home
RSS
Religious exemptions grow in contraception mandate
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says "the president's policy respects religious liberty."
March 16th, 2012
08:00 PM ET

Religious exemptions grow in contraception mandate

By Eric Marrapodi and Jessica Yellin, CNN

Washington (CNN) - The Obama administration announced late Friday two new steps in a controversial contraception mandate.

In an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking posted in the Federal Register, the administration offered several policy suggestions that would require the administrator of the insurance policy, not the religious institution or the insurer, to pay for contraception coverage.

The Obama administration also announced a new final rule on student health plans that effectively applies the contraception accommodation to religiously affiliated universities. This means students at religious universities that have moral objections can get contraception for free through their insurance providers. Schools have a one-year grace period before complying.

For religious institutions that provide their own insurance, the mandate opened the door to Americans to "formally comment on ideas for implementing this policy."

Sandra Fluke, the student who was at the center of a firestorm over contraception rules at her religious university, applauded the decision, saying in a statement, "I am very pleased that under these policies all women, regardless of what school they attend or where they work, will soon have affordable access to contraception."

The original mandate, enforcing part of the Affordable Care Act, included that insurers must provide, at no cost, all FDA-approved forms of contraception. Houses of worship have been exempted from the start, but now the administration is widening those exemptions to include other religiously affiliated groups.

Religious groups across a wide spectrum denounced the mandate, saying it infringed on their religious liberty. Most vocal was the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"The bishops will begin analyzing it immediately, but now is too early to know what it says," said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"I'm surprised such important information would be announced late Friday on St. Patrick's Day weekend as we prepare for the fourth Sunday of Lent," she added.

The new regulation prohibits lifetime limits on contraception and covers preventive services without cost-sharing for students on a college or university health plan. The new rule outlines that religious colleges and universities will not have to "pay, arrange, or refer" contraceptives for students, according to a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services.

"The president's policy respects religious liberty and makes free preventive services available to women," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in the statement. "Today's announcement is the next step toward fulfilling that commitment."

The White House held a Friday afternoon conference call with stakeholders outlining the new plan, according to a Democratic activist who participated in the call but was not authorized to speak on the record about it.

Joshua DuBois, the director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, led the call, and Catholic health care and advocacy groups joined, the source said.

The extension of the religious exemption to colleges had been a major point of contention for many religious institutions.

"This is something the bishops should be happy about," said Steve Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at the Catholic University of America.

"I think the take-away from this is, it's clear the administration is serious about its efforts to address the concerns of the Catholic bishops and others as it relates to the insurance mandate."

In an effort to address concerns of religious groups that self-insure, the new rules suggest creating "an exemption for group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers."

The policy continued with a suggested four-part definition of who might qualify. It says the group must have religious values as its purpose, primarily employ people who share those religious beliefs, primarily serve persons who share those beliefs and be a nonprofit organization.

When the preliminary rule for the contraception mandate was released last year, it had a different four-point definition for a religious organization. Religious colleges and charities were all but written out of the definition, so they would not be included in the exemption.

According to the source, the administration said it does not want the new definition used as a precedent for future policies and regulation, the source said.

"It should ameliorate some of their concerns," Schneck said of the bishops.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Conference of Bishops said in a statement that the fight over the contraception mandate was strictly a religious liberty issue.

"One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception-including abortifacient drugs-subject to an exemption for 'religious employers' that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future 'accommodation' for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption," the statement read.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Belief • Bishops • Catholic Church • Christianity • Church and state • Evangelical • Faith Now • Politics

soundoff (695 Responses)
  1. article unique

    Thanks for some other magnificent article. Where else may just anyone get that type of information in such an ideal means of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and I am on the search for such information.

    April 4, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
  2. Joxer the Mighty

    I still don't understand why the mandate can't state that insurance only has to cover contraception as long as the doctor certifies its for health reasons and not to prevent pregnancy. Wouldn't that solve all the problems? If that doesn't stop the arguing, then it seems like the argument for health reasons is just an excuse to get pregnancy prevention medication for free.

