We Get Mail (UPDATED)

I received the following from the Erie County Republican Party. Apparently, there isn’t a culture war the Republicans don’t like losing. Again and again. (UPDATE: A New York State mandate dating to 2002 already requires the Catholic Church to provide contraception services to their employees. The Church sued to be exempted from that mandate, and lost.)
 
Local Catholic Republicans Call Upon Hochul and Higgins to
Oppose Obama’s Big- Government Policies That Violate Religious Liberties
 

Buffalo, NY – Several Catholic Erie County Republicans Leaders have called upon the local Congressional delegation to oppose the Obama Administrations decision to require all employers, including the Catholic Church, to provide health insurance coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. By choosing not to comply with this decision that interferes with their beliefs, the move would shut off millions of dollars in funding for Catholic charitable organizations that provide help to struggling families, the sick and elderly and other needy Americans who benefit from their good works.

There’s a poignant irony at play when the Republican Party – which has for the last 20+ years aligned itself and promoted in its platform the inclusion of religion in government and civic life – complains that the government is interfering with religion. (Something about having cake & eating it, too.) A requirement that a business and employer – such as the Catholic Church – must provide the same health insurance as any other employer is not infringing on religious freedoms. After all, assuming the Catholic Church is immune from anti-discrimination statutes and only employs members of the Catholic Church (an untrue assumption), the question of whether contraception or abortion services will be used by those employees is completely moot. Right? Because we all know that Catholics don’t use birth control, don’t have abortions, don’t get divorced, and faithfully obey all of the Church’s rules.  
 

Everyone loves to be lectured by Nancy Naples!

While this topic has forced President Obama and his political machine into damage control, several local leaders have noted the silence of Congressman Brian Higgins and Congresswoman Kathy Hochul.  We have already seen Democrats who were defeated because of their government healthcare takeover vote come out and say that they “ Wouldn’t have voted for ObamaCare had I known Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception…”
Interesting, since Hochul wasn’t around to vote for Obamacare.  Certainly the line between civil government and religious faith is a difficult one to walk, especially in a predominately Catholic place like Buffalo. The fundamental question, though, comes down to whether the electorate thinks that women should have access to contraception or not. This is a battle that has long been won on the side of women and I’m tickled to see the Republicans using it as so blatant a political football.
 
Remember that this regulation doesn’t force the Catholic Church, which has a longstanding and principled anti-choice stance on abortion, to do anything with respect to abortion. But if you want to make sure society has more abortions, more often, then start taking away women’s birth control. The government is not, e.g., forcing Catholic Health to perform abortions or give out the pill. It’s not compelling the Church to do anything but provide its female employees with the ability to obtain copay-free contraception, if they so desire
 
I mean, thank God we have prominent Catholic females like Emilio Colaicovo and Dennis Vacco standing up for equal rights, right?  Because this isn’t about whether Obamacare is forcing the church to hand out the pill during Communion, as this GOP release would have you think.  This is about a longstanding Republican war on female sexuality, and on sex itself – one that they lost long ago, and have now found a faith-based ally to help them try and score political points in the era of the reactionary so-called “tea party.”
 
The argument they’re trying to frame is a Constitutional one based in the freedom to practice religion freely, but there’s also a Constitutional provision called the “Equal Protection Clause” within the 14th Amendment, as well a long-established right to personal privacy in matters relating to sexuality.  A rule requiring the Catholic Church to provide health coverage for its female employees that includes contraceptive and other sex-related services doesn’t prohibit the Church from continuing its longstanding prohibition on all non-procreative sex. 
 
The truth, of course, is that Catholic institutions don’t exclusively employ Catholics. Catholic Universities, for instance, hire loads of people from all faiths and backgrounds. Why should, for instance, a Jewish female professor at Canisius be forced by her employer to have no free access to reproductive medical services and medications? Does Canisius have the right to hover over their employees and ensure that they spend their paychecks only on Church-approved items? 
 
