St. Louis institutions file birth control suits

viktorkowski 1 year ago

they have no objection to paying for viagra.

spelchek 1 year ago

Explain to me how viagra prevents conception?

whatif 1 year ago

It doesn't, its a double standard thing.

Yeah, look: The Church isn't saying that sex without conception is immoral. It happens all the time. The Church is opposed to the "unnatural" prevention of contraception, because it disassociates the sexual act from its "natural" purpose of conception. That's the Church view.

Viagra is the mirror image of that. Viagra essentially interferes with a "natural" condition that prevents contraception. Viagra represents a human interference in God's natural, sexual plan, and emphasizes a human-centered idea of sex for its own pleasurable sake.

I suppose the question is, why is it okay for old men to use medicine to have sex for pleasure and interfere with God's plan, but it is not okay for young women to use medicine to have sex with pleasure and interfere with God's plan?

And, more to the point, why should the Catholic church have any special input on the terms of public law? Who cares what they think is moral? Religious freedom doesn't mean you have the right to legislate your morality.

jeffcitygirl 1 year ago

Do they make men who request Viagra prescriptions provide a copy of their marriage license first? I mean the Catholic church is opposed to sex outside of marriage isn't it? And Viagra has only one use, while birth control is also used for treatment of menstrual, ovarian, uterine, and hormonal disorders.

spelchek 1 year ago

You would cry foul if the ten commandments were displayed by government in a public venue. Why is the church exempt from the constitution with you? Are they not "separated"?

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

True, but that tax exemption comes with a prohibition on political activity. The insitutions have to make a choice. They can't keep the tax exemption and become active politically.

sickandtired 1 year ago

TG read the tax exempt laws. to be tax exempt and be a religious institution they cannot actively promote a specific person running for office. they can tell their parishioners how the church feels on certain subjects and where the church stands but they cannot tell you " go vote for this person because they believe the way we do." Under separation of church and state the religious inst. cannot influence the govt to support a certain religion and the govt cannot make the religious inst. change their belief system or practices as long as the belief system does not injure, kill another individual or group of people. neither occurs by not provided BC pills or abortion meds.

spelchek 1 year ago

Like the NAACP?

JCLifer 1 year ago

The Ten Commandments are displayed by the government in a public venue. There are two tablets with the commandments engraved in them on the north side of the capitol building, to the right of the fountains.

spelchek 1 year ago

Even if covering Viagra was true (nobody has yet to substantiate the claim); the church chose to cover the drug. The government is forcing the church to cover it through their insurance carrier. Freedom for all or freedom for none.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Bang.

npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/13/146822713/why-catholic-groups-health-plans-say-no-to-contraceptives-yes-to-viagra

The Church explains that Viagra is ok because it can encourage procreation.

I just wonder how many men of the age who commonly use Viagra are trying to have children.

spelchek 1 year ago

"I just wonder how many men of the age who commonly use Viagra are trying to have children." -- That would be a case of, none of your business.

asb 1 year ago

And I would say the same of contraception. Churches can have any rules they want for their clergy, lay and congregations, but as employers, nyet!

spelchek 1 year ago

How very generous of you comrade asb.

Sequoia 1 year ago

The difference is between churches as churches, and churches as employers. Signing a person's paycheck is very much "of this world," and it has everything to do with the church as a legal entity, not a spiritual entity. You can't mix those two roles up. When the Church employs people, they should follow the same rules as other employers.

spelchek 1 year ago

I'm sure you're busy spending your money on causes that you don't believe in, but that's beside the point. "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone"

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Why would anything having to do with conception matter?

A lot of people have issues with any institutional part of the Roman Catholic Church that claims any standing based on morals or conscience. The church as an institution would seem to have a lot of apologies to make, a lot of responsibility to acknowledge, and a lot of reforming to do first.

spelchek 1 year ago

A lot of people have issues with any institutional part of government that claims any standing based on morals or conscience. Government as an institution would seem to have a lot of apologies to make, a lot of responsibility to acknowledge, and a lot of reforming to do first.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

You have yet another problem with relevance. The government is not making any sort of a moral claim nor is it trying to gain an exemption from the law based on said farcical moral claim.