    March 22, 2012 at 5:45 am |
    • Primewonk

      Women's reproductive health is a wellness measure. Doesn't matter how much you don't like it. How about we decide that men don't need PSA's. If you show up one day with prostate cancer, then it can be treted. Or no more mammograms as wellness measures. If you want one – you pay for it. Same with colonoscopies.

      March 22, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Wonk, with respect... prostate or colon cancer is not something you can get by the choices in your life in the same way as choosing to go to bed with a guy. Joxer's point is a attempt to find a way around the argument.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I love seeing the Piddler demonstrate his disdain for women. It's just such a justification of my disdain for the boob.

      March 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Kalashnikova

      Preventing pregnancy IS a health measure.

      Even with access to the best healthcare in the world–or American health care–pregnancy carries a risk of death. Compare labor and delivery to abortion, and far, far fewer women die of abortion.

      If you consider health impacts that don't include death, then pregnancy becomes even more devastating to women's health. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, blood pressure... Not to mention forced cessation of any medically-necessary drugs or therapies that might hurt the precious little fetal blob. Have cancer and don't feel like dying? Sorry, if the Catholic Church has its way, you can't have chemo if you're pregnant. They'd rather watch a woman die than let doctors use drugs that might make her miscarry.

      Only religious psychopaths think women should crap out baby after baby after baby like the Duggars. It's not healthy, sane or natural. People should have children when they are healthy, stable, financially secure, and WANT to bring a baby into the world.

      Denying women the ability to NOT BE PREGNANT is morally repugnant... especially when the hollering idiots are violently against abortion. You want to end or reduce abortion? Help stop unwanted pregnancies first, god damn it.

      September 15, 2012 at 5:18 am |
      • richmondhokie

        Don't be obtuse. No one is denying women access to contraception. You can get it at any drugstore. Wal-Mart. Target. It is widely available and CHEAP. This is about forcing employers to pay for it, even if it is against their personal beliefs. Birth control costs $7 per month. That's a couple of lattes at Starbucks. If by some wild chance you can't afford it, there are over 600 Planned Parenthood clinics that will supply your needs for free.
        When I was getting BC pills in the 1980s, I had to pay for them myself. NO employer covered them. And they were $30/month. I was making about $12,000/year. I managed.
        Get over the hysteria.

        March 26, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
  3. Christianity is not healthy for children and other living things

    Christianity makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Read about it at http://santorum.com
    Christianity takes people away from actually working on real solutions to their problems.
    Christian prayer has been shown to have no discernible effect towards what was prayed for.
    Christianity prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
    Christianity makes you fat.
    Christianity wears out your clothes prematurely.
    Christianity contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
    Christianity fucks up your knees and your neck and your back.
    Christianity can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
    Christianity makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. See http://santorum.com to learn more.
    Christianity reveals how stupid you are to the world.
    Christianity exposes your backside to pervert priests.
    Christianity makes you think doilies are exciting.
    Christianity makes you secretively flatulent and embarrassed about it.
    Christianity makes your kids avoid spending time with you.
    Christianity gives you knobbly knees.
    Christianity dulls your senses.
    Christianity makes you post really stupid shit.
    Christianity makes you hoard cats.
    Christianity makes you smell like shitty kitty litter and leads you on to harder drugs.
    Christianity wastes time.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
    • richmondhokie

      And Islam will kill you if you're gay. Or for any number of other, less consequential reasons. Your point is ?

      March 26, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
  4. Mark from Middle River

    Once again TomTom is not understanding the issue which has been presented here. No one is saying that woman should be barred from access to birth control. That is what she wants and desperately believes that the debate should be. Its the common spin technique and juvenile name calling that they believe will keep folks from reading and understanding what groups are upset with. I am with Joxer, I believe that viagra, cialis and all the pumps and implants should not be covered as well.

    Also, lays ...lies ….shacking up with, banging until the cows come home and dancing under the covers, all the same message which folks like TomTom can not escape. If a girl choses to take to bed a guy, then she needs to think about what kind of a guy he is. Folks are getting tired of the constant, "woah is me" that some women are harping, that their lives are messed up and society must help them with her pregnancy and cost afterward because she made a mistake on the type of guy she allowed between the sheets. Especially, if we are talking about the same woman and multiple pregnancies...with different fathers.

    As TomTom said “SINCE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO GET PREGNANT”... then should not TomTom be voicing this to all of the women so that they can get a grip on their lives and choices of se'xual partners? No, TomTom wouldn't do that because, just like we see with many in the African American community, they want to blame everyone else for their life decisions. Maybe it is society at a whole, some guy goes to McDonalds and ask for a hot cup of coffee and then when he gets burned its McDonalds fault and they should pay.

    Try this … I want to start mountain climbing, should I be able to go to my insurance company and apply for funds for the needed gear to do so? In other words, I make the choice to do something that might alter my physical being if something goes wrong....can I make the birth control argument, since birth control is not 100% full proof, that this gear is cheaper than the medical cost of my injuries if I fall?

    Either way TomTom, Al Shapton and the like, want the last thing folks to do is question a targeted groups choices in life. All TomTom could have said, is that some women are stupid and shack up with guys that are more prone to be the types that will leave if their s'exual encounter results in a pregnancy. As expected, of folks like TomTom, its everyone else's fault except the woman and her choices.

    March 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Janine

      Re "No one is saying that woman should be barred from access to birth control. "

      Stop pretending that you can possibly speak for everyone, stupid.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Fair enough Jamie, I do not speak for everyone but in this issue the Catholic church is not moving towards a out right ban and they have not voiced such. They are just declaring that since they do not support Birth Control then they will not have to pay for such for anyone choosing to work for them.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " They are just declaring that since they do not support Birth Control then they will not have to pay for such for anyone choosing to work for them."

      Point 1 – Yet again, Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, etc., are not churches, they are businesses. They should have to follow the same rules other Colleges, Universities, and Hospitals.

      Point 2 – Obama caved and and shifted everything over to the insurance carriers, so your point is moot.

      Point 3 – 28 states already have this rule in place. Georgetown University is already required, by law, to offer a plan that includes coverage for contraception, which they do. Again, your point is moot.

      Point 4 – 98% of all Catholics use or have used Birth Control. Why has the church not kicked these folks out? Hypocrisy much?

      March 21, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Hi Wonk.

      The first point that the colleges and hospitals are non-profits which places them not in the same realm as a business. Also, you have to ask this...are businesses required to offer any form of Health Care to its employees? Many companies Health Care is classified as a benefit of employment, which can be limited at any time by many different means.

      So, if correct, if the government can not force a company to give its workers full health care, how is it legal for government to say what they can or not within a offered health benefit that they had to offer. Myself, I can see the Catholics pushing the health care completely off the table, in its entirety, than to be forced to cover health care.

      Your point two...well scares the heck out me. That continued “compromise” and Romney's political style might make me vote for my first democrat since Clinton first term. I believe in the middle ground very strongly on many issues and when I saw the report on his compromise, my dislike for Obama as a democrat... I said to myself that is the exactly the path I would have taken on the issue. I mean, I still am a card carrying Republican but for a brief second I was shaken.

      Your point 3... Please give the url or civil code that says that they are required to pay for birth control. I googled it and it was a brief search cause I am in school today and do not have time. So, with respect I am interested in your points.

      Point 4... When you say “kicked out” are you speaking of excommunication or are you speaking of discharge from employment? I did google to see a list of things that can get you excommunicated but even excommunication is not always tossed completely out of the faith.

      Thanks Wonk, good post. :)

      March 21, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're an idiot, Piddler.

      You can't address the reality that women have more of an incentive to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than do men.

      Thanks for proving, once again, that you're a dishonest little cretin.

      March 21, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"You can't address the reality that women have more of an incentive to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than do men."

      Sorry Gloria Steinem, maybe in your world of lazy men that some women exercise their "choice" to sleep with. I am more along the world of men who stand up for their responsiblities.

      Maybe it was just the community and home environment you are speaking from. For most of us, there would be a label of shame placed on a man who has a child with a woman and not taking care of both. I guess some of our parents raised us one way and others another.

      March 21, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And there is the Piddler in all his naked glory, just as momoya described him. Snarky, underhanded, slimy, and unable to argue a point honestly. He knows well and good that men will never have to bear an unwanted pregnancy. No matter what claim the Piddler makes about how 'honorable' he is, the facts don't back him up as far as anyone else is concerned.

