Quoted from CICERO

Nice cartoon...They forgot to put the word FORCE.  It should read "the government wants to FORCE our hospitals and universities to cover contraceptives..."  It's amazing how the exclusion of one word can be make a statement so misleading.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Insurance companies are FORCED to cover birth control for women who request it, if they work for an exempt
Catholic employer.

Quoted from CICERO

Who pays the insurance premium to cover the additional cost of contraceptives - is it magic?  Insurance companies are FORCED to raise their premiums on companies in order to pay for additional cost to their health insurance plan.  

Economics 101 - there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Third time... OK, I know Cic takes a little more time to absorb new facts, but here goes:

If an employer (religious or not) wants to purchase insurance coverage for their employees they have choices:
Plan 1. Insurance coverage that excludes birth control coverage.
Plan 2. Insurance coverage that includes birth control coverage.
Since any group that uses birth control will have lower expenses (prenatal and post natal for mom & birth and
baby coverage for the newborn):
  PLAN 2 COSTS LESS THAN PLAