Obama Won’t Take “No” for an Answer, Circumvents the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision

Obama Won’t Take “No” for an Answer, Circumvents the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision July 10, 2015

The victory was brief. Last year’s Supreme Court victory for Hobby Lobby has little meaning today, because the Obama Administration has just circumvented the law to extend contraceptive benefits to all.

And who’s paying for it? Why, you and I, of course, through our tax dollars!

By Bryancalabro (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
By Bryancalabro (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
The case involving the Green family’s Hobby Lobby stores went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court; and last June, the Court ruled that some private companies can be exempted, on religious grounds, from an Affordable Care Act requirement that employer-sponsored health insurance policies must cover contraception. The Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, had objected to providing coverage for the morning-after pill because of their deeply held religious beliefs.

But on Friday, July 10, the Obama Administration issued its final rules for employers who morally object to covering birth control in their health insurance plans; and guess what? There’s an “accommodation” which ensures that all women, unless they work for a place of worship, will still get their free birth control–even if their employers refuse to pay for it.

Here’s how it works: Under the final rule, a for-profit company (such as Hobby Lobby) may still object to covering contraception in its health plan. The company would need to then write a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, stating its objection. HHS will then enlist a third-party carrier to provide birth control coverage at no cost to the employees.

The justification for the accommodation is explained by Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services:

“Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception… At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing women’s access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.”

Why the Government’s Love Affair With Contraception?

But why, one might ask, does this Administration insist–even to tweaking the legislation yet again–on providing free contraception, even and including the morning-after pill?

The cost for birth control pills, according to U.S. News and World Report, ranges from $15 to $50 per month. A cervical cap costs between $15 and $50, and lasts for approximately two years. Condoms are available at some health clinics for free; but even if a couple must pay for them, they typically cost between 20 cents and $2.50 apiece; so a couple who used a condom twice weekly would spend an average of $150/year.

But wait: Isn’t protection against life-threatening diseases more important than the promise of uninhibited sex with no risk of conception?

Apparently not, since there has been no government initiative to assist patients with heart disease or diabetes to pay for their life-saving medications.

Contrast the negligible cost of birth control for the uninsured with the much higher cost for medications to treat life-threatening diseases such as heart disease and diabetes.

  • A 1999 study by the National Institutes of Health showed average monthly medication costs for patients with ischemic heart disease were $104.77 for cardiac medications and $115.54 for noncardiac medications, for a total of $220.31 per month.
  • For diabetes, metformin, the most commonly prescribed and recommended first-line diabetes drug, costs between $4 and $100 per month. A multi-drug regimen, which may be necessary if the first-line drug does not achieve the goal, costs between $200 and $500 or more per month.

This Administration has determined, for some reason, that the single most important health benefit, the one which Americans cannot do without, is free birth control.

So Why Do Catholics and Most Other Pro-Lifers Oppose Some Forms of Birth Control?

The Catholic Church teaches that sex is a great good, but is intended only for married couples (one man and one woman). That’s because the sexual act was created by God with two purposes: the unitive (to bring the spouses closer together) and the procreative (the conception and raising of children in a family). A Catholic who accurately follows the teaching of his/her Church will oppose all forms of birth control, since all interrupt one of the purposes of sexual relationship–namely, the procreative.

Aside from that, though, there is an important distinction between pills which control birth (that is, prevent conception) and those which are abortifacients. Hobby Lobby’s employee benefits package has always included coverage for many different types of birth control, including:

  1. Male condoms
  2. Female condoms
  3. Diaphragms with spermicide
  4. Sponges with spermicide
  5. Cervical caps with spermicide
  6. Spermicide alone
  7. Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
  8. Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
  9. Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
  10. Contraceptive patches
  11. Contraceptive rings
  12. Progestin injections
  13. Implantable rods
  14. Vasectomies
  15. Female sterilization surgeries
  16. Female sterilization implants

Only four types of “birth control” were not covered in Hobby Lobby’s original employee benefit package: Plan B, which is also known as the “morning after pill,” Ella, another emergency contraceptive, Copper Intrauterine Device and IUD with progestin—forms of birth control that can cause abortion by preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum in the wall of the uterus.

Many, even those who disagree with the Catholic Church’s stance on other methods of contraception, agree that intentionally flushing a newly-conceived child down the toilet is wrong.

Catholics and many other Christians look to the Scriptures to find out what God thinks about the unborn child in these earliest moments after conception. In Jeremiah 1:5, God revealed that he had a plan for the prophet Jeremiah from his earliest days–in fact, from before his creation in the womb:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

And in Psalm 139:13-14, the psalmist acknowledges God’s hand in his development, from the earliest moments of conception:

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.

 *     *     *     *     *

Now you can “like” SEASONS OF GRACE on Facebook–so you won’t miss a single article.  

Click here, then click “Like” so we can keep in touch!

"I'll follow you over Kathy. I was probably in more sympathy with your point of ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"If you're at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Thank you, Mrs. Harris! Christmas blessings to you. I hope to see you over at ..."

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow…. My ..."
"Let's defer to the experts (namely, the tract writers (tractors?) at Catholic Answers) for a ..."

Heaven Is For Real: Secrets Colton ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Re Ja

    The reason contraception is free is because the HHS, with the cooperation of the Institute of Medicine in creating new guidelines, very cleverly declared it to be ‘preventive’ health care. This despite the fact that preventive care has always meant disease prevention/mitigation, not prevention of normal bodily function. Preventive care is often free or very low cost under insurance coverage and this is how they get away with pushing free contraception while doing nothing to help with the medication cost for actual disease. It is the only preventive care guideline that seeks to prevent normal functioning of the body. All others seek to prevent actual disease or allow for early detection. Lumping contraception under preventive care is as much of a corruption of the meaning of preventive as ssm is a corruption of the meaning of marriage. Progressivism has no respect for truth only for their agenda.

    • Rob B.

      What is their agenda, Re Ja? What are they hoping to accomplish?

      • Deo Credo

        I would assume one would need to be a part of the decision process to know with certainty what the goal is. My guess would be to undermine the last major institution that stands up against the anything goes agenda. The church hasn’t bent knee to contraceptives or the gay agenda. Pushing contraceptives really only bothers the church as most other faiths seem to bow to popularity…divorce, contraception, etc. The insane push to make contraception free has to have some ulterior motive. As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comnents, it is already very affordable so it isn’t an economic motive. Serious preventive medical care isn’t free nor is there a push for it to be so it isn’t a kind and loving concern for people’s health. The administration sure works hard at this one point which is only a bone of contention with one institution. I detect an odor of rotten cheese wafting from denmark.

        • Rob B.

          The economic consequences will eventually be devastating. It’s always confused me how the political party most insistent on expanding and preserving the social safety net is also so supportive of lowering the birth rate that makes that safety net economically viable in the long term. It’s like they are slitting their own throats very slowly…

      • Re Ja

        It’s the culture of death Rob B and the devil is always behind the curtain manipulating the puppets.

        • Rob B.

          It just seems so insane. I guess I can’t fathom why a government would push this so hard…

  • RAnn

    I think contraception is in there for a couple of reasons. First, despite the Catholic moral objections, most people in this country do see contraception as preventative care; a way of maintaining the health of women. Unfortunately, countries with the least access to contraception tend to those most hostile to women’s rights and tend to have high maternal/child mortality. I know there are a lot of involved factors but when you start hearing talking points, those are two you hear.

    The second reason IMO is political and related to support for the ACA. Whether we like it or not, the main interaction most young adults (under 35) have with the healthcare system is either for other people (their parents or kids) or relating to reproduction. Those same young adults are the ones health insurers want on their rolls because they don’t go to the doctor, take meds etc. Many of those young adults are eligible for highly subsidized plans under the ACA but still have to put out (for them) substantial premiums since the ACA does not allow policies to be priced such that the young pay substantially less than the old. To keep these people in the ACA fold, they have to think they get something for those premium dollars and since their main healthcare expense is birth control, allowing insurers or employers to opt out would cut the number of those folks who support the system.

    • Gail Finke

      Your second point is a good one, I had never thought of that. The first is true, as far as it goes, but the question is why did it suddenly become the business of the government to ensure women had them for free? That was not the case previously, and no one was clamoring for it. The strange idea that it became a “right” overnight puzzles me. I think that because it was proposed as a right and some people — very rightly, IMHO — opposed it, people suddenly felt that women were being denied something. This is not the case (you can’t deny something that someone never actually had) but it does seem to explain the outsized emotional reaction many people expressed.

      • RAnn

        Again, taking the moral aspect out of it, if you are going to require that everyone have health insurance, you have to define health insurance, a minimum slate of benefits. Otherwise you have a rule without teeth since I could offer you a $20/month health insurance plan that pays for one doctor visit a year or some such thing. What should be covered by heath insurance? On the one hand, birth control is a relatively inexpensive routine expense. Running expenses like that through a health insurer doesn’t make economic sense. But then you could say the same thing for many medications people take on a routine basis–the kind Sam’s sells for $4.00/month. Should they not be covered either? I wrote about my thoughts on covering birth control here: http://rannthisthat.blogspot.com/2014/07/my-two-cents-on-hobby-lobby-case.html

        • me, myself & I r all here

          You can never take the moral aspect out of it…. Wouldn’t you know that the countries that have the lowest birth rate, the highest abortion rate, the highest suicide rate are….. Wait for it….. The so-called advanced cultures that are seeing their history & their future disappear….

  • Bicycle Girl

    Simply put, birth control costs far less than an abortion and breeding more useless, unnecessary parasites onto this overpopulated planet. For once, something this administration has done that I agree with.

    • kathyschiffer

      “Useless, unnecessary parasites”? Do you mean “People”?!

      What a terrible, terrible way to view the world. God bless you.

      • Bicycle Girl

        It is terrible when there’s 7+ billion folks on Earth and yet, there’s no shortage of brick dumb breeders who think this planet’s resources are infinite and continue to hump more and more of us into existence. We need less babies being born, Ms. Schiffer, not more. God did not say “go forth and breed yourselves into extinction”. He gave us brains to use. Sadly, far too many choose to use their uterus instead. There is nothing you could possibly say or do to erase the fact that it is far more responsible and gratifying being part of the solution, instead of a contributor to the problem.

        • Anthony

          To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton: Are willing to be considered among the “surplus” population?
          Catholics happen to believe that the super-abundant resources of this world are a sign of the infinite blessings of the Creator, one of which is the gift of existence, which for man begins at the moment of conception. This is why, in civilized cultures, contraception has always been considered to be obscene. Child-rich, stable, and faithful families are a precious gift to society. Let’s encourage and support such families, rather than siding with the Evil One.

          • Bicycle Girl

            And to paraphrase what I said, Tony….I never said ANYTHING about the already born. I said we need to PREVENT more babies from being born. You DO know the difference between PREVENTING more babies from being born and advocating genocide and/or suicide for those of already in existence, don’t you?

            Catholics can believe whatever they want. Science tells us that our planet’s resources are not unlimited and not infinite. Therefore, if the whole lot of them would prefer to keep their heads stuck in the sand, ignoring real, hard data and instead, choosing to believe in some fairytale where everyone is happy and there’s an abundance of everything, that is really THEIR problem. For the rest of us of all religious backgrounds, who are using their God-given brains, we see the writing on the wall. So I revert back to my original statement….we need LESS babies being born at all costs….lest you want them all slaughtering each other in 50-100 years from now over access to drinkable water. If you don’t believe me, just look out west. It has already begun in California. The powers that be do not want to invest in desalinization because it “costs too much”. Of course, they always have billions to squander on weapons of war, but such is the vileness of human nature and folks like yourself and Ms. Schiffer above are saying there needs to be more of us vile creatures infesting this planet. With so much overpopulation, only an uncivilzed culture would advocate such rampant breeding and irresponsibility. Both of you need to get a clue.

          • Anthony

            So, would the world be better off, would you be better off,
            if you, B.G., were among the PREVENTED?
            I think not… despite your apparent selfishness and pessimistic narrow-mindedness, your existence remains a gift.
            Actually, scientifically speaking, never before in world
            history have more people enjoyed more prosperity than in the present. People bring prosperity and human ingenuity
            increases the resources of this world almost limitlessly from our point of view. All of which points to the fact that God is Infinite and wills that all people of all time be saved. He’s got room in Heaven for everyone. Even for you, B.G… provided you stop opposing Him! God bless you.

          • Bicycle Girl

            That is the typical retort when breeders are faced with facts. No amount of human ingenuity can create unlimited resources for an infinitely growing population, just as had I never been born, what difference would it have made other than having one less consumer on the planet? How would I have even known any better had I never been born? So because I’m realistic and my opinions are rooted in fact, I’m selfish and pessimistic? I apologize if facts don’t corroborate your misguided beliefs.
            Again, scientifically speaking, this planet has limited, finite resources which cannot indefinitely sustain an exponentially growing population. It’s odd that you dismiss the water shortage already beginning to rear it’s ugly head out west in California. I’m sure that has absolutely nothing to do with too many people consuming very limited amounts of water….
            Only we can “save” ourselves but unfortunately, it’s in our nature to destroy ourselves.
            As for “room in Heaven for everyone”, that might be the case. Here on Earth, however, there is not enough room for everyone. How short-sighted and narrow-minded of you to turn a blind eye to this fact.

          • Gail Finke

            I think you are a troll, but in case you’re not… let us know when you volunteer to go live in Bangladesh with the poorest of the poor to assuage the guilt of your existence. They could use some help and as you are so perspicacious about how horribly selfish the people of North America and Europe are, I don’t see why you should spend one more moment being such a terrible person.

          • Bicycle Girl

            I feel zero guilt about my existence and why would I? None of us asked to be born. Furthermore, as a woman who has chosen not to contribute to the problem, I’m already doing my part to offset the damage cause by people like you.
            And pray tell, where did I single out people in North America and Europe as being “horribly selfish”?

        • Linda

          Bicycle girl: Mankind is suffering from underpopulation, but robotic ignoramuses who listen to overpopulation propaganda without one minute of research to inform themselves of the actual data, simply parrot ad nauseam totally erroneous and invented “information”.

          Underpopulation is already affecting society in dozens of countries, and those countries are actually paying their citizens to have more children. When a society is healthy, there are more people born than die every year, but so many societies are dying out because of underpopulation.

