J.B.,
Do you ever do any research before you post? Here is a discussion of studies of Catholic women and their use of birth control - http://tiny.cc/xfmmc. As mentioned in Victor's article, contraception has been covered by government healthcare plans for years, including here in Wisconsin. This is not new. Obamacare took its rules on contraception from earlier laws. Sensenbrenner just saw a new opportunity to destroy Obamacare. Rep S. doesn't give a fig about religious freedoms. Apparently you get worked up over images of 'throngs' and a 'multitude' of pregnant women but you need to breathe slowly and get the facts. No one is being forced to use birth control.

@St. Swithin
Those that use and those begging for government support (as I questioned) are completely different.

Yes, it has been covered; however, this mandate demands that insurance cover it for FREE. That is overreaching. Where does our country go if the president can say something must be sold for free?

I have the facts. No one is being forced, just as no one was demanding that some one else pay for their contraceptives. As I pointed out this was done to attract voters not because women needed free contraceptives.

@J.B. Schmidt -- How does the coverage of contraceptive drugs and devices with a co-pay differ from contraceptive drugs and devices without a co-pay in terms of violating Catholic doctrine? Either they're absolutely against it or they're willing to be reasonable when it comes to providing coverage for their non-Catholic employees.

Why should it matter if they are Catholic employees or non-Catholic employees? The issue is that the Catholic Church finds it wrong to have to provide something that goes against their beliefs.

Agreed. Just a chance for the power covetous left to abuse religious citizens. Its not about contraceptives, its about making Christians who belive in life enhancing policies do what Big Brother requires.

@Victor
That is a completely misleading stat. It completely negates that fact that many women leave to stay at home or take extended leave for birth or work part time to stay at home. If women want to be completely treated equal, then they either need to develop a way to have men birth the babies or they need to stop birthing babies all together. Until then there will always by a difference.

My guess is if you eliminate those women who chose to have babies, you will see that those that chose career only do just as well if not better then men.

Oh, seriously, J.B. Schmidt? Tell women they'll only have wage parity if they stop taking out time to birth and raise those babies, and then in another post defend policies that are going to make it that much harder for women to not birth those babies.

Abstinent women mean abstinent men. Maybe you're fine with that, but I'm not.

@J.B. Schmidt....Current statistics don't support your claim. How many of your five children did you carry and give birth to?

@Lyle and Randy 1949
Your ignorance abounds.

5 years ago, I reduced my earning potential by dropping out of the workforce and being a stay at home dad while working for considerably less at a part-time wage. My wife and I realized that her earning potential was greater by her staying the workforce.

The fact is, a women has been given every opportunity to keep job status via legislation like FMLA. The truth of the matter is that to achieve the highest earning potential, one must make family sacrifices. Typically in our society, it is the women who makes those sacrifices and hence her wage earning potential is stalled. When you remove that sacrifice, the earning potential is equal. It is the two of you who assume that women are second tier and must require assistance to be equal. It is I who live the life of an individual that understands that women can do just as well as men.

When Victor's stat is produced, it only looks at current working situations and does not take into account any of the family sacrifices made. That is why when you break that down by age group, currently, young women (pre-family) are actually making more then men.

What are those current stats Lyle? The stats claiming that women are paid only 75 cents for every dollar than a man makes are flawed in that they do not really compare apples to apples, and don't use job specific comparisons.

@Lyle and Randy

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Its not misleading at all. It's the face of discrimination.

Women should not have to choose career or kids. What about unmarried women who want children? In addition, the study you cite compared men and women in the same peer group. The fact of the matter is that as you approach the top-tier and highest positions, women are less and less common.

I understand that in your family scenario, it made sense as a family for your spouse to be the primary bread-winner. But this is not a choice everyone has the opportunity to make, nor should women be expected to make it.

@Victor
Now you have shown you ignorance.

How do you intend to fix the issue of kids vs. career? A family requires sacrifice; for sick kids, for school vacation days, for regular Dr appointments, for sports and the list goes on. What should a business owner do? Continue to pay a person equally who can't work all the hours as someone without kids. That only drives down wages for all because the business owner most find someone else to cover the time/work. We all have the freedom to choose; but a choice must be made. Either your career or your kids; everyone makes that choice. Had I not stayed home, my or my wife's career would still have suffered because we would need to care for our children. Most people just accept that as part of family life and don't get worked up. It is liberals with their feel good policy that tend to get worked up. Exactly like you are as religious institutions buck a health care mandate that disagrees with their religious principals.

As for upper tier, that fits with what I am saying. If a man works for 25 years without the sacrifice of child rearing in the name of bread winning; while the women slows her career growth to care for children, then it only makes sense that their would be a discrepancy.

Its simply awful, hateful rhetoric. Gonna justify slavery next?

Victor:

Are you rejecting the idea of equal pay for equal work?

I'm rejecting the notion that women should expect to earn less because they bear the children.

If they can bear children without taking extended periods of time off of work, then they should not be paid any less. If they choose to take 'family friendly' jobs and/or work schedules and assignments, those choices can impact their earnings. The same would apply to men making those choices. Equal pay for equal work seems fair to me.

@Victor
You are the person saying that it must the woman that fills that role.

I am simply stating fact, that when a married couple chooses to have a family, the woman in our society typically stays home. I am not giving a thumbs up or down. It is simply a cultural fact. If we reach a day when an equal amount of women and men stay home, then I would expect wages to be equal. However, since our culture has evolved in a way that has the woman (and most will admit to actually enjoying child rearing) sacrificing for the kids the high end wage tier will always be different. If you are willing to actually admit that a sacrifice must be made to have a family, then one or both careers will see slowed wage growth.