      He's as full of sh!t as a cesspool.

      March 22, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Ma'am, since you can not argue a counter point I guess throwing insults and ridicule are all you have in your bag. I can't fight and argue with a 57 year old lady. You are almost my moms age and can't dig deep enough to find the spirit to clobber and debate a elder. Your post lend more to a ramblings of a 15 year old and that we can understand... but at 57.. I guess the 60s were pretty rough.

      Take care Ms TomTom.

      March 23, 2012 at 1:36 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What a load of bs. You can't argue the point, Piddler, so now you are attempting to pretend that you are just too polite to argue with an 'elder'. Add that to the snide little jabs about "family values",as if you know anything about my family. You are simply in over your pointy little head, junior. Women are the ones who have a greater incentive to prevent pregnancy than men do.

      You've failed to present anything that proves this is not true.

      On top of that, you've managed to make yourself look even less intelligent than ever.

      Oh, and try to do some math, moron. In 1969, I was all of 14.

      What "college" admitted you?

      March 23, 2012 at 6:42 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I do find it amusing that the Piddler suddenly developed an aversion to arguing with an "elder" only when he HAD no argument.

      What a little hypocrite.

      March 23, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      >>>"Oh, and try to do some math, moron. In 1969, I was all of 14. "

      Did the math... so you were alive during the 60s.... Like I said, its hard to argue with older members of society. You can not tell when their minds are starting to waver.

      No, problem Ma'am. You are right, you were NOT alive during the 60s. :)

      March 23, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Of course I was alive, you retarded squirrel. Do you think I was doing LSD? You're the dumbfuck who made the comment about the 60s being tough. Do you REALLY wanna argue that in 67, at the age of 12, I was a member of the counterculture?

      You know, when you find yourself in a hole, Piddler, you should stop digging.

      March 23, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No wonder you still don't have a degree, Piddler. You must be on the 10-year-plan. It's really hard to pass a class when your reading comprehension is on a par with a kid in first grade.

      March 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Piddler is studying 3rd grade spelling words so he can pass on his THIRD attempt.

      March 24, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Kalashnikova

      It's embarrassing just to read your responses, Mark. Wave the white flag and crawl off with the tattered shreds of the scant dignity that remains to your name.

      September 15, 2012 at 5:31 am |
  5. Joxer the Mighty

    @TruthPrevails Why do you assume I'm religious and attack me for it? I simply did not realize contraceptives were used for anything other than preventing pregnancy. I simply thought that insurance providing pregnancy prevention to women was just as stupid as if it provided condoms for men. Why can't the law state that insurance only covers it if it is medically necessary for the health of the woman?

    @Tom, tom the pipers son Personally I think Viagra shouldn't be covered by insurance. It's not medically necessary so it shouldn't be covered.

    March 20, 2012 at 11:16 am |
  6. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Mark the Piddler is STILL attempting to figure out whether a woman "lays" with a man, or "lies" with him. Apparently, it also escapes his notice that women have a much bigger incentive to prevent pregnancies they don't want SINCE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO GET PREGNANT.

    Take a class in biology, Mark the Dolt. You need it.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:03 am |
  7. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things
    Proven
    Powerful

    March 20, 2012 at 7:30 am |
    • Jesus

      You've been proven a liar over and over again on this blog. A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested Friday morning...

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      Plus don't forget. The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!! .. .. .. ... .. .

      March 20, 2012 at 8:37 am |
  8. Joxer the Mighty

    You women are starting to really tick me off. What the government is trying to do is just as stupid as the two women in the UK who are suing because they weren't allowed to wear their cross necklaces at work. Just as they have the freedom to get another job if they want to wear their crosses, you women are free to go to another university or employer if you want insurance that provides contraceptives and abortions.

    March 20, 2012 at 5:45 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      "You women are starting to really tick me off."