          There’s plenty of resources throughout the earth to feed 7 billion people, but corrupt, greedy governments, including Communists and most Third World governments, steal from their citizens, taking contributions of food, medicines, clothing, etc, intended for the poor.

          It’s not that there’s too many people. It’s that there are too many thieves and selfish, genocidal tyrants.

          One more thing: calling human beings “brick dumb breeders” convicts YOU of your filthy, prideful, repulsive arrogance than it does of people who love having and caring for God’s greatest gift to the human race: children.

          Your parents must be really proud of having the likes of you for their child.

          • Bicycle Girl

            Yes, it must be UNDERpopulation that’s to blame for the fact that there’s simply not enough jobs to go around for everyone. It must be UNDERpopulation that’s created the need for genetically modified Frankenfoods because farmers can no longer produce the yields necessary to feed billions of mouths without some sort of “assistance”. It must be UNDERpopulation that’s to blame for the shortage of water out in California.

            I agree. There are far too many thieves and tyrants in this world. That’s why human kind needs to stop breeding them into existence. The less people, the better quality of life for everyone.

            I apologize if my characterization of those who can’t see beyond the borders of their bedroom door offends you. Perhaps if you tried using your brain, instead of your uterus, you too, would be outraged by the ignorance displayed by those who proudly parade their breeding mistakes around and expect me to “ooh” and “ahh” over them…

            Children are not “gifts” from God. They are the end result of having unprotected sex. If you wish to “care” for children, why not adopt one of the millions who already need a good home? Why is it you breeders are incapable of loving a child if it’s not of your own DNA? I’ll tell you why. It’s because you’re so enamored with yourselves that you mistakenly believe your precious DNA simply must live on. Newsflash for you sweetheart…you are not special, nor is your DNA and your offspring are probably just your below average rug rats who are nothing more than fodder for the wheel of capitalism….just future consumers and taxpayers to continue the ponzi scheme of social security and other social programs….nothing more than mere generators of revenue for the thieves in power to use for their own agendas.

            So sit back and keep telling yourself that children are “gifts” from God. They say ignorance is bliss so I’ll leave you to bask in it.

            My parents are both DEAD, you insensitive bitch

          • Will

            You do not need to insult people. You only hurt your cause.

          • Linda

            Will: Funny, you ignore Bicycle Girl’s vile, hateful, blasphemous, repugnant, vulgar comments, but chide me for standing up for truth. Wow.

          • Bicycle Girl

            What truth would that be Linda? That we’re UNDERpopulated?! LOL!!! That is one heck of an imagination you’ve got girlfriend….

          • Linda

            Oh really, Bicycle Girl? Have you ever read a book in your life? Have you ever done one iota of research on population? Or do you just sit around with your tie-dye, jobless hippie friends smoking dope and recycling uneducated, sophomoric mantras about mother earth, tree -hugging, and the evils of the existence of human beings?

            In fact, underpopulation is a reality and maybe abysmally uneducated leftists like you prefer to stick your heads in the sand to avoid seeing the stark reality before you.

            I’ve got an imagination, huh? Well, why don’t you tell the leaders of the countries who are paying their citizens to have 3 and 4 children per family, because they know the underpopulation bomb is here and is already affecting society. All societies are aging, without young people to replace them. The financial and economic impact of underpopulation will be devastating.

            Yeah, I just made that up. There’s really no evidence of underpopulation. NOT. You know what’s funny? i just stated facts that are oh, so easy to access, but people like you who hate the truth simply refuse to do so much as one second of research.

            Keep living in your Godless world of fantasy, honey. When reality hits you, you’ll wish you were prepared.

          • Bicycle Girl

            Yes, I’ve read many books in my life, but I suspect you’re more into the “50 Shades of Grey” variety of reading since there is not one iota of truth or fact in the rest of your post…which makes the rest of your rant sound loonier than you probably are.

            I AM prepared darling. Got my trusty .45, my off-road vehicle and stockpiles of food and water, none of which I’m prepared to share with breeders like yourselves since you are the ones bringing about our extinction.

          • Linda

            Uh, you’re bringing about your own extinction, DARLING. Anyone who hates the thought of having children has already sealed his/her extinction.

            Food and water are great. But they can’t replace human offspring. That’s called Nature, kiddo.

            As for “not one iota of truth or fact” about underpopulation, how do you account for the thousands upon thousands of sociologists, environmental scholars (real ones, not tree-huggers), scientists, presidents and prime ministers, governors, anthropologists (do I have to go on?) who, by simple arithmetic, confirm the REALITY of the global devastation of too few people on the planet, and the catastrophic consequences of this crisis in the next generation and beyond?

            The fact is: tunnel-visioned anti-human ideologists such as those of your ilk, hate truth, because that truth convicts you of your own perverted beliefs–therefore, you must demonize that which is true and beautiful because you can’t handle the fact that your world vision is skewed, destructive, and nihilistic.

          • Bicycle Girl

            Uh, with 7+ billion people, the handful of us out there smarter than your household roach know that we aren’t going to go extinct from underpopulation, In fact, I would most definitely like to see what these “thousands of sociologists, environmental scholars (real ones, not tree-huggers), scientists, presidents and prime ministers, governors, anthropologists” all have to say about the fact that there are too few jobs and too many people all vying for them, creating an economic vortex that’s crippling the country. The influx of illegals (who are breeding out of control), infesting our country, driving the cost of wages down to the point where they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. I wonder what these same folks have to say about GMO’s…I would like to hear their expert opinions on why we need to have cancer-causing Frankenfoods and call it a food supply. It must be because there’s too few people on Earth…yeah…that’s it. And of course, the water rationing that’s going on in California is definitely not attributed to too many people consuming too much water. Nope. That has nothing to do with it, I’m sure of it. It must be UNDERpopulation that’s fueling these phenomenon.
            Well….what are you waiting for? You breeders need to get yourselves humping and bumping and FAST! We’re all going to go extinct from too few people on the planet!!! The sky is falling, Chicken Little! Run off and breed as many parasites as you can as quickly as you can!

          • Giacomo

            They’re obviously trying to bring out the worst in others so try not to let them get you down. Quite ironic you should be deemed insensitive, that. But I feel sadness for one so cynical and hopeless. Though I may be considered by them a useless, unnecessary parasite since I was born abnormal, with memory problems from NDE and being kept alive by machines going on 20 years, this doesn’t bother me.
            “LORD, my heart is not proud; nor are my eyes haughty. I do not busy myself with great matters, with things too sublime for me. Rather, I have stilled my soul, like a weaned child to its mother, weaned is my soul. Israel, hope in the LORD,
            now and forever.” (Ps131)
            Your original post echoes, in part, Laudato Si. I have wondered what these chemicals are doing to us through the water supply. Oh well, I hope the smart figure it all out. I shall stick to what I know; praying for this, these and thee. God bless you and give you peace.

          • Linda

            Giacomo: i used to work as a nurse in a NICU for a few years. I always wondered why the most helpless and vulnerable babies, the ones who needed so much more TLC and physical care than the other, more healthy babies, are considered by society as not as “worthy” than those born supposedly “normal”.

            Being more needy is a trait given by God to bring out the empathy and compassion of others. Giving love and special care to a “special needs” child is the most Godlike thing a human being can do! The child with special needs gives so much to the mother and father–and other caregivers–and in turn, the parents and siblings, caregivers, etc. who give of themselves are benefitting by increasing their own heavenly crown of glory!

            God has created you, Giacomo, as His special child! I can tell that you are a saint just by the little bit you wrote about yourself and how you’ve given your disability to the Lord in your humility.

            I, and all of us, could learn a lot about God and holiness, from you, Giacomo! May God bless your beautiful heart!

          • Giacomo

            I’m not comfortable being called saint when I know I’m yet a sinner, dependent on God’s grace and mercy, but thank you for your kindness and prayers of blessing, Linda. I like what you’ve written about those born with special needs. It is as our Lord says, ‘so that the works of God might be made visible through’ these. (cf Jn 9:3) God bless, and be careful… the internet is, for many, only a means to express a cruelty that is otherwise veiled.

          • Linda

            Thank you, Giacomo, for your words of wisdom and warning. You are a very special person. Yes, I’ll say it again! You are a saint! Please pray for me, as I will pray for you!

        • Annie

          If the dumb breeders didn’t have Uncle Sugar as daddy giving them all sorts of welfare, taken from the productive, and had to actually work in order to eat, I guarantee you that they would be having fewer, if any, kids. Look at any inner city where kids are having kids, no daddies, and you’re being made to pay for their upkeep. Birth control is cheap and readily available. It’s $8/month at taxpayer subsidized Planned Parenthood. It’s $9/month at Walmart. If you feel you need to curb breeding, reach into your own pocket and pay for it yourself….and quit voting for politicians all too happy to increase the number of state fed and vaccinated pets.

          • Bicycle Girl

            It is far cheaper to pay for their birth control than to pay for their breeding mistakes. Either way you look at it, taxpayers are on the hook for these expenses.

          • HigherCalling

            Contraception, or more accurately, the mindset that accompanies contraception, is the cause of more abortions. The legality of abortion (not to mention the absurd plausibility of its legality), followed inevitably by massively increasing rates of abortion, would not be possible outside of a contraceptive culture. So in the liberal utopia, taxpayers are on the financial hook for the initial utopian mistake (contraceptive sex), and for the astronomical economic, social, and moral expenses gushing forth from the utopian conclusion: the Culture of Death.

          • Bicycle Girl

            Actually, if you bothered to do any research, you’d see abortion rates are actually falling again for the sixth straight year in a row, due in part, to women having better access to birth control.
            Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what you forced birthers WANT? LESS abortions? Well, OK. It’s happening and it’s happening, in part, thanks to contracpetives. So, would you rather make birth control expensive, out of reach and outlaw certain methods to satisfy your warped holier-than-thou attitude, OR would you prefer to have less babies being “killed”, as your kind so aptly calls it? Because you can’t have it both ways. Either you support taxpayer funded birth control (including abortion) or you support paying for more illegitimate parasites being born. Since none of us can pick and choose how our taxes are used, nor can we opt out of paying them, you can safely assume that your tax dollars are definitely paying for someone’s birth control or someone’s abortion. Having said that, I;d rather be paying for the far cheaper choice, which is birth control. However, somehow, I get the sneaking suspicion that you forced birthers don’t want women to have access to birth control OR abortion. In fact, I don’t believe for one moment you forced birthers give a damn about any unborn child. You just can’t stand the thought of women having sex for pleasure’s sake only. It drives you all mad when women can behave as men, but the hypocrisy of it all is, women don’t get pregnant on their own, so if you’re suggesting women abstain from sex in order not to get pregnant, that’s fine by me, but the gentlemen will probably not take kindly to such a solution.

          • onewaytoheaven

            We are not the fodder of some person’s mistake nor are we the sum of worth dictated by some person’s motivations. Here is where you are mistaken all along the way in your comments that I have read here. Your thinking will flow along the path you are on ever more determined, ever more entrenched as long as it flows in a lie. So who can “argue” with you, where is clear reasoning? There are many that believe in “lies” and I am sure you agree that there are. The real debate here is what is Truth? So I only challenge you to seek the Truth, just as we all are who really want Truth for the simple reason that Truth is there to be had and even beyond our finite reasoning and a lie is only the default of all the misery and imperfection you clearly are seeking a solution. May God redirect you on a path of Truth. God Bless.

          • Bicycle Girl

            Your post reminds me of the “X-Files”…”the truth is out there”.

            Which “Truth” are you suggesting I seek out? The one where unbridled breeding is the will of God?

          • onewaytoheaven

            “which Truth”… Truth is not subjective, if it was it would no longer be Truth. Truth is worth seeking because it is infinite, it does not change, that is the “stuff” of Truth.

          • Bicycle Girl

            Does this “Truth” of which you speak of say man should go forth and breed himself into extinction?

          • me, myself & I r all here

            Poor thing, research, do some fact finding & you might realize, but I doubt it, that the over population myth died with the “scientists” who told us that New York City would be under feet of water by 2011…. Still waiting…. On to bicycle my way to birth control paradise where all will be enslaved further by the lie that it helps ….

          • Bicycle Girl

            Tell that out to the folks in California. I’m sure that “myth” is really hitting home for many of them but I’m sure it has nothing to do with too many people consuming a limited resource. Nah….that would have nothing to do with it. Peddle off then with your three selves.

          • Rob

            Bicycle Girl, I will not live in fear. Yes, there is a lot of selfishness that gives rise to a lot of pain, abuse, and exploitation. But I believe that Jesus has the power to call individual human persons beyond their selfishness. I believe that he has redeemed us and that he can heal those who have been hurt or left out.
            Pope Francis has already said much about overconsumption. His solution was not less people, but rather less consumption – which is difficult to do. You really, really need to read Laudato Si! It can be found here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

            Please ignore the rest of my post.

            To the original article itself: It seems to me that it is within the legitimate authority of the federal govt. to pay for contraceptives. I might not like it; I strongly disagree with their reasoning behind it; and I think it will do more harm than good (we will have to agree to disagree on this point). At the end of the day, though, the govts position does honor the beliefs of Hobby Lobby.
            To your more immediate post: Suggesting that men abstain from sex is exactly what I would propose – outside of marriage anyways. The demands of chastity apply equally to men and to women. I don’t think women behaving like men is a good thing because I don’t think men behaving like men is a good thing – at least in the context that you imply. I’m of the opinion that widely available contraception reinforces the idea of using women (or men) as playthings without any responsibility or mutual concern rather than engaging and honoring one another as human beings.
            Personal note #1: I do not intend to have children and therefore choose to abstain from sex. However, it’s not because I view people or children as parasites. I believe every child is a gift (with crosses as well as joys to be sure). I see my decision of abstinence as a special call and gift from God.
            Personal note #2: It pains me when you refer to people as “parasites” or as “breeders” rather than as flesh and blood persons. I find it very demeaning.

          • Bicycle Girl

            In order for there to be less consumption, there needs to be less people, Rob, unless you think that somehow, people will obey rationing and of natural resources. And since, as you admitted, it is very difficult to curb consumption, it is far easier to breed less people. Your assertion that unmarried people should not engage in sex is not only absurd but impossible to enforce. And what would the punishment be exactly? Forced sterilization? I’m all for that! Instead of wishing we lived in a perfect world, we must live in reality and accept that no one is going to live their lives according to others’ ideologies.

