If only these Catholic scumbags were half as concerned about child rape as they are about sperm interference.

They have nothing to be upset about in the first place. Their obligation is to provide health insurance coverage. No employee who doesn’t want contraception will get contraception. There is no element of force here. And how an employee uses their health insurance is absolutely none of their business.

They want the tax dollars. They want special exemptions to engage in employment discrimination. And they want to exercise control over what types of health care their employees have access to, even though it’s not a bit of their damned business.

It really is stunning, the sickness of it all.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The church’s opposition to contraceptives is immoral. And if they are truly interested in stopping abortions, it seems to me that providing access to contraceptives is the best and most rationale way to move toward achieving that goal. Finally, any argument that is based on biblical text is, in my view, suspect.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is a good thing.

98% of sexually experienced Catholic women will have used a contraceptive at some point in her life.  She and her partner(s) have somehow managed to balance this contradiction - faith vs. contraception - by avoiding thinking about it. 

Each time the bishops speak they are reinserting this uncomfortable contradiction into the minds of those who wish to stick their fingers in their ears and drown it out with “LA LA LA LA LA”

This dissonance creates a drive toward consistency.  Some will creep further into their confessional and embrace a more convoluted delusion.  Others will flee. 

The church gradually becomes peopled by increasingly marginalized, delusional congregants and those who escape are now free to ask the questions their artificially bifurcated minds did not previously permit to be asked.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s probably just another case of, “When a man says ‘it’s not the money, it’s the principle of the thing’, it’s the money”. Moreover, the church probably does not want to face the embarassment when its predominantly Catholic workforce makes near-universal use of the coverage.

As for the “religious freedom” argument, what about the religious freedom of the individuals employed by the RCC? My view of the Constitutional right is that it applies to individuals rather than to organizations. How is the religious freedom of individual Catholics infringed by requiring their organization to provide the same health care coverage to its employees as other employers do?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Pope “Benedict” XIV holds that millions of abortions, to alleviate poverty, which he calls the slaughter of unborn persons, are a cruel injustice to the poor.
But he hasn’t had the goodness to refute his predecessors’ insistence upon the rights of un-conceived persons to be conceived.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Come to think of it, imagine opposing birth control in the name of religion when the world human population is on the edge of consuming the last of the fossil resources of the Industrial Revolution, and finally verifying the dismal predictions of the Rev. Thomas Malthus,

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Might have been a brilliant tactical move by Obama. The opponents to contraception are now are forced to show their true colors.

“Freedom of religion” only thinly veiled their true intentions: They want that nobody uses contraceptives anymore. They want to forbid other people to have control over their own most intimate bodily functions. What these bishops really want is to exercise power, to bully other people around, to subdue the populace under their will; especially women are their target.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The catholic bishop’s version of contraceptives is pederasty.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m totally on the side of the churches on this. Then again, I’m opposed to the theory of positive rights which make these kind of conflicts inevitable.

If we’re going to go with “positive rights”, wouldn’t the right to religious freedom equally imply a right to full funding for your church, equally enforced or provided by the government?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.