Sequoia 1 year ago

After all that has transpired in the Catholic Church, and all the evil these bishops have helped perpetrate, I can barely stomach the fact they have the audacity to whine and play the victim on this. The Catholic bishops care much more own their own power over church members than they do about "the culture of life."

These men presided over the cover up of child rape. Now they're so concerned about freedom and justice? Please.

mmhh 1 year ago

Catholic church, pleas stay out of my womb. The church has been DISinviting me for years now. Perhaps one day doon I will just take the hint.

sickandtired 1 year ago

trust me mmhh they are staying out of your womb but why don't you stay out of their belief system. Don't make an organization change their beliefs just because you don't like what it stands for. Their are ways around the issue to make both sides happy people like you just don't want to accept them. Read the national blogs this is more than just a catholic issue, it is a christian issue.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

Horse-feathers! This is a power issue, with so-called religious people trying to make political points by denying health care to people who come to them for health care.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Nobody is asking the church to change its beliefs. Just to pay for something it doesn't want to.

The Pentagon isn't trying to change my view on the Iraq War, but I do have to pay for it, even though I don't want to.

Sucks, doesn't it? That's life.

Religious freedom means you get to believe whatever you want. It doesn't mean you get to DO whatever you want.

sickandtired 1 year ago

well Sequoia by telling them they have to support it you are telling them they have to change the beliefs that they have. If you don't like what the religious institution does then don't use them or don't work for them Or are you telling me the pros out way the cons. You don't like what the government does you have choices- try to change the way they act, get over it and live on or leave the country. I guess them spending tax money on a war you disagreed with didn't bother you enough to take one of the above approaches. Same goes with religious belief- you don't like it you have choices- deal with and get on with life or not support the business by using a non religious based organization. by not doing one of these and screaming that the church should have to do what we want them to do you are in fact trying to tell the church they need to change their belief system.

asb 1 year ago

They do not have to change their beliefs, only to follow insurance rules. The beliefs can be expressed as before, but their employee, whether of the faith or not, must still be afforded the coverage society at large agrees is acceptable. Shall we start a list of coverages we'd deny to fat people, or mean people, or drinkers? If it's OK to mandate coverage, it's OK to mandate full coverage. The issue is the mandate, not the specific coverage. The Church would do better with their old argument against contraception in general as denying corporal life to a soul than to fuss about the mandate.

JCLifer 1 year ago

Next thing they will want to do is deny insurance coverage to gay partners too!

Sequoia 1 year ago

They can live their beliefs. After this law, all Catholics will still be able to refuse to put birth control in their mouth and swallow. No one will have to take birth control against their wishes. All Catholics can live their belief by not taking birth control.

Certainly I'm not the only person, religious and non-religious alike, to whom this seems like common sense.

asb 1 year ago

National Healthcare is about to become law through due process, unless (also through due process) the Supreme Court says no. The federal government forced able-bodied men to buy guns in the 1700's. Only paranoid fear could leap from requiring coverage for birth control to forced contraception. Come to think of it, it is a common rant from the extreme right that the poor be forced to take contraception to qualify for welfare . . . and I know you'd vote for that.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Uh, I'm still here. I have gotten over it, and I've voted in a way to try to change the country. That's what I'm telling you to do, too. Quit whining about religious freedom. This law doesn't impinge religious freedom as the courts have defined it. You may not like the law, but that doesn't mean it violates "religious freedom" under the constitution.

My point is that universal access to birth control benefits public policy, and the law requiring insurance companies to cover birth control without copay gives effect to that good policy. The law is based on reasonable policy.

It would be wrong for the government to forego a sensible policy just because one group has a religious opposition to it. That would be like saying that one group's religious belief is more important than a good social policy that benefits everyone.