The Erie County GOP isn’t concerned about that, though. They’re not interested in a compromise, such as the one the Obama Administration is attempting to reach with these Churches (a simple way out of this would be to give individual employees the right to opt-in for reproductive services on their own initiative – that it would be available to them, but not by default). 
“While Mrs. Hochul and Mr. Higgins can be found often in front of any camera, why haven’t we heard from them on this issue?  Why do they refuse to stand on the side of decency and our faith,” questioned Emilio Colaiacovo, Counsel to the Erie County Republican Committee.  “It would appear that Congressman Higgins and Congresswoman Hochul stand with Nancy Pelosi who favors abortion on demand and other policies that violate the conscience of Catholics across the country,” added Colaiacovo.
Well, yeah. Duh. Higgins and Hochul are pro-choice. They’re also pro-contraception. Hell, Higgins voted to expand stem cell research to cure disease.  This is a surprise requiring a quote from the Republican Party’s local lawyer? What does abortion have to do with this? What does Nancy Pelosi have to do with this (apart from the fact that, as a female Californian with an ethnic name, they misogynistically demonize her even when completely beside any reasonable point.)
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, after first promising not to do so, have mislead  American Catholics by requiring the Church, and its institutions, to provide services that violate the conscience and the teachings of the Church.  And this is just the beginning. What’s next? What else didn’t the President and Congress tell us was in this bill?
Did you not read it? Do you need it read to you, like a very long but slightly less boring version of “Goodnight Moon”?
“This is a serious violation of the most fundamental of all rights – the freedom of religious liberty,” said Dennis Vacco, the former New York State Attorney General.  “I urge Kathy and Brian to stand with Church leaders and parishioners who find this to be an unconscionable intrusion on our first Amendment liberties,” concluded Vacco.
Not really, Mr. Vacco. The law doesn’t compel the Church to hand out the pill. It merely requires you to make contraception available to your employees through your health insurance plan.  And 98% of American women have used contraception at least once. Including Catholic women
Congressman Higgins and Congresswoman Hochul are both seeking re-election in districts that are heavily Catholic.
Yes, they are. (Hey, wasn’t the GOP all upset about how, e.g., the #Occupy movement was dividing Americans? Proposing the legislative division of Americans based on their faith would to me seem even more unfair, if not downright unconstitutional). 
“The Catholic Church provides, through its own generosity, food and shelter for the poor, medicine for the sick, education for our children, and other services for the families of our community.  It is unthinkable that Congressman Higgins and Congresswoman Hochul are more interested in party politics instead of standing up for their own faith and what is just and right,”  stated Nancy Naples, former Erie County Comptroller.  “We deserve to hear from our local Congressional delegation whether they stand with our faith community or with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Washington interests that have ignored Western New York for far too long,” concluded Naples.
What is unconscionable and unthinkable is that Nancy Naples, who as County Comptroller presided over an epic fiscal meltdown of County Finances less than a decade ago isn’t ashamed and embarrassed to poke her head up and bluster about anything at all, but especially to politicize faith and birth control.  This isn’t about Washington interests – this isn’t about whether Nancy Pelosi gets access to the pill. This is about the interests of women
Local Catholic Republicans will continue to raise this issue until Congressman Higgins and Congresswoman Hochul advise local Catholics whether they stand with them or with Washington.
That’s incorrectly written. It should read: 
 
Local Catholic women will continue to raise this issue until Congressman Higgins and Congresswoman Hochul advise local Catholics whether they stand with a Church patriarchy or with women

60 comments

  • Last paragraph says a lot — it really is all about the patriarchy. The patriarchy is really hurting the Catholic church in the developed world, which just spent much of the last century dismantling patriarchies.

    If the Catholic church can’t find a way to do what the Anglican Communion (including the Episcopal church in the Americas) has done — become open to meaningful and full participation by women and gays in all areas of the church — it risks becoming a factor largely in the developing world and among suburban/rural reactionaries in North America.

  • As for you, Mr. Vacco, in 1998 I helped coordinate the recount OBO the Democrats for several Genesee/Finger Lakes counties, and so played a part in bringing about the end of your corrupt, mean-spirited, Napoleonic turn in the AG’s office. A very small part, but one of which I’m particularly proud. You’re one of the last people anyone should listen to about morality.

  • Can someone point me to the ECGOP letter from Colaicovo, Vacco and Naples in regards to the Catholic Church pedophila scandal?

  • Where was the Catholic indignation when Bush invaded Iraq? Or the Catholic outrage at Republicans belittling the poor and cutting programs that assist the poor? Scumbags. This is a manufactured issue that doesn’t deserve any coverage.

  • The fundamental question, though, comes down to whether the electorate thinks that women should have access to contraception or not.

    I guess you are suggesting that it is OK for a majority vote to trample on Religious Freedom.

    If you really want the Catholic Church to change its stance, let people choose not to work for them because of their beliefs/policies. It is not a matter for government to address.

  • Companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage when your costs for treatments goes up due to sickness, you can now get insurance with out caps on coverage at “Penny Medical” search them online.

  • Let me re-phrase Michael Rebmann’s comment.

    I guess you are suggesting that it is OK for a majority vote to trample on people’s liberty and choice.

    If you really want southern luncheonettes to let negroes eat in the same place as whites, let negroes open their own luncheonettes where whites are treated as second-class citizens. It is not a matter for government to address.

    There, that’s better.

    • Here’s what liberal socialist elitist anti-Catholic Antonin Scalia has to say:

      The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws

  • Wow. Bedenko’s twisted logic continues to baffle me. The Church not wanting to fund something it has long regarded as a intrinsic evil is equivalent to racism? It is really sad that the State has intruded so far into our lives that now we are at each others’ throats over our personal beliefs. Secular atheists should be free to live their own humanist lifestyle just as Catholics have the right to lead their own and not be forced to pay for something they morally condemn. Live and let live. Stop trying to force your own personal agenda on others.

    • Luckily, the federal government, by requiring Catholic institutions to provide health insurance coverage that includes contraceptive services, is not in any way affecting Catholics’ beliefs re: contraception. The federal government isn’t forcing the Church, or Catholics, to take the pill, is it? (Answer: No).

  • No, Alan, it’s just forcing them to pay for it.

  • What about vasectomies? Aren’t they covered by most insurance? Kind of ridiculous that people do not see this for what it is.

  • @Patrick Krey – Tsk, tsk you omitted “AT GUNPOINT!1!”

    Actually, it’s forcing them to do nothing of the sort. The health insurance pays for it, if it’s used.

  • Trampling on religious freedom??? Seriouly? The constituion provides for and requires that we, the people be protected from religion and therefore have a separation of church and state. This issue is not about religion or taking the pill. It is a bigger part of the right wing agenda/catholic church et al, to get inside the womb of women and their reproductive rights (code word for abortion). And yes, I wonder how many insurance policies at catholic hospitals cover vasectomies and tubal ligations. The hypocracy is sickening.

  • Ah yes, woman’s rights. Feminists have done so much to help women over the past 50 years. Now woman have the right to kill their babies in the womb, delay birth through their fertile years and possibly miss out on being a mother at all or have children but immediately put them in daycare for strangers to raise while they work full-time jobs. Woman sure have come a long way.

  • @Bedenko, And who pays for the health insurance? One great thing that will ocme out of this is that the USCCB can no longer trust the government on these issues (government controlled healthcare, socialism, etc.) and the Church might now adopt a more adversarial relationship with the State which is great for liberty. The USCCB has been quite liberal since Vatican II and way too trusting of politicians, particularly Democrats, for far too long. I pray that this signals a shift back towards a more traditional and Catholic viewpoint.

  • When you grow a uterus. I’ll then consider your opinion. Until then, please take your condescending and degrading opinion of women somewhere else.

  • I used “woman” instead of “women” due to rushing. Sorry about those typos.

  • I, and the Church, hold women in high regard, Kathleen. I’m sorry if you think not celebrating women killing their own babies and/or missing out on the joys of motherhood is condescending.

  • @Patrick Krey, it’s interesting how quickly you eschew your “individual liberty” mantra in order to insult someone else’s life choices with which you don’t agree. Didn’t you use the term “live and let live” just a few comments ago?

    As for the health insurance, it’s usually paid through a contribution from both the employer and the employee. The issue is that the health insurance option must offer contraception. I can’t imagine that addition amounts to very much money, or isn’t something that the Church can require the employees to pay out of their contribution. The law says it has to be offered.

    I “pray” that the Catholic Church lurches itself out of the middle ages and stops treating women as second-class citizens. (Actually, I don’t really give a shit. The Church can do whatever it wants to women, children, and whomever else it deems worthy of systemic abuse. As long as it keeps its morality (a) to itself; and (b) within the four walls of its churches, buildings, and cathedrals).

