Be sure to visit the source (bottom of the post), it has a ton of accompanying videos including one with Ron Paul.
[video=youtube;gRFNeIzkM38]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRFNeIzkM38[/video]
[release][B]Washington (CNN) --[/B] President Barack Obama announced a compromise Friday in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.
Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.
Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage -- a continuation of current law.
There will be a one-year transition period for religious organizations after the policy formally takes effect on August 1.
"No woman's health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes." Obama said at the White House. But "the principle of religious liberty" is also at stake. "As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right."
The president briefed New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, on the decision Friday morning. He also discussed the decision with Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association and Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood.
Lines drawn in contraception debate Religious freedom or women's health? EWTN: Health mandate violates conscience Paul: Obama trampling on religion
News of the compromise comes after days of escalating partisan and ideological rhetoric over the divisive issue. The White House originally wanted to require hospitals and schools with religious ties to offer full contraception coverage. Many Catholic leaders and other religious groups strongly oppose any requirement for contraception coverage on theological grounds.
The question of whether institutions with religious ties should be required to offer insurance plans covering birth control and the so-called morning after pill, among other things, hits a number of political hot buttons. Liberal groups have pushed for an expansive contraception coverage requirement on grounds of gender equality in health care. Conservatives generally consider it a violation of the First Amendment and an infringement on religious liberty.
Some political analysts believe the controversy could cost Obama votes in politically critical states like Pennsylvania and Ohio in November, while others insisted it will ultimately hurt Republicans with suburban women.
Initial reaction to Friday's decision was mixed. More liberal leaders appeared to embrace the compromise, while more conservative leaders expressed deep skepticism.
"In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women's health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work," Planned Parenthood's Richards said.
"We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman's ability to access these critical birth control benefits," Richards added.
A Democratic congressional source told CNN the deal appeared to address the major concern numerous House Democrats members had that the initial rule would have forced the Catholic Church to do something that conflicted with its core beliefs.
But conservative Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, insisted the revised rule still violates the Constitution.
"This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans' First Amendment right to freedom of religion," Jordan said in a written statement. "It's a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs."
Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski called the compromise "too little, too late."
Published polls show a slight majority of U.S. Catholics actually favor the original full requirement.
Bloomberg reported Wednesday the existence of a deep internal administration split on the matter, with Vice President Joe Biden and former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley warning Obama about the possibility of negative political repercussions in swing states. Several female aides -- including Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius -- urged the president to move forward with the rule, Bloomberg said.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the report, though he declined to offer any details.
"A lot of these accounts are overdramatized," a senior administration official said Friday.
Sources familiar with White House thinking said the administration is convinced approval from conservative Catholics is out of reach and is now trying to win over progressive Catholics.
Meanwhile, on the presidential campaign trail, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney pledged earlier to eliminate the original version of the rule on his first day in office.
Both the White House and Romney's Republican opponents, however, have noted a Massachusetts law in effect while Romney was governor, that required hospitals -- including Catholic ones -- to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
It's ironic for Romney to criticize "the president for pursuing a policy that is virtually identical to the one that was in place when he was governor of Massachusetts," Carney said Wednesday.
Romney, in turn, said Carney needs to "check his history."
In 2005 then-Gov. Romney vetoed a bill that would have required all hospitals -- including Catholic hospitals -- to provide emergency contraception. The heavily Democratic state legislature overrode his veto.
According to news reports at the time, Romney initially said his administration would not enforce the law at Catholic hospitals. But he later reversed course, saying all hospitals would have to supply the morning-after pill. Romney was quoted at the time as saying, "My personal view in my heart of hearts is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information."
"I worked very hard to get the legislature to remove all of the mandated coverages, including contraception," Romney told reporters Wednesday. This "was a provision that got there before I did, and it was one that I fought to remove."
Romney's campaign released a statement from former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon on Thursday defending Romney's past stance on the issue.
"The charge that Mitt Romney has not stood tall to defend freedom of religion is preposterous," Glendon said. "He has shown backbone on every critical issue at every juncture when it counted."[/release]
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1"]Source.[/URL]
Step in the right direction
Awesome video quality.
This is no compromise,
[quote=CNN]"This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans' First Amendment right to freedom of religion," Jordan said in a written statement. "It's a fig leaf, not a compromise. [B]Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs.[/B]"[/quote]
At best, all this is is a delay.
Edit: Looking at what I quoted again, I was wrong, this isn't a delay, but a change in tactics. instead of forcing religious institutions to provide the coverage directly, they are forced to provide it through other providers.
I agree ObamaCare is socialist medicine made to convert innocent children of god into godless dirty commie swine and trample the constitution.
The constitution and the free rights of Americans is the most important thing of all time. The Americans must have the right to [I][U]choose[/U][/I] and not be chosen for like ObamaCare will.
Now let's make gay marriage and abortions illegal.
[QUOTE=mac338;34639608]I agree ObamaCare is socialist medicine made to convert innocent children of god into godless dirty commie swine and trample the constitution.
The constitution and the free rights of Americans is the most important thing of all time. The Americans must have the right to [I][U]choose[/U][/I] and not be chosen for like ObamaCare will.
Now let's make gay marriage and abortions illegal.[/QUOTE]
While we're at it, let's ban common sense and teaching science in school.
I seriously interpreted the title as Obama's condom having broken and Michelle possibly being pregnant
[QUOTE=teh pirate;34641094]I seriously interpreted the title as Obama's condom having broken and Michelle possibly being pregnant[/QUOTE]
haha. Even if he did announce it, making the title that would be taking it a little far just for some alliteration.
[QUOTE=Glaber;34639421]This is no compromise,
At best, all this is is a delay.
Edit: Looking at what I quoted again, I was wrong, this isn't a delay, but a change in tactics. instead of forcing religious institutions to provide the coverage directly, they are forced to provide it through other providers.[/QUOTE]
Tramples is a strong word.
[QUOTE=Glaber;34639421]This is no compromise,
At best, all this is is a delay.
Edit: Looking at what I quoted again, I was wrong, this isn't a delay, but a change in tactics. instead of forcing religious institutions to provide the coverage directly, they are forced to provide it through other providers.[/QUOTE]
Glaber this is mostly for women who need it for extremely bad cramping and too much hormonal stimulation due to menstruation. If anything this is less for preventing childbirth and more preventing unfortunate health symptoms. Quit over-sensationalizing it you fear-mongering ludite.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34641199]haha. Even if he did announce it, making the title that would be taking it a little far just for some alliteration.[/QUOTE]
Alittle alliteration helps alot :v:
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34641358]Glaber this is mostly for women who need it for extremely bad cramping and too much hormonal stimulation due to menstruation. If anything this is less for preventing childbirth and more preventing unfortunate health symptoms. Quit over-sensationalizing it you fear-mongering ludite.[/QUOTE]
Glaber hates anything that doesn't directly harm women, immigrants, or makes sure that babies are born in to abusive or dysfunctional families.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34641358]Glaber this is mostly for women who need it for extremely bad cramping and too much hormonal stimulation due to menstruation. If anything this is less for preventing childbirth and more preventing unfortunate health symptoms. Quit over-sensationalizing it you fear-mongering ludite.[/QUOTE]
What?? Quit hiding the truth.
I'm pro choice, but this is still forcing companies to pay for contraception products. They are taking the costs directly away from the employers and forcing it onto the insurance companies, resulting in increased premiums.
The real affront to freedom of religion is this. Employers can't discriminate against people they hire, and they can't not hire someone because they are an Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever. If a church or religious school hires anyone who wants access to birth control, it should be provided. An employer shouldn't be able to pick and choose what medical treatments or medication employees can get.
So if churches got their way, freedom of religion would be infringed upon by private institutions.
Obama 2012
How about make condoms and birth control pills available at clinics, but keep the higher end condoms at a price away from insurance, shouldn't have to help cover buddies "xtra-small tiny tim condoms for him and her with blah blah blah", instead just a regular condom, no fucking extras. Just rubber, possibly lubed.
[QUOTE=Glaber;34639421]This is no compromise
At best, all this is is a delay.
Edit: Looking at what I quoted again, I was wrong, this isn't a delay, but a change in tactics. instead of forcing religious institutions to provide the coverage directly, they are forced to provide it through other providers.[/QUOTE]
Religion should not be an excuse to get out of this whatsoever
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34642700]Religion should not be an excuse to get out of this whatsoever[/QUOTE]
Religion should not be an excuse to do anything that affects other people.
I agree with Glaber. You guys are just socialist pigs. Clearly, The Good Book states in Bullicus 36:52 that your employer paying for contraceptives that you yourself may not use is a sin.
LiberalViewer always makes interesting videos.
[video=youtube;rw36DbFBemc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw36DbFBemc&feature=g-u-u&context=G2490c68FUAAAAAAADAA[/video]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34642700]Religion should not be an excuse to get out of this whatsoever[/QUOTE]
[quote= US Constitution]Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
[B]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/B]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]
[url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1[/url]
the exercise of certain religions prohibit birth control drugs, by forcing religious groups to provide them you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
[QUOTE=Glaber;34657010]the exercise of certain religions prohibit birth control drugs, by forcing religious groups to provide them you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.[/QUOTE]
good
your childish beliefs don't mean a single thing if they negatively effect other people
[QUOTE=Glaber;34657010][url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1[/url]
the exercise of certain religions prohibit birth control drugs, by forcing religious groups to provide them you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.[/QUOTE]
You're free to practice your beliefs until they negatively affect other people.
it is a belief that birth control can negatively affect other people. Your counter?
[QUOTE=Glaber;34657213]it is a belief that birth control can negatively affect other people. Your counter?[/QUOTE]
That the people who believe that are fucking morons who have no business telling people what to do with their bodies. Seriously, just because you disagree with something doesn't exempt you from paying taxes. You don't see Quakers getting tax exemptions for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan even though pacifism is central to their beliefs.
[QUOTE=Glaber;34657213]it is a belief that birth control can negatively affect other people. Your counter?[/QUOTE]
It objectively does not harm other people. Overriding the "belief" that it does.
Well, short of a flushed condom fucking up the piping anyway.
[QUOTE=Glaber;34657010][url]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1[/url]
the exercise of certain religions prohibit birth control drugs, by forcing religious groups to provide them you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.[/QUOTE]
Find me a single religious text that mentions birth control drugs
prohibiting others from affordable birth control is not a tenet of any recognized religion
At first I interpreted that there was another child on the way..
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34657509]Find me a single religious text that mentions birth control drugs
prohibiting others from affordable birth control is not a tenet of any recognized religion[/QUOTE]
the bible does not mention birth control drugs, but in Genesis 1:27-28, it says [quote=Genesis 1:27-28]And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”[/quote]
This is a core commandant in Christianity and is meant to increase the population. this is why forcing religious groups to provide birth control is a breach of not only the first amendment, but of separation of church and state
This is as close as you're going to get.
[QUOTE=Glaber;34657802]the bible does not mention birth control drugs, but in Genesis 1:27-28, it says
This is a core commandant in Christianity and is meant to increase the population. this is why forcing religious groups to provide birth control is a breach of not only the first amendment, but of separation of church and state
This is as close as you're going to get.[/QUOTE]
You'd have to make a big fucking leap of logic to take that as banning birth control. And you still haven't answered my question. Why aren't Quakers exempt from paying war taxes?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