For example, Rastafarians believe they have a religious duty to smoke marijuana, but that does not trump U.S. drug laws. They can BELIEVE whatever they want, but they still have to follow the law. The law isn't targeting their religion, because it is based on good non-religious social policy. So Rastas have to follow the law. Just like the Church. Just like everyone.

The Church can still teach their members not to use birth control, but as employers the insurance companies they contract with will have to provide birth control according to law.

asb 1 year ago

Good done mon!

sickandtired 1 year ago

Read my last comment on this blog. It will happen, it already has happened. They have decided it is cheaper on the pocket book and the soul to drop. What happens when some businesses just say "I am gonna close down instead of going against my belief"? A lot more people out of jobs, a lot more people needing govt hand outs, a lot more people needing govt insurance/private pay insurance. Seeing that debt go up even more yet? People didn't think Religious inst. would take the govt to court, do you think they would not do this?

asb 1 year ago

They will be replaced by competitors who either have different beliefs or who are willing to do business in a world where sometimes your beliefs can be set aside to make a buck.

Sequoia 1 year ago

If a business owner can close his business for moral reasons and still find a way to feed his family, more power to him. That's his choice. My understanding of business is that the bottom line requires more than a few compromises, but if a guy wants to close over this, that is his right. The rest of can't cave in on a good policy just because a few people say they're going to take their toys and go home.

sickandtired 1 year ago

A few people Sequoia- over 43 institutions filed law suits against the govt for this mandate. not 43 people, 43 institutions. That involves a lot more than a "few People". As for asb- trust me there are not a lot of people or companies knocking down doors to get into things like healthcare and since almost half of the healthcare today is run by religious organizations there would be tons of damage to jobs and healthcare.

spelchek 1 year ago

"The rest of can't cave in on a good policy..." -- How is raising costs for insurance companies who turn around and raise our premiums to cover the additional regulation, "good policy"? It is not my responsibility, nor the churches, nor your employers, to subsidize your promiscuity. Why do you wish and for others to be dependent on someone else for your wants and desires. Doesn't that make you feel cheap?

Sequoia 1 year ago

It is not about promiscuity, it is about control over reproduction. Women are more productive, incomes are higher, and families are more stable, if birth control is accessible to all. The people to whom access to birth control matters most are those who can least afford copays... that is, those are the children most likely to require other types of welfare.

How does this NOT makes sense to you? I don't get it.

It is cheaper for society to pay for the birth control than not. That's the point of the law.

Why do you fixate on the promiscuity? What does that have to do with anything? Married women use birth control. Are you saying you'd support insurance programs providing birth control to married women, but not unmarried women? You're not saying THAT, are you?

I think you are trying not to understand.

spelchek 1 year ago

"...if birth control is accessible to all." -- This is key. It IS accessible to all. I think you are trying not to understand. You are not listening. If your insurance carrier decides to cover birth control, fine, it is their CHOICE. Just like it's your CHOICE to take the pill. Quit turning CHOICES into MANDATES. There is no freedom or liberty in doing so. Just because it fits your agenda doesn't mean it fits everyone elses. Frankly it makes you look incompetent (can't afford $9 a month), arrogant (do it because I think it's right), and pompous (I know better than you). Do YOU not see the difference?

Sequoia 1 year ago

But you could make the same argument about all laws. All laws are choices that have been turned into mandates that limit freedom. You can't just say a law is bad simply because it removes a choice and mandates a behavior that others don't like. That's what a law is. You can't say "I'm not going to follow a law because it limits my freedom." That makes no sense.

JCLifer 1 year ago

Reproduction is dependent on a controllable BEHAVIOR. Birth control is not needed to control reproduction. If folks cannot afford to purchase birth control, then they can control their urges and avoid the behavior that causes reproduction.

Having wild sex is no more a guaranteed right for married people as it is for single young college students who have whined to congress to pay for their birth control so they can hook up every night when they should be studying and trying to learn their school lessons.

Sequoia 1 year ago

Right, but almost all healthcare costs are, in some ways, the result of avoidable decisions. I mean, we can withhold all sorts of treatment people make based on their decisions to eat certain foods, do certain jobs, get into a car with someone who had been drinking, etc. We don't allocate health care costs based on the the role that the choices of the sick or injured person made in any other context, so why would that be a factor in allocating birth control costs in this context? If it is a social good to allocate birth control costs to all insurance payers, why should the behavior of the woman be a relevant factor?

Unless, of course, you're legislating morality, which I reject. I believe in a cost-benefit analysis only.

Sequoia 1 year ago

No, I believe in the Constitution, which gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, which includes health care. I mean, we all agree that universal healthcare paid for by a tax would be constitutional, right?

asb 1 year ago

Keeping health insurance local to the states helped the insurance companies profits by keeping competition out-of-state. Most healthcare industry interests ARE interstate, either directly or through corporate board memberships. National Health Care is designed to maximize non-emergency cost control for peoples' health, it's that simple. And you oppose it so you must be for letting babies die and the end of the American dream.

spelchek 1 year ago

This dispute will be moot come June (I hope).

Littleinvestor 1 year ago

This does not affect me at all. But what happened to doctor-patient confidentiality? What happens in the doctor's office should stay in the doctor's office. It should be no one's business but for the patient and their medical care givers. A doctor or nurse can't even tell someone's spouse about their medical care unless the patient has given written permission for that to occur. (Read those forms the doctor's give you before you sign them.) Why should they be able to spout off to your employer with no permission? Something is dreadfully wrong with the constitutional right to privacy in this mess. I recently had an extensive medical procedure and if I found out my doctor was spilling the beans to my employer, someone would be getting sued.

asb 1 year ago

. . . that forces private organizations to provide health care . . . " or meet minimum wage, or workplace safety and environment standards, or unemployment, or tax wittholding, or product safety and consumer protection standards . . . life it really tough, a company has a really hard time bilking its workers or its customers or using unfair practices against its competition. Would that we could all have our own planets to live on Grace, but we don't. We live on a very small one, in huge numbers, with countless conflicting goals and interests and demands on rapidly depleting resources and energy. Only complex political and comercial structures keeps us from constant warfare and servitude. Is that what you really want? The freedom to be feudal Europe again? Your fear and hatred of government keeps you from recognizing and participating rationally in its role.

tonto_goldberg 1 year ago

When an insurance company clerk with (maybe) a high-school education makes serious medical decisions about my health care, onfidentiality is not my biggest concern. That's the reality. The chance that my employer or my next door neighbor might find out about my surgery is not such a big deal.

gofish 1 year ago

Maybe, just maybe, if the Catholic Church would come forward to the 21st century, and look at the world from a view that isn't so rigid, there wouldn 't be the continued interest in children as sexual partners. It's still happening, most recently in Jeff City and Kansas City. If the leadership could judge themselves as they judge others some of these double standards could go away. It's hard to fathom being puritanical about family planning and liberal about child sexual abuse, but clearly that's what the leadership of the church has done. This behavior wipes out all the good that simultaneously happens.

sickandtired 1 year ago

really gofish what recently happened in Jefferson city involving the catholic church? Since people like you are so worried about the church and their thoughts i guess you have studied the teachings of the bible and the church to understand why they believe what they believe otherwise what you are commenting on is just liberal racial biased based on what the liberal media wants you to hear and think.How about coming up with an argument that comes from you and not a prior post.

asb 1 year ago

There are religions with dogmas proscribing even the mention of illness, let alone planning for it through insurance. There are millions of Christian Scientists whos' biblical concordance makes it clear that to plan for illness is to invite it. If you work for them they will have to provide medical coverage, the nature of which is determined by developing national standards. Those standards presently cover contraception. The Catholic church has no more grounds for denying contraception coverage than a church of faith healing does for denying coverage of fixing broken bones or gunshots. The government cannot offer advantage to one religion over others. Social practice finds contraception acceptable and The Church has chosen the wrong fight, again.

