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 • Politics

soundoff (695 Responses)
  1. Rx

    Why don't the employers who do not wish to fund this just work with the insurance companies to make this a "Prior Authorization" prescription? The MD can write the indication on the script, the pharmacy submits the clam to the insurance company and if it for a medical reason they will cover it, if it is for contraception, the patient will have to pay out of pocket. If the MD does not write the indication he/she has to call the insurance company and tell them what it’s for. They do this for other medications. There is no reason for the employee to violate their HIPPA rights to their employer.

    March 17, 2012 at 1:41 am |
    • RillyKewl

      No. Why should she not be allowed the same coverage for contraceptives as everybody else?
      Because her job won't like it? Too bad. This is something all women need. Period.

      Just because you go to this school, or work at that hospital, so what?
      You still need your prescriptions filled. No matter what.
      She pays her premiums, she gets her coverage. Nothing less will do.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:54 am |
  2. Colin

    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,"

    Sister, the calendar year has more or less 365 days of feasts and celebrations for your entire polytheistic pantheon of angels and saints. When would have been a more convenient day for your fingernails to catch on the pavement and slightly delay the progress of the civilized world dragging you kicking and screaming in to the light of modern day?

    March 17, 2012 at 1:36 am |
    • RillyKewl

      That's great that you caught that. Sister is a bit of a beatch.
      I've read her commentary before, and her tone is quite consistent.
      She blogs on huffpo.
      This is from the day they had the spanish inquisition in congress.
      huffingtonpost. com/sister-mary-ann-walsh/amish-ok-catholics-no_b_1334773.html

      March 17, 2012 at 1:49 am |
  3. Bayousara

    Seldom read about the male's responsibility concerning these issues. Our little boys grow up to be big little boys. And I am sick of the newest mantra about Obamacare. His program is a good one and there are people all across America who benefit from it right now. So you think that having a baby is a fair consequence/punishment to an unwanted pregnancy when birth control is not used? I sure hope it doesn't happen to you! That child will be blamed its entire life for your mistakes and for society's reluctance to be reponsible.

    March 17, 2012 at 1:33 am |
    • RillyKewl

      And if you think about all the child abuse, the neglect, the violence + psychological damage that happens all too often. The kids living already, right now, who need to be adopted, where are they to go from here?
      Children having children. How frequently does that ever work out?
      It should be a crime to allow some people to parent at all, much less before they're ready.

      March 17, 2012 at 2:01 am |
  4. RillyKewl

    Oh, and you know what else republicans love? They love to kill babies after they're born. As well as kill their families.
    Then its okay. As long as they're already born + living in somebody else's country. Republicans seem just thrilled to take over countries + kill every civilian in sight. Sometimes they kill journalists too.

    And don't forget, only republican governors kill inmates using capitol punishment. They just love to kill the living.
    Or torture them.

    March 17, 2012 at 1:31 am |
  5. Pray Away the Gay

    Republicans are unbelievable. Their President misleads us into an unnecessary war that costs hundreds of billions and kills or wounds thousands of our kids, and they don't even complain. But try to provide contraception for American women, and they're outraged.

    March 17, 2012 at 1:23 am |
    • RillyKewl

      I think we're up to 4 Trillion now, all told.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:26 am |
    • Pay attention

      The very last place you will find truth is when men use religion to justify their actions.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:28 am |
  6. Kimberley

    I don't like abortion, I compare it to locking the gate after the horse is out of the barn and down the road. However, women MUST have birth control!! It's like what Bill Maher said: some people and the candidates seem to think that "life begins at erection" instead of conception, which is ridiculous!

    March 17, 2012 at 1:14 am |
    • RillyKewl

      Nobody likes it. But it can happen. Everybody gets scared at some point when you realize you're late.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:25 am |
  7. Bobs Friend

    Just because you have a deep and abiding hatred for Christians doesn't mean they loose their rights in the First Amendment.

    That's Freedom

    March 17, 2012 at 1:12 am |
    • RillyKewl

      Do they "loosen" the establishment clause for christians?
      Kinda looks like it.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:22 am |
    • Edwin

      First amendment rights (with regard to religion) apply to WORSHIPPERS of the religion. They do not apply to those who are EMPLOYED by the organization.

      Specifically: the government will make no laws inhibiting your ability to worship, either directly nor indirectly. But the government can and will make some laws concerning who you can employ, what you can require them to do, and what kind of benefits you can legally offer them.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:23 am |
    • Margaret

      A lot of very nice, respectable Christians have used and do use birth control. Not all Christian groups are against all forms of birth control. That being said I don't know why the bishops and others don't want to talk about the women who do need the birth control pills for some very serious issues. If they were in danger of becoming anemic, or in extreme pain every month I bet they would do anything to prevent it. Just because a woman uses birth control does not make her a hore. Millions of women who are your mothers and even grandmothers since the 1960's have taken the pills. You don't want to pay for birth control fine, but don't be a hypocrite and pay for Viagra. However in serious cases of endometriosis, ovarian cysts and others why would anyone deny these women relief.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:42 am |
    • Gezellig

      I don't understand how the 1st amendment applies. Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st amendment applies to individuals, and not to organizations engaged in commercial activity? I meant, the government can, and does, engage in the regulation of commercial speech; another 1st amendment right. If your company invents a pill that they think will help you win the lottery, you are welcome to tell all your friends that you believe that this pill will help you win the lottery. That is your 1st amendment right. But if you are in charge of writing the company's advertisements, the government can prohibit you from making this claim in the company's advertisements. You can't claim this is a violation of your 1st amendment rights, because you are not acting in this case as an individual, but as an agent of the corporation, and the rules governing the corporation apply. Likewise, how can individuals claim that their individual rights to freedom of religion are being violated when they are acting in their capacity as agents of corporations engaged in commercial activity?

      March 17, 2012 at 2:25 am |
  8. RillyKewl

    More War on Women nonsense talk from the party of NO.
    Keep typing rethugs. Just keep on typing...

    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 am |
  9. Roger smith

    no one has to use religious insurance. they can go out and buy some other insurance that will pay for their 15 dollar a month preggy pislls

    March 17, 2012 at 1:05 am |
    • Edwin

      I don't know what country you live in, but in the United States, it is practically impossible to get financially affordable insurance unless it comes from your employer. Your suggestion is useless.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:12 am |
    • Pay attention

      Really, just think about your ignorant argument for a moment! So, YOUR healthcare costs ought to be born by your neighbors, but you support denying women care?

      Religious insurance? What on earth is religious insurance? Buying indulgences so you can get in heaven?

      March 17, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • GodPot

      Religious Insurance: Where you can cause someone bodily injury but not feel liable.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:41 am |
    • Alicia

      Try $50 per month.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:51 am |
  10. David

    In 10 years there will be birth control in our drinking water. Problem solved. Want a baby... don't drink the water.

    March 17, 2012 at 1:00 am |
  11. desertfogz

    I guess Catholic leaderships really don't care whether or not women belong to their organization.

    March 17, 2012 at 1:00 am |
    • Roger smith

      no one has to join a church. if you dont like your church start your own religion its a free country

      March 17, 2012 at 1:06 am |
    • Pray Away the Gay

      Women are second class citizens in the Roman Catholic church. It's amazing that any woman puts up with it.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:11 am |
  12. Elise

    @Doc
    The reason contraception is "special" is because a wide independent study that was recently done indicated that access to contraception is an integral part of "general good health" in the average American family. It was shown to improve the quality of life and well being of both individuals and families. It is also integral to the prevention of financial and physical hardship, and loss of life in both mothers and the potential unborn. It prevents higher insurance costs incurred in prenatal care and birthing services, as well as the state support of unwanted children. As such, it was deemed a reasonable part of "preventative care" along with mammograms, yearly cervical cancer screenings, colonoscopies, and a number of other tests and services. These things apply to the general public, not people with specialized conditions.

    In addition people, contrary to what is bandied about, contraception is exactly that – things which prevent conception. Abortifacients do NOT cause abortions. They are merely a way to prevent ovulation and therefore fertilization. They cannot cause an implanted fertilized fetus to abort. Whoever named these drugs was either an idiot, or someone trying to make a political statement.

    March 17, 2012 at 12:57 am |
    • Roger smith

      if that is so how come my insurance wont pay for my mangnum super large condoms

      March 17, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • Gezellig

      I am confused about some of your points here. You seem to be claiming that contraception is "also integral to the ...preventing the loss of life in.....the potential unborn. " It does so by preventing conception? I suppose so, but seems like an odd point. Also, your statement "Abortifacients do NOT cause abortions. They are merely a way to prevent ovulation and therefore fertilization. They cannot cause an implanted fertilized fetus to abort.". But you are denying some birth control methods are abortifacients by denying they can cause "an implanted fertilized fetus to abort". But those who claim some methods of contraception are abortifacients give it that classification becaue the ending of pregnacy occurs after fertilization. It does not matter to them whether the egg as implanted or not. To them life begins at conception, not implantation.

      March 17, 2012 at 3:11 am |
  13. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    It's too bad that Bob, whoever he is, doesn't beat some sense into his 'friend's' head. Abortion isn't a matter of what you and your stupid religious beliefs approve, you moron. Your beliefs are irrelevant in a secular nation. No one is required to do as you believe is morally 'right'.