Women are not behind if you control for time in the workforce and education. Look at universities where women are now 60 percent of the student body and men are being left behind.

This is all about the left stomping out the rights of religious believers. Why were Christian Scientists and Amish excluded?

PROVE IT!!! I am a woman and I made EXACTLY the same salary that men in a comparable position made. I EARNED several promotions. I NEVER had to force an employer to give me something I didn't deserve. I have the RIGHT to not have sex if I don't want to be pregnant. If I want to have sex, I have the RIGHT to purchase birth control but I should NOT have the right to make YOU or anyone else pay for it. Once I become pregnant, I have the RIGHT to control my own body but NOT to control anyone else's body--including my unborn child. This debate has NOTHING to do with birth control and EVERYTHING to do a President that over reaches his authority at every opportunity.

We are talking about a man who walked out during 2005 debate over Pat Act renewal because Dems brought up Human Rights, a foreign term to Jimmy unless a T-bone is attached. Totally Agree C. Sanders, he is out of touch!

Your argument is worthless, just more lefty name calling. Just like you probably call Christians names behind their back. Bigotry is a really sick characteristic of left.

A whole generation has to go? How mature of you!!! You are obviously a deep thinker.

Sally, you are absolutely correct!

It does not strike me as profane, and "bat-shit" is certainly not "masked" in any way.

It does seem to be a term that they aren't allowed to say on broadcast TV or radio--at what point does it become 'obscene, profane or offensive'?

All articles have to be approved by paid editors before publication. I'd ask the editor.

It would probably not pass the FCC smell test [no pun intended] for broadcast TV.

It may well be, but it was refreshing to see. Very accurately descriptive.

The Lord said "be fruitful and multiply."

Mission accomplished. Let's move on.

I think that CowDung sounds a hell of alot worse then 'bat shit crazy' .

Aren't you guys are into cost benefit?

If an insurance dishes out for contraception, this will be far cheaper than the future cost of paying for deliveries and the cost of the raising the kids.

As usual, people on the right are clueless on cost. Oral contraception runs around $100 a month, beyond the means of many poor women and students.

Seems to me we have these discussions over health care costs all the time. This is a good place to start.

Its not about a twenty dollar pill, its about giving the shaft to religious people. The left just hates religious people.

Red, why don't you vent your hatred on some other thread? You're really quite boring.

Be careful Red. The spinster cat and dog 'lover' is going to play the "I am an old bag" card next, and tell you to grow up.
It's her typical MO while she ignores legitimate points. She is perfect though; at being a left hand threaded wingnut. Holding her hand out for freebies isn't enough, she has to insult and rip people off to prop up her failures in life.
A simple background check will show you what I mean.

You know Craig, you may think you have some kind of power because you are too much of a coward to post under your real name, but you really don't. There is no such thing as anonymity on the internet. I may not presently know your real name, but Patch does. And every comment posted anywhere is easily traceable to the the person writing them and the computer used to make the comment. You may be too much of a coward to use your name, but I am not. The tone of your comments only solidifies the sordid reputation your kind gives to the republicans, tea party people and the christian right.

I think you are right, BHO is moving towards more coverage. I think he was pretty clear on that when he campaigned on delivering Universal Health Care. Too bad he failed on that.

BHO is about offending the Catholic religion and not offending the islamic religion

Let's see what happens on Saturday. Frothy Santorum has been let out of the cage all week, and his woman basing should close up the gap between him and Romney by the time they get to the Michigan primary.

As Andy Borowitz wrote a few weeks ago, "in focus groups they found that Romney had an appeal to women because the words 'wooden' and 'stiff' kept coming up."

I agree! Please invite any women you know to chime in.

@Me in the Falls -- Men are just as involved with the issue of reproduction or lack thereof. Men currently lack a non-intrusive means of controlling their own fertility, other than complete sterilization. So this discussion is not a complete waste of time.

I thought it was done and settled back in the 1970s, and here it comes again.

Get your contraceptives by yourself. Don't make me pay for it.

You do realize that sex is not mandatory. You don't really need anything except some self control to be able to control your reproduction...

Yup dung. As usual you know what you're talking about.

The GOP war on women -- yet another GOP war that hasn't been paid for

@Kris --It seems in the two decades since contraception was an issue for my family, the cost has escalated to the point where it might be beyond the ability of a low-income person to pay. Why is that? Maybe another subtle attempt to control women and their sexuality? Now we're even seeing attacks on hormonal contraception and certain devices in the form of personhood amendments.

@CowDung -- Sex isn't mandatory? Really? It's a beautiful and rewarding facet of human life, which really shouldn't be subject to the dictates of a bunch of celibate old men.

That 'bunch of celibate old men' aren't banning birth control, they are just fighting for their right to follow their beliefs and not be required to provide it.

Or in CowDung's case his right hand.

Oh, please. Contraceptives are everywhere and they are cheap. And if you are poor, you can go to Planned Parenthood and get it. Its not about access to contraceptives, its about abusing Christians.

Sorry, Red, but these day it's the pseudo-christians who are known for their hatred, bigotry and abuse of others. Traditionally, Christians showed their belief in and love of Jesus by the love they shared with others. Unfortunately, that's not the case anymore.

If you cannot control the other person, call the police. That is rape.

If you are looking for a politically-correct blog, this one is not for you.

I'm curious Barbara, what are Victors deficiencies? I found the post to be more glib and snarky, not at all sophomoric. I find it sophomoric to personally attack the author VS discussing the talking points. Nonetheless, Walk like the Goddess You are M'Dear:)

Christine, give Matt Taibbi a read over at Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog

About as forthcoming as they get.