sickandtired 1 year ago

well asb you better hope you are wrong or it will be a sad day when 1 of 2 things could happen. 1) All religious institutions will stop offering insurance all together( which is already happening- 2 schools have already said they are stopping insurance coverage) or 2) Religious institutions, like hospitals, will just close their doors instead of being forced to cover this. what's next, making individuals go against what they believe by forcing Dr.s and nurses that don't believe in abortions perform them. Remember give a nickle and they will want a dime.

asb 1 year ago

Regarding #1, the whole point of National Healthcare is that people WILL have healthcare whether their employer provides it or not, so if an organization can compete against those that do, fine. Regarding #2, If you think the Catholic church is going to give up the procedes from their hospitals out of spite, you need to back off the caffine.

dokeus6 1 year ago

Could the reason it is becoming a net loss industry be that everyone who walks into a emergency room somewhere is getting treated even if they can't pay for it? Who at the end of the whole process ends up footing the bill for the people who can't afford to pay the bills. You guessed it John Q. Taxpayer. We are paying for it through medicare, medicaid what ever else you want to call it. So, if we are paying for the uninsured to go to the hospital why all the fuss about making everyone carry an option of insurance just like automobile insurance?

dokeus6 1 year ago

Seems to me that we are coming out of a state of facism which was forced on us by a previous dictator not going into one.

rense.com/general37/char.htm

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism By Dr. Lawrence Britt Source Free Inquiry.co 5-28-3

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

dokeus6 1 year ago

Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

dokeus6 1 year ago

So how can you say that we are becoming like a facist state grace. Read each one of the counts that i posted and then reread your post. You are contradicting yourself or you have no clue what a facist state is. Each one of those reminded me of what our country went through in the previous 8 years before Obama was elected. It seems to me that the Republican Party could be considered the new Facist regime.

And one other thing regarding my post

google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyCfdUipT58DJGxBy1z5ollv1vig?docId=CNG.0d8e1a34f8eed2b6a7343577531cf5e3.271

Did the House of Representatives just pass a new defense budget in the last week ?

The Republican led house did the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do with the defense budget. They expanded it and are planning to continue with defense programs that were going to be eliminated.

Why does the Republican led House keep playing the partisan games and then cry foul when the left does the same? Quid Pro Quo....

asb 1 year ago

National Healthcare will GREATLY reduce the number of non-payers and the cost to the rest of us, by any measure. Fascism? Really? Well it makes sense; or at least as much sense as leaping from "if the government is gonna tell me how fast to drive, then what's to stop them from telling me WHEN I have to drive. Or, "if the government is going to tell me I can't disipline my wife in a bibical manner for flirting with my neighbor, next thing you know I won't be able to kick my kids 'cause it feels good." Full credit though for reminding us all that auto insurance is not a federal mandate. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn't be, given that transportation is clearly an interstate affair.

asb 1 year ago

Yes Grace, National Healthcare WILL reduce non-payers, that's one of its primary design feature. It's why there's a mandate

spelchek 1 year ago

"National Healthcare will GREATLY reduce the number of non-payers and the cost to the rest of us, by any measure. " -- Massachusetts would like to disagree with you. Before you mention Romney, I'm no fan of his.

asb 1 year ago

Everything else being equal, and yes that's hard to do, universal insurance HAS to reduce ER and non-payment costs, it's the math. However, nobody says a system can't be gamed, and in Mass the insurance system may have resulted in higher overall costs. It's more likely due to abuse or added services though, not by reducing ER and other cost bumping conditions.

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

THE MILITIA ACT AND MERCHANT MARINES ACT SIGNED BY JOHN ADAMS ONE OF THE FORE FATHERS THAT WROTE THE CONSTITUTION MANDATED HEALTHCARE IN THE 1790'S SETTING PRECEDENT THEREFOR IT IS NOT A POWER GRAB!!!!!

sickandtired 1 year ago

just read the militia act. Where does it mandate healthcare to everybody. undser the militia act, the militia that are called up to duty get the same pay and allowances that the active full time members get. there is nothing that says healthcare is ever mandated to everybody.