  • I, and the Church, hold women in high regard, Kathleen. I’m sorry if you think not celebrating women killing their own babies and/or missing out on the joys of motherhood is condescending.

    Nice try, but no one’s talking about abortions. We’re discussing contraception.

    • Hah. And just like that,

      White House Announces Contraception Accommodation For Religious Orgs

      On a conference call with reporters Friday, a senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control.

      “All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services,” the official said. “The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge,” if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.

      Let’s call it the “Misogynist Exemption”.

  • Witnessing my own wife give birth was the single most amazing experience in my life. I cannot even express how much respect I have for her and the awe I felt in seeing such a miracle. Treating unborn children as parasites without rights that need to be surgically removed is 100% evil.

    Likewise, forcing Catholic organizations to fund medications that treats pregnancy as an illness that needs to be prevented is morally offensive and goes against the Natural Law. I pray that this is the wake-up call that Catholics need to see how dangerous and oppressive the State can be.

    • 1. It’s not a miracle. It’s nature.

      2. The “medications” you’re talking about don’t “treat pregnancy as an illness”. They allow people to have sexual intercourse that isn’t for the purposes of reproduction. It’s a moralistic view that the Church is free to hold, and you’re free to subscribe to. But to require, say, a Hindu professor at Canisius to be forced to live by her employer’s moral laws is not only unfair, but violative of THAT person’s freedom and rights.

  • @Bedenko, What about the individual liberty of unborn children? And opposing the government forcing people to act contrary to their beliefs doesn’t mean that I can’t personally hold traditional beliefs about others’ actions. Stop seeing every thing through the government paradigm. “Live and let live” means we each freely do what we want with our lives but it doesn’t mean we have to approve of each others’ actions. I can be a “middle ages misogynist” and you have the right to call me that but I can also speak freely about my traditional views. Freedom, Alan. Give it a chance.

    • Patrick, nice try (again), but no one’s talking about abortion. You can argue all day (to the wall) about the purported rights of unborn children, but you cannot tell me that conceived sperm or eggs have rights. The only thing the pill does is prevent ovulation – it doesn’t harm or kill an egg, it kills no sperm. I understand the church has an issue with that, but it’s not abortion.

  • I was under the mistaken impression that the Catholic Church went out of business after that whole widespread molestation thing.

    Hopefully, we will next get NAMBLA’s take on this whole issue.

  • @Bedenko, the opposition to birth control and the opposition to abortion spring from the same source: the natural law. Also, you do know that this mandate covers abortifacients, don’t you?

    Since we live in the same neighborhood, why don’t we get together sometime and I can talk to you for hours about Church teaching on the natural law while you roll your eyes and ignore 99% of what I say? But the underlying reason for our beliefs isn’t at issue here. It’s the government forcing Catholics to pay for it. The Professor in your example has the freedom to choose his place of employment. This is clearly an attempt to force a secular humanist agenda on the Church but there is a silver lining to this. As the State becomes more militantly atheist, it will only strengthen and restore the faithful. Trust me, the Vatican is not going to change Church Doctrine because Obama said so. These kind of government policies will actually serve to make the Church stronger in the long run.

    • @Bedenko, the opposition to birth control and the opposition to abortion spring from the same source: the natural law. Also, you do know that this mandate covers abortifacients, don’t you?

      Which one(s)? For instance, the morning after pill is now OTC and not covered under insurance.

      It’s the government forcing Catholics to pay for it.

      No, it isn’t. It’s forcing employers to have it as part of their insurance plans.

      The Professor in your example has the freedom to choose his place of employment.

      Right. And negroes have the freedom to not take the bus at all.

      The church needs some strengthening, what with its complete abandonment of any moral authority on any issue whatsoever viz. the way it’s handled the whole boy rape epidemic.

  • yeah, what about the boy rape? oh yeah, boys can’t get pregnant so who cares.

  • @Patrick Krey
    What parallel universe do you live in? Abortifacients? government is not forcing Catholics to pay for anything, particularly “abortifacients” Good grief man, please take your religious zealotry to CPAC or somewhere where it will be celebrated and applauded.