Gobble as many of those birth control pills as you want, can I just have to pay for them?

Where exactly is the 'legal can of worms' with not providing coverage for certain things? Employers are usually free to choose the health plan they provide their employees. Catholic employers should be allowed to choose to not provide things that are in conflict with Catholic beliefs. As long as they provide (or not provide) the same thing for all their employees, there should be no legal issues.

@CowDung; Directly we are speaking about health insurance coverage for a gender based on religious belief. I'd reckon that any employer stating in any employee benefit explanation that certain services /coverage not available due to the employers religion would make for a case in itself of religious discrimination. After all the nurse I mentioned in my post is an Atheist, like it or not that is a "religious" belief. The second question I posed addresses only hiring Catholics or people of the same belief towards the services/coverage. Are not all employers bound by EEO? I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the argument of discrimination could be made. Above and beyond all that, as to the hospital scenario,( as there are many hospitals that are religion based). Is that business willing to cut it's applicant funnel and roll the dice that enough staff are devout in their religious beliefs to not be affected by the lack of that benefit / service? I doubt it. Or is this just really about another business loophole to get out of paying for something for employees? I wonder if Viagra and like medications will also be viewed as sinful? I mean taking a little pill to be ready anytime could be viewed as one of the original sins, as most things relating to sex is with religion.

We are speaking about health insurance coverage paid for by a religious group. They do not provide different coverages based on the religion (or lack thereof) of the employee.

I don't understand why you seem to thing that they are seeking to hire only Catholics. This isn't discrimination or an EEO violation. Your Atheist nurse should be just as free to work at the hospital as anyone else. If they cannot abide by the lack of birth control coverage in their employee benefits, then they should seek employment somewhere else.

It's a simple viewpoint of a religious based employer not offering a specific benefit (one that is common on most RX formulary coverages) to an employee because it goes against that belief. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions, should they ( as a business) be allowed to not cover that? Sure argue that a blood transfusion might be life or death. An unplanned pregnancy could also be. Where do we [as a society] draw the lines? As far as only hiring Catholics or like minded - thats the message being sent. 62 M women in childbearing years, 70% using contraceptives that are not cheap. I'd wager the lack of the benefit would be a deal breaker for taking the job.

I believe that it should be legal for the JW church to not provide coverage for blood transfusions based on their religious beliefs.

If Catholic organizations already do not provide a birth control benefit, then I don't see why they would suddenly see a shortage of employees by continuing that same policy...

It's a bit of a double standard. As a business owner (which I am) I cannot refuse to hire someone based on religion belief or practice. Nor can I place an employee in position based on a belief. An Example; I do Marketing and PR, my business comes from referrals and a small sales staff. I had a female new hire who converted to Islam and started wearing the traditional dress including the head/face cover. The dress code is business casual and clearly states slacks, skirts, suits, jackets, Absolutely no hats, beanies facial piercings..you get the point. Complaints from clients, nothing I could legally do. Care to imagine how much I lost in sales and payroll because people did not feel comfortable being serviced by a person who's face was covered? Yet, we have religious based business denying a common benefit because of the religious belief. In my mind it translates to my morals not being of a high enough standard, and if I wish to work there I have to submit to the belief. Yes, I grasp the difference between an employee work place rights and the topic issue of benefits being just that, a benefit of employment. I still feel there is a potential platform for discrimination even if "iffy" Thanks for the respectful exchange.

Correct, you cannot hire or refuse to hire someone because of their religion.

I do not see the double standard though. As long as the same level of benefits is given to all employees (without regard to their religion), everything should be OK.

Of course you do not see the double standard, you support the issue. By golly though if I provided free condoms to employees because of my concerns of safe sex...wait I did that and a Christian filed a complaint that I was offending his religious beliefs by promoting sexual promiscuity, THEN he went after a female employee for handing out invites at work to a passion party. He knew about the condoms but took the job then 2 weeks after starting he started his religious demands .. Whats that all have to do with the topic?, nothing really I just really have grown tired of the religious rights agenda and rhetoric. This is all about the high moral pro-life movement and less about a business providing a benefit to women they deem sinful. I personally want to know which businesses have this mindset so i know not to support them, because I am a sinner...speaking of that hospital of religion, do the doctors there provide sinful services? Yes, of course it is okay to take money from a sinner. No, No- double standards anywhere so long as the religion is respected as it defines and when, no one elses rights matter. God Bless America indeed! Pardon my glib tones. I'm done. Have a great evening, I must go wash my feet. PS: Yes - I agree, if the benefit never offered no fowl. BUT, I take issue with the reason given for not having. No business should be allowed to deny or not offer based on religious reasons.

What's a passion party?

@ Bob: Uhm ..Candles, scents and adult stuff that require batteries ;). The invites very discrete, nothing graphic.

@Bob McBride...My daughter tells me that a "passion party" is like a Tupperware Party but with adult toys and lotions.

@Lyle
"My daughter tells me", Right!!! I think it is time for you to come clean about your Friday nights.

Like a Tupperware Party?
Do these 'toys' come with a lifetime replacement warranty?
And why batteries? Aren't they used in the comfort of one's home? At the very least they should be rechargable batteries for use while camping. But AC would be the green way to sex it up.
Will ObamaCare cover 'toys'?

Okay...I suppose there's the usual hostess gift and all...

I think I'll stop there.

@ Craig -
@ Craig: My kick start toy is in for repairs. The solar panel chargeable one is still in development. As for Obama care covering? Hmmm, Possibly as the endorphines released when the toy (used properly) do lead to good mental health, less stress and relaxation. hee hee Silly boys *giggle* :)

Kathy:

I don't see the double standard because there really isn't one. You claim that one exists because you believe that it supports your position.

No business should be allowed to deny or not offer based on the employee's religion, but employers should be allowed to limit the provided benefits in accordance to their beliefs. This is particularly true in a business that is a religious organization.

LOL @ Bob.
With the direction things have been going, our future may look like this:
Solar powered toy for sunny days in the park!
Recycling places to drop off your old toy and not put in landfills...(400 metric tons of old toys are dumped in landfills- maybe this explains the strange vibrations)
Special windmills to power toys.
Toys made from renewable and all natural fibers (bamboo?)
Someone will invent an orgasm pill and require insurance to cover it, so all this will be obsolete someday.

Craig if they invent that pill there will be lot more than just all that stuff that becomes obsolete.

Kathy: I was not trying to offend. Just making light of a touchy subject matter.

@ Craig: No worries, I do not offend easily :) Ironic that out of this entire section of dialogue, the words passion party was the only thing replied too and discussed by mainly men. Perhaps just me, I thought it was funny given the topic of contraceptives and the Catholic religion,that those replies focused on only something sexual. Confessional booth anyone? *snarky sarcasm* :0) LOLz

Its not about access its about Obama dividing Americans between religious and pro-life and the secular free stuff army. You want to violate my religious rights so you can have a twenty dollar pill?

The only ones 'screaming' against birth control here is the Catholic church. Don't you think that it is reasonable for them to be upset over being forced to provide something that violates their religious beliefs?

...and those representatives of the Catholic church doing the 'screaming' have sworn an oath to God to forever abstain from sex.

Yeah, CD, and we all know how highly they hold that oath to God. No one is forcing the catholic church to do anything. They are instead being told what they cannot do and what they cannot do is deny ALL women access to birth control. What they teach and hold dear to their hearts is their business, and if they want to tell catholic women that they cannot have access to birth control that is also their business. But they cannot legally force non-catholic women to abstain from birth control. There's a little piece of paper in DC called the US Constitution that separates church from state. And if they hope to maintain their tax-free status, they need to read the law that prohibits tax exempt organizations from indulging in politics. By the way, have you had a vasectomy? No, I didn't think so... Fascinating that it's men who are screaming the loudest against birth control. Too bad the men aren't the ones who are held responsible for pregnancies.

You mean the government really isn't attempting to force the Catholic church to provide birth control as a benefit to their employees?

How is that not a violation of separation of church and state to force the church to provide something that violates their beliefs?

CD, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. The catholic church isn't being forced to do anything. They have been exempted from having to provide access to birth control. It is the insurance companies that are being required to provide it for the same amount of money they would get if they did not provide it. I realize that catholics believe they rule the world, but the truth is, most catholic women do practice birth control. The catholic church does not control their own women members, why do they think they have the right to control non-catholic women? If they only hired catholic women, then they might have something to say, but that is not the case. The catholic church, and all other churches for that matter, need to understand that this is not a theocracy. The church does not make the laws, but they must obey them. If they don't like it, then perhaps they should start paying taxes so they can legally engage in politics.

As far as men having a say-so in whether or not women can have access to birth control, I will repeat what I've already said - when they all have vasectomies, then they can talk about birth control. And when they all give up their insurance-paid-for Viagra, then they can object to insurance-paid-for birth control.

@Linda
What about Catholic agencies that self insured? What exempts them? The fact is that catholic entities must still provide insurance that must provide contraceptives. While the catholic church does not provide direct, they still be come an agent. The non-catholic employees did not have problem with it until the the President made it a free option.

As for it covering Viagra, I would argue that it works in the opposite manner as a contraceptive. The Viagra pill allows sexual organs to work while the contraceptive blocks them from working. Either way, why should either one be covered for free by an insurance agency? Neither men nor women are granted the right to have sex through our constitution. Neither men nor women should receive a mandate from the government for free sex aids.

Linda:

Exempting the Catholic church from providing birth control benefit isn't what started this whole controversy. You conveniently left out the original edict from Obama, and stated only the 'compromise' that came about when the Catholic church disagreed with what Obama was trying to do.

This isn't an issue of the Catholic church trying to control anyone. This is an issue of keeping the Catholic church from providing something that goes against their beliefs.

J.B., no one gets any health/medical related services for free. Even people on Medicaid/Title 19 pay co-pays on everything. And, the elderly and disabled pay significant co-pays on their Medicare benefits, as well as having to pay significant premiums for it. And Obama's health care plan is not free - everyone will pay premiums for their coverage. And, sorry, but if not for Viagra, a lot of women wouldn't have to worry about birth control. I find it interesting that men, and the catholic church, are vehemently protecting their "right" to Viagra, but at the same time leaving the women those men are having sex with burdened with having babies for most of their lives. If you men would keep it in your pants, get vasectomies and lay off the Viagra, this would be a non-issue. If the catholic church wants to do business, and have those businesses subsidized by public funds, then they have to follow the law. If they don't want their employees having access to birth control, then they should only be hiring catholic women who supposedly don't use birth control.

"Viagra works the opposite of birth control"?? Of course it does. Viagra allows men to continue impregnating women long after a man's body says the show is over. Is that a new tenet of the catholic church now - maintain the ability to impregnate as long as is chemically possible? Where's the "natural" in that?

With all due respect, guys, I'm not going to engage in debate with men about a woman's right to protect her body.

You seem to speak of the 'Viagara men' as if the women with whom they have sex have no say in the matter...

Again, this isn't about the Church deciding who can or cannot have birth control (or Viagra for that matter). This is a matter of the government overstepping its authority by forcing religious groups to provide things that go against their beliefs. It's an issue of Church and State, not an issue of birth control access.

@Linda Motley -- I believe Catholic institutions would have the right to refuse to cover vasectomies under their health plans, just as I don't believe one could undergo that procedure at Elmbrook Memorial.

Ironically, back in 1988 when it was an issue for us as a couple, the health plan at Marquette University covered a sterilization procedure, even while we had to go to a different hospital to have it performed. So I'm wondering why all the fuss about it now.

I think if some factions in the Catholic Church had their way, they would be denying ALL women (and men) their ability to use birth control. As I said earlier, there are 'personhood' amendments that would outlaw the Pill and IUDs, and we have a Presidential candidate who has expressed a willingness to ignore or overturn Griswold v. Connecticut.

Randy, all thinking people know this isn't really about birth control. It's about manipulating people into thinking that President Obama has done something terribly wrong by requiring insurance companies to cover birth control. It's just another lame attempt by the republicans to make a good president look bad in the hope that it will win the election for them. It's really pathetic that they think the American public is that stupid...

Obama did a fine job of making himself look bad when he came up with his original mandate. Requiring Catholic organizations to provide benefits that cover birth control is a violation of their religious beliefs. After getting pushback from the Catholic church, Obama changed the mandate to have the insurance companies pay for the birth control. The issue with this is as JB pointed out--Catholic organizations may self insure. This means that Obama's edict requires that they (as they are the 'insurance company') provide birth control.

@Linda
The Obama mandate said that insurance companies must provide contraceptives for free. Look it up.

Also, you didn't read my entire post. I said all sexual aids should be paid for by the person needing them. The only person that I should be liable for covering contraceptives is my wife. Why should my premiums cover your contraceptives?

As for manipulation, if the current President can mandate that an insurance company must provide free contraceptives; what is to stop the next republican president from mandating that all abortions must have a 15 day waiting period including watching videos of the procedure occuring?

This has nothing to do with sex. I don't care how, who, where or when are bumping uglies; what care about is the president throwing out the constitution by first demanding the religious groups break doctrine at the whim of the government and second he breaks the constitution by mandating a company provide a service for free.

@J. B. Schmidt -- I actually agree that they might have overreached by requiring no co-pay on contraceptive measures. Except that the fact that some of them have become to expensive as to preclude people with not much money affording them.

I could have lived with contraceptive being treated exactly like any other form of medical expense ii you you could have lived with the extra expense of the accidental babies there would almost certainly be.

Why should you be responsible for contraceptive for anyone other than in your own family? For the same reason I would be responsible for your hypertension medications, or your wife's obstetrical care, or your kid's broken leg when he fell off the bike you bought him. It's the way it works, and frankly, contraception is cheaper than the alternative.

@Randy 1949
I want to tell you that I did a screen print and put a copy of your agreement on my fridge.

As for my families health care being covered on a universal scale, I would argue that it is completely different. I pay premiums for that, co-pays for medicine and I am liable for a portion of procedures. The contraceptive thing is completely a burden of all premium holders.

Which is a greater burden J.B., contraception or the support of hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies? And I'll ask you the question - how many unwanted babies have you adopted? Are you willing to begin adopting all the unwanted/unplanned for babies that will result when women are denied access to birth control? Let's keep things in perspective here...

Perhaps the reason is that this shouldn't be a discussion concerning women's reproductive rights. This is an issue of government intrusion into religion.

It seems pretty clear to me Lyle. When the government forces a religious group to provide something that goes against their beliefs seems like a violation of religious freedom.

Religion often mixes with secular activities as most religious groups do works of charity for members of the public. Perhaps a fair analogy to this situation would be if the government were to require that pork be served at a 'feed the hungry program' run by a Jewish or Muslim organization.

Poor analogy as usual. There are alternatives to pork.

Ok. Thanks for sharing...

News flash for you Linda--the Catholic Church isn't trying to run the country or intrude into everyone's bedroom. If you are not employed by the Catholic Church, they have no say in what kind of birth control benefits your employer can provide.

Linda gobble down birth control pills like M&M's, I really don't care if you care to live promisciously, but can I not have to pay for your lifestyle? Please?

Honey, I haven't needed birth control since long before you were born. And you do not pay for anyone's lifestyle but your own. But your lame attempt at insult really illustrates my point about republican obsession with sex, so thanks for the help!

@Leaving Tosa Soon -- So you think monogamous married couples never use the Pill to control the size of their families? I actually pay for the lifestyle of folks who pump the babies out like rabbits and expect property taxpayers to help educate them. Plus their sheer numbers affect the employment prospects of my one child and my grandchild.

I don't care if you sleep in separate bedrooms until it sours your disposition, but kindly don't expect your private views to affect social policy for the rest of us.

Patricia, no one is forcing you or anyone else to use birth control. But, let's assume you and others like you get your way and women are denied birth control. How many unwanted babies are you going to adopt? How many have you already adopted? You see you folks are all anti-birth control and "pro-life" until those babies are born. Then your obsession with them and their conception does an about face and you not only do not care anymore, but you want to cut them off from any and all resources that might help them and their mothers live decent lives. You see, you're not really "pro-life", you're only pro-embryo. Once that life is outside the mother's belly, you couldn't care less.

"no one is forcing you or anyone else to use birth control." yet you are forcing us all to pay for it, even if it is against our religious teachings....nice Linda.

Patricia, unfortunately your view on birth control is held by a small, cult like group of fanatics. Most of the American population knows better.

@Patricia -- Hormonal contraceptives are not abortifacients, except by narrow definition. They primarily suppress ovulation, and in the very rare case of ovulation occurring with fertilization of a zygote, it prevents that zygote from implanting.

Thanks again for proving my point.

@Tosa -- Do you not understand that health insurance means all of us paying for everyone else's procedures, some of which are lifestyle related?

I sincerely hope your children are in private school (no vouchers) and that their births and childhood medical care are paid for out of your own pocket. Same goes for your diabetic treatment because you let yourself get out of shape and your lung disease because you smoked.

Randy1949, are you a child? Insurance is a contract between me(the policyholder) and the insurer for payment due to losses(as defined by the contract) for a set premium based upon risk. It has nothing to do with you and your immoral choices in life, if my insurance carrier pays for my illnesses that is between me and them via a contract. If I have no losses, they get to keep all of the premium, if I pay the premium there is a chance that they could pay more than what I paid.

The fact that they have other contracts with other policy holders is irrelevent to my contractual relationship with them If I want to cover contracption in my contract, I would choose to do so. Because you liberals are too cheap to pay for your immoral lifestyles must you foist them on people like me who vomit on your lifestyle choices? Randy do you understand contracts now?

@Tosa -- No, I am not a child. You have just proved you don't understand how insurance premiums are set for a large group of people.

I'm amused how you term my 33 year monogamous marriage with its one child born in wedlock, immoral.

Randy, Tosa apparently thinks all sex is immoral and wrong. One has to wonder how s/he thinks s/he was conceived. Also, one has to wonder if Tosa considers his mother immoral for engaging in sex with his/her father.

@Leaving Tosa Soon...You may have a contract with your provider, but your premiums are pooled and risk is assessed actuarialy. Premiums are based on actuarial risk and those at higher risk pay more. The bigger the pool and the lower the risk, the more affordable the premium. All who participate with an individual carrier spread the risk and gain the benefit. Do you now understand how insurance works?

Are you 9 years old? Insurance companies simply increase the rates due to high utilization(useage) of coverage...get a clue einstein.

@St. Swithin
Of course they won't complain. They can just raise premiums.

I am sure that if we all ate organic rabbit food and were put on 1800 calorie per day diets we would all be healthier and hence lower health care cost. So should the government nationalize the food industry or mandate they give organic food away for free?

Guys,
Please read what I wrote and maybe click through to the link. Let me write it again - "lowers the overall cost". Either provide proof that this is false or put a sock in it. Also note that Obamacare puts controls on premium rate increases.
It's really sad how some people will post an angry rebuttal two seconds after reading something and don't bother to actually think about it.

Hey business geniuses. Health insurance companies and those with brains know that contraception is far cheaper than paying for full term deliveries and paying for the health care of the children that result.

Taking comments out of context and then using them as weapons to condemn people in Africa and Shorewood only proves that you have nothing of value to say. Please stop embarrassing yourself behind a phony name. It only makes you worthy of being laughed at.

I suspect The Kid just made this up. It sounds like he lives in an alternate reality.

Another numbskull with a mocking, racist screen name. What a disgusting little man.

@Tosa -- The lifestyle of the President's half-brother proves what, exactly?

Randy, again, it proves that Tosa has nothing of value to add to the debate other than insults and inane nonsense.

Proves that Leaving Tosa Soon is at heart a racist.

If you were an employer and a religious entity that did not believe in organ transplants, I would support your decision to not provide healthcare benefits to your employees that covered organ transplants.

See how that works? Your religious freedoms are protected by the constitution. The government should not have the authority to make a religion provide something that goes against their beliefs.

Yes, CD. my religious freedoms are protected by the Constitution and so are yours. But those freedoms do not include forcing your beliefs on other people who do not share those beliefs. Freedom is a two-way street - if you want those freedoms preserved, then you must allow other people to have their freedom preserved as well. Frankly, I'd like to see every woman (and man) who works for the catholic church and does not believe as they do that birth control is a sin quit their jobs and file for unemployment. Oh, wait, if you work for a religious organization you don't qualify for unemployment - funny how that works out.

How are they forcing their beliefs on anyone? Their employees are free to purchase their own birth control if they so choose. The government has no authority to force a religion to provide it if it conflicts with the beliefs of that religion.

If one quits their job, they don't qualify for unemployment regardless of who the employer was.

Why don't you rejoin us when you're old enough to vote? In the meantime, go get an education so your comments don't reflect so negatively on your parents, you-who-is-too-much-of-a-coward-to-post-under-her-own-name.

Classy!

Bear in mind, this didn't apply to churches or Catholic charities and their employees. It only applied to religiously affiliated institutions like hospitals and universities that serve the general public like any other business and employ people of all faiths.

You might also want to check current Wisconsin law on this issue.

@Craig -- Free or with a co-pay, it's still against Catholic doctrine. But you lost me with your 'open your legs' remark. It denigrates every woman who enjoys a healthy sexuality.

Your final remark about batteries and peanut butter is beyond the pale. The crankiest people on the thread seem to be the ones who have accepted sexual deprivation as a religious tenet and don't want to suffer alone.

Randy, don't waste your time on Craig. He's one of those "christians" who believes what Jesus MEANT to say was "hate one another" instead of "love one another".

Craig, BC is part of a complete array of women's preventative care that AHA requires insurance companies to cover with no copay:

"Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services."

If we were truly concerned about "paying for someone else's lifestyle decisions", then we should be horrified at the Catholic families cranking out kids every 18 months. If there are Catholics as part of your group health insurance, YOU ARE paying for all those births, all those pediatric visits, (and in all likelihood, the serious therapy those parents will need when it's all done.) As a property tax payer, YOU ARE paying to educate the absurd number of kids from that one family.

We are all paying for each other's lifestyle, when we pool our money for common good. Get off your moral high horse and consider just how others might view YOUR lifestyle. Yet, even though you revel in the delusion that you live with no help from anyone else, we're all paying for YOUR lifestyle choices too.

kbb: I don't know what you are referring to when you say my lifestyle.
Perhaps pooling our money is not the right way to go then. I am in favor of paying my own way. Oh, wait....we already tried that.
For the record kbb, I am not a Catholic.
I just agree that it is their choice, and outsiders should mind their own damn business. Apparently it has become politically correct to bash Christianity and heterosexual lifestyles under this administration.

Patch is a lot more about the first amendment than political correctness. You can expect more of the same from my blog.

EEOC in fact mandated the coverage going back to 2000 to evoke equality in the application of employee prescription drug programs. And so the ruling stood during the Bush administration.

@Keith... The problem is in what Obama decided to do, providing 'free', no co-pay birth control. Per the EEOC ruling(as noted in Victor's article), birth control is just like any other preventative medicine provided through a prescription drug program, the same co-pay/deductible rules apply . With the stated Obama 'compromise', under the the year 2000 EEOC ruling, you would be treating men and women differently as to the application of the employee prescription drug program; violating the EEOC rule set on equal treatment. It would seem that if the regular co-pay/deducible applied that no EEOC violation could occur, but then it looks like the Religious Organizations would actually be providing the birth control.....

You probably don't remember his predecessor, Glenn Davis, who finally stepped down. he was equally useless, although he never did anything worse than a bill to prevent 'soring' of show horses. Jim is responsible for the Real ID Act of 2005, which means that I probably can't get on a plane now, not that I'd want to.

Something else of value means anyone but Jim, and I always vote for the challenger. But in this district a Democratic winner just ain't happening.

@Born Free -- Psssst . . . reliable contraception obviates the need for abortions. Did you read the article or the discussions?

Victor: I enjoy your non PC articles even though I may disagree on the opinion.
Keep them coming.

Thanks Craig. Appreciate your note.

@Born Free -- I really don't see how a married couple's ability to produce only those children they can support and to space them for both maternal and fetal health is 'self-destruction'. I've been with the same person since I was almost eighteen, and we were able to enjoy a rich marital life free from worries about having more children than we wanted thanks to birth control, paid for both out of pocket and through Marquette University's health plan. I resent you calling that uncommitted and irresponsible.

Bob,
You make a good point. Politicians of any ilk can pander to their constituencies without bothering to really research the issue. But on the flip side, who is currently calling the shots? - insurance executives. So for me - politicians answerable to the voters are preferable to CEOs that only answer to shareholders. And remember that you can always opt out of government healthcare if you have the money. Healthcare should not be a capitalist free market any more than police or firefighters. Having a for-profit healthcare system means you accept having poor people die from illness. Even Reagan could not accept that, which is why he passed the law forbidding emergency rooms from turning away people.

Theoretically at least, those reliant on the government run system (those who couldn't afford to opt out, for instance) could be subjected to coverage that changes with every change of the party in power. If you think medical coverage is a mess now, inject that into the mix.

Would you be willing to accept a system that, come next election cycle, decides to no longer cover just this kind thing, because its that's what its "constituency" wants? Currently, if your insurance program changes coverage, you at least have the ability to go elsewhere. With a single payer system, you either take what you're given or you pay out of pocket - assuming you can afford that.

I'd rather not have people like Jim Sensenbrenner or Barack Obama making decisions as to what's covered and what isn't, in order to please a constituency that includes the very kinds of special interests everyone complains about effecting other legislation now. Maybe there's a way of factoring that out of the system, but until we do, I can't see having the Government more involved in decisions regarding medical treatment than it already is.

@Bob McBride -- few of us can afford to opt out of any system of coverage, whether it's from the government of a private employer. Under the pre-Obamacre system, people found themselves subject to changes in the cost and coverage of things based on an employer's decision or simply because of a pink slip. Except that some states mandate that certain procedures be covered under any insurance plan, as is the case right here in Wisconsin. So how does 'Obamacare' change this?

And please tell me how, in the year 2012, birth control pills can be considered controversial?

Bob,
Again, theoretically the government could do this, but how is that worse than what we have now? The insurance companies do the same thing based on profit calculations. You say I can just change insurance, but that is not the case. I take the insurance my company gives me and I am grateful for it. This still makes me better off than millions of other Americans. Even with the pools that Obamacare is setting up, I would only get to choose between a few state-approved insurers if I declined my employer's insurance. Chances are they would all make the same profit-based decisions about what to cover. If I am wealthy enough to shop around for medical care now then I will be wealthy enough to skip the government healthcare system too.

Randy,

First, I'm speaking to the "single payer" system which inevitably comes up as the solution when problems with other systems, like Obama-care, come up. Secondly, the "opt out" option I was addressing was St. Swithin's suggested alternative if one doesn't want government healthcare - which in the case of a single-payer system, means you pay for it on your own.

Third, as to your last question, see this comment section and the one attached to the article he's referencing.

And again, if you're at all concerned that our government now operates to serve special interests to the detriment of society as a whole, why would you want to put it in charge of your healthcare? Do you think lobbyists, political donations and the like are just all going to magically disappear or not go after this particular arm of government in search of lucrative contracts and approvals just as they have it's other arms?

Think it through.

St Swithin, all you have to do is look at the debate going on right now to answer your question as to how it could be worse. At least with profit motive, you're not interjecting outside factors such as one's personal and ethical considerations into the equation - in addition to cost, which will continue to be an issue as you have those who wish to constrain them going up against those for whom cost is no object. And you do have companies competing with each other. While you yourself are limited as to what you can choose, your employer can certainly switch companies if they're unhappy with the coverage. With single-payer, again, your only alternative is paying on your own.

@Bob McBride -- Realistically speaking, unless we're independently wealthy, we're all dependent on whatever form of health coverage is available. I see plenty of people saying that people in their reproductive years are always free to buy their own contraception.

"Third, as to your last question, see this comment section and the one attached to the article he's referencing."

All I see is ignorance of how hormonal birth control works, and it's being fostered in a cynical attempt to turn this into a political issue. Birth control pills are not an abortifacient.

Bob,
I share your concern about "lobbyists, political donations and the like". But once again I have to point out all of that _already exists_. Besides all the government lobbying and donations there exists private lobbying and influence-peddling among the insurers, hospitals, drug firms, etc. At least the politicians are comparable more accountable through elections and sunshine laws. My support of government healthcare is based on experience and research. I have used socialized medicine extensively with the military. Yes, it has lots of problems. But it was much better than what most of those soldiers would have gotten at home. Overall our armed forces are a pretty healthy bunch. The research consistently shows that we rank lower than any other civilized nation when it comes to the cost and quality of our healthcare. All those other nations have socialized medicine.

Randy says,

"All I see is ignorance of how hormonal birth control works, and it's being fostered in a cynical attempt to turn this into a political issue. Birth control pills are not an abortifacient."

And yet, it's being injected into the conversation regarding government provided coverage, by politicians as well, at the national level.

Do you get it, now? This is exactly what I'm talking about AND why I brought it up. Step back from the who's right and who's wrong on this and look at what's going on. Unless you've gone completely Pollyanna-ish on us, why in G-d's name would you expect something like this to never again rear it's ugly head when it comes to government subsidized healthcare?

St Swithin I used to sell to the healthcare field so I understand how it works. Each time I bring up a concern with the public sector version, someone inevitably brings up that it has its mirror in the private sector. I know that. That's why I'm suggesting that not only are we essentially swapping one set of problems for another, we're introducing some new ones that people seem to either want to ignore or just haven't considered.

As to your experience with the government healthcare, mine differs drastically from yours. As such, if the choice is between a single payer system and a system where the government actually provides the healthcare, I'll take single payer, with all it's warts, in a NY second. I'd rather put up with erratic coverage based on who's running the show in Washington than wondering if I'm going to get someone qualified to properly diagnose and treat whatever it is I'm seeing them for.

@Bob McBride -- I'm not being Pollyannaish, but since it is being injected regardless in the form of Personhood amendments and the attempt to be legally able to exclude such coverage from private plans, I don't consider this to be a logical objection to government involvement in healthcare.

There are two ways of denying people certain things -- either outlaw them by legislation or simply make them too expensive to procure.

Randy, would this even be an issue at this time were it not for the whole issue of "Obamacare" ? As has been argued here by those in favor of the coverage, it's already being covered as a result of certain state laws and, in essence, all it's being used for, right now, is as a political cudgel. You honestly can't see how something similar to this could be used going forward? You don't see that as you increase government's involvement with this you, by default, increase the degree to which politics, like this, become a part of the issue?

You're basically arguing that something that's happening right now and being addressed right here isn't going to happen going forward, while at the same time you're upset that it's happening now.

Let me ask you a question. If it comes down to Obamacare not covering contraceptives and the like in order for it to be enacted, can you live with that? If so, are you going to feel the same about coverage treatments resulting from stem cell research, once they become available?

@Bob McBride -- Obviously at the age of 62, I can live with contraception not being covered. I think perhaps that if it were not paid for by any insurance plan, the cost of pills and devices would come down sharply, because the companies would lose their market otherwise.

I'd be happy with contraception drugs devices and surgery being treated like any other treatment into which class it might fall.

Stem cell cures -- well, without some form of government health coverage I'm dead either way if I'd need it.

Randy, I guess I was asking you not to look so much at what you, personally, would derive from Obamacare w/o that coverage, but whether or not as a whole it's better for those who may need it to be at the mercy of the political winds. Given the point I'm currently at in life, neither of those two things would be much of a concern for me, personally, either. And it's possible I may benefit from some of what is in there. But having dealt with, indirectly, medicare (and the limitations it puts on certain types of service in terms of reimbursement) and, more importantly, direct government medical care, I can't say I'd wish that on people who may need some of the things I currently don't.

@Bob McBride -- I'm not worried so much about what I'd get out of it as what happens to people at a younger stage in life. The ability to access and receive health coverage is tenuous at best, subject to the whims of an employer and laws that affect what procedures may or may not be legal in a state.

I've dealt with Medicaid (as an administrator not a recipient) and I assume Medicare is almost as bad. But for the recipient, it beats nothing at all, which is what employers will be allowed to do if Obamacare is repealed.

I guess we'll see if the disincentives to not providing insurance coverage are ultimately effective. Some of the figures I've seen tossed around indicate that they may not be. Whether the intention or not, we could ultimately end up with a lot more people in the program and subject to the political winds I mentioned above. Better than nothing for those who had nothing, but at the same time perhaps not better for those who previously had an employer supplied insurance program.

Since the only abortion pill, RU 486, is not legally available in the US, I don't think insurance coverage is an issue. Plan B is not an abortion pill -- it merely prevents implantation in the event of a fertilization.