Obama Contraception Compromise

[Nebuloso]

I am interested in hearing different opinions from people regarding the the Obama Contraception Compromise. I am torn on what to think. On one hand I think it is really great and important that the hospitals do provide contraception but on the other hand it really does seem like a violation of freedom of religion. However, that also begs the question, where do you draw the line with freedoms in religions? When a bishop tells people that can't use contraceptions that results in prevented teen pregnancies, diseases, and death or when a muslim crashes a plane into a building?

I would love to hear from Atheists and Christians alike because I truly am in the middle because first and foremost and I am for protecting freedoms.

[KichigaiNeko]

Never take away a choice. Obama, imo,retained the choice of the female and made it easy to obtain.

Anything else is just hot air.

[thesummerqueen]

How is it violating the freedom of religion?

Religions unfortunately are still free to tell their women NOT to take the contraceptives. No one's forcing anyone to take them.

On my end, $9 a month is way cheaper than a child.

[Faith No More]

I too fail to see how this violates freedom of religion.

[thesummerqueen]

The only thing religious institutions are being "forced" to do is offer it like any other business. The government is effectively taking away an institution's power to decide an individual's reproductive rights. No religious foundation wants to admit this, however, because it's a bigoted and fucktarded way of operating.

So if that's bucking religious freedom, fuck them.

[SleepingDemon]

He changed it so that insurance companies have to pay now. Gotta love our centrist people pleaser yet somehow socialist, constitution hating foreigner president.

What is really bad is that the catholics who opposed this probably opposed him all along, so his compromise was really pointless and only weakened an already diluted healthcare reform.

[thesummerqueen]

Okay, would you rather the money we're putting into the healthcare system pay for women to spend $30 or less a month, with the insurance provider picking up the rest of the tab on contraceptives, which really aren't THAT expensive, or would you rather put money in to pay for all the ensuing pregnancies, diseases, hospital bills and child-related care for people who have children because they don't have access to the contraceptives? Maybe I'm missing your point. Then again, I'm just liberal enough that I think this is a good idea.

I still don't see how this has anything to do with religious organizations. If they take out an insurance policy for their workers, in whatever capacity, they have to allow for contraceptives. For instance - my aunt (very Jewish) is the HR manager for a nunnery. Go figure. The nuns might not take contraceptives (after all, they're supposed to be celibate) but my aunt has no affiliation with that religious inclination and thus should not be held by their strictures simply because she is being paid to fill out their paperwork. If religious organizations are afraid that their own congregants will start using contraceptives and acting in lascivious ways, maybe they should rethink what they're doing.

[Undeceived]

Religious institutions should have the choice not to have to pay for something. Women can still take contraceptives, they’re just not carried by insurance—as many drugs aren’t. The argument lies in who has the greatest right to choose: organizations or individuals. Since the money is coming out of the organization's pocket and since there is a belief factor on the organization's side, I'd say the organization. No one has a right to have birth control paid for them.

[Faith No More]

So, should religious institutions have the choice not to provide AIDS patients with medical care?

[thesummerqueen]

So beliefs get to control medical practices, essentially?

Sometimes contraceptives are used for real medical reasons, not for baby-avoidance. What then?