  • I don’t suppose there’s any point in mentioning that the Pill has other uses than to prevent conception. It helps regulate periods, and is used to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome, bad menstrual cramps, acne, and a few other conditions. I have a friend who takes the Pill for that reason, and is very hurt and upset by all the rhetoric around this debate, basically calling her a whore and a baby-killer, when she’s neither.

  • Shouldn’t the more urgent activism from America’s faithful be reserved for human rights violations in places like Syria?

    A corrupt army takes up arms against its own civilians and is trying to starve them out, killing and maiming children daily, but all the American right and media wants to talk about are birth control pills?!

  • Obama’s tweak “forcing” insurance companies to provide the coverage, in case of religious objections, is nothing more than a shell game. The costs will still be passed on in insurance premiums. Free contraceptives are about as realistic as a free lunch.

    • 1. I don’t know why I should take the Bishops’ word for anything.

      2. “Ella“, here’s what it does:

      Ella uses the hormone progesterone to delay ovulation, a key step in the fertilization process.

      Despite this, the drug has drawn criticism from anti-abortion groups who say it is closer to an abortion pill than an emergency contraception pill.

      Groups including the Family Research Council argue the drug is chemically similar to the abortion drug mifeprestone, which can be taken to end a pregnancy up to 50 days into the gestation period. That drug has been associated with severe infections and bleeding after abortion. However, FDA reviewers reported no life-threatening medical side effects with ella.

      I don’t expect people who reject contraception, or who are male celibates, to really care about the distinction between an abortifacient and contraception, but there it is. The only people complaining are the abortion prohibitionists, and falsely. So, no. It’s not an abortion pill.

      As for comparing opposition to birth control to racism, I won’t do what you’ve done and resort to an ad hominem attack. Instead, I’ll point out that (a) discrimination based on race is unconstitutional; (b) the Supreme Court likewise held in Griswold v. Connecticut that a constitutional right to privacy exists with respect to a woman’s decisions concerning contraception; and (c) a woman can no more easily change the way she was born than a black person. The issue is one of constitutional liberties. For someone who purports to be an absolutist when it comes to these sorts of things, you find yourself in a precarious rhetorical spot. That’s why you have to resort to insulting people.

  • @Bedenko, Comparing opposition to birth control to racism might be one of your weakest arguments ever. And that’s saying a lot considering your record.

  • @Kathleen, Did you have a point or any thing to back up your claim that the government “is not forcing Catholics to pay for anything” or do you just want to make conclusory statements and call me names?

    One other thing, the USCCB is more closely aligned with the Democrats than the GOP on a lot of the issues. Look at their pronouncements on “social justice” and immigration. Yet, they are deeply opposed to this. Stop falling back on two party politics for every thing. That’s what people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh do.

  • The official Catholic position on birth control is not embraced by the majority of Catholics. That being the case, whose religious liberty is being threatened by this legislation? It seems to me that insurance coverage is part of a person’s compensation and it is just as ludicrous to attempt to restrict insurance coverage based on religious grounds as it would be to attempt to restrict how an employee may spend his or her paycheck.

  • @Patrick
    I didn’t call you names, I said your viewpoints are religious zealotry. I stand by that statement. This discussion and piece written by Alan was about contraception. Somehow you have managed to bring it to a whole other level ie you religious zealotry re abortion, how and why and when women shhould have babies, feminism, religious persecution, the list goes on and on. Once again,religion has no place in the law, any law of the land. Separation of church and state. It was one of the reasons this country was created and one of it’s founding principles.
    PS
    I can’t help but notice how you are ignoring the multitude of comments here regading the church and it’s immoral sanctioning and cover-up of the rape of children for years. Where is your moral outrage over that? Kind of makes your contraception argument a little flimsy. Just sayin.

  • @Patrick – your ‘natural law’ is not necessarily mine. That’s ‘freedom of religion.’ As opposed to the freedom of the Church to force its views on its employees, which is what the eternally aggrieved are screeching about here.

  • I’m really curious how Tim Thomas comes down on this whole issue . . .

  • @Bedenko, So there is a constituional right to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception? Wow. I must have missed that one.

