47 Comments

• eiriamach | Feb 14, 2012, 04:19 PM EST

  I suspect some posters here are in denial, like Cardinal Egan, who notoriously said about protecting abusive priests, "I don’t think we did anything wrong.” I stopped by a Catholic Church Sunday just in time to hear a priest telling the people to "protect innocent life" against Obama's trespass on the First Amendment. Jesus drove the money changers from the temple. Who will throw out the liars? Because of decades of unresolved sexual abuse horrors in their Church, Catholics have been so long in denial that they cannot think their way out of a fog of clerical power-tripping. Their psychological state is a form of mass hysteria, denial of reality, total dependence on priests and bishops to think for them. Is church authority what they need in that state of mind? No, they need the freedom to think clearly about what the US Constitution protects and what 'religious freedom' means. They're pawns in a crude power grab, as seen in NY Cardinal Dolon beating up verbally on Sister Carol Keehan, the nun who heads the 750,000-employee Catholic Health Association. He told her he was "disappointed that she had acted unilaterally, not in concert with the bishops" when she said that exempting Catholic employers from paying for contraceptive insurance would resolve the problem of Catholic conscience. The USCCB complains of "lack of clear protection for key stakeholders." They actually think they are the "stakeholders" in a debate over women's reproductive-health insurance! Self-deluded bishops, parishioners in denial, and priests exploiting them with lies from the pulpit: welcome to church, American style.

• seanomelb | Feb 13, 2012, 05:01 PM EST

  A typical comment from a right wing stooge who has no idea of common sense and fair play.If you think the 1st.amend.is trampled on prove it with facts and not political gobbledy gook.

• dublinduke | Feb 13, 2012, 01:08 PM EST

  Get out of the weeds and focus on the macro issues. Obama is a radical idealogue who is riding roughshod over the Constitution generally and specifically has declared war on the first amendment. The US didn't fight a war of independence only to allow this chowderhead to declare his mandates trump the Bill of Rights. Further deponent sayeth not.

• seanomelb | Feb 12, 2012, 04:59 PM EST

  The bishops did not give a dam about paedophilia until the proverbial hit the fan.Their concern for the sanctity of life in the womb is not matched by their concern for the sanctity of life post natal. A plague on their hypocritical stance and the Catholic inquisitors led by Opus Dei and their mouth pieces on this site.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 12, 2012, 04:20 PM EST

  The first amendment states that the state does not support any Church but it also emphasizes that the state does not interfere with the practice of religion. It seems that the Obama administration is determined to ride roughshod over the right of Religious bodies to act according to the most profound precepts of their Faith as is evident in the insidious nature of the controversial Health Care law. A peaceful campaign of civil disobedience is called for.

• dublinduke | Feb 12, 2012, 02:03 PM EST

  Obama's mandate has zero to do with contraception and everything to do with the fundament right to religious liberty for citizens of all faiths as set forth in Amendment 1 of the Constitution. It is the basis upon which then US was founded. So set aside your personal biases and dislikes of the church and rally behind the Constitution. His mandate is unconstitutional and must be reversed in its entirety.

• eiriamach | Feb 12, 2012, 08:42 AM EST

  Women's votes carry elections. Since 1964, women have voted in greater numbers than men, regardless of ethnicity, income level, or age. In 2008, 70.4 million women cast votes (60.4%), compared to 60.7 million men (55.7%). In 2004, 8.8 million more women than men voted. Voters under age 30 favor Democratic candidates by 58%, GOP candidates by 33%. Even if not all 18-year-old women understand the importance of having equal health care insurance as employees, their mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers do understand, and we vote! Expect a blitz next November; expect to see the GOP War on Women end decisively at the polls as women turn out in battalions to oust the arrogant males who are trying to take us back to Pre-Title VII days. Obama will not cave on this issue. He knows the consequences for himself and the Dems if he allows the bishops, backed by the party of 'No,' to wipe their boots on women's necks. (Statistics online at Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics.)

• eiriamach | Feb 12, 2012, 07:28 AM EST

  The First Amendment is intended to keep government out of church preaching and doctrine; it does not give any church the right to nullify or dictate legislation that protects the right of privacy of individuals to limit their family size. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof": when the Catholic Church can nullify a law that gives women health care insurance that is equal to men's, the Catholic Church makes itself an "established religion," one that militates against women having equal rights under the law. Without equal treatment under the law, no right or liberty protected by the Constitution has any value. The HHS rule, on the other hand, interferes in NO WAY with anyone's "free exercise" of religion. Anyone who has conscientious objections to contraceptives is perfectly free not to use them, and now Obama has made it unnecessary for Catholic employers even to pay for contraceptive health insurance coverage. Catholic employers will not have to "sponsor" contraceptive coverage for their employees! What problem remains, except that the bishops have not flexed enough political muscle, confused enough of their parishioners about how the US Constitution works, or assaulted the equal rights of women sufficiently?

• seanomelb | Feb 12, 2012, 12:50 AM EST

  Gearoid is overstating the side effects of the pill.I personally do not believe in abortion (in most cases)but I do not believe that I have the right to force my beliefs on others.We all live by our own principals and Gearoid thinks his are paramount. Americans are free to practise their religion and no one wishes to take their rights from them the healthcare issue is been twisted and turned by right wing christians to force their minority opinion on others and hoping to destroy Obama what mean spirited people they are.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 11, 2012, 09:30 PM EST

  At the end of the day, Eiriamach, you are talking about a woman having control over her body and what she does with it, whatever the consequences are for the life inside her. It is the rights of the strong over the weak that you are trumpeting. The First Amendment does indeed protect the rights of religious organizations not to be interfered with or dictated to by the state. There can be little doubt that the Obama administration are imposing conditions on them which infringe this and other amendments very starkly. I doubt very much your figure that 98% of Catholic women of child-bearing age practice contraception. This sounds more apocryphal in essence than fact. Anyway ethics should not be decided on the basis of the behavior or voting practice of the majority. Ciara, you mention that contraceptive pills protect women from certain very serious conditions. Are you aware of the serious illnesses or diseases that these pills can induce in those who use them from an early age and over an extended time frame? These include thrombosis,angina, heart-disease, breast cancer and even infertility. The Ella pill is indeed is an abortifacient and it has been known to expel the fertilized egg from the uterine wall

• ciaradexy | Feb 11, 2012, 05:36 PM EST

  The contraceptive pill protects women from ovarian and endometrial cancers and is a treatment for endometriosis and more importantly, it gives women control over their own bodies. The catholic church should keep their hands off our eggs.

• seanomelb | Feb 11, 2012, 04:46 PM EST

  Contraception and abortion can be a health issue (not that it matters)Gearoid states Obama is tranmpling on peoples right. The only rights is the individual rights of women and their partners that are threatened.The rights hypocritical stance toward the sanctity of life is amusing as they defend capital punishment which is condemned by the pope.Their love of guns has caused unneccasary deaths and their penchant for sending young men to fight illegal wars.So much for the sanctity of life.

• eiriamach | Feb 11, 2012, 03:45 PM EST

  Whose civil liberties does the HHS rule infringe, if not the 98% of Catholic married couples who have used contraception and the vast majority of non-Catholic women who also have used it? HOW does it infringe on any civil right of the bishops who are stamping their feet about religious liberty? Tell us "the point," please, teadoir. I was gratified to see NY Times editor Andrew Rosenthal write the following: "This really is a health issue, as opposed to a purely political matter. About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and expanding access to birth control could lower the abortion rate. The Institute of Medicine, an independent group of doctors and researchers, has called birth control a medical necessity (not a mere convenience) 'to ensure women’s health and well-being.' I understand that the Catholic Church in particular feels strongly about birth control, but this isn’t a theocracy. Religious doctrine cannot dictate public policy. (That’s actually a conservative position, in the true meaning of the word.)"

• teadoir | Feb 11, 2012, 02:46 PM EST

  Clearly you don't get the point, this is an infringement on our civil liberties and total disregard for the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with contraception. I'm a liberal Democrat and voted for Obama in the last election, but this time I will vote against him due this administrations trashing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This country cannot take anymore of his policies after the fleecing of our country by W's spending. He clearly is over his head for this position.

• GeorgeDillon | Feb 11, 2012, 02:15 PM EST

  eiriamach--Still pumping out the same old bigotry. Don't you have a Klavern meeting to attend?

• eiriamach | Feb 11, 2012, 01:25 PM EST

  It's déjà vu all over again. I was fighting these battles side by side with other women 40 years ago. It's disappointing to see how very little churchmen have learned since then. If they'd learned nothing else, they should have learned that they'd lose again, and that in the process, they'd open the eyes of enough people to the mean-spirited nature of their cause that their GOP allies would also lose the 2012 election. Congratulations to Pres. Obama for buying off the bishops by making contraceptive coverage free for Catholic employers while holding firm on insuring women's reproductive health care!

• eiriamach | Feb 11, 2012, 01:09 PM EST

  Gearoid4 writes, "The U.S Church has an inalienable right according to the American Constitution, as in the First Amendment." NO, it does not have such an inalienable right. Inalienable rights belong to individuals; they are bestowed by God equally on us because each of us is created equal. Religious organizations as such, as well as corporations, do not have inalienable rights except through the rights of individuals to organize themselves as religious groups and to establish and manage businesses. When the members-- including the laity-- of the Catholic Church rise up and say that their rights are infringed by a health mandate requiring equal insurance coverage, then we should listen to their complaint. But we know that 98% of Catholic married couples have used contraceptives. It's reasonable to conclude, therefore, that they have not joined their voices to the bishops' because they want for their daughters the same freedom to act responsibly that they have had while government was protecting their inalienable right to have as many children, and only as many children, as they could provide for.

• eiriamach | Feb 11, 2012, 11:59 AM EST

  Gearoid4, if you had a tumor, you'd seek a surgeon and urge the surgeon to interfere quickly with 'natural' progression of cancer. When the choices of men are in question, Catholic doctrine teaches that they should strive to rise above nature, but when the bodies of women are in question, Catholic doctrine teaches that we should "respect the natural biological cycles ... without interrupting what God has ordained." To be fully human, men should do better than nature and women should submit to nature. The old double standard is alive and well, and it's called Catholic teaching. The Ella pill does not work the way earlier versions of the 'morning after' pill worked. There is no evidence that it is an abortifacient, and if it does interfere with implantation of a fertilized ovum, so does a mild cold or a defect in the zygote. In any case, we cannot know how much spontaneous abortion of fertilized ova occurs except that it is frequent-- that, too, is ordained by nature. But you would not allow women to use that natural process to avoid impregnation by a rapist! There's an incredibly sexist double-standard manipulation of "nature" and "natural" in that kind of thinking, much confused. Everyone has a right to the best quality and fullest extent of health care available in his or her state. The US Constitution gives no one and NO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION the "religious freedom" to deny me or any other women our right to equal health care and health insurance. To call that interference "freedom of religion" is an outrage; that interference is misogynist male tyranny.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 11, 2012, 10:31 AM EST

  I have taken stock of my comments, Eiriamach. It is not a popular stand to go against the general current which is flowing in an anti-life direction i.e treating pregnancy as some sort of disease which must be medically erased at source. I am not advocating irresponsible, endless pregnancies but rather that married couples or any couples respect the natural biological cycles of women without interrupting what God has ordained. Couples who do so, often report that it leads to a closer and more mutually satisfying relationship.

• Gearoid4 | Feb 11, 2012, 10:10 AM EST

  How is contraception a health issue in the general understanding of the word? Pregnancies are part of the natural order of life in the reproductive cycle of women, unless conception is prevented or stopped through surgical or chemical intervention. Contraception is not a right that can be dispensed at the whim of anybody. Pregnancy should not be treated as a health disorder because of certain responsibilities that it brings People who oppose contraceptive methods, do not want women to be subject to endless pregnancies that they may not be able to cope with. Tat is why the Church recommends Natural Family Planning methods which respect the reproductive cycles of a woman and allow the married couple to co-operate with each other in mutual love in regulating births if need be. It does not break the link between sex and the unitive aspect of love. You are incorrect to state that the HHS has nothing to do with abortion pills. In fact, the Ella pill is covered by the insurance policies mentioned in the HHS law and is widely regarded as an abortifacient, which makes the womb a hostile environment for hosting the fertilized egg. "Rights" are involved here and it is clearly the constitutionally-guaranteed of Religious groups which are being trodden on.

• eiriamach | Feb 11, 2012, 09:53 AM EST

  I wish you'd contemplate the consequences of your words, Gearoid4, just once before you post them. Can't you see that your lecturing women about not having rights to contraception leads to some Catholic men treating women as though we have no rights--as though women are God's gift to men for beating up on and discriminating against as inferior? Let me hasten to add that in reviewing the readers' comments to the NY Times articles about the bishops' assault on women's health care, I am encouraged to see that the majority of posters, who overwhelmingly support the administration, are male as far as I can tell from screen names. They seem to be grateful to their wives and female partners for taking moral responsibility for birth control, and they feel the injustice of depriving women of equal health care coverage. But the Catholic Church's pogroms against women and gays are doing untold harm to our society and continuing to generate misogyny, homophobia, bullying and abuse. They keep Neanderthal ideas of male-female relationships alive in the 21st century. Biodh naire oraibh!

• eiriamach | Feb 11, 2012, 09:29 AM EST

  Gearoid4, women who use contraceptives must have gynecological exams, prescriptions written by MDs, and monitoring of their medications by MDs. OF COURSE contraception is a health issue! It is a health issue even if we do not mention the many non-reproductive-system health problems for which physicians prescribe hormonal treatments that coincidentally function to make pregnancy impossible or dangerous. Whatever health care resources are available in a society MUST BE EQUALLY available to all, women NOT excepted! Using contraceptives is, by definition, acceptance of "responsibility" for procreation! That responsibility, btw, is MORAL responsibility for the consequences of sexual activity. The HHS rules proposed by the Obama administration have NOTHING to do with abortion. None of the medications that can be prescribed under the rule is remotely abortifacient. For you to associate this issue with abortion is clearly disingenuous. For you to presume to lecture women that they are not entitled to equal health care is arrogant. For RCC to try to commandeer the First Amendment to impose its irresponsible 'moral' teaching on women's consciences is tyranny, and certainly not an exercise of "freedom."

• Gearoid4 | Feb 10, 2012, 07:00 PM EST

  People talk about "rights" without the concomitant responsibilities associated with them. Contraception is not an inherent right and for anyone to link it with health issues is disingenuous, as pregnancy is not a life-threatening or debilitating condition. Abortion is certainly a health issue for the growing child in the womb which usually ends in a brutal finality. Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the US constitution as laid-out in the First Amendment, through which Obama and his cohorts are prepared to trample underfoot

• seanomelb | Feb 10, 2012, 05:50 PM EST

  Collette2 tell that to the exploited children, BTW did you ever use contraceptives? The Pope also states that capital punishment is a sin. Is "Sanctorum" and his right wing holier than thou pals to live by the popes teaching on CP and condemn it.Afterall the pope is infallible!!!

• eiriamach | Feb 10, 2012, 05:26 PM EST

  Whenever this issue comes up, I remember my grandmother, who spent three weeks of every month of her married years praying that she would not be pregnant again and trying to raise six children in a three-room apartment in the lingering years of the Great Depression. And I think of my great-great-grandmother, who brought twelve faithful Catholic children safely through An Górta Mór and then immigrated to the USA at age 70. Wouldn't the Catholic Church have some use for the moral heroism of strong women if it ceased to burden them with the "sinfulness" of contraceptives or guilt over using them? It just seems to me that with the difficulties church officials find themselves in these days, they could use the help of such women, but alas, they'd rather keep women silent, subordinated, guilt-ridden, and out of the way. And isn't that what this furor over insurance coverage for contraceptives is all about?

• Collette2 | Feb 10, 2012, 01:38 PM EST

  jim..... The pope is infallible on faith and morals, what more needs to be added to that. We as nominated catholics under obedience are morally bankrupt. Nothing to blow our trumpet about.

• jimgordo1 | Feb 10, 2012, 01:10 PM EST

  kilgara -- you need to revisit your basic Catholic doctrine: The Pope is infallible on faith and morals when he declares that he is speaking as the successor to St, Peter. That doctrine has been invoked only TWICE in history: For the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950. The Pope is NOT infallible under ordinary circumstances.

• eiriamach | Feb 10, 2012, 06:50 AM EST

  There was a time in the USA when there would be a conservative backlash against the bishops' assault on separation of church and state. Religious doctrine must not dictate national policy, conservatives would say. And to call the bishops' assault "freedom of religion" would be laughable nonsense! The Constitution doesn't give any religious organization the 'freedom' to deny me my freedom. But now, all the GOP candidates are catering to the religious right; Romney is meeting with "evangelical organizers." Religion trumps equal treatment of women under the law, and the GOP is happy to trash the Constitution. Are there any real conservatives anymore?

• kerry214 | Feb 10, 2012, 02:42 AM EST

  What business does the GOP or any Man for that matter telling me what to do with my Uterus. Santorum led a prayer group on the floor of Congress during the Terri Schiavo mess. Saying she was still alive, she was showing signs of life. It was later proved the poor woman had been BRAIN DEAD for years.

• kilgara | Feb 10, 2012, 12:38 AM EST

  The Pope cannot be in error in matters of faith and morals i.e. contraception.If you are a practicing Roman Catholic you MUST believe this, If you do not , you are something other than a practicing Roman Catholic.Do you really think that the Church is going to support and promote a practice that it tells its own members that you could well burn in hell for all eternity if you use it. Case Closed.

• pilib04 | Feb 09, 2012, 08:08 PM EST

  Since when is denying women the right to birth control a matter of religious freedom? The Catholic Church needs to come to grips with reality. Birth control is practiced by the overwhelming majority of practicing Catholics. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of practicing Catholics are opposed to the Rape of children by their Priests and Bishops!

• seanomelb | Feb 09, 2012, 07:27 PM EST

  The inquisition is alive and well a p[lague on the fascists running the church and their moronic puppets.

• Pittsburghkid | Feb 09, 2012, 07:09 PM EST

  Rick will beat Obama. In the past, you were Racist if you voted against Obama. Now, a vote against Obama is a vote for religious freedom. Obama over played his hand, and is going to lose.

• Pittsburghkid | Feb 09, 2012, 06:08 PM EST

  The Americans are not reproducing enough children. If we do not change something then the Muslims will take over, and we will be under the teliban.

• eiriamach | Feb 09, 2012, 05:54 PM EST

  Gearoid4 writes, "Abortion is often used as a backup to contraception if it happens to prevent conception." In the USA, Catholic women are more likely to have elective abortions than any other women. Apparently, not using effective, prescribed contraceptives leads to abortion more often than contraceptive failure. Who wudda thunk that? Equating the HHS rule on contraceptive coverage in health insurance with abortion is one of the Church's political ploys. Facts do not matter when the bishops are grabbing for political power. Women's reproductive health certainly does not matter. Unborn life is precious to them, but once the baby is born, heaven help her if it's a girl. Catholics will blame her and all her tribe for "a mentality which militates against life" and takes love out of sex! Women know what takes the joy out of sex and love out of marriage: worrying about an unplanned pregnancy and the child they cannot afford to raise.

• peterson | Feb 09, 2012, 05:44 PM EST

  WELL SAID -Gearoid 4 !!!

• DannyBoyG | Feb 09, 2012, 04:40 PM EST

  Ok and Ricky Santorum can join that padded room as well....

• joan1954 | Feb 09, 2012, 04:32 PM EST

  Amen Jacke47. Just because most people don't follow the tenets of the church doesn't mean that anyone has a right to desparage the church's right to exist and that is what is happening. What's going to be next, preventing circumcision?

• mrkennedy | Feb 09, 2012, 04:11 PM EST

  Patrick, spoken like a true Catholic. I am sure you will have a good alibi for Our Lord on your final judgement day if you are not in HELL!!!!

• Gearoid4 | Feb 09, 2012, 03:50 PM EST

  The U.S Church has an inalienable right according to the American Constitution, as in the First Amendment, of not having to submit to laws which are inimical to their Religious Faith. The exemption granted to Religious bodies to enable them to opt out of paying for insurance cover for contraception or sterilization, is so narrow as to be worthless. This is already causing a backlash of unprecedented proportions from the Catholic and other Faith communities. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans(including Catholics)are opposed to these insidious measures. Religious people are being forced to go against their consciences when the period of non-coercion runs out next year. Some of the drugs included in the Insurance policies are abortifacient in nature, like the Ella pill. Contraception has led inexorably to a mentality which militates against life and it separates procreation from the unitive, loving aspect of sex. Abortion is often used as a backup to contraception if it happens to prevent conception.

• seanomelb | Feb 09, 2012, 02:15 PM EST

  The catholic health insurance companys(remember they are private companies)would probably go broke if all those members who want the right to contraception withdrew their support.The bishops are a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites.They have no idea of married life or the need for people to control their family size or prevent unwanted children.They are morally bankrupt.

• lokionline | Feb 09, 2012, 12:55 PM EST

  The only 'Catholics' and evangelicals who are getting their knickers in a knot about this are highly unlikely to support Obama regardless of the outcome of this issue - these are mostly the hierarchy and the blue collar Catholics, who are mostly male...
  
  On the other hand, Women who care about equal access to contraception and reproductive health services are a huge part of Obama's constituency.
  
  At the end of the day the administration will find a compromise along the lines of Hawaii, Massachusetts and other states that have already found a political compromise. But if the religious right continue to push this as a 1st Amendment issue, it will rebound against them.
  
  Religion no longer has the hold on the conscience of N. America in the way it has historically held it. A more diverse moral consensus has emerged and denying hourly-paid women who clean our catholic hospitals access to affordable contraception has no part in this morality.

• Nicomax | Feb 09, 2012, 12:44 PM EST

  They will also need to sidestep settled law in that the US Supreme Court in the mid-1960's case, Griswold v. Connecticut, said people have the right of privacy to use contraceptives as they choose. The state of Connecticut had a law banning such use even for married couples. But we now have a crowd wanting to drift back to the 1950's and leave everything to Beaver.

• ripley838 | Feb 09, 2012, 11:05 AM EST

  They are targetting women, it's what the Church and the GOP do.

• eiriamach | Feb 09, 2012, 10:15 AM EST

  According to Linda Greenhouse, writing today in the NY Times, there are 629 Catholic-affiliated hospitals employing 765,000 workers. Not all those workers are Catholic because church-affiliated BUSINESSES (which is what a private hospital is) may not discriminate, in hiring, on the basis of religion. The bishops think that because RCC is a religious organization, they have the right to decide which 'equal' rights they will allow their employees to have and which rights they will withhold-- on religious grounds! If they succeed in exempting Catholic hospital workers and service agency workers and university workers from the requirement that health insurance cover contraceptives, they will, in effect, nullify equal protection of the law for hundreds of thousands of their employees, Catholic and non-Catholic. They will have managed to sidestep that little clause in the US Constitution that says, in effect, there will be no state religion in America. They will have imposed their religious teaching on the law of the land. Never mind that it's only the bishops, not Catholic laity, wielding this power. The only battle left for the GOP is over whose religion will dictate federal law in the future. Romney's? Gingrich's? Santorum's?

• jacke47 | Feb 09, 2012, 10:00 AM EST

  Please don't be so IGNORANT to think the Church/State issue is about 'WOMAN'S HEALTH". It is solely about the state mandating that the Catholic Church their right-to-life beliefs and tenets. Birth control is EASILY available and obtainable at too manly to mention other outlets. If the State says white meat such as pork is good for you then, regardless of your religious beliefs, it is a mandated menu inclusion?? The arrogant Obama administration is AGAIN going where it must not tread!!!!!

• colkelley | Feb 09, 2012, 09:37 AM EST

  This is a matter of Constitutional considerations, not preference. Until the preferences of Catholics becomes Catholic policy the government DOES NOT have the right to enforce changes to the birth control policies of the Catholic Church or any other religious group. Speaking as a longtime atheist I respect that the Federal government is overstepping Constitutional bounds.