      Ah, did poor Joxer have his masculinity questioned? Sorry dolt but women are equal to you and are not controlled by you or any church or organization. They deserve to be covered for all medical reasons, in this case contraceptives just as you deserve to be covered for the frontal lobotomy that you obviously need. Maybe what you're not comprehending is that contraceptives do more than prevent pregnancy but you'd know that if you took your head out of the buybull and researched the benefits of them.
      These are the days where I thank your God I'm an Atheist and Canadian. As an Atheist, I believe in equal rights for all. As a Canadian, it is a pleasure to know that if I need medical attention I will be covered and that my benefits at work cover anything I may need...not the least of which may be contraceptives (and in my case they would not be for the prevention of pregnancy but for maintaining health).

      March 20, 2012 at 6:59 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And you're free to go to another provider if you want your viagra, limp one.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why shouldn't women be covered for the prescriptions of medication they need for health reasons, Joxer?

      March 20, 2012 at 9:05 am |
  9. Mark from Middle River

    >>>”I don't give two craps what you think you or anyone else 'would do' in any given situation. The fact is that men DO have the ability to leave.” : Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Growing trend. Mothers currently retain custody of the children in approximately 70 percent of divorces. But even though that’s the majority, that still leaves a large and growing number of women who do not retain custody. “The more I talk about it, the more I find that people’s eyes are open to the reality — which is that over 2 million noncustodial moms are in America right now, and it is definitely increasing,” Sp'icuglia said. “People are recognizing that fathers can be amazing primary caregivers, and we shouldn’t sell men short.” Sp'icuglia is one of several women profiled in a Marie Claire magazine article about the growing phenomenon of noncustodial mothers.

    Source : http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32200976/ns/today-parenting_and_family/t/moms-reveal-why-they-gave-their-children/

    So, TomTom.... I know that “over 2 million women” which shows that women also DO have the ability to leave and that more of them are choosing to leave just shot to pieces your male bashing argument

    …. I would say would be a real kick in the nutz for you..but since you are a female I guess its a kick in the ovaries. :)

    Please TomTom.... bring it.. and don't hold back...

    March 20, 2012 at 1:19 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You bozo. They can leave the kids once BORN, you freakin' idiot. They can't 'leave the pregnancy' unless they choose to terminate it. God, you're so feckin' stupid I can't figure out how you even graduated from high school, much less got into a college.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:58 am |
  10. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Goobers like Mark the Piddler and Reality are so delusional they actually think women are going to pay any attention to their admonitions.

    As if.

    March 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
  11. Prayer changes things

    Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    March 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • Jesus

      "Prayer changes things"

      You've been proven a liar over and over again on this blog. A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested Friday morning...

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      Plus don't forget. The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!! .. .. .. ...

      March 19, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Jesus – Please come up with something new. You keep saying the same thing. Also in your next post please use citation so I can read these studies.

      March 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
  12. deb

    What about Viagra or a vasectomy? Are they covered by insurance? Is a prostate exam covered by insurance? For all recorded history, men have marched off to war, killing, raping, torturing, maiming and enslaving untold millions of people. It is no one's business what a woman does with her own body.

    March 19, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Tell that to Mark the Piddler and Unreal Stupidity.

      March 19, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Joxer the Mighty

      That's right, and you have the freedom to go to a different university.

      March 20, 2012 at 5:41 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      Joxer sounds like a se.xist pig!! Why the hell should they have to change employment or schools to get EQUAL rights?

      March 20, 2012 at 6:22 am |
    • Mirosal

      Because Joxer suffers from cranial-rec'tal inversion .. he has his head too far up his as's

      March 20, 2012 at 6:37 am |
    • Primewonk

      Joxer wrote, " That's right, and you have the freedom to go to a different university."

      Well, if we're talking about the Fluke case – Georgetown University is not a church. It is a business. Because of it's location, Geeorgetown University is already required, by state laws, to offer an insurance plan that includes contraception. They do. They offer a plan to their employees that covers contraception. Fluke, and others offered to purchase this plan – at a higher price than they currently pay. The University refused.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:13 am |
  13. karen

    Stand up for religious freedom. Friday March 23 from 12-1 in 120 cities across the country. Standupforreligiousfreedom.com

    March 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What "religious freedom" do you think you don't have now?

      March 19, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • Donna

      "Stand up for religious freedom."

      Yes stand up for Paganism, Buddhism, Satanism, Islam, and all other religions – FREEDOM for all!

      March 19, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • J.W

      We all know the religious freedom thing is all political. If someone wanted to build a mosque in one of these people's neighborhood they would not be crying for religious freedom anymore.

      March 19, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
    • Primewonk

      I couldn't help but notice that all the groups on your website seem to all be related to right-wing, fundamentalist christian groups. No Muslims. No Jews. No Wiccans. No Pagans. No animist. No one from freedom from religion groups.

      Is this a conscious decision on the part of the ignorant misogynists?

      Why do you people hate the consti.tution?

      March 19, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
  14. Brad

    The Obama administration turned away from the public option for comprehensive and even basic healthcare insurance. Perhaps it could be revisited for contraception.

    March 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  15. Reality

    Once again some incentives to live a healthy life style and also ways to pay for universal health care.

    1. An added two dollar health insurance tax (or higher) on a pack of cigarettes. Ditto taxes on alcoholic beverages, the higher the alcohol content, the higher the tax. Ditto for any product shown to be unhealthy (e.g. guns, high caloric/fatty foods??)

    2. Physicals akin to those required for life insurance- the overly obese will pay signficantly more Medicare and universal health insurance (unless the obesity is caused by a medical condition).

    3. No universal health care coverage for drivers driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or using cell phones while driving.

    4. No universal health coverage for drug addicts or for those having self-inflicted STDs (like not using a condom).

    5. No universal health coverage for abortions unless the life of the mother is at significant risk and judged to be so by at least two doctors.

    6. No universal health coverage for euthanasia.

    7. No foreign aid given to countries who abort females simply because they are female.

    March 19, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You simpleton, you've already been asked just how you're going to verify any of the actions you'd exclude from coverage and you couldn't do it. If you can't explain the details of your absurd 'plan', then stop posting it, useless git.

      March 19, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Reality

      The $2 tax is part of the purchase of said toxic product.

      Then there are blood tests for alcohol and other dangerous drugs. You fail the sobriety tests, there goes any kind of health insurance.

      Along with traffic cameras and cell phone records, one can easily determine whether one was using a cell phone during an accident.

      Not using protection during se-x and contracting a STD? If you contract a STD and want universal health care to cover the cost of the anti-biotic, show your sales slips for the purchase of the condoms along with verication from your partner that you used one.

      March 19, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You are an idiot, confirmed. Every one of your 'suggestions' is a violation of HIPAA, you dolt.

      March 19, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How about we test you for IQ, Unreal Stupidity? If you score lower than 120, no health insurance for you.

      How about we view your grocery receipts? If you buy unhealthy food, no health insurance for you.

      How about we test you for genetic predisposition to hypertension, cancer, heart disease, mental illness, and any other malady which is or may be partially related to genes? You have bad genes? No health insurance for you.

      How do you even GET a girlfriend to have s#x with you? You're so damn boring, she probably has to stick herself with a needle to stay awake.

      March 19, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Now wait for it: Unreal Stupidity and Redundant Retard will post some crap about this being a "national crisis" in which the government would be justified in overturning all rights to privacy under HIPAA, just like he did the last time he posted this moronic dreck.

      So, simple Simon, the ends justify the means, do they?

      Then you should have no problem with abortion being legal.

      March 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, and if you haven't been circu mcized, no insurance for you, either.

      Bear any resemblance to that character on Seinfeld, the Soup Nazi? Really Stupid is the Insurance Nazi.

      March 19, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And if your immediate relatives have had breast cancer, no insurance for YOU, either.

      March 19, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • Reality

      "The HIPAA Pr-ivacy Rule recognizes the legitimate need for pu-blic health authorities and others responsible for ensuring pu-blic health and safety to have ACCESS to protected health information to carry out their pu-blic health mission. The Rule also recognizes that pu-blic health reports made by covered ent-ities are an important means of identifying threats to the health and safety of the pu-blic at large, as well as individuals. Accordingly, the Rule permits covered enti-ties to disclose protected health information without authorization for specified pu-blic health purposes. "

      March 19, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And none of the nonsense you posted poses a grave threat to the health and safety of the population as a whole, you bonehead.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • Reality

      from the CDC-2006

      "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

      March 20, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • Mark

      Tom Tom – It seems to me that the only contribution you can offer on this blog is name calling. Consider moving beyond your schoolyard tactics and expanding your vocabulary beyond the use of expletives in each of your posts and perhaps you'll be taken seriously but I doubt it.

      March 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Make me, jit-bag. "Taken seriously"? By a bunch of idiots on an anonymous blog? Do you REALLY think I give a sh!t whether I'm "taken seriously" by morons like you?

      Get a clue.

      March 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
  16. Reality

    The real "Obamacare" i.e. getting re-elected on the backs of 39 million aborted womb babies by using the votes of the 78 million voters involved in said abortions.

    March 19, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Womb babies"? Is that what you call them?

      You're such an idiot, Reality.

      March 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Big Isles

      Reality-Pay no attention to Tom, atleast you are a decent human being that calls them babies. He calls them parasites. Takes one parasite to recognize another.

      March 19, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If you call a clump of cells a "baby", you're simply incorrect. "Baby" is the familiar term for infant, which means it's been born. "Fetus" is the medical term. Not "baby".

      Your attempt to pretend you are in possession of a brain is a failure. Furthermore, I challenge you to find a single post in which I called a fetus a "parasite", you lying POS.

      March 19, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • Reality

      Hmmm, so a growing baby is considered to be nothing more than a clump of cells or blob?

      And it is very disturbing that we give legal protection to the fer-tilized eggs and the developing young of protected animal and ins-ect spe-cies but give no legal protection to our own growing young ones.

      And one more time:

      The reality of contraception and S-TD control: – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

      Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

      The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

      : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill ( 8.7% failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

      Added information before making your next move:

      from the CDC-2006

      "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

      And from:

      Consumer Reports, January, 2012

      "Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-

      Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

      "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

      Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

      The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

      1.One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
      2.Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
      3.The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
      4.Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
      5.IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
      6.Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
      7.Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
      8.Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

      March 19, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      A growing BABY has already been born, you freakin' idiot. A FETUS is not born.

      Get it through your skull, nimrod: Abortion is legal. Nobody needs your permission or approval. You can continue to remain stupid, but don't expect me to pay any heed to you. I don't have to. No woman does.

      March 19, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Intelligent s3x"? You don't have "intelligent" anything, Reality. You're simply a dullard.

      March 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Reality

      "The HIPAA Pr-ivacy Rule recognizes the legitimate need for pu-blic health authorities and others responsible for ensuring pu-blic health and safety to have ACCESS to protected health information to carry out their pu-blic health mission. The Rule also recognizes that pu-blic health reports made by covered ent-ities are an important means of identifying threats to the health and safety of the pu-blic at large, as well as individuals. Accordingly, the Rule permits covered enti-ties to disclose protected health information without authorization for specified pu-blic health purposes. "

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      March 19, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
  17. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    March 19, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Jesus

      You've been proven a liar over and over again on this blog. A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested Friday morning...

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      Plus don't forget. The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!! .. .. ..

      March 19, 2012 at 3:23 pm |
  18. Voice of Reason

    The year is 2012, yet still, left to the agenda of the supernatural we have a society that actually considers negotiating with these freaks. If people would educate themselves and learn how these organizations came about and stunted the growth of science and medicine you will clearly see that these groups could be labeled terrorists. Not too long ago they burned people at the stake for claiming it wasn't God that caused diseases, that was considered a major sin.
    I could go on but I won't, it just blows my mind the low IQ still exisits in a modern world.

    March 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Giancarlo Taliente

      If God doesn't believe in Atheists does that mean they don't exist?

      March 19, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Denise

      Giancarlo, that's a really fukin stupid question, you asshole.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
  19. Joe T.

    Let's settle this once and for all. Religious organizations don't have to pay for the contraception. If you don't want it, don't take it. They aren't forcing members to take it. Tax payers don't have to pay for it as it's private insurance companies that are mandated to have it available. Where is the freakin' controversy? Obama needs to quit trying to compromise for the Catholic church.

    March 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
  20. GodPot

    Hey Catholics, you already pay for the treatment of most STD's in your employee health care benefits, why so angry at contraceptives? Oh, right, you believe it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission...

    March 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • A Candid Look

      Got an idea... how about you buy Sandras Birth Control???

      March 22, 2012 at 1:01 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.