Obama revamping birth control policy
By The Associated Press
This article was originally published February 10, 2012 at 9:31 a.m. Updated February 10, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
PHOTO BY AP
President Barack Obama, sitting next to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaks Tuesday during a Cabinet meeting in the White House in Washington.
- Comments (90)
- aAFont Size
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Friday that a revamped birth control policy will both protect religious liberties and protect women’s access to contraception.
Speaking at the White House, Obama announced changes to the policy that has generated criticism from religious groups and others who say it would force them to violate their faith.
Under the changes, religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees. Instead, the government will demand that insurance companies be directly responsible for providing free contraception.
Obama’s shift is an attempt to satisfy both sides of a deeply sensitive debate. Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama’s health-care law that he insisted must remain. But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.
The leader of a Catholic organization and a prominent women’s group both expressed initial support for the changes.
Read tomorrow's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.
Thank you for coming to the website of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. We're working to keep you informed with the latest breaking news.
Comments on: Obama revamping birth control policy
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
NONSHEEPLE says... February 10, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.
"Instead, insurance companies will be directly responsible for providing free contraception"
So how is this actually different? Will the employee get this medicine covered or not?
( permalink | suggest removal )
SoonerHawg says... February 10, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.
@STM - sure, but now that cost will be spread out across the board and we will ALL have to pay for it. Expect another insurance price hike in 2013.....the 45% increase I have gotten over the last two years, just is not enough for the insurance companies.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Foghorn says... February 10, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
Guy reminds me of Fonzie....he can never say he was wr.....wrrr.....
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 10, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
Votes!, Now Obama can say it wasn't him, don't hold him responsible, blame the insurance companies he mandated to cover this.
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... February 10, 2012 at 4:28 p.m.
Sounds like a reasonable solution. Women get the healthcare they need and the Pope can say he didn't pay for it. It's called plausible deniability.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 10, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
Goes right along with the rest of Obama's bamboozling.
( permalink | suggest removal )
ArkansasTraveler31 says... February 10, 2012 at 4:59 p.m.
Nearly everyone who comments on here talk about the inability of our
politicians to compromise and now when the President does he gets
slammed for it. That is how things work---you find a middle ground that
both sides can live with---those who want to protect every woman's right
to receive birth control protection if wanted and the Catholic Church
and others who someone see this as a sin and wrong. It beats what usually
happens in Washington when they go to the very brink of shutting down the
government and they still do little or nothing.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 10, 2012 at 5:15 p.m.
ArkT..... Seriously are you that stupid or blind or BOTH? How exactly did he compromise?
( permalink | suggest removal )
NickieD says... February 10, 2012 at 5:33 p.m.
It is like having a car with the steering wheel on the right side instead of the left. Same car, same ride to town.
If it makes Religionists happy, it only proves the Religionists and GOP had nothing important to say about the issue in the first place.
All Religionists want is to control a woman's body, since most of them are basically afraid of women, they must control them. This idea is supported by the attitudes expressed in the Old Test by a bunch of old guys who were afraid of treating women as equals and their attutide has carried through right up to today in the form of guys like Ol' Brown Foam and his truly biblical attitude about birth control, abortion and women in general.
The president has simply stated the very same idea he had before differently and the idiots ate it up.
Equality under the law... something for all Americans.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 10, 2012 at 6:35 p.m.
"President Barack Obama says he will bypass religious groups’ opposition to a health insurance mandate by directing insurance companies to hand out free birth control services to employees of religious institutions.
“Religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly… but women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women,” Obama said in a brief Friday statement at the White House.
After his statement, Obama walked out of the press room without taking any questions from reporters.
Obama’s maneuver, however, preserves the federal intrusion into religious groups’ operations, and will likely be widely panned by civil liberties advocates.
Already, many religious groups, including evangelical and Catholic groups, say they will resist the federal mandate because it is an imposition by progressives of state power on churches’ activities.
Obama recognized this church-state argument Friday, saying that his transfer of the mandate from churches to insurance companies will preserve religious liberty."
( permalink | suggest removal )
tortietude03311628 says... February 11, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.
Obama thinks he's appealing to women but many women are Catholics who, even though they may not do as the Catholics say to do, believe the Church officials are right and will side with the Church. Outta touch pres here especially where religiosity is concerned - and we all know why don't we.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 11, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.
Tortitude obviously does not know very many Catholic women. I went to Mt St. Mary's and know hundreds of Catholic women. None of them have ever told me that they are against birth control except for maybe a couple of the nuns who did not need it. ArkT is correct. Obama worked out a nice solution. Actually, birth control is cheaper for our economy than the costs of dealing with unwanted pregnancies and children. While it benefits the economy for children to be born to parents who are emotionally and financially sound, any births to parents who are not capable often causes all sorts of problems for the community.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 11, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
The funny thing is that a lot of Catholic "organizations" already do offer them. Even the largest Catholic school in the country, Depaul, has contraceptives in the health care plans for its workers. So its not like it is outrageous like some of you simpletons make it out to be. Besides, are you people trying to tell me there are no contraceptives in any Catholic hospitals? Try naming us one that doesn't.
( permalink | suggest removal )
tortietude03311628 says... February 11, 2012 at 12:54 p.m.
Y'all missed the point of my comment: no matter what Catholics do that's against Catholic teaching, they will stand by what the Church officials say. There's always progressive Catholic institutions which are liberal. It's the officials that have, as always, their radar up for infringements of their religion. They obviously feel attacked.
I know St. Marys well from going there too; and I know hundreds of Catholic women as well from the grade school parishes and from a lifetime of experience. This is my opinion based on that background.
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 11, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
The President is showing off his concern for the health of women... Republicans, in making this an "issue", are only helping him... American women including 98% of Catholic women will remember his kindness at the polls come November..!!! They will also remember the Republicans trying to block their access to birth control...!!!
*
"Barefoot and pregnant" appears to be the new Republican mantra..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 11, 2012 at 3:06 p.m.
The Flip-Flopper In-Chief rides again. Will you Obamabots ever tire of being made fools when defending this guy just to see him flip a week/day/hour later? Obama was against PAC money before he was for it; he was going to close Gitmo before he decided to keep it open; he vowed not to have lobbyists in his administration until he decided to hire some; he wanted to raise the capital gains tax until he decided to lower them to spur small business growth.....His list of flip-flops is growing my the minute. Like all the Clinton supporters who maligned Monica Lewinsky until she produced Clinton's DNA from that tacky blue dress, Obama defenders keep looking more and more foolish by no other than the Flip-Flopper In-Chief himself. This latest "compromise" is nothing more than a bone he's thrown to his useful idiots. Bless your collective hearts.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... February 11, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.
Obama does not care one whit about anybody but himself. He is flaunting his "POWER"
( permalink | suggest removal )
tortietude03311628 says... February 11, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
aimee: this has nothing to do with Republicans really; it's been the Catholic Church officials who have been upset and have brought this whole thing up from the pulpit I might add.
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 12, 2012 at 1:25 a.m.
Tortitude:
*
The "controversy" may have been started by Catholic officials, but the Republican Party is wholeheartedly picking up the refrain... Just listen to some of the comments coming out of CPAC:
*
"Gingrich blasted Mr. Obama on a series of issues, including a controversial policy that women have access to birth control no matter where they work"
*
Romney "pledged that he would “reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent human life in this country.”
*
Kiesling from the National Right to Life group said "“[People are always saying to] stay out of their bedroom; this is basically inviting others into their bedroom, wanting others to pay for what they’re doing in the bedroom,” she said. “I mean, really, what else do you want us to pay for? Do you want us to pay for condoms, too?”"
*
So, the long and the short of it is that President Obama wants ALL woman to have the option of free birth control to protect them from unwanted pregnancies and the Rabid Right cannot stand for it... Like I said before:
*
"Barefoot and pregnant" appears to be the new Republican mantra..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 12, 2012 at 7:16 a.m.
O.K. Tortitude, You may be a Catholic and fellow MSM grad, but how many Catholic women do you know who are sexually active and do not take birth control? I don't know of one. You say the Catholic women will be mad at the president, but I am not buying that. The Republicans have attacked everything Obama says or does because they want the White House. Obama could announce to the country that he has had a religious revelation and that he is now against abortion and the Republicans would scream that he is a flip flopper. The Republicans do not have a decent candidate for President. They can criticize Obama all they want, but Obama is clearly better than anything the Republicans are offering.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 12, 2012 at 8:28 a.m.
The crapola that is this faux outrage over Obama's "controversial" plan is that it has already been the law of the land for over ten years.
"The central mandate-that most employers have to cover preventative care for women-has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.
"In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, WHICH THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION DID NOTHING TO ALTER OR WITHDRAW WHEN IT TOOK OFFICE THE NEXT MONTH, is still in effect today - and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees."
( permalink | suggest removal )
tortietude03311628 says... February 12, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.
Yes, aimee, the Republicans are just piggybacking on the Catholic hierarchy. Making the insurers "give" away contraception is not the answer to the Church officials since many Catholic institutions self insure.
Yes, Prospect, Catholic women use contraception, but that doesn't mean that they will not support the bishops. I remember the principal at my Catholic grade school saying that they didn't take federal money because the feds would then tell them what books to have in the libray and what to teach. It's the principal of the issue - you know - that slippery slope.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 12, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.
Tortitude,
If Catholic women take birth control, they are not supporting the bishops who are telling them not to take it. All the bishops and the right wingers are trying to do is make women who work at Catholic organizations pay for their contraception. Indeed, one can view the idea to take the insurance coverage away as a tax on women who work at Catholic schools and hospitals! The Republicans are desperate for any issue which can help them divide this country. As one of my law school professors used to say, "I don't think that dog will hunt." The Republicans need better people and new ideas. This crop is just awful.
( permalink | suggest removal )
tortietude03311628 says... February 12, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.
Prospect: We all know that Catholic women take birth control and do all kinds of things that the Church prohibits (Confession takes care of all that, right?). Yet they support the Church, the incredibly sexist institution it is, by remaining in the Church, giving it money and popular support. When I think about returning to the Church, frankly I just cringe and stay far away. I adore certain individuals in the Church, but not the Church. But the Church does not want to be assaulted. Funny vast majority of Catholics are Democrats.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 12, 2012 at 1:43 p.m.
It is politics! Catholic Institution across the country already offer insurance plans that include birth control. University of Scranton, DePaul University, Christian Brothers University, Boston College.... etc. It is politics!
.
Insurance companies agreed because the cost of birth control would be off-set by the saving from the prevention of fewer pregnancies, that it would decrease risk of sexually transmitted infections and from a reduction in the risk of some cancers.
.
In an article in the NY Times... Her grandmother had several children and went to the church to confess that she was taking birth control. The priest replied, "You are no better than a whore on the street." Is that what the GOP thinks about 99% of the women?
( permalink | suggest removal )
lirbro says... February 12, 2012 at 3 p.m.
This is all so silly. The only sensibilities this birth control issue offends are RC clergy. Catholic women use birth control at the same rate as non catholic, and have had for the last 50 years. It has always been a don't ask don't tell situation. The clergy know it Catholic lay people know it and non catholics know it. (If a family doesn't have 20 or 25 kids and mom and dad have been married for 30 years then it's a no brainer...and forget about rhythm. It doesn't work.) And oh, a big ps, birth control is far cheaper for insurance to cover than pregnancy.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 12, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
If right-wingers and religious zealots have their way, it won't be long before insurance companies and clinics will be denying women contraceptives, abortions, gynecological checkups, etc., because of one pre-existingn condition: that they're female.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 12, 2012 at 5:33 p.m.
Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members--led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars--have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”
The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School--is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities across the nation, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lirbro says... February 12, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
Makes no difference who signed what on whose letterhead. Men can scream all they want about religious disenfranchisement (especially the religions where women have no leadership). Women will not give up birth control. I don't know where most of you've been, but we've had it for 50 years, and we will not allow it to be taken away. Talk to your wives, your sisters, your mothers, your daughters, your aunts, any woman in your life. No church (where no one, not even the priests follow directives) will take it away. Move on to jobs or what may become a war in Iran next month and get off controlling women.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 12, 2012 at 8:16 p.m.
I don't see these Notre Dame men and the bishops down helping Haiti--a Catholic nation and the poorest in the Western hemisphere due to the insance anti-birth control stance of the Catholic church. The saintly Catholics are the poor nuns and priests who are serving as missionaries to the poor. The Vatican is full of the richest treasures on earth. Has the Pope even been to Haiti?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 12, 2012 at 9:42 p.m.
Rule #1: NEVER underestimate the POWER of a woman!
.
I know this may come to a shock to some but women were born with a brain and they do know how to use it. Women were also born with a conscience and that conscience belongs to her. The Constitution gives her the right to use her conscience and she may do so without the permission from a bunch of men. As Obama said, "Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. Period."
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 13, 2012 at 12:48 a.m.
It seems you Liberal idgets don't have enough sense to realize it's not about freaking contraceptives. IT"S ALL about OBLOHOLE not having CONSTITUTIONAL authority to mandate we buy insurance and what that insurance covers. Oblohole thinks everybody is as stupid as his koolaid drinkers. Who do you think pays for the insurance policies that provide “free” birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacients to employees? The same religious organizations doctrinally prohibited from paying for these “services” in the first place. With other Evangelical leaders allying en masse, Obama WILL cave on this.
Does Sharia Compliant health insurance companies cover abortions and contraceptives?
He seems to protect Muslim religious liberties. He is ultra-careful to not want to offend followers of Islam.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 13, 2012 at 6:35 a.m.
T6: The only way that you could "choose" to be so dumb is because you are too lazy to read the law. Watch this:
.
The Majority of both Congresses gave the authority and it was signed into law.
‘‘SEC. 2715. DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF UNIFORM EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 months after the 7 date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Secretary shall develop standards for use by a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, in compiling and providing to enrollees a summary of benefits and coverage explanation that accurately describes the benefits and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage. "
.
‘‘SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health 8 insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for—"
.
Same religious exemptions as for Social Security: 26 USC § 1402 (g)(1)
.
Constitutionality:
1. The individual mandate is a tax. Individuals may purchase healthcare or pay a tax. Congress can tax and spend and provide general welfare.
1. The Second Militia Act of 1792 signed by George Washington required Americans to make economic purchases. Congress mandated individual purchases of Medicare, 45 years ago.
2. States are given a "choice" to establish private insurance exchanges. Just as Medicaid is a voluntary federal-state program and the constitutionality has been upheld by the courts.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 13, 2012 at 7:43 a.m.
The Republicans need to move on to another issue. Libro and Reason are correct that women are a stronger political force than a bunch of bishops and ultraconservative preachers. This issue is helping Obama--not hurting him. The Republicans are horribly out of touch with middle America. The Republicans need to quit attacking Obama and start trying to solve problems. Cutting off birth control coverage will just lead to more unwanted children and increased expenditures on social services. If the Republicans keep this up, they may not win Arkansas and Alabama. They are already behind in Virginia. In yesterday's New York Times, Thomas Friedman suggested that the Republicans just sit out 2012 and concentrate on 2016. The Republican Party has stopped thinking and trying to solve problems and is just throwing dirt. The Party needs to clean house and find a new crop of politicians who THINK. T6, we are all so tired of the Muslim references to Obama. This is not the way to win over independents and moderates.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 13, 2012 at 7:53 a.m.
@Reason,President Obama insisted repeatedly during the health care debate that the individual mandate is “absolutely” not a tax increase.
~
The Obama administration claimed in court in this case that the $750 penalty was a tax. This is a direct contradiction of what President Obama represented to the American people during consideration of the health care bill. In response to a question on ABC News from George Stephanopolous claiming the provision was a tax, Obama responded: “That’s not true, George,...[It] is absolutely not a tax increase."
Three federal judges who have ruled on the Obamacare tax argument, even the one who upheld the Obama administration on the commerce clause issue, have rejected it.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 13, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.
There are a couple of elephants in the living room here that are worthy of mention. Does it not alarm both liberals and conservatives that the government can make such sweeping and unilateral mandates under the guise of 'health care"? One day the Obama administration wants Catholics to hand out contraceptives free of charge. The next day they change to say they want the Catholic insurance companies to hand out contraceptives free of charge, and then pass the cost on to the Catholics. We can only guess what kind of unilateral mandates the Obama administration will force upon us all in the name of Obamacare as we move forward with this colossal government takeover. This is as scary as it gets for those of us who cherish freedom and individual liberty.
The other elephant in the living room is how this contraceptive nonsense is being done under the banner of "women's health". The Obama administration is all concerned about women's health so long as that woman isn't in her mother's womb. Last time I looked little girl babies were being aborted at about the same rate as little boy babies. What about the health and well-being of the hundreds of thousands of the most innocent of women aborted each and every year?
Reading through this thread, I never realized Catholic women were such a bunch of sex crazed cougars and kittens. They don't need contraceptives, they need battery powered objects........
Hey Reason - If a woman's conscience tells her to murder an ex boyfriend because he dumped her for a newer model and it is adversely affecting her mental health, is that her right to do so "without permission"?
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 13, 2012 at 10:56 a.m.
Packman:
*
If you fail to see that providing free birth control actually eliminates the need for abortions and that insurance companies actually save money by providing free birth control, well, then I guess there is just no hope for you and your "knee jerk" Right opinions..!!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
lirbro says... February 13, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.
I think Packman just revealed his views on women.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 13, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
Populist if Obama gets another 4 years I think He will not only tell you who he is he will show you who he is with no resolve. IF he gets another 4, you and his supporters will see what others have been warning you about.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 13, 2012 at 3:49 p.m.
Aimee - There's one small problem with your assertion that providing free birth control will reduce abortions. You make the false assumption that irresponsible people will miraculously begin acting responsibly just because they are given something for free. You can lead a horse to water (or give an irresponsible woman free birth control) but you can't make them drink (you cannot force them to use it). Sadly, this government mandate could actually increase abortions by lulling uneducated women into a false sense of security thinking they are having protected sex when in fact they have no clue as to when and how to use whatever birth control means provided and become pregnant due to their collective ignorance.
Hey lirbro - WTF? Explain yourself.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 13, 2012 at 4:04 p.m.
Guttmacher Institute:
The U.S. teen birth rate declined 9% between 2009 and 2010 to a record low of 34 births per 1,000 teens aged 15–19. This marks the third straight year in which birth rates declined for this age-group, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics. Young adults saw similar declines in birthrates, with a 6% decline from 2009 to 2010 among women in their early twenties. Meanwhile, newly released 2008 abortion data from the CDC show that the decline in births is accompanied by a decline in abortions, suggesting that the overall teen pregnancy rate is going down, as well.
This good news can be linked almost exclusively to improvements in teens’ contraceptive use, according to new data from another major government study, the CDC’s National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). The NSFG interviewed a nationally-representative sample of teens from June 2006 to June 2008, and again from July 2008 to July 2010. Comparing reports between these two time periods shows there was no significant change in the overall proportion of females aged 15–19 who were sexually experienced or engaging in sexual activity. There was, however, a dramatic shift in teen contraceptive use. This encouraging news comes at a time when attacks on contraception are increasing in the political arena.
Guttmacher researchers have found an increase both in teens’ use of any contraceptive method at all and in their use of highly effective methods or dual methods. Specifically, hormonal contraceptives were used by 37% of sexually active teens in 2006–2008 and by 47% in 2008–2010, while use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods like the IUD increased from 1.4% to 4.4%. Dual method use—the use of condoms and hormonal methods simultaneously—also increased from 16% to 23%. Additionally, fewer teens reported that they are trying to become pregnant than was the case in years past. In sum, teens are making the decision to be more effective contraceptive users, and their actions appear to be paying off in lower birth rates. Similarly, young women aged 20–24, a group that also experienced substantial declines in birthrates, also increased their use of contraception at last sex.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 13, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Science Prevails: Abortion and Mental Health
By: Julia R. Steinberg, Beth Jordan, Elisa S. Wells
Politics and ideology have long battled — and often trumped — the scientific evidence surrounding the safety of abortion. This has been particularly true of the issue of abortion and mental health. Although major organizations, including the American Psychological Association, have been firm in their assertions that abortion does not harm mental health, anti-choice activists have used questionable science to push the concept of “post-abortion syndrome” into both clinical practice and law. For years, this specious claim has been fueling attempts in the United States to legislate that women be informed of this “risk” or denied access to abortion to protect them from “risk”. The U.S. Supreme Court cited the possibility of women experiencing “regret…[which can be followed by] severe depression and loss of esteem” after abortion in its decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Gonzales v. Carhart), all the while acknowledging that there are “no reliable data to measure the phenomenon”.1
Fortunately, recent reviews of the scientific literature reinforce what many reproductive health care providers already know: evidence for the claim that abortion negatively affects a woman's mental health is lacking. How well we as reproductive health providers and advocates are able to convey this positive message to patients, the public, and policymakers will depend, in part, on how well we ourselves understand the findings and feel confident in their scientific integrity. Here, we examine the details of some recent analyses, the strength of their scientific underpinnings, and their implications for clinical practice.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 13, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
Guttmacher Institute (Marston & Cleland)
CONCLUSION
"Empirical study of the aggregate relationships between contraceptive use and induced abortion has to be limited to the few countries where reasonably reliable information exists on both. Despite this severe limitation, our review of the evidence provides ample illustration of the interaction between these factors. When fertility levels in a population are changing, the relationship between contraceptive use and abortion may take a variety of forms, frequently involving a simultaneous increase in both. When other factors—such as fertility—are held constant, however, a rise in contraceptive use or effectiveness invariably leads to a decline in induced abortion—and vice versa."
The USA falls into the last category (fertility factors held constant).
( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie says... February 13, 2012 at 6:26 p.m.
I've been voting for about 60 years and for most of it I never expected that the major political issues of the day would become abortion and gay marriage. Especially at a time of economic crisis, climate change, sixth extinction, nuclear proliferation, etc.
What a bunch of cowflop.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie says... February 13, 2012 at 6:32 p.m.
Packman, your statements that only "irresoonsible women" use birth control, and that women don't know how to use them, etc. are positively medieval.
Are you sure you're not time traveling from the 13th century?
Does it occur to you that many married couples use contraceptives precisely because they are responsible? They don't want more children than they can support.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 14, 2012 at 7:46 a.m.
Jake, A decline in abortion is good and encouraging news for anyone that cares about this issue. I suspect that these numbers would decline even more if men would also take care of their responsibilities.
.
The Guttmacher also reported: Protestant women make up about 54% of the population, they account for only 37% of the abortions. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions.
Looking at this data... if I was a priest or a minister, I would be teaching from within and cleaning up my own house of worship first, before launching an attack on the rest of world.
.
Also, the EPA mercury standards are to avert up to 11,000 premature deaths a year. It is impossible to care about the unborn and be opposed to the EPA standards.
.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 14, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
@Reason,
In it's Clean Air Act, EPA Adm. Lisa Jackson touted the supposedly huge benefits of controlling emissions of mercury and other air toxics from U.S. coal- and oil-fired power plants or electric generating units.
EPA admitted it could “calculate risk” for only 3,100 (4%) of the continental USA’s 88,000 watersheds.
For over 60% of the 3,100 watersheds it did model, EPA took only one or two fish mercury measurements – making it virtually impossible to adopt even valid 75th-percentile fish mercury values. There is a breaking point where extremely poor statistical sampling renders EPA’s pretentious number crunching, conclusions and rules invalid.
The agency’s estimates for mercury exposure risks are solely for “hypothetical female subsistence consumers” who daily eat almost a pound of fish that they themselves catch in U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes over a 70-year lifetime. That’s less than 1% of U.S. women. For the rest of American women (who eat mostly ocean fish, purchased at a grocery, on a far less regular basis), EPA’s rules are irrelevant.
EPA admits that only 22 to 29% of its computer-modeled watersheds are “at risk” from EGU mercury, even when it erroneously assumed that at least 5% of total Hg deposition into the watersheds came from U.S. power plants.
EPA itself proclaims: “The emissions limits in today’s rule are technology-based … and do not need to be justified based on their ability to protect public health.”
If the technology exists to eliminate these pollutants, the agency will impose the new regulations – regardless of their cost, their effect on electricity prices and reliability, their impact on factory and other jobs, and whether the rules actually do little or nothing to improve human health.
It has become increasingly obvious that EPA’s real goal is to assert its authority over ever-increasing segments of our economy; reinterpret medical and scientific studies to fit its regulatory agenda; and replace as many coal-fired power plants as possible with costly, unreliable renewable energy systems.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 14, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.
T6: I said, "If you care about the unborn."
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 14, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
Maybe the Catholic church can't change their health plans because they have so many altar boys they still have to pay off. Covering for their priests is the top priority not truth, justice and the American way. They are protecting people that give Packgirl all those scary dreams at night.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 14, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.
The think the bishops smell a Super-Pac for the Catholic Church.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NotaLiberal says... February 14, 2012 at 11:47 a.m.
The reason for your frustration is not about birth contol
He has far surpassed J.C. as being the worst pres. Our constitution means nothing to BHO. My grandkids will suffer way more than I. There are very few promises made by the candidate that have been fulfilled. He is trying to break America and make us into a muslim nation. Don't take my word for it. Just look at how he is attempting to govern.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Lifelonglearner says... February 14, 2012 at 1:05 p.m.
The beauty of our form of government is that it survives not matter who is president. After the government intrusions into privacy of the Bush/Cheney administration, I admit to being slightly worried about a crisis being created so that term limits were repealed so that Bush/Cheney could stay in office. In politics, FEAR sells like nothing else will. So like FDR said, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself."
( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie says... February 14, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
I am extremely discouraged by constantly hearing these insane comments by people such as NotaLiberal--"He [Obama] is trying to break America and make us into a muslim nation."
There are letters to the editor like this every day.
This is pure fantasy.
There are real reasons to criticize Obama but this constant demonization and conspiracy theories sounds like crazy people.
I am beginning to be sorry I ever moved to Arkansas 60 years ago. I believe people's thinking is more warped here. They never stopped trying to put down the black man.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 14, 2012 at 1:40 p.m.
LLL, if you were worried about government intrusions into privacy of the Bush/Cheney administration then you should be apoplectic about the Obama administration.
( permalink | suggest removal )
LittleRockVoter says... February 14, 2012 at 2:01 p.m.
Everyone is talking about women and their right to birth control and it's their responsibility to protect themselves and not the government. What I find odd is that no one (including the Catholic Church) has pointed out that men are equally responsible to protect the health of women and help prevent unplanned pregnancies by practicing safe sex or abstaining from sex if your religious beliefs do not condone the use of birth control. Last time I checked, a woman can't get pregnant by herself without some intervention from the opposite sex...divine or otherwise.
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 14, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
Packman:
*
"Among sexually experienced teens — those who ever had intercourse — 22.3% got pregnant in 1990.
*
The teen birth rate and the teen abortion rate also went down:
*
*4% of teens gave birth in 2008, down from the 1991 peak of 6.2%.
*1.8% of teens had an abortion in 2008 — the lowest abortion rate since abortion was legalized and down from the 1988 peak of 4.35% in 1988.
*From 1986 to 2008, the proportion of teen pregnancies ending in abortion dropped by a third, from 46% to 31%.
*
Why is the teen pregnancy rate dropping? According to a 2007 study, it’s mainly due to better use of birth control."
*
blogs.webmd. com/breaking-news/2012/02/drop-in-teen-pregnancy-due-to-birth-control.html
*
"The world’s abortion rate, which began declining steadily in the 1990s, has stopped falling, according to a new study.
*
The study, published online last week in The Lancet, was done by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, which studies sexuality and reproductive health.
*
Globally, abortions fell from 35 per 1,000 women in 1995 to 29 per 1,000 by 2003. After that, the rate essentially leveled off.
*
The study blamed a decline in access to birth control.
*
“When contraception rates are high, abortion rates are low,” Gilda Sedgh, a senior research associate at the institute and the lead author of the new study, said in an interview."
*
nytimes. com/2012/01/24/health/abortion-worldwide-rate-stopped-falling-after-2003-researchers-cite-scarcity-of-contraception.html
*
"Implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which includes a mandate that employers must cover contraception as free preventive care, is widely viewed among public-health experts as an action that could further decrease unintended pregnancy, teen pregnancy and abortion in the United States."
*
articles.latimes. com/2012/feb/09/news/la-heb-contraception-politics-20120209
*
But then YOU said that the Affordable Care Act which which would provide FREE contraceptives to women would lull "uneducated women into a false sense of security thinking they are having protected sex when in fact they have no clue as to when and how to use whatever birth control means provided and become pregnant due to their collective ignorance."
*
Their COLLECTIVE IGNORANCE..???? You don't really want to go there do you..???
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 14, 2012 at 3:17 p.m.
LittleRockVoter,
Our civilization is doomed if we expect all men to start behaving responsibly when it comes to keeping their pants zipped. With respect to birth control and taking responsibility for raising children, women usually are more reponsible than men-- though there are a few good men out there.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 14, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
Hey Coralie - You owe me an apology. I did not say "women". I said "woman". Big difference and you can apologize at any time. And Coralie, how can you say BH Obama is black? He's just as much white as he is black. Are you showing more than a tad of racism by refusing to acknowledge BH Obama's whiteness?
Hey Aimee - Do you realize all those postive statistics you provided happened WITHOUT government mandated free contraceptives? In your rush to prove me wrong, you proved that this mandate is wholly unnecessary. The reason teen pregnancies went down in the study you noted could have just as easily been attributed to abstinence education. Regardless, nothing you provided speaks to the issue of irresponsible people suddenly becoming responsible or the unintended consequence of additional pregnancies and abortions due to ignorance of proper contraceptive use.
And how can any credible study find a "decline" in access to birth control when abstinence is universal and free?
And yes, I do want to go there; "collective ignorance" was an apt description.
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 14, 2012 at 3:41 p.m.
Packman:
*
So, just think of how many MORE unwanted pregnancies and teen motherhood could be avoided if contraceptives were free... As to not knowing how to use them that could apply to BOTH sexes, don't you think..???
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 14, 2012 at 3:41 p.m.
Before someone starts getting out the brain enemas, I suggest that you simply go to the Guttmacher Institute website and search for Facts on Contraceptive Use in the United States. Pretty much has all the information in factual form. It's a little more disgestible than the dense and convoluted opinion form.
You will be surprised.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie says... February 14, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
Packman--I'll apologize to you the day that pigs fly.
And you trot out Obama's white half when it's convenient. Fact is, in all my years I have never heard a President so vilified as Obama, and several others were far worse by any measure. Like the one before him.
"History News Network Poll: HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst "
Carter is rated by historians about the same as H.W. Bush, Nixon a little lower.
( permalink | suggest removal )
tortietude03311628 says... February 14, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.
The Catholic archbishop of DC is calling for Catholics to “speak up and protest” about the Church being told what to do and how to do it. Vast majority of Catholics are Democrats. Sounds like the call for a mutiny from the Party. They don't usually speak from the pulpit like that.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 14, 2012 at 5:40 p.m.
This is no more than an attack on women by men that don't think women have a right to "her" conscience and "her" liberty. The insurance companies are paying from the preventive savings and the churches are exempted because "Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion;..." However, at the same time, the Constitution does NOT allow a religion to make laws on the rest of society. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief Superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself", said Justice Antonin Scalia; see Employment Division v. Smith.
.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson
.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson '
"This is indeed an issue of religious freedom: the freedom of non-Catholics not to be bound by the dictates of the Catholic Church in the workplace." - David Boies
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 14, 2012 at 6:31 p.m.
Once again the King that came into power under the auspice of being a uniter is dividing like no other Pres in history. Has anyone noticed that he and his Demwits are continually finding things to divide the public on?
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 14, 2012 at 7:24 p.m.
Wow! Some brains are more backed up than others with effluvium.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... February 14, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.
Were pregnancy rates lower during Prohibition when it was more difficult to get drunk? I'm sure it was still easy to get drunk at the Kennedy compound back then, knowing what everyone knows about Joseph Kennedy
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 14, 2012 at 7:38 p.m.
I say try all the Catholic leadership for obstructing justice and conspiracy of child molestation. They don't bring up religion when thats the topic.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lirbro says... February 14, 2012 at 8:31 p.m.
Be careful what you wish for: RC's don't recognize divorce and remarriage either. If RC bishops are granted a waiver on "consciencious" grounds, insurees may find they are stuck insuring their ex until death do you part.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 15, 2012 at 7:06 a.m.
The bishops need to worry about their own problems with child molestation. They also need to worry more about poverty. Why aren't they doing more to help in Haiti?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 15, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
C'mon, Coralie, you made a mistake. Put your big girl panties on and admit it. It really is amusing to hear liberals talk about electing the first black president, when the country elected a person who is just as much white as black. Earth to Coralie: You say you are a senior citizen which means you were around during the GW Bush presidency. If so, and you weren't living under a rock, you could not possibly have missed the daily Bush villification facilitated by the mainstream media. To say what is being said about Obama is any worse than what was said about Bush is simply a lie.
Hey Aimee - Allow me to point out another inconsisetency in your liberal talking points. Liberals support Roe v Wade. Liberals support the world's largest abortion provider (Planned Parenthood). Liberals support abortion on demand. Liberals support abortion. If there's nothing wrong with aborting a "fetus" (liberal terminology, not mine) why do you care if abortions in America are decreased? If you truly feel abortion is OK, what's the problem with having one?
Hey Jjackk - Speaking of child molestations you might want to look up a couple of statistics. First, look up the percentage of Americans who are homosexual. Next, look up the percentage of same sex (homosexual) child molestations (see Jerry Sandusky). Would you be surprised to find that while homosexuals make up less than 4% of the general population same sex child molestations account for over 40% those convicted of such crimes? Which begs the question, are homosexuals ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals?
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 15, 2012 at 11:04 a.m.
Packman:
*
Poor dear..!!! You are SOoooo lacking in any basic knowledge of current events... One wonders why you even bother reading or posting here... Oh, yeah... you have some fanatical mission to defend the indefensible..!!! Republicans...!!!
*
So, how is that going..???? ~smirk~
*
One of the major reasons our economy is in such dire straights is because of the growth in health care costs - thanks to the "profit" motive of private health care insurance companies...
*
Abortions are expensive medical procedures...!!!
*
Reducing the number of abortions helps to reduce medical costs so, hopefully, more funding will be available for other needed care...such as cancer treatment, etc...
*
Providing contraceptives is CHEAPER than surgery...!!!
*
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."...
*
GET IT..????? ~sheesh~
*
Brainless Bible-thumping blowhards..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 15, 2012 at 11:53 a.m.
Aimee, what's truly hilarious is you acting like you know sooooo much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aimee says.....One of the major reasons our economy is in such dire straights is because of the growth in health care costs - thanks to the "profit" motive of private health care insurance companies...
*
Abortions are expensive medical procedures...!!!
*
Reducing the number of abortions helps to reduce medical costs so, hopefully, more funding will be available for other needed care...such as cancer treatment, etc...
*
Providing contraceptives is CHEAPER than surgery...!!!
*
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."...
*
GET IT..????? ~sheesh~
*
Brainless Bible-thumping blowhards..!!!
NO,NO,NO,NO!!!!!!!!!!! Giving tax dollars to frauds is the problem.
lifenews. com/2012/02/14/whistleblower-says-planned-parenthood-defrauded-government/
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 15, 2012 at 3:23 p.m.
T6:
*
"Coverage for family planning services makes financial sense for the federal government as well as states administering the program, given the longer-term cost savings for a range of government safety net programs. For example, Guttmacher Institute research shows that every dollar invested in helping women avoid pregnancies they do not want saves $4.02 in Medicaid expenditures that otherwise would have been needed for pregnancy-related care."
*
familyplanning.uchicago. edu/policy/publications-resources/Medicaid%20Family%20Planning%20and%20Health%20Reform%20Policy%20Brief.pdf
*
Got that..???? A savings of over 4 times the amount spent... Only wingnuts like you can see this as "costly"..!!!
*
Your incompetence is truly amazing..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 15, 2012 at 5:29 p.m.
The insolent go out and have recreational sex and we get to pay for their stupidity. Then PP frauds the unsuspecting sap that comes into their clinics by over charging Government (the taxpayers) I'm not surprised a Liberal wouldn't be concerned about other people's money being funneled into Planned Parenthood's coffers.
Anytime journalists feel the need to reinforce unexamined Planned Parenthood statements, they pull the Guttmacher card. The Guttmacher Institute, founded by former Planned Parenthood President and former Vice President of the American Eugenics Society, Alan F. Guttmacher. The Guttmacher Institute was birthed in 1968 as a research arm of Planned Parenthood. In the late 70s, for public relations and credibility issues, both organizations performed a public separation declaring that Guttmacher was no longer affiliated with Planned Parenthood (PPFA) in any way but
the Guttmacher Institute’s umbilical cord hasn’t been cut to Planned Parenthood. So the next time one of you liberal quotes from Guttmacher remember their in bed with PP.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... February 15, 2012 at 6:50 p.m.
As a student and former teacher of statistics, I respect the Guttmacher Institute because it holds its research and reports to very high standards. Even anti-abortion groups have cited their research.
It is the lack of reliable and repeatable research that has reduced the right-wing argument here to a modern version of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Guttmacher follows the simplest formula that generates legitimate scientific evidence: reliably collected and analyzed, analysis based on clearly shown data, and a systematic review to double-check their conclusions.
If those in disagreement with Guttmacher's numbers and analysis provide you no counter-evidence or studies, then they are merely whiners with an ax to grind. In other words, you have to deal with the "what" of the data, not the "who" that produced it. The former method deals with the statistics; the latter does not.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 15, 2012 at 10:17 p.m.
The GAO in 2010 put out a report on Planned Parenthood and other organizations that support legal abortion. The GAO can account for only $657.1 million out of $2.3 billion in federal funds that were appropriated to Planned Parenthood.
One aspect of the study was the amount of federal funding received by the Guttmacher Institute, which was, up until recently, Planned Parenthood’s research arm. The GAO report indicates that it received $12.7 million from the federal government between 2002 and 2009 — a large sum for a non-profit think tank.
It is unfortunate that such a politicized research institute receives so much federal funding. Some of the researchers at the Guttmacher Institute do conduct analytically rigorous research on reproductive health issues, but Guttmacher always spins their research to argue for more government funding for contraception, regardless of what their research actually finds. This is unsurprising, considering that Planned Parenthood — which purportedly uses much of its federal grant money on contraception programs — wants to keep funds flowing strong.
By funding Guttmacher, the government is basically funding a group whose purpose is to lobby for more contraception funding
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 15, 2012 at 10:39 p.m.
T6: You are like a mad women throwing spaghetti hoping something will stick. That right-wing religious garbage was debunked July 2010. The GOA report NEVER referenced $2 billion.
politifact. com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/25/worldnetdaily/planned-parenthood-funding-did-gao-really-find-mil/
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 16, 2012 at 1:13 a.m.
T6:
*
Planned Parenthood received 6,000 donations in 24 hours compared to the 100 - 200 donations on a typical day after the Komen incident... Doesn't look like they are as vilified as you are suggesting... No body believes that garbage that the Right dumps on everything it disagrees with..!!!
*
“Although it is not true that conservatives are stupid people… It is true that all stupid people are conservative”
~ John Stuart Mill
*
~snicker~
( permalink | suggest removal )
Populist says... February 16, 2012 at 5:13 a.m.
I will reiterate what I said before. While I highly approve of the use of birth control as a means of preventing unwanted children and attacking poverty, I do not believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control on moral grounds. I also do not understand why liberals can care so much about people, but sometimes care so little about a viable infant in utero. Jake Tidmore thinks there are no studies to indicate that women can suffer emotionally for years or forever after having an abortion, yet a fair number of women have come out and indicated that they have. While I applaud many of Planned Parenthoods activities, I chose not to give to them because of the abortions performed.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... February 16, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
Aime - Stop dodging the question: "Liberals support abortion. If there's nothing wrong with aborting a "fetus" (liberal terminology, not mine) why do you care if abortions in America are decreased? If you truly feel abortion is OK, what's the problem with having one?
And Aimee - Since this has gone so far over your head you will need the space shuttle to grasp it, the issue isn't whether contraception paid for by others (not free) will reduce unintended pregnancies. The issue that should scare the hello out of us all is the sweeping government mandate made possible by Obamacare. A federal government mandate, by the way, that literally changed on a whim. It's tyranny at its best/worst. The useful idiots have drank the contraceptive Kook-Aid while ignoring the bigger issue of the federal government's attack on individual liberty and democracy.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Reason says... February 16, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
NO, THIS IS TYANNY:
The survey shows that abortion is at the lowest level in almost 40 years which means the sky is about to spew fire and brimstone. And birth control is the cause of the decline and therefore must be evil doers at work. We must shut this country down until we decide if women are too stupid to have birth control because women do not have a right to "her" own conscience. Her rights belongs to the Catholic Church and we will NOT have it any other way. ALL people that care about educational counseling, disease prevention test and treatments, prenatal care, the health and welfare of a woman and the unborn ... must be rounded up and burned at the stakes. Obamacare, huh, look how many seniors that Medicare killed. It is scary, scary.....
( permalink | suggest removal )
Commander says... February 16, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.
With Iran striving to obtain nuclear weapons and North Korea all ready having them; it seems be pure insanity to want to lower our defenses. The cut to the defense budget and the proposed cut to our nuclear arsenal is ludicrous. The USA was once the strong nation in the world but if this keeps up, we will be the weakest.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... February 16, 2012 at 10:55 p.m.
Dang Aimee thanks for enlightening us; we never realized Obama was conservative until you posted that comment from some doofus no one cares about!!! Snicker Grin LOL ??? !!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie says... February 17, 2012 at 1:18 p.m.
T6, Packman, and friends, here's a little reality for you-all:
"Reporting from Washington—
Since President Obama moved to require Catholic hospitals and universities to offer their employees contraceptive health benefits, Republicans have rushed to accuse the administration of an unprecedented attack on religious freedoms.
None has been more forceful than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who accused Obama of "a direct violation of the 1st Amendment." But years before the current partisan firestorm, GOP lawmakers and governors around the country, including Huckabee, backed similar mandates.
latimes. com/health/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216,0,3392996. story
Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows."
Is it hypocrisy or just ignorance?
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 18, 2012 at 2:58 a.m.
Packman:
*
Only you could make the "offer" of free birth control (no one is being forced to take it) into a MANDATE..!!!! Good grief, Charlie Brown... Get a grip on reality, PLEASE..!!!
*
Redwing:
*
I'm sure you will recognize THIS guy, but you really DO need to expand your knowledge beyond Fox News...!!!
*
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
~ George Will
*
Is he saying that Republicans have NO plan of action at all... They just oppose everything the President is trying to do... The "Party of NO", indeed..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 18, 2012 at 3:11 p.m.
Aimee, the offer of free birth control is a mandate.....All 181 Catholic bishops in the United States oppose and have publicly denounced a regulation issued by the Obama administration that would require every health insurer to offer contraceptives, including those that induce abortion, free of charge.
As far as the R's being the party of NO. That's a well worn out talking point of the left but it's not true. Obama doesn't have a solution to our debt they just know they don't like what the R's have to offer. Timothy Geithner openly admitted that even though the White House has no solution of its own, it refuses to consider a Republican plan.
youtube. com/watch?v=s29X6Wm0J1Q.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 18, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
The mandate doesn't cover church employees, just their other "organizations." If they're so upset why don't they stick with the business thats untaxed and unregulated? You know, church. They are the ones that are muddling up the distinction.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 18, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
Besides if 98% of Catholic women do or have used contraception maybe them Bishops should take a look at the bad job their priests are doing with indoctrination. Looks like the brain washing is a complete failure, but I guess its easier to blame the government and play the victim.
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 19, 2012 at 12:41 a.m.
T6:
*
An offer to supply woman with free birth control is not a mandate.. No one is being forced to take it... The insurance companies ARE mandated to OFFER it but there is no one MANDATED to take it...
*
George Will disagrees with you... He says the Republicans only know what they are AGAINST... THAT is not the way to solve problems...!!! It is just being an obstructionist...!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
nwar says... February 19, 2012 at 12:19 p.m.
Where do some of you folks get the idea that this is about "free" contraceptives? We are talking about employee health insurance and many of us pay substantial preiums for that insurance. And even if your employer does pick up the costs, it is part of your compensation for your work. It is not free. All the bogus outrage from the bishops and the GOP is just for show. Archbishop Dolan doesn't seem to realize that contraceptive coverage has been required in his homestate of New York for years. And someone ought to remind Huckabee that it is covered in Arkansas too, and was during his terms as Governor. Funny, I don't hear anybody screaming about not having to cover vasectomies. This is nothing but attempted church-sponsored discrimination agianst women, something they have practiced for hundreds of years.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.