Sam Hamilton

Tim never said he watched it.

I like your perspective Michelle.  I think you'd find wide agreement among Christians that unplanned pregnancies, particularly among unmarried individuals is something we should try to reduce.  I'd also think you'd find wide agreement among Christians that pregnancy resource centers, support for mothers-to-be and new mothers, education about human physiology and sex are good things.  People might disagree on some of the details, but I doubt you'd find many Christians opposed to these things on a broad level.

I think you'd also find that Christians, in general, don't have a problem with insurance companies covering contraceptives.  I certainly don't.  No one is protesting the government mandate of contraceptive coverage for non-religious employers.  What people are protesting is the government mandating that religious employers provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans.  The protest over this mandate isn't some scheme cooked up by men who want simply to control women's bodies or punish people for having sex.  Take people at their word that this is really about religious liberty.

stonecherub,

You made this argument before in a prior thread, so I'll respond how I did before.  Who, in this contraceptive debate, is the authority telling other people what they must do?  Who is the authority respecting the free will of individuals?

On one side, you have the Catholic Church.  It's leaders say that men and women using contraception goes against the intention of God.  Yet the Church doesn't impose this rule on anyone.  It has no method of enforcement.  It simply says: "This is what we believe.  You, the individual, have free will to decide what to do."  There are no repercussions for any Catholic who uses birth control, as evidenced by the high numbers of those who do.

On the other side, you have the state.  The state says to the Catholic Church that if it provides health insurance to its employees, it must provide contraception coverage to them in its health insurance plan or forgo providing insurance coverage and pay a large fine.

Like you, I disagree with the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception.  But the Catholic Church has no power over me, you or even Roman Catholics to abstain from use of contraceptives.

So who's the authoritian in this situation?  To quote you from your prior post, which entity is saying “You will do what I goddamn-well tell you to do, when I goddamn-well tell you to do it!”?  Who has the power to force others to bend to its will?  Is it the Catholic Church or the state?

Joseph Knippenberg at First Things analyses whether Romney has an “evangelical problem.”

He answers:

Yes. Is it a big problem? In one way, no: he’s usually within shouting distance of second place and often within hailing distance of first place. In another way, yes: the media narrative keeps telling us that Romney can’t win the evangelical vote. But consider this: in Mississippi, roughly 7,000 votes separated the winner (Santorum) from the third place finisher (Romney). A shift of less than 2% of the more than 200,000 evangelical voters from Santorum to Romney would have changed the picture completely. A second place finish would have required only a shift of about 1,000 votes from Gingrich to Romney. I know that close only counts in horseshoes (and delegate apportionment), but I’m not willing to base too much of an interpretation on numbers that small.

I know that saying that Romney 2012 is pretty dadgum close to McCain 2008 is damning the former with faint praise. But there aren’t many more states where the evangelical proportion of the electorate matches what we’ve seen in the past couple of weeks…But even if, as is likely (nay, certain), Romney’s path is tougher than McCain’s, we would do well to remember this last number: in 2008, McCain won Protestant weekly church attenders 2-1 over Obama. Nothing I’ve seen over the past three months or three years leads me to believe that any Republican candidate’s margin will be less than that.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/03/14/romney-and-the...

Please don't hijack the thread.

ejackson - Can you provide some examples of unnecessary requirements that the establishment adds on?  I'm trying to get a better understanding of what the criticism is.  Thanks.

According to the NYTimes, only 36% of women think institutions that have religious objections to to contraception should be forced to cover it in their insurance policies.  This isn't even a winning issue for Democrats among women.

Good points Paul.

I'm on the younger end of the age spectrum (but I don't think I'm young enough to be considered a millenial).  I get this feeling from reading things like this that people want to avoid ever having bad experiences that come from associating themselves with people they haven't chosen to associate with.  One of the things I love about being part of the church congregation is that I'm forced to interact with people that I normally wouldn't if it was up to me.  The church brings in all sorts of people - different ages, ability levels, ethnicities, cultures, spiritual gifts, personality types, etc. and I'm forced to consider them all beloved by God and part of the body of Christ with me.

I recognize this could just be my personality.  I'm introverted and normally don't go out of my way to put myself outside my comfort zone.  Belonging to a church congregation forces me to do this though.  Not only that, the congregation pushes me to pray, engage in Bible study, worship, sing, rejoice in others' coming and growing in the faith (their baptism, their first communions, their confirmations, etc.).  Fellowship with other Christians is much more than simply getting together with your friends for a meal/drinks and watching a ball game.  There's nothing wrong with doing that of course, but we need more.  Our spiritual growth depends on so much more than community with other people that we choose to associate with who share our views and we enjoy hanging out with.

Yes, sometimes community within a congregation is messy.  Sometimes there are disputes.  Sometimes people get hurt.  Sometimes there is baggage that comes along with a denomination.  That's part of life.  There's always baggage whenever you join any sort of group or community.

I live in a major metropolitan area, so I might have a different perspective than someone who is living in a small town with only two or three church congregations to choose from, but there are so many options out there when it comes to churches it's hard for me to believe that someone can't find one congregation that they feel comfortable enough to associate with.  I'm familiar with the Washington, D.C. metro area and there are hundreds of churches of all sorts of styles and doctrines (or lackthereof) to choose from with 20-30 minutes of travel time.  If the author of this piece can't find one that meets all her wants, desires and dreams, then I would very hesitantly suggest that perhaps that's not a problem with the church congregations.

PLease explain what you mean by religious employers.

A religious employer in the context of this news article appears to be an employer that is affiliated with a church (e.g. a Catholic hospital, a Lutheran school, a homeless shelter run by a church, etc.)

Were you for the blunt law?

I don't know.  I didn't look at the details of it.

Is it ok for employers to dictate what's in an insurance policy?

As long as the employer follows the law, yes.

Isn't that the job of the state's insurance commissioner and now perhaps the federal gov't to get some standards?

Yes, insurance commissioners have been given that task, and the federal government has, to some degree, as well.

Is it ok for the fed to determine what's in medicare and medicaid?

I think state governments have a role to play in Medicaid coverage as well.  But of course the federal government can determine what is covered by Medicare and Medicaid.  Why shouldn't they?  The federal government (with some help from the states) administers these programs.

What's your point?

Insurance coverage is not just compensation like cash; it's also a product.  No religious institution should be forced to distribute a product which violates it's religious beliefs.

Thanks Michelle.  I had read her testimony at the time and it seemed strange that they wouldn't cover it, particularly since the insurance policy stated that it would cover the pill for non-contraceptive purposes.  It sounds like a glitch in that insurance policy that could be fixed.