    The law counts. The Bible doesn't.

    March 17, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • RillyKewl

      You are correct, Sir.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:09 am |
    • What ACrock!

      The Abortion LAW was founded on a pack of lies and suppression of the true facts, therefore it is worthless. And by the way, the Abortion Mills don't give a tuppeny damn about woomen's health – it's more about being a "business" that rakes in
      $ 500,550,000 per year for the people who carry them out.
      Nice little earner dressed up as "care" Don't ya think?????????

      March 17, 2012 at 1:16 am |
    • Bobs Friend

      @Tom:
      And likewise, no one is required to do what you deem is morally right either, if you ever advocate anything moral at all, which is of course, doubtful.
      Your filthy mouth, rage and sarcasm are the result of your knowledge that killing infants is inherently immoral. You know this, yet you advocate for this evil. repent.
      Jesus said this:
      Matthew 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

      Talking to sinners about righteousness is like throwing an acid on a base.. there might be an explosion.

      Jesus said: Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Boob, you're a moron. My scorn is the result of 2-bit snake-oil salesmen like you telling others what to do with their bodies and their lives because you think your 'god' is the authority of the law. He isn't. You don't have a say, dumbazz.

      March 17, 2012 at 9:34 am |
  14. Pray Away the Gay

    While there is freedom of religion, we aren't obligated to give them tax exempt status and allow them to violate our laws. Let's make them pay taxes like the rest of us, and let's prosecute them for aiding those priests that hurt our children.

    March 17, 2012 at 12:47 am |
    • Indigo

      They aren't OUR laws, they are YOUR laws.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not if you live in this country, do uche.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:53 am |
    • Pray Away the Gay

      So Indigo's laws allow children to be molested, and Tom resorts to name calling. The religious right in all its glory!

      March 17, 2012 at 12:57 am |
    • Bobs Friend

      So: If I and 10 friends pool our money, start a club called "friends of the neighborhood sidewalk", we buy or lease a property to have our meetings, should the "Dues" we pay to maintain our "Club" be taxed?
      Of course not.. you'd have to tax every gathering of people in the United States.

      That's what freedom is.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:05 am |
    • Roger smith

      churches dont have income so there would be nothing to tax. you stupid little man

      March 17, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • Pray Away the Gay

      Goodness Roger, you don't think churches have income? Wow, but you're clueless! The Jesus business is booming.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:09 am |
    • Edwin

      Bobs Friend: if you lease actual property, why do you expect to avoid paying property taxes? Also, if you give speeches at your meetings and collect money from people who listen to your speeches, that is income...

      March 17, 2012 at 1:18 am |
    • Bobs Friend

      The point I'm getting to is how is a church any different from any other non-profit. It is a gathering of people, pooling their resources, and doing what they wish with those resources.

      Just because it has the label "Church" doesn't mean it gets singled out for taxation.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:27 am |
    • GodPot

      "churches dont have income so there would be nothing to tax. you stupid little man" So where did they get the over $600,000,000 they have paid to victims of their abuse?

      "Just because it has the label "Church" doesn't mean it gets singled out for taxation." You are right, just because it's labeled "Church" means it is singled out for a tax exemption, you moron. Which was the original point of "we should tax churches".

      March 17, 2012 at 2:18 am |
    • AGuest9

      That's why all of these churches are popping up in strip malls. It's better than Amway! A tax-free part-time job with all the perks of a small business. Genius!

      March 17, 2012 at 9:42 am |
  15. From the planet Mindroid

    Santorum and the born again religious are right. "Life Begins At Conception." Trouble is, Intelligence begins at birth, So therefore Santorum is right if you want to equate a blade of grass with a human being. I'm going to read to my lawn in the hope of increasing it's collective intelligence. But then intelligence has never mattered to Sanatorum/Palin/Bachmann and the other laugh a minute clods. Ho Boy I just love these loonies. A laugh a minute

    March 17, 2012 at 12:44 am |
    • RillyKewl

      They're all coming out of the same clown car.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:18 am |
    • Ah....wait just a second

      The trouble is, no one can define what "conception" means.

      March 17, 2012 at 11:26 am |
  16. justmeinnj

    Guys (and girls) ... try to remember Ms. Fluke's testimony. This is about healthcare, not contraception. Many women, my girlfriend for one, take the Pill to treat endometriosis, a painful and dangerous condition. Others for ovarian cysts. Should the policy be that if an employer has a moral objection to the treatment, the employee can't use it? Whatever the treatment? The Pill in this case is not for contraception but to control serious conditions. Should these women be denied?

