Comments on: Both Catholic Health Assn and Planned Parenthood Say They’re Pleased With Contraception Rule Announcement

By: Donald Parsons

Donald Parsons — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:09:02 +0000

in your article you stated :”Though they’re on opposite sides of the birth control and abortion debate, both Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America,”. With Sister Keehan sucking up to Obama at every turn it is not clear that she is opposed to abortion. Now she may say so but her actions tell another story!

By: Teedalt

Teedalt — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:39:11 +0000

So we kill our children with Abortion and Contraception, then hope that America will be blessed. Go figure…

By: Joanne S.

Joanne S. — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:20:36 +0000

Sr. Carol Keehan and the CHA defied the bishops to support Obamacare and its funding of abortion before it was passed by Congress, got one of the pens when the law was signed. etc. She gave cover to Obama then and is giving cover to Obama now about the alleged “accommodation” that didn’t change a single thing. Obama and his cronies are masters of propaganda and had CHA’s statement in hand to make it seem there was an agreement on both sides when there was not. The US bishops speak for the Catholic Church but were not even contacted about a negotiation.
Obama is a liar. On two occasions he told the bishops conscience exemptions would remain, then took it back. At Notre Dame he also talked glowingly of conscience and then refused exemptions. Nothing has changed but the perception he wants to portray. The bishops will now defy the mandate and Catholic health care to the poor will have to be abandoned while the Catholic church is charged millions and milllions in fines (Catholic Charities would pay an estimated $140 million in fines) to bring it to its knees–as Obama planned all along. This is an attack against religion he hoped will go unnoticed until after the election.

By: blip

blip — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:52:31 +0000

In the past, one head of household could earn enough to support a family. Then, two incomes were required to support a family. Increasingly, one worker earns enough to just barely take care of themselves. And, many of these jobs are even being outsourced, so that employers can pay even less for a day’s labor. For better or for worse, free sterilization keeps you working as an individual. Washington is not terribly interested in protecting American workers from declining wages and opportunities.

It’s not about women’s rights, anymore that the War in Iraq was about protecting our freedoms. These are just myths that make us feel better about policy decisions. Sure, it offers a bit of relief, to trade your hope for a family for some pointy boots and some yoga classes. And, yeah, yuppies love it until they turn 40 and start realizing they might never have a marriage or a family. Loving a dog, no matter how they dress it up, is just not the same as loving a person. And, no matter how many pictures of cats you post on your blog, neither you nor anybody else really believes that your “baby” is really your baby. And, that’s when they tell you that your brain is chemically imbalanced and start feeding you a different set of pills, to make your forget that you are nearing death, and you never really lived. Not like your parents did. Not like your grandparents.

By: Leslie Weinberg

Leslie Weinberg — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:17:58 +0000

To start, I don’t see birth control as a preventative health measure – sorry. In addition, how many of you are aware the birth control pills can cost upwards of $50 a month. Who do you think ultimately pays the bill for this? If this President is so enmeshed in preventative healthcare, why not cover all drugs, for everyone? If you take medication for high blood pressure, it is a preventative measure. If you are on insulin for Diabetes, it is preventative. The list goes on, ad infinitum. Birth control is the big issue??? If not all drugs, most of which could be considered life saving, are free, under this “healthcare” policy, neither should birth control pills be. What a farce.

By: Ruraled

Ruraled — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:50:21 +0000

The Catholic Church continues its assault on women’s rights and women’s choice, right on ithe heals of its assault on children through it’s ignoring and sweeping under the carpet of it’s priests committing horrors against children.

By: Blip

Blip — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:00:18 +0000

The government generally has funds available for dealing with poor people….. they fund wars, prisons, drug wars, etc. They have money for sterilizations. They can’t find the money for education…. But I bet they’ll find some money to fix the feral populations. Either people will donate the money or some bean counter will do some cost benefit analysis…. maybe big Pharma will chip in. But they’ll work it out. Don’t worry.

By: Manitu

Manitu — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:51:48 +0000

Typical Obama shell game – the Catholic Church will get stuck with the increase in premiums anyway. Where is it written that ANY employer MUST provide health care plans to their employees? THAT IS WHY THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS SO SILLY!!

By: James

James — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:33:07 +0000

I guess this means an even higher rate of breast cancer and even more un-identifiable frogs in Colorado. Lets just stab ourselves in the heart why don’t we?

By: blip

blip — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:14:32 +0000

“If priests and boys could get pregnant the Catholic church would have made contraception mandatory from day one. Don’t they have bigger fish to fry?”

Would they? JFK, a Democrat, had sex with teenage girls….. So, maybe there is some consistency with your logic. Though, as a woman, I would think that you would find your position intolerable. But it makes sense. Women can get pregnant. Men love to exploit them. So, we better sterilize them. It’s cheaper to sterilize the women that men use than it is to pay for their offspring, educate them, and offer them jobs.

Again, I find this horrible and immoral. And, it is based on the false premise that all Catholics are male pedophiles, when, in fact, we are talking about a very small number of very disturbed people. Sure, 40 year old sex abuse cases are still scandalous…. but when you compare the numbers, priests are still less likely to be sex criminals than you, your daycare provider, the neighborhood cop, etc.

But, given your assertion that if boys could get pregnant, the Church would impose contraception, it does show some consistency in your thinking. It’s wrong. It’s sad that you think women need to be sterilized to cover up for sex crimes. But, there is consistency there…. which is more than I can say for most pro-abortion zealouts.