Obamacare Violates The Separation Of Church & State?

neptunechimney wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, I wish they'd keep their CHURCH out of my State...

I wish they would keep your state out of their religion.

Above mine below in " "'s from the link. Bold mine.

"Nonetheless, it was dismaying to see the president lend any credence to the misbegotten notion that providing access to contraceptives violated the freedom of any religious institution. Churches are given complete freedom by the Constitution to preach that birth control is immoral, but they have not been given the right to laws that would deprive their followers or employees of the right to disagree with that teaching.
In truth, no one denies that individuals have "the right to disagree with that teaching," and the religious institutions that object to the mandate do not claim the authority to police their employees' private lives or opinions. Rather, they oppose the government's attempt to coerce them into facilitating the practices they preach against.

The editorial continues by assuring the Times's readers that everyone who disagrees is dishonest, because the Times knows what they really think: "The president's solution, however, demonstrates that those still angry about the mandate aren't really concerned about religious freedom; they simply don't like birth control and want to reduce access to it." The evidence for this assertion is laughable:"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopOpinion

I am anecdotal proof. While I understand the moral stand of people who believe that abortion is murder I do not. That would require that I believe in a soul. I do not. I think this is a government overreach.

I simply do not want to live in a society where everything that is not required is forbidden. I support birth control and abortion. In fact I think it is natures way of controlling liberal overpopulation.

And I agree with the article, that this is more about religious/moral zealots who want to reduce access to birth control... There are many things you guys find "laughable" which are not. I could care less...

LadyJazzer wrote: And I agree with the article, that this is more about religious/moral zealots who want to reduce access to birth control... There are many things you guys find "laughable" which are not. I could care less...

Access will not be reduced in the least. There are MANY sources of free contraceptives.

Here's some local source close to 80433. Use the locater link below to find more location ALL across the country

Lakewood
1400 S Wadsworth Blvd.
Lakewood, CO, 80232
(303) 988-3821

Littleton
131 W County Line Rd
Littleton, CO, 80129
(303) 798-0963

Jefferson County Public Health
260 S. Kipling Street
Lakewood, CO, 80226
(303) 239-7078

Tricounty Health Department - Englewood Office
4857 South Broadway
Englewood, CO, 80113
(303) 761-1340

Denver Health Family Health Center - Westwood
4320 West Alaska Pl.
Denver, CO, 80219
(720) 956-2900

http://bedsider.org/where_to_get_it

When 99% of women of reproductive age have accessed it without an employer mandate, access is as universal as it can get. And while we are at it... would you demand that a Muslim colleges, hospitals, or social service agencies supply access to reproductive services... I don't think so... Your argument about "reduced access" totally falls apart. You act like we are still living in the middle ages.

Free birth control? Will free aspirin be next? Birth control really isn't that expensive.

So, in a related note, what about employers that do not have a religious objection. Unless they have a waiver are they required to directly provide these services at no cost as part of an employees benefits?

FredHayek wrote: Free birth control? Will free aspirin be next? Birth control really isn't that expensive.

Oh, about $600+/year... Doesn't affect you, though, does it... Don't worry, be happy---the world through your eyes.

My wife heard an ad on the radio yesterday thanking Obama for free birth control. Must have come from Barack's super PAC.

$50 a month for birth control? Not exactly a budget breaker. $12.50 a week. Probably spend more on Starbucks or booze.

It's not really about birth control.. It's about the government or church telling you how you should have sex. It's a control issue, pure and simple.

Catholic Charities received $2.9 billion dollars from the Federal government in 2010.

"Catholic Charities is one of the nation’s most extensive social service networks, serving more than 10 million poor adults and children of many faiths across the country. It is made up of local affiliates that answer to local bishops and dioceses, but much of its revenue comes from the government. Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese (the rest came from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees and community donations). "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/fo ... evail.html

If they want to dictate what people can do, they should do it without the government's assistance.

FredHayek wrote: My wife heard an ad on the radio yesterday thanking Obama for free birth control. Must have come from Barack's super PAC.

$50 a month for birth control? Not exactly a budget breaker. $12.50 a week. Probably spend more on Starbucks or booze.

It is if you don't have it... And you can take your usual condescending and elitist extrapolations and generalizations of the people who need it and shove them in the usual place.