    Here's a concept: if the woman agrees with the employers stance, she doesn't use contraception.

    Does the employer have the right to tell a woman (or man) what treatments she (or he) can utilize to treat a condition that the employer has no knowledge of?

    This isn't about contraception, as much as people want it to be. It's about women's healthcare. Plain and simple. And the right of women (and men) to keep their employer out of their doctor's office.

    And another point that I just don't understand ... The Republican Party wants Government out of your wallet, but into your bedroom, and now, into your doctor's office. Party of personal freedom strikes again.

    March 17, 2012 at 12:42 am |
    • Bobs Friend

      You accuse republicans of getting into your doctors office after the Dems passed Obama Care?

      Huh. Bewildering.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:49 am |
    • RillyKewl

      You are bewildered about the gov't passing laws to force women to have unnecessary, invasive medical procedures against her will? Allowing clerics to weigh in on whether on not she has the right to control her own body?
      What bewilders you about that, Bob?
      Refusing her access to have her own prescription medication covered while she pays her premiums?
      (Oh sorry, that last one isn't the gov't, is it? That is the church mandating that last one, Opps.)

      March 17, 2012 at 1:16 am |
    • What ACrock!

      Good for you Bob. Well said.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:19 am |
    • Alicia

      I agree entirely. My sister and I both take hormonal contraception for severe hormonal imbalances. It's a medication and it should be treated as such.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:56 am |
    • GodPot

      Rush and Bob's friend here just want to imagine all the liberal "s l u t s" banging everything in sight because they get off on it. They don't want to imagine women with real need's taking contraceptives for their own health and well being and taking control of their own lives. They are stuck in a chauvinistic religious theocracy where anyone having s e x without the chance of getting pregnant is interrupting God's plan, though they don't realize that they are saying that their God must be weak and is easily foiled by a few chemicals or a thin piece of latex.

      March 17, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • AGuest9

      I love listening to Boomers crow about "Obamacare". Ahem, what do you think Medicare is?

      March 17, 2012 at 9:45 am |
  17. Doug J.

    Contraception is money well spent. It will reduce the number of abortions as well as the costs associated with unwanted children. Healthcare needs to be separated from employers, so everyone will have equal access regardless of who they work for.

    March 17, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • RillyKewl

      Yup. That would be best.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:19 am |
  18. angryoldguy

    You are all mentally defective! None of you get it! You obviously never will! Fools!

    March 17, 2012 at 12:34 am |
    • Pay attention

      I think insurance covers this guys meds, he just won't take them.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:16 am |
  19. Doc

    Why is contraception special? Under this logic,why shouldn't diabetics get their insulin free? Or people with persistent acid reflux get their purple pills for free? Or how about antibiotics? Or blood pressure medications? What about antidepressants? I mean really, what in the name of Pete makes contraceptives so damn special? I just don't get it. And I don't agree with making one type of medication free while making everyone else pay for theirs. It's not right and it doesn't make sense on top of that.

    March 17, 2012 at 12:34 am |
    • Indigo

      1. Because it "kills" a conceived child and they don't want to pay for someone to have it, and
      2. Pregnancy isn't a disease like diabetes or acid reflux.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • Pay attention

      I can't believe how many people can't grasp basic facts:

      Birth control pills prevent conception, they don't kill a child.

      And no one said it was free, they said it was sink covered by insurance, as for example Viagra has been for years. A totally useless drug allowing crusty ld geezers to operate when they should be long out to pasture. Eeewww.

      Yet their meds were covered and women's healthcare was not. It's that simple. Nobody ask you to pay for anything, anymore than you must pay for someone else's cancer, diabetes or whatever.

      Insurance coverage of a basic health need.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • Alix

      I've got news for you. All those medications are no or low cost in some insurance plans, mine included.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:18 am |
    • Chloe

      My thoughts on why birth control should be covered:
      1. I think everyone left and right can agree that we want the abortion rate to go down. Providing accessible, preventative medication decreases the number of undesired pregnancies, and therefore the number of abortions. I would think that even people who do not morally agree with birth control would see it as 'the lesser of two evils' compared to abortion.
      2. Without insurance, oral contraceptives can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars a year, a burden placed only on women.
      3. It's more financially beneficial for both women and insurance companies to pay for preventative care than for gestation and delivery costs.

      March 17, 2012 at 2:08 am |
    • AGuest9

      You would think that fewer people on welfare would be A GOOD THING.

      March 17, 2012 at 9:47 am |
  20. Bobs Friend

    Sinners:
    We'd prefer and recommend that you do not kill your babies, but please don't ask us to join you in financing it. You want to kill, do it on your own dime will ya?

    March 17, 2012 at 12:30 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      We'd prefer you keep your limp dick in your pants and stop using it to MAKE fetuses in people who don't want to bear them, you moron.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:34 am |
    • Doc

      Well, Tom Tom, the people who don't want fetuses growing inside them or to bear them should keep THEIR legs together! We all know where babies come from – that's not a mystery. You don't magically wake up pregnant.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • Bobs Friend

      @ Tom
      http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/academics-defense-of-infanticide-supported-by-pro-choice-logic/

      Your philosophy is the foundation of The (original) Holcaust and the American Holocaust (abortion)

      Pr 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:41 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yup, you're right, Doc. No one "magically" wakes up pregnant. And no woman gets that way on her own, you moronic fuckhard. Keep your mangey dick in your pants, bub, and no one will need contraception.

      Not that anyone wants you anyhow.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:45 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, look, it's Bob'sturd spouting Catholic vomit yet again. Guess what, dumbbell? You can stick your religious superst it ions up your azz. Nobody is required to abide by them and you aren't authorized to force others to adhere to them.

      March 17, 2012 at 12:47 am |
    • Pay attention

      As the catholic doctrines states once they brainwash you by six, you will always be brainwashed.

      Jesus told you not to build a bridge without taking the expense into account. How is it your doctrine would have you bear and support dozens of children? It is a shame they did not teach you how to read the book they profess to be part of.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:06 am |
    • Pay attention

      Maternity is covered by insurance. If you want to populate the world, do it on YOUR own dime, will ya?

      Same for your cancererous prostate and all your kids doctor visits. Socialism int good when it makes us angry to pay for others choice of lifestyle.

      SUPPORT FREEDOM and pay your own bills! Down with o-care! Up with Consequences!

      March 17, 2012 at 1:15 am |
    • the_golem

      moot point with birth control...

      March 17, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • What ACrock!

      Tom – you're obviously a Liberal, your lack of ability to string a sentence together without abuse proves it! Whether you LIKE it or not, Abortion, Contraception and a large aelderly population will destroy America.
      Look up DEMOGRAPHIC WINTER – then look at the fact that 62% of homes in America DON'T have children and you'll see what I mean.
      Russia is shrinking by 700,000 people a year [like America, Europe and China] so in 23+ years you 'll be more than sorry you didn't have the INTELLIGENCE to have a replacement policy in place!

      March 17, 2012 at 1:30 am |
    • Margaret

      So you are perfectly happy with a woman bleeding so heavy each month she ends up in the ER? Obviously you have no idea what the pain is like when one of those ovarian cysts burst. So instead of a few dollars for some birth control pills, it's thousands for visits to the ER. Better to put her on morphine and vicadin.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:51 am |
    • GodPot

      "We'd prefer and recommend that you do not kill your babies" I'd prefer you knew what you were talking about. Here's a lesson on how oral contraceptives work. If you believe that fooling a woman's system to avoid pregnancy is against your moral code then fine, we'll agree to disagree on the evils of foiling God's plan for every coupling to produce a child, but to claim the pill is abortion is just sad.

      "The birth control pill jumps into this relay system midstream, delivering two key s e x hormones that trick the brain into thinking the body is already pregnant. The pill uses the body's negative feedback system to prevent ovulation and implantation of an embryo, in the same way the hormones provided by the placenta halt the female cycle during pregnancy." – PBS.ORG

      Now if you want to have the real debate of when does a fertilized egg become a human then fine.

      "the court ruled in 1973, the then-current medical technology suggested that viability could occur as early as 24 weeks. Advances over the past three decades have allowed fetuses that are a few weeks less than 24 weeks old to survive outside the woman's womb. These scientific achievements, while life-saving for premature babies, have made the determination of being "viable" somewhat more complicated. As of 2006, the youngest child to survive a premature birth in the United States was a girl born at the Baptist Hospital of Miami at 21 weeks and 6 days' gestational age.
      In comparison to other developed countries, the procedure is more available in the United States in terms of how late the abortion can legally be performed. However, in terms of other aspects such as government funding, privacy for non-adults, or geographical access, some U.S. states are far more restrictive. In Europe, abortion is usually only allowed up to 12 weeks" – Wiki

      March 17, 2012 at 2:00 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Crockpot, you think that you are going to somehow get women to have more kids by removing contraception and abortion from the table?

      AHahhahhhahhahhaa! What a dope.

      March 17, 2012 at 9:38 am |
    • AGuest9

      What ACrock! talks about population control like it's a bad thing.

      March 17, 2012 at 9:50 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
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 with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.