  • @Bedenko, it is odd how much effort you’re putting into asserting that only contraceptives are covered and not abortifacients. Using your constitutional reasoning above, wouldn’t the government have the right to force the Church to pay for abortion too?

  • @Staba, don’t people have the right to choose what employers they work for? No one is forced to work for Catholic organizations. We can have different views on the natural law but you can’t use the government to force your views about contraception on me any more than I can use it to force my views about contraception on you. That is the issue here. Secular atheists are increasingly using the State to force their views on the religious. It has already resulted in a major backlash and will continue to do so.

  • @Bedenko, your analysis is lacking. For one thing, I don’t go to Mass every Sunday to pray to the Supreme Court. Just because they have ruled on something, that does not make it true. Roe v. Wade for example. But even with the ruling mentioned, I don’t even think the most liberal Justice would agree with your take that opposition to birth control is the same as racism. Talk about an ad hominem attack but that is how you operate.

    • your analysis is lacking. For one thing, I don’t go to Mass every Sunday to pray to the Supreme Court. Just because they have ruled on something, that does not make it true

      Whether it makes it “true” or not isn’t the issue. It makes it law. The state is a secular institution. It doesn’t care about your religious beliefs, nor should it. Giving women contraception as part of their health coverage doesn’t force anyone to take contraceptives. I’m sure all the good Catholic women will do what the elegantly robed celibate men say.

      As for whether or not the Church should be forced to pay for abortions, I have no idea. We’re not talking about abortions. We’re talking about contraception. Odd that I should have to repeat that so many times.

      As for the “constitutional right to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraception”; (a) it isn’t being “forced to pay for contraception”; and (b) here is the Constitutional precedent for the government’s ability to force the Catholic Church to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives. As this requirement is a “neutral law of general applicability”, it passes 1st Amendment muster.

      But all of this is academic, as the President has offered a compromise:

      “All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services,” one official said. But if a religious institution declines to provide coverage that includes contraceptive services, “the insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge.”

      The administration argues further that because contraceptive services prevent the costs of unintended pregnancies, the rule comes with no financial costs to either the insurer or religious employer. A similar rule resulted in no premium increases in the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan, officials noted, and the White House argues this moots the charge that religious money will be indirectly footing the bill for birth control and other contraception.

      Ultimately, though, President Obama says he won’t cave on the underlying principle: “no woman’s health should depend on who she is, or where she works, or what her health is or how much money she makes. Period,” he said in Friday White House remarks.

      But it’s great to see Republicans shouting from the rooftops in opposition to contraception (of all things) for women. Santorum, in particular, has doubled down on this, demanding that no insurance, anywhere, offer coverage for contraceptives because it violates a rule that a gentleman in Rome says comes from God.

  • @Bedenko, BTW, the offer is still out there to meet in person to discuss my religious views. I hear you’re quite the sweetheart in person and your online persona is just a character you play to promote your blogging.

  • @Bedenko, then we can have a discussion over a just law versus an unjust law between two attorneys. I’m off for the weekend. God Bless!

  • @Bedenko, “As for whether or not the Church should be forced to pay for abortions, I have no idea. We’re not talking about abortions.” But it’s perfectly relevant using the twisted logic you’re employing. With your reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable. It’s a slippery slope and this is why Catholics have drawn a line in the sand. This is only the beginning. You have my personal e-mail so let me know when you want to meet.

  • @Patrick – I think you should try harder and be more explicit in setting up a meeting with Alan.

  • http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/archdiocese-bankruptcy-judge-allows-two-claims-to-stand-me44pue-139044534.html

    8,000 allegation of child sex abuse by 75 catholic priests and 25 other church personnel in Milwaukee, WI. Gotta think that if altar boys could get pregnant, the catholic leadership would be pro-birth control.

  • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Short, simple, unambiguous and the very first line of the Bill of Rights.

  • According to Planned Parenthood, the monthly cost of birth control pills is $15 to $50. There is no need for the government to mandate that cost to be absorbed by everyone’s insurance premiums. Anyone who can’t afford that would qualify for the overly generous benefits provided by our Nanny State.

  • @Bedenko, Because you want to be friends with your neighbors don’t you?

  • ^^ WTH?! You’re going from badgering to approaching the vicinity of vaguely threatening. Give it up — please.

Leave a Reply