      • Kurt S. Paulsen

        she means ‘people whose beliefs differ from hers’

    • garbul

      How’s Nazi Germany working out for you?

      • Bicycle Girl

        Nazis killed those already born…Jews, in particular. History isn’t your strong suit, huh?

        • garbul

          Ooh, getting feisty! And what drove the Nazis to murder the Jews (and the disabled, and the homosexuals, and the Communists, and the Catholics, and, and…)? I’ll give you a hint, it’s called ideology. The Nazis considered these groups parasites. The unborn are simply another group.

          • Bicycle Girl

            Ideology? Oh, you mean like trying to tell others how they should behave according to YOURS?

          • garbul

            If my “ideology” is religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment, then yes. No one is preventing women from receiving reproductive care—this is quite clearly about the government testing the limits of its power.

          • Bicycle Girl

            Likewise, my ideology says I have the right to freedom FROM religion as well. The pendulum swings both ways. And your religious freedom isn’t being violated in the least. Some anonymous woman getting her birth control doesn’t impact your life in the least and it doesn’t prevent you from going to church, or confession or praying or partaking in the sacraments. Come to think of it, birth control pretty much has zero affect on your ability to practice your religion which makes the argument all the more silly.

            “No one is preventing women from receiving reproductive care”
            …..you mean, unless they work at Hobby Lobby or other corporations who have “sincerely held religious beliefs”. The same ones who manufacture their products in China, a country which practices forced abortions. HL is also a major investor in a company that manufactures IUD’s…a device which they claim, *snicker* causes abortions….*snicker* (forgive me…I have to hold back from giggling whenever I remember that there’s still cavemen who exist in 2015 who have zero knowledge about science or biology, and want to make legislation based on complete and utter lies.) Kinda hard to take such glaring hypocrisy seriously. These kinds of slippery slopes lead to all kinds of messy outcomes which is why the government stepped in and gave that ruling the middle finger….and rightfully so. No employer should be able to tell you what medical care you can or cannot get.

          • garbul

            I see you updated your comment. How, exactly, would you know if my religious freedom was being violated in the first place? It’s kind of absurd that you would claim to know my conscience. So let’s settle for something more basic, like the verifiable tenets of the Christian faith. The aspects you mention (going to church, the Sacraments) are merely one aspect of faith. I am referring to the Great Commission. One would not be much of a Christian if they did not seek to spread the Gospel, as Jesus commanded. So, even if you have no religious inclination, these are basic facts you’d learn in any World Religion class. With me so far? The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It doesn’t say “only within the four walls of your house of worship” does it?

            Is the World Health Organization a “caveman”? If so, those darned cavemen should stop classifying hormonal contraceptives as carcinogens. It’s getting kind of annoying!

          • Bicycle Girl

            Some anonymous woman getting her birth control does not violate your religious freedom…that’s how I know your religious freedom hasn’t been violated in the first place.

            There are those who don’t believe in your tenets of the Christian faith. Should they be bound to follow them simply because you say they must? The Constitution doesn’t say you can impose your religion upon others. I think you must be confused about what “free exercise of religion” means. It doesn’t mean you can force others to follow your beliefs.

            Who said anything about the WHO? We are talking about Hobby Lobby here….let’s try and stick to the topic, shall we?

          • garbul

            No one is forcing you to work at Hobby Lobby, just like no one is forcing me to work at Planned Parenthood.

            Your argument would make a whole lot more sense if there were no other places for women to receive contraceptive “care”. Factually, though, it’s not true; Plan B can even be obtained from Amazon.com, of all places.

            The government’s case lost in the Supreme Court because their claim is just weak, plain and simple. It’s not a “Yes” or a “No”; the SC weighed the claims of the government (“Suzie Q can’t get her birth control and evil Hobby Lobby is trying to stop her!”) against the religious freedom claim (“The government is forcing us to violate our deeply held religious beliefs!”) and religious freedom won.

            Why can’t proponents of birth control such as yourself just respect the basic freedoms we’re all entitled to?

          • Bicycle Girl

            Just as soon as employers stop covering Viagara, I will share those sentiments. So long as their is a double standard, you can look in the mirror to see what hypocrisy looks like….unless somehow, women are getting pregnant all by themselves….

          • garbul

            Haha. Just for the record, I don’t think they should cover that either. 🙂

          • Bicycle Girl

            See? We’re not that different, you and I….

          • Korou

            Sorry to butt in – but you don’t think that the huge well of anti-semitism that Hitler tapped into might have had anything to do with the Catholic Church preaching for centuries that Jews were Christ-killers, do you?

          • Rob B.

            Actually, the Church was sometimes the only protection Jews had from pogroms in the Middle Ages. Of course, you’ll never hear this in a history class nowadays; you actually have to read books and primary source documents.

          • Korou

            By all means let’s have an objective view of history. It’s quite true that, throughout history, the Catholic Church has done a great deal of good, including protecting Jews from persecution. Which doesn’t mean that they didn’t also contribute to that persecution, both directly and indirectly. And if you’re asking what the cause of anti-Semitism in Europe was it’s a simple fact that a large part of the answer is “Christianity.”

          • Uncle Dave

            And sometimes the Church was the persecutor as well. So probably one actually has to read additional books and other primary documents to overcome confirmation bias.

          • garbul

            So basically you are saying two things:

            1. “Preaching” i.e. alleged preaching of anti-semitism by Catholic priests, presumably during the homily (Mass)

            2. “Anti-semitism” present in the Mass itself, in particular during Easter

            As for your first point, do you have any examples or is this just a generalization? Many Catholic priests lost their lives in the Holocaust alongside the Jews. An excellent book on this topic (first-hand account) is Priestblock 25487, which was also made into a film.

            Additionally, the Church formally celebrates those among her ranks who defied the Nazis, in the canonization of Saints Maximilian Kolbe (starved and murdered in Auschwitz) and from the laity St. Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian and conscientous objector who was also murdered by the Nazis.

            It is true that the Easter liturgy, in particular, includes a prayer for the conversion of the Jews. I would not consider it anti-semitic, personally. After all, the Catholic Easter liturgy is really the Catholic Passover.

            Do you have any specifics or is your argument purely stereotype/generalization?

          • Korou

            No, actually I’m not saying either of those two points.
            What I’m saying is “read history”. It’s really not a point that can be contested. European anti-semitism is largely – though not entirely – due to Christian teachings.
            If you need a brief refresher in history wikipedia has a perfectly acceptable summary:
            As you look through them you will certainly note Catholics doing good to Jews as well as persecuting them. But if you’re asking why Hitler was able to get the German people to hate Jews so much it was because there was a long history of German and European anti-Semitism; and if you ask where it came from, the answer is “Christianity”.

          • garbul

            You don’t do yourself much credit by suggesting Wikipedia. Are you kidding? I’m laughing out loud at how ridiculous it is to suggest that I “read history” by going to an open-source encyclopedia that is neither vetted by academia nor verified for any kind of accuracy, other than what a self-appointed community of librarians finds worthwhile.

            Your second link is also ridiculous. The author, Jerry Darring, is a retired high school teacher with no tenure at any academic institution. But, if you’re really interested in the man’s opinion, I guess you can read about his life in his self-published CreateSpace book, “Jerry: Reflections on My Life”.

            Anti-semitism existed before the dawn of Christianity. I suggest you read some history yourself.

          • Korou

            I’m sorry – I overestimated your knowledge of history. The history of anti-semitism within the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations is well known and clearly documented. I didn’t realise you were so ignorant that you’d consider it worth debating, once you’d been reminded of your history by a couple of quick overview documents.
            The statement “anti-semitism existed before the dawn of Christianity” is irrelevant to the question of how much Christianity contributed to it, but it does go to show that you don’t know what we’re talking about here.
            Just to be clear – are you seriously suggesting that Christianity did not contribute to European anti-semitism?

          • garbul

            I’m not disputing that Christians throughout the centuries have made anti-semitic remarks, edicts and canonical laws. I was originally making the point that Nazi ideology considered many groups—the Jews, but also Catholics, Communists, etc.—parasites, because “Bicycle Girl” suggested that the unborn are parasites. What I am saying to YOU is that blaming Nazi ideology on Christianity is dangerous and wrong. The Nazis used existing anti-semitism to their advantage, but you seem to be suggesting that Christianity as a whole is to blame for the Holocaust.

          • Korou

            No, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that the German tradition of anti-semitism was largely to blame for the holocaust and that Christianity was largely to blame for this tradition.
            I’m not sure I see anything dangerous or wrong about recognising accepted history.

          • garbul

            Judging by your other posts, you’re severely biased against the Church. That’s fine, but if you’re jumping in it would be polite to disclose something of your personal bias. Your version of accepted history is clearly going to be different from my own, scholarship aside.

          • Korou

            Apologies if you feel it was necessary for me to state that I am an atheist. Generally I prefer not to do so because people react out of their own prejudices rather than to the facts presented. It’s worth noting that there are plenty of Catholics who would say the same thing about Church history.

          • Uncle Dave

            Don’t forget the Protestant screeds against Jews either.

          • Korou

            Quite true.

          • Uncle Dave

            Well the Catholics certainly have blood on their hands too. Both in the middle ages and during WWII in collaboration with the Nazis. So I don’t think the Nazi argument is very apropos in this context.

  • islandbrewer

    … forms of birth control that can cause abortion by preventing implantation of the fertilized ovum in the wall of the uterus.

    *sigh* Not this tired trope, please.

    A woman becomes pregnant when an embryo implants within the uterine tissue – prior to that, she is not pregnant. An abortion is a termination of pregnancy. Prior to implantation, a woman can’t have an abortion because she’s not pregnant. But, of course, these are trivialities that get in the way of your narrative.

    Let’s just go with how you define “abortion” for now, shall we?

    You may want to consider the fact that a startling number of fertilized eggs never lead to implanted embryos but are just flushed out the vagina and never implanted. Under your definition of abortion, these would be considered abortions. The women most likely to have a high number of these fertilized eggs that don’t implant are those using Natural Family Planning, a method approved by your RCC.

    Thus, women using NFP methods probably have more abortions, under your unique medical definition of abortion, than those women using condoms or even estrogen (which makes ovulation regular, leading to a narrower window in which an egg might get fertilized).

    • Ruth Curcuru

      that tired trope is important to those who believe life begins at conception. Perhaps the medical definition of pregnancy is different, but there are people who are perfectly fine, morally, with preventing conception but do not want to interfere with human life, once conceived. As far as those natural conceptions that are naturally never implanted, they would be very early miscarriages, or, to use a more medical-sounding term, early spontaneous abortions.

      • James Patton

        “to those who believe life begins at conception.”
        What is the state before conception?

        • Ryan Mayer

          The state of what? The individual gametes? They are individual gametes, not whole human beings.

          • Therese

            Gametes, sperm and ovum, are not what is aborted. But once those gametes (LIVING, haploid cells) unite, a new, unique individual has come into existence, the zygote, ALIVE by the very scientific definition of life-the cell. From the very moment of conception there is life.
            Any intentional act that prevents that zygote-stage human being from growing and developing is the willful taking of a human life.

          • Asemodeus

            If that is true them you better start locking up every woman who is sexually active and has had a period.

    • kathyschiffer

      The “tired old argument” is the truth, islandbrewer. The standard definition of “pregnancy” was “from conception until birth” (American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary). In 2004, in order to justify approval of the “Plan B” emergency “contraception,” the American Medical Association changed the definition to say that pregnancy began at implantation.

      But before that–for five to seven days–the fertilized ovum is already growing, dividing. It already, from the moment of fertilization, is a unique and unrepeatable human being with a never-before-seen genetic composition. That tiniest of human beings was created by God, and that new life has a purpose and meaning.

      And it’s not just “my unique definition” of abortion. It’s the definition applied by the Catholic Church, whose members constitute 25% of the population of the United States, and most honest scientists.

      • Asemodeus

        You’re biologically ignorant by assuming conception and implantation are the same.

        • kathyschiffer

          Asemodeus, I think I was specifically and intentionally trying to explain that conception and implantation are NOT the same. Did you read what I wrote?

          • Asemodeus

            You were conflating the two.

            To be sure, not every act of intercourse results in a pregnancy. First, ovulation (i.e., the monthly release of a woman’s egg) must occur. Then, the egg must be fertilized. Fertilization describes the process by which a single sperm gradually penetrates the layers of an egg to form a new cell (“zygote”). This usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and can take up to 24 hours. There is only a short window during which an egg can be fertilized. If fertilization does not occur during that time, the egg dissolves and then hormonal changes trigger menstruation; however, if fertilization does occur, the zygote divides and differentiates into a “preembryo” while being carried down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. Implantation of the preembryo in the uterine lining begins about five days after fertilization. Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14 days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.
            Source: American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists.

            The current lie that pregnancy begins at conception relies on the biologically ignorant assumption that every conception leads into a successful implantation. Reality doesn’t work like that. The reason for this lie is obvious. Public approval of contraception is very high, so the forced birthers need to trick dumb people into thinking that contraception that prevents implantation is abortion.

            It’s a con game.

          • kathyschiffer

            I have children, Asemodeus. And I’ve taught medical courses. I know how it works–but thanks for the refresher course.

            I understand what you’re trying to say re. implantation. And Life begins when the ovum and the sperm unite. There is created a unique individual with an unrepeatable combination of genes. If that microscopic Person fails to implant, that is [generally] not the mother’s fault. (She may, of course, have ingested hormones that would prevent implantation, in which case the loss of the pregnancy is an act of God and is not her fault. I can’t say the same about the deliberate taking of that life for one’s own convenience. If God creates this irreplaceable human who is fearfully and wonderfully made, and the mom then says of this great gift, “Uh, no thanks”–and she snuffs out the life of this child created in the image and likeness of God… Well, I’d say she’s going to have some ‘splainin’ to do when she stands before God in judgment.

          • Asemodeus

            Having children doesn’t absolve you of getting basic biology wrong.

            The rest is the usual forced birther gibberish and lies. Life doesn’t start the way you think it does. Since you assume, incorrectly, that there is a start to begin with. In reality the biological process is continuous, as there is no sequence where not life becomes life.