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

You are not looking up the right thing I will find a link and post it! The militia act in the 1790s mandated every male 18-40 purchase a firearm and ammo and ws signed by John Adams! The healthcare mandate came in the merchant marines act in the 1790s as well!

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

"Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798"

forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-1798/

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

I don't care what it reads like It was mandated healthcare therefore setting precedent no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it!

spelchek 1 year ago

If I don't own an automobile, I don't need insurance. Obamacare says I don't care if you don't drive, buy insurance or else.

asb 1 year ago

National Healthcare says nothing about cars, it says you WILL get sick, so insurance is needed.

spelchek 1 year ago

No, "it says you WILL get sick, so insurance is needed." OR ELSE. Big difference. I will not get punished for not buying car insurance, I will if I don't buy health insurance in the form of fees, no wait...taxes...no wait....fees.....no wait......taxes......no......................yes, ta.............no, fees...........

"National Healthcare says nothing about cars..." -- Nice observation. My comment was in response to someone elses comment about car insurance, but you already knew that.

asb 1 year ago

So once again the government can't do anything right? We need private armies, toll roads and airports, and we need to rely on churches or corporations to protect us from each others' actions . . . you go Gracefull!

asb 1 year ago

The government does nearly everything right. Yes, it's often the more expensive method due to buearacracy, and cronyism, and abuse, and fraud (always by the connected rather than the poor). National Healthcare is universal in the civilized world, and unless you're willing to say that every nation but ours has failed (oh Greece, Greece, look at Greece!), you're not reading real history. And our debt would only be an issue with professional accountants if our tax revenues hadn't been reduced for the higher earners constantly since WWII to where we can't even pay our debt service. And do you really think National Healthcare will incur more debt than the neocons' attempts at world domination? Get real!

MO4LIFE 1 year ago

The church doesn't want contraception and will pay for viagra because then the priests can keep abusing these kids. No contraception means an unlimited source of victims to be abused by priests and the priests can get viagra to abuse the kids and the church can cover it up and not report it. Child "STUFF" on a priests computer at Helias as well as another Child "STUFF" case in KC. SO HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY A RELIGION THAT MOLESTS KIDS; COVERS IT UP OR JUST MOVES THE PRIEST TO A NEW DIOCESE BUT YET THINKS THAT CONTRACEPTION IS A BAD THING!

online_editor 1 year ago

Just a general reminder. Please keep the discussion focused on issues and your opinions about the issues. There's no reason you can't be passionate about the expression of your beliefs or challenge another's viewpoint, but in doing so, please try not to get swept up in a loop of trading personal jabs about what the other person believes. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

seeno 1 year ago

Independent nonprofit Catholic Charities aren't necessarily the same as the chuch. They take millions of dollars per year in tax payer money. So why should they be granted an exemption? Also, there are some Catholic organizations that provide domiciled member of the employee's household with spousal-eqivalent benefits. By not necessarily saying spouse it makes it look like the Church is not supporting unmarried people living together. But in reality it is encouraging them to live together and if they are living together they are likely having sex. So are they also encouraging children out of wedlock?

online_editor 1 year ago

I removed some comments that made allegations of criminal behavior by incorrectly describing church statements about the incident in question. Some of the responses correctly pointed out the error, but they have been deleted too in order to remove traces of the unverified speculation. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

dokeus6 1 year ago

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

Here is a little article on Switzerland's Healthcare system which could possible be a model for a successful healthcare system here.

and another

timothymichaellaw.com/2012/03/20/us-healthcare-among-worst-of-rich-countries/

Why is it that when Mitt Romney proposed and implemented the healthcare system in Massachusetts it was popular and good for them.

Now when President Obama takes that same stance using Mitt Romney's own state as a model it is Helter Skelter for America. We will be doomed if we switch to this. Come on people look at the facts.

St. Louis institutions file birth control suits

More like this story

Comments

Or login with: