payor, rejected it and went with the mess we have now

You and I are in complete agreement on the superiority of single payer!

[james&olya 1,121]

Who is being denied "freedom of choice and access to contraception?"

Any woman that seeks to have an abortion, can in fact have the procedure done and no one that is of legal age is denied "access to contraception."

For many on the lower rungs of society the cost of many forms of contraception can be prohibitive. And while I support the right of women to decide about abortion, I would do anything in my power to decrease the demand for such services!

[X Factor 1,112]

This isn't anything yet ... there will be a time in the near future when politicians around the world will turn against all religions and try to get rid of them ...