            You artificially pretend that one small step in this continous process called life is more important than all the others because your sick and immoral ideaology is more important than the truth.

          • Well said. Life is a continuum that began eons ago. No individual woman having an abortion ends life.

          • Which God? Jehovah is a pro abort. Hosea 13:16.

          • Asemodeus

            The Bible is also clear that it defines life as breath. Something a clump of cells cannot do due to a lack of lungs. Or air in the womb.

          • Why is it that when the Bible is eminently sensible, Fundys ignore its message? Just a rhetorical question.

          • kathyschiffer

            “Air in the womb”? What about when Jesus’ cousin John leapt in the womb, when the pregnant Mary entered the room? Or Psalm 139:13-14, “For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made…”

          • A fetus gains all the privileges and duties of a legal person when it survives to and through birth. That is the law.
            All your airey fairey stories are just that.
            The real truth of Roman Catholicism vis a vis Mother and their Children is at Tuam.

          • kathyschiffer

            That is Discrimination! My cousin was born at five months gestation–so that means she had rights before I did! Not fair!

            As for your mudslinging about Tuam–that’s like the five-year-old who, unable to formulate an appropriate response, yells “Your mother wears Army boots!” Granted, some in the Church have sinned. What does that have to do with the discussion of the humanness of the unborn?

          • These are the rules that Jesus followed. I will stick with Jesus.

            Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

            An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. – Jewish Virtual Library.

          • The Unborn? Kind of like THE UNDEAD? Creepy.


          • kathyschiffer

            And in Jeremiah, God spoke of his creation, the unborn infant, and how from his creation God had a plan for his life: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

          • Asemodeus

            Ezekiel 37:6

            And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

            You need to be breathing to be alive, according to the Bible.

          • That was said about Jeremiah specifically.
            Do not pretend Jehovah is a cosy family kind of guy.
            According to Moses, God created the Sotah, that is abortion in the service of civil law.

          • Agree. That is what the Bible says.

          • M. Solange O’Brien

            I think he read it. I suspect he feels your distinction is Jesuitical.

    • Gail Finke

      An embryo that doesn’t implant naturally its own is not aborted, it is miscarried. Very early miscarriages are extremely common. Just because women can’t possibly know they are pregnant does not mean that they aren’t.

      • Therese

        In obstetrical terminology, there are no ” miscarriages” – they are called spontaneous abortions.
        And whether or not one chooses to arbitrarily redefine pregnancy, the prevention of implantation of the developing zygote –> morula–>blastocyst–>embryo–>fetus–>child is still the termination of a human life. That’s the way we all got started, Islandbrewer. Your arguments are senseless.

        • Gail Finke

          True, but they are not called “spontaneous abortions” in ordinary conversation. When people say “abortion” they mean “procured abortion.”

          • People do not say ‘procured abortion,’ in ordinary conversation. Must be one of those Forced Birther terms.

          • kathyschiffer

            My mother had a problem carrying her children to full term, and she had several miscarriages. I remember her telling me that she was shocked when, in the hospital, a nurse referred to her case as “a spontaneous abortion.” She had wanted her children and, being a new young mother, was horrified at the word “abortion” even though it was beyond her control.

          • My Catholic Mother had an abortion when it was illegal. Is fertility a contest of some sort?

          • Gail Finke

            “Forced birther” must be what “abortion supporters” call “normal people.”

          • Forced Birther applies to those who want to make abortion illegal/unobtainable.
            I am pro life.
            I support a woman giving birth if she wants to give birth.
            I support abortion for the woman who wants an abortion.
            I support women being in charge of their own fertility and family lives without interference.

          • IntelliWriter

            Based on your list, the correct moniker is “pro-choice.”

          • I am pro life therefore I am pro choice for women.
            I am a writer. You will not tell me how to use language or what I can call myself.
            Those who seek to make abortion illegal/unobtainable are PRO DEATH.

          • IntelliWriter

            If you’re a writer, then you understand that words have meaning.

          • And my usage is correct. Everyone sane is prolife.

          • IntelliWriter

            OK, dumpling.

          • Asemodeus

            You’re actually in the minority. A solid majority of Americans want abortions to be kept as a legal and safe medical procedure.

          • Kurt S. Paulsen

            majority wants it to be a safe and legal procedure? true…
            but not ‘on demand,’ only for some reasons but not others

            you’re in the minority if you think it should be legal for socioeconomic reasons

            look at data about allowing abortion or prohibiting it for particular reasons rather than as an undefined category

            the numbers are consistent- America is not pro-choice, but pro-‘a-very-particular-set-of’-choices

            for the typical abortion scenarios (>85% of total instances), a majority of the public sides with pro-lifers and against giving women the choice to kill

          • Asemodeus

            In order to keep abortions safe and legal requires doctors to be well trained in doing them. Something that republicans make difficult by restricting education and facilities out of spite for women.

            America is pro choice up to the point of viability, which is established by the medical community, not by religious fanatics. This is the actually the majority position because late term abortions are a small fraction of the total.

            The 20% that want no abortions, period, are not pro life. They are pro murder.

          • Kurt S. Paulsen

            no- america is not prochoice until viability,
            the SCOTUS majority is and they’re not the country

            the majority isn’t just against late term abortion,

            it’s against permitting abortion (regardless of viability) when the abortion is based on concerns about career, income and/or financial hardship, disrupted education, the timing/spacing of children, family size, how a pregnancy will affect ones relationships, and (as long as the sex was consensual) what the nature of the relationship is with the biological father

            i don’t see how you can plausibly argue that the secular position is prochoice and the prolife position is religious given that: i) plenty of religions are prochoice ii) there’s a prochoicer commenting in this post that her side has the right interpretation of christian theology, and iii) I’ve been an unapologetic atheist since before I could legally drive, and I’m saying that a logically consistent application of secular humanist principles supports a prolife position

            ‘pro-murder?’ – is that supposed to start a name calling contest? [anti-choice; pro-abortion; the forced-birth movement; right-to-kill advocates… etc]

          • Asemodeus

            It’s about viability.

            The rest is gibberish. The prochoice position is the prolife position as well since it also considers the life of the mother. Anyone who wants no abortions at all are in favor of murdering women whom need abortions to not die from complications. Those people are not prolife, they are pro murder.

          • Kurt S. Paulsen

            It’s not about viability – you’re merely ‘saying’ it is because that’s the argument that you like (and so do 5 unelected judges), but just dismissing everything else as gibberish only shows you’re closed minded and haven’t done any research about what Americans actually believe.

            ‘Anyone who wants no abortions at all are in favor of murdering women whom need abortions to not die from complications. ‘ –
            Uggh. It’s still namecalling, only a bit less overt than usual.

            1. The ‘no exception’ pro-lifers are a minority even of prolifers, just as the ‘post-viability’ prochoicers are for you. If I say they’re not prochoice, but “babykilling advocates,” are you okay with that?
            2. Usually it’s the choicers who argue that if someone is dying and you don’t allow them the only possible way to survive – because doing so requires that they violate someone elses rights – then that can’t be called murder. You’re saying now that it can?
            3. The ‘baby vs mother’s life abortion’ scenario sounds simple. The reality is complicated. The actual situations bioethicists deal with aren’t binary at all. They’re not about choosing who dies; they’re about weighing time and probabilites. If a pregnant woman is endangered by an infection that’s potentially but not immediately fatal, what are the probabilities for her recovery if you delay treatment until 26 weeks? How about the likelihood of survival for the baby if you induce at 20-22 weeks? What about a woman who’s 16 weeks pregnant but has inoperable cancer that metastasized. Immediate termination might extend her life, but she’ll be dead in a year anyway. How does giving her more time compare with giving a chance at survival for the child? How does shortening the length of her remaining time compare to better long term quality of life for an infant that could have a normal lifespan?
            4. I don’t think that even the ‘no exception’ people are trully for zero exceptions. I’m pretty sure that tubal pregnancies are permissible even on the view of the vatican (arguably the gold the standard for unbending opposition to abortion). I think they accept ‘double effect’ arguments – although theology isn’t something I’m really interested in so I might be misunderstanding some of that.

          • Jeff Briggs

            I heard the CDC condemned your a-hole as a Toxic Dump.

          • M. Solange O’Brien

            Can you actually back up any of those claims? You seem to know an Wful lot about how 160+ minion people think.

            Or are you just projecting?

          • M. Solange O’Brien

            You are incorrect on a couple of points, the most significant of which is your claim that s logically consistent application of secular humanist principles supports prolife. Those principles (whichever ones you’re using in this particular instance) support pro choice as well. The crux of the decision lies elsewhere.

  • Mal

    The good news here is that governors can do likewise in their jurisdictions. They can circumvent the Court and legislate that Gender will continue to be acknowledged as the principal factor in marriage and that this definition should apply to all its citizens – white, black, Asian, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or foreigners.

  • strayaway

    Another violation of Article 1, Section 1.

  • John Fisher

    Yes you are right The Catholic Church knows and says sex exists for and is completed by the conception birth and rearing of children. Nature has endowed us with an urge for a purpose. For that reason parents naturally are drawn to form lifelong committed trusting faithful marriages (one man and one woman). Chemical sterilisation and contraceptive devices are intended to allow sexual behaviour as recreation, sedation, addiction, and as an object of the market place. Those that see sexual behaviour as a consumer appetite sterilise themselves so as to indulge their itch. If you think about it is like eating without getting any nourishment and not having to deal with the purpose of hunger, gluttony or food obsession as an expression of emotional disturbance.
    For those who are having casual sex or sex as friends with favours contraception follows because well doing something wrong attracts and requires others wrong things such as lies and self deception, mutual use and empty habitual frustrating compulsions.

    • Linda

      Beautifully stated, John Fisher!

    • 98% of Roman Catholic women use contraception. Catholic women have a higher rate of abortion than Protestant women. Abortion is legal now and we can and have been studying it.
      Sex is to Catholics as food is to bulimics – an occasion of insanity.
      I am a Roman Catholic. IMO Catholic sexual pedagogy is de trop. The Magisterium does not play the game, so they must not make the rules.

      • kathyschiffer

        Dear Plum, Your statistic is too high–it’s more like 85-90%, but that is still too high considering that the Catholic Church teaches clearly that contraception is gravely wrong.

        If you prefer a church where you make your own rules, rather than following the rules established for our good by Christ and his earthly representatives, may I suggest Unitarian Universalism?

        • No thank you. I stand in the German, which tickles me no end.

          “Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church.”
          (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], “Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II”, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1, chapter 1.)

    • I never once in my life had sex to get pregnant. I have sex to get orgasms.
      If you itch, get yourself to Planned Parenthood and get diagnosed.

      Sex is to Catholics as food is to bulimics. A constant insanity and occasion of sin. So depressing. Since I cannot and never have been able to keep the rules, I ignore them. Neither the rules or the priests have been helpful.

  • Siwash

    I didn’t vote for him.

  • Chris Pederson

    Sex and birth control are not moral issues, they are public health issues. Knock of the anti-woman rhetoric. thanks!

    • Uncle Dave

      They are both public health issues and moral issues to some folks. Or are you suggesting that those folks don’t have a right to their own moral positions?

      • M. Solange O’Brien

        They have a right to their moral positions. They have no right to make anyone else share those positions.

      • Sex is not immoral. Sex is not a crime.
        The Asexual must not make rules for the normally sexed.

        • kathyschiffer

          Asexual? What a silly supposition! Most Catholic folks I know–the married ones, that is–enjoy sex tremendously, and they have the additional pleasure of feeling secure because in a loving, committed relationship, they will not be used and then left behind.

          • M. Solange O’Brien

            I suspect he was referring to priests – who are asexual in violation of natural law….

            And folks in same-de. Marriages can now ALSO feel secure in loving, committed relationships. Just like straight Christian folks. Isn’t that great?

          • Interesting. I do not spend a lot of time discussing my sex life with other Catholics. You must belong to a randy mouthy parish.

    • dmbatten

      Chris has some nerve coming onto a Catholic site with that sour puss of hers saying that sex and birth control are NOT moral issues.
      Sour, bitter, Feminist inbetween protests?

  • KOinSF

    At least the right wingers are admitting this is not about religious freedom, but the desire to force your religious views on all women, including having the ability to tell us what medicines we can take. You will lose this battle, as those who are anti-contraception are a small minority.

    • Guest30

      Totally agree. Considering the church’s constant attempts to overturn Roe vs. Wade, complaining that the Government is finding a work around against the Hobby Lobby decision is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    • IntelliWriter

      It’s always been about controlling women. They love the fetus, but could not care less about the child.

  • Uncle Dave

    You know, it’s great that Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for contraception. But now that they don’t how is it any of their business what transpires between other parties, i.e. the Federal Government and Hobby Lobbies employees? What interest should Hobby Lobby have in the private off-the-job medical decisions of their employees that Hobby Lobby no longer has to pay for or support? I understand that some folks may be opposed to certain forms of birth control but why should the Hobby Lobby case be dragged into it as opposed to confronting the issue directly? The only reason I can fathom is that Hobby Lobby was about more than sincere religious objection but was in fact a hoped for tool to control the choices of others.

  • Robin Warchol

    thanks for letting us know. It is totally depressing. God help us.

  • IntelliWriter

    We have 7+ billion people on this planet; many of whom, do not believe in your God or your faulty science. Save your concern for a baby tiger or rhino. They’re actually going extinct.

  • Hobby Lobby decision was extended to cover all forms of contraception.

  • “Religious freedom” is an excuse with all kinds of mischief on its heals.

    Similar to the Hobby Lobby thing, there’s this new law that will empower employers to freely fire women under their umploy if the women choose to raise a family:


    To think that righties claim they hold “family values” – what a joke!

  • The President did not step on the religious values of anyone. He just made services available independent of those institutions. They do not get to be gatekeepers for the public, which by this article appears to have been their agenda and not merely the free exercise of their own religious values. Otherwise, what’s the big deal? Neither Hobby Lobby or any actual church is being forced to dispense a birth control device contrary to their stated values. They just don’t get to play gatekeeper to those products for the public.

  • Böcker

    I for one am glad the WH found a way around that jerk ruling. Hobby Lobby is a business, they should cover birth control. The owners beliefs should play no part in the insurance coverage for their employees.