..I already said you can.

Sure, but you will end up going to trial.

Why would you judge them now for years past. I did not say the Catholic Faith was perfect. Indeed their health means a great deal to the Church. It promotes both the physical health and the health of spirit. Teaching responsibility means sometimes a parent must deni a child something. So that it may grow.

Self control is a learned concept.

Yet learning it will open new paths to the child.

Should they then allow something that while it might be 'liberating' in the physical world, stunts the growth in the world of spirit?

How can anyone ask them to go against what God gives them to do in this life.

Not in small numbers as when a Priest falls or stumbles.

But as a Church?

A hospital, in my view, is not a church.

We do not forgive. We do not forget.

if it is a catholic church though, it is devoted to catholic principle

just as a veterans hospital is not an the military, but is devoted to military personnel

All the Catholic Hospitals I have been in were built by the tithes and the offerings of the faithful within their faith.

How then is it not a place of worship?


It was built for the urging of God.

and by the way all you Catholics out there.

Thank you for the Church you built in my home town.

Wheh I walked in your doors with my finger detached.

You gave it back to me, fed me, and gave me books to read while I healed.

And asked me not how rich I was or of what faith.

The social responsibility of Catholic health care services is guided by five essential principles outlined in the bishops’ document:

1. To promote and defend human dignity: The right to life of every human being means the right as well to adequate health care and must be basic to every Catholic institution involved in medical service and science.

2. To care for the poor: No one can ever be turned away from a Catholic hospital because of an inability to pay. This attention to the poor, the underinsured, and the uninsured must be paramount at a Catholic hospital.

3. To contribute to the common good: Catholic health care services are meant for the entire community. These services should be instigators of social change that lead to a greater respect for fundamental human rights and for the economic, social, political, and spiritual health of the entire community.

4. To exercise responsible stewardship: As the bishops state, “Catholic health care ministry exercises responsible stewardship of available health care resources. A just health care system will be concerned both with promoting equity of care – to assure the right of each person to basic health care is respected – and with promoting the good health of all within the community.”

5.Adherence to the moral teachings of the Church: In our society today, any Catholic health care service will be approached, or even pressured, to provide medical procedures that are contrary to Catholic teaching. But by refusing to provide or permit such medical procedures, Catholic health care affirms what defines it: a commitment to the sacredness and dignity of human life from conception until death.



I think they do an admirable job and have admirable and consistent goals towards human dignity 'from conception until death'

Article below:


More solid evidence of religious hypocracy. The article states:
"the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health issues globally, in the United States, “among all women who have had sex, 99 percent have used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98 percent).”



If they hire non-Catholics and they take non-Catholic patients, and accept State and or Federal funds, they are not private enough.

They serve the general public, and hire from the general public. They are a business, like any other business that would be required to submit to the governing laws of a federal healthcare plan.





The Church itself claims that while the choices of its ‘flock’ may be wrong, it’s the values of the Church hierarchy that should be protected (as opposed to the people’s obvious choice).

So now the government is suppose to be some kind of expert on every religion and all of the dogma of all of the sects that divide them, in order to be considered as protectors of religious freedom.

The First Amendment points to the rights of INDIVIDUALS not to religious dogma as dictated by any religious hierarchy.

The above is a GREAT example of why there is a necessity for religious freedom (for individuals). Because the responsibility of the government is to protect the ‘common’ good and it cannot do that if it must bow to the dogmatic dictates of religious hierarchy.

Instead, individuals are given the freedom to choose their own beliefs.

If they hire non-Catholics and they take non-Catholic patients, and accept State and or Federal funds, they are not private enough.

They serve the general public, and hire from the general public. They are a business, like any other business that would be required to submit to the governing laws of a federal healthcare plan.





The Church itself claims that while the choices of its ‘flock’ may be wrong, it’s the values of the Church hierarchy that should be protected (as opposed to the people’s obvious choice).

So now the government is suppose to be some kind of expert on every religion and all of the dogma of all of the sects that divide them, in order to be considered as protectors of religious freedom.

The First Amendment points to the rights of INDIVIDUALS not to religious dogma as dictated by any religious hierarchy.

The above is a GREAT example of why there is a necessity for religious freedom (for individuals). Because the responsibility of the government is to protect the ‘common’ good and it cannot do that if it must bow to the dogmatic dictates of religious hierarchy.

Instead, individuals are given the freedom to choose their own beliefs.




and their own healthcare providers,,,,

The wealth of the Catholic Church was not gained through the tithes of American citizens. It had always been the wealthiest of all religious sects, only surpassed by the Mormons in more recent times.

The vast amount of wealth was accumulated as its representatives found refuge in the courts of kings and emperors and served as PAID cohorts. The Church was also rewarded in kind by the spoils of successful gain of territory and people by those rulers.

That wealth is far from diminished and the small amount of tithes often only serve as additional support for the individual parish.

Contributions, other charitable donations, AND BUSINESSES, like the hospitals feed the Holy See that rules under the Pope in the sovereign city state of the Vatican.

Just a little more information.

Not under the current healthcare provisions.

However, if we go to the more socialized one-payor system, then the Church could not complain, because the Church would not have relinquish a dime for what it finds offensive. AND, all the 'individuals' who chose NOT to follow their Church dogma, would be the ones paying.

In fact, in a Democracy Now interview, a Church emissary was the one who suggested that a one-payor system would satisfy the Church.

So the Church does not feel the least bit responsible for the salvation of 98% of its women parisheners, as long as they don't take the hierarchy down the braisen path.

under what provision can people not choose a health provider?


the church does not give salvation, but I think the catholic religion and healthcare system do have a reasonable request and expectation to serve the purpose of treating 'human life',, in all its forms,,,

If they hire non-Catholics and they take non-Catholic patients, and accept State and or Federal funds, they are not private enough.

They serve the general public, and hire from the general public. They are a business, like any other business that would be required to submit to the governing laws of a federal healthcare plan.





The Church itself claims that while the choices of its ‘flock’ may be wrong, it’s the values of the Church hierarchy that should be protected (as opposed to the people’s obvious choice).

So now the government is suppose to be some kind of expert on every religion and all of the dogma of all of the sects that divide them, in order to be considered as protectors of religious freedom.

The First Amendment points to the rights of INDIVIDUALS not to religious dogma as dictated by any religious hierarchy.

The above is a GREAT example of why there is a necessity for religious freedom (for individuals). Because the responsibility of the government is to protect the ‘common’ good and it cannot do that if it must bow to the dogmatic dictates of religious hierarchy.

Instead, individuals are given the freedom to choose their own beliefs.


Re the government being some kind of expert...

Nope. Government does not have to be an expert. But it does need to adjust.

Cause it is not...

NOT.

Even supposed to be poking its nose in that door.

so it does not have to be an expert.

It simply needs to 'adjust' to this and leave the Catholics alone. As congress is not allowed to make any law effecting free practice of religion.

So this law must reflect that.

OR IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

There is no gray area here.

If it continues to be interpreted as 'allowing' federal intervention in a basic function of a single religion...

It will open a third proof of Constitutional failure ... Something that has never made it to the Supreme Court before. (such things are usually dealt with by the first good judge it gets to, and never make it to the Supreme Court)

and the Supreme Court will be in a very uncomfortable position and pressured on all sides (because of the war between the parties for control).

Stand up America!

Don't you think its about time we put an end to this war between the parties.

Once they have pushed the war to the point of NEEDING the Supreme Court...

We are left with but a one legged table.

US.

In a one-payer system, not too many would choose to pay the price for a healthcare provider, it would be too cost prohibitive because it would be a novelty. The one-payer system is basically socialized medicine. Your healthcare needs are met and if birth control is considered a necessary medical service, then all the women in the system could choose to get birth control or not. But the bottom line is, however, the insurance premium is paid, probably as a payroll deduction, everyone pays the same amount per person covered.

Under Obama's healthcare plan, employers are free to choose the insurance provider BUT there are provisions in the plan that the provider MUST include, like access to free birth control.

If a person chooses NOT to accept the employer plan, they can certainly get insurance through the state which is supposed to be affordable, or through another provider (very cost prohibitive).

So it's not a matter of not having a choice, it's a matter of what choice one can afford.

And what one can afford is the reason why birth control (considered to be necessary to a woman's health) is mandated, because so many in need of birth control cannot afford it without insurance coverage for it.

medically prescribed hormones for medical reasons is one issue

hormones prescribed as a contraception for those CHOOSING to be sexually active,, is another

Adjust to what - the needs of the individual or the desires of the proclaimed hierarchy of a religion?




And so it's not - it's poking its nose into the needs of individuals, which clearly indicates that those individuals need birth control. GET IT - THE WOMEN need birth control - 98% of female Catholics have used birth control - AGAINST their own religious directives.

That must say something about the NEED for birth control because they are denying their own religious hierarchy to procure it. You think?




It does reflect the First Amendment - it gives ALL of those women a choice by making sure that birth control is part of the plan, but no woman is required to USE the free birth control.



I see any gray in that area. Individual religious choise is surely in tackt, they choose a religion, choose to defy it, and then you create the gray area by saying the government cannot make laws that serve the greatest number of people, because the Pope says his religious beliefs are not reflected in what the people do or say.


G'night!

There is a reason why I respect your posts.

I am not even sure who posted this thread. But I am actually offended by the title.

Obama did not do this. He is just the President. Congress did not do this they are but politicians.

The law that was passed without due diligence because they fought did this. (and an overlarge federal system made it possible).

Sorry, way late last night and I see I must have missed the point you were making and seemed to go on about something else.

But I still don't understand what you were trying to say. Why should pre-treatment to prevent a medical condition (like inhalers,Prilosec,Clareton and the meds which prevent high blood pressure, heart disese ...) be any different from birth control products meant to prevent pregnancy? They are all pre-treatments.

The use of hormones as treatment for existing conditions are also medical treatment. The "morning after" pill could fit in this category if the condition was known but it's still birth control.

Im not sure the criteria for 'pre treatment' is

I know inhalers are used for those who have some difficulty breathing because of an exhisting condition

upon a bit of research I see prilosec treats gerd

and clareton is used to treat allergies


as far as I understand, these are ways to manage and treat existing conditions,,,,

I am not aware of prescribed medications or covered medications to merely prevent , as opposed to treat, conditions and I would oppose mandating coverage of such medications