Marco Rubio jumps into birth control dispute
Amid growing rancor between the Catholic hierarchy and the White House, Republican rising star Sen. Marco Rubio is pushing a bill that takes a swipe at the Obama administrations stance on expanding access to birth control.
The Florida senator, widely considered on the short list for the GOP vice presidential pick, introduced legislation Tuesday that would vastly expand the ability of religious or faith-based employers to opt out of a health reform law requirement that health plans cover all FDA-approved contraceptives without any co-pay.
The administration had offered a narrow exemption to religious organizations, which the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops said was unacceptable. They were not mollified when the administration gave other religious group, such as a religiously affiliated hospitals or charities, an extra year until August 2013 to comply with the requirement.
Rubios bill would allow individuals to take a conscience exemption and not offer the benefit to workers. The administration has defined access to birth control as a basic preventive health service that should be available.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72209.html#ixzz1l3gMoyS5
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)Don't use Birth Control....
Easy Solution. If you are against Birth control then don't take advantage of the benifit.
What part of a free society don't these people understand.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)that their religion proscribes.
Their argument rests on freedom of religion, which is part of our free society. The dispute is how it applies in this situation.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Women are people, businesses are not.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)freedom of religion and other civil rights.
There are exceptions related to Christian Scientists and Amish people, for example. (Court decisions ruled that Amish parents don't have to send their children to public school after the 8th grade -- which clearly discriminates against those children based on their parents' beliefs.)
Yupster
(14,308 posts)birth controll for free in their inurance package, then people can't get birth controll.
That's an awfully big leap to make.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The point is that birth control will not be covered by insurance and shit like viagra will.
CottonBear
(21,596 posts)However, the wingnuts don't want anyone to be able to use birth control. They are not simply satisfied with with abstaining from sex or having sex without birth control themselves. On the other hand, the wingnuts want to punish women and children for being poor by denying them assistance for healthcare, food, shelter and education.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)This bill will go no where. The Democrats in the Senate will not even take this up and Obama would likely veto it. Obama is trying to be flexible by extending some exemptions but at the end of the day access to birth control needs to be available to all employees, not just the ones that aren't working for one associated with Bennie.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)but 98% of Catholic women are apt to support him wholeheartedly.
I wonder which group has the most votes?
atreides1
(16,046 posts)The Catholic bishops along with the Catholic church could give two shits what Catholic women want! Which has been a standard for several hundred years now...
Maybe if all those rules breaking Catholics would actually stand up to the hierarchy of the church, it might be impressive...but I don't see that happening!
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)How many Catholic husbands want to have, and support, a qiverfull of children? Will vasectomy be covered under this bill? They should be. If the man can't "spread his seed", the woman won't get pregnant.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)rubio that just creeps me out. He always looks like he is plotting his next scam. Do not trust him at all.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)Love the fetus and hate the child. Some Jesus Christer business owner decides his employees shouldn't receive birth control as a health benefit...fuck that.
julian09
(1,435 posts)Rubio is denying workers the right to make own decision. I thought they didn't want govt in peoples' lives.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything, they shouldn't force anyone not to do someyhing.
Stay out of other peoples lives and bedroom.
redonhead
(8 posts)men who don't want birth control, wives who don't want more kids, easy solution, practice complete abstinence...see how them boys like that..
Long time listener, new responder, bigtime worker for Obama.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(149,297 posts)I like your idea, lol!
Found in Yonkers
(100 posts)CP, your mission is clear!
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)in Catholic school. If you cannot afford more children, have a life threatening medical condition, or just plain don't want more children, you should practice abstinence in marriage until menopause? For 20 years? He GLARED at me and wouldn't answer me a teenage girl. The Nuns actually LAUGHED when I said that. If you cannot debate a teenager as a Priest, you will never be able to debate ANYBODY.
TBF
(31,921 posts)birth control should be free to all. And should be highly encouraged for republicans. JMHO ...
Quantess
(27,630 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)"in their place" sexually.
nolabear
(41,915 posts)and things are going to change, Babies, things are going to change.
I KNOW where most of the country's communion wafers are made, and I know what saltpeter is for.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)A society that has him in Congress isn't much of a civilization.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,481 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)for centuries.
He has no idea what he's talking about.
perdita9
(1,142 posts)Think the Republicans will support THAT too?
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)Overwhelmingly hispanic parishioners.
ChadwickHenryWard
(862 posts)Access to birth control is one of the most important hallmarks of an advanced society. The religious beliefs of a few should be allowed to bar this necessity from American society.
I know that it has become a cliche to say that the only purpose of religion is to control people, but can anybody doubt that here? This narrow cabal of old men with a hysterical attitude toward sex thinks they can bully the rest of us back into the Dark Ages. This impulse and effort to control the private lives of others is appalling. The men of the Enlightenment believed that the priest and the king would suffer simultaneous deaths. We are free of the tyranny of kings, but the blight of the priesthood remains. How much longer?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)give 10% of their salary, the Bishops in most part will look the other way, ummmmmmmmm, kinda sorta like when sexual molestation occurs with the priests and young boys. All this BS is for show.
You know what, I'm totally in favor of the religious institutions paying their fair taxes, seriously, because these people are ALL IN MY PRIVATE business and telling me who to vote for!
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)controlling what goes on in a woman's uterus?
The absolutely tyrannical nature of men's desires to tell all the women of the nation what they can and cannot have access to, it just makes no sense in the 21st century.
It's as if these men still think women are slaves to a man's desire and design, either that or property to be controlled like a pet.
But these men still do it, over and over and over again.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)They act like god wants it this way. Convenient!
lark
(23,003 posts)Let's stop a woman's ability to control her procreation then demonize her and throw her in jail when she gets pregnant, can't afford a baby, doesn't want a baby, or has health problems that make having a baby dangerous. Basically, all they want is to turn us into baby making machines so we pump out tons of workers who get no education (they also want to destroy public education) and will work cheap for the masters.
Totally disgusting.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Crap. Utter Crap.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As a general principle, the government can't compel a church to act against its religious beliefs.
Of course, there's also the Establishment Clause. As a general principle, the government can't give a church a special privilege (disobeying a particular law) that's not available to nonreligious employers.
Each of these general principles is valid and important. The problem here is that the two principles come into conflict.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)They have the option of civil disobedience when they believe a law is immoral.
Polygamy is illegal, age of consent for marriage is also a legal matter, and churches must comply with that.
I think that in the case of a Conscience Clause - those are intended for individuals to refuse action, not a business entity.
The difference is important in that case.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Religious objectors to war can't refuse to pay taxes that support the war machine. On the other hand, they can refuse to take up arms themselves, even when we have conscription. To some extent, the tax law infringes on individuals' free exercise of religion, and the Selective Service System's treatment of conscientious objectors gave special privileges to some religious people. The point is that, as between these two aspects of the separation of church and state (the two religion clauses of the First Amendment), neither is given automatic priority over the other. (A common legal term is that there's no bright-line test.)
I don't see any logical reason to distinguish here between individuals and entities like churches. For the government to compel a church, even as an entity, to act against its religious principles is regrettable and should be avoided, other things being equal.
Of course, other things never are equal. There's always some other valid interest involved, like the government's decision that employees should be covered for contraception.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Theologians dating from Augustine to Thomas Aquinas regarded women as defective creatures and therefore more easily preyed up on by the Satan. Their campaign resulted the witch burnings that lasted over three centuries. How many women perish? Some estimates go as high as several hundred thousand to over a million as the Protestants join in the carnage. This subject is not talked about sense both Catholics and Protestants were eager participants. If you want to explore just how revolting the situation was read the "Witch's Hammer" which became the manual for the detection and punishment of helpless beings that even included children. The present day bishops are just as screwed up as their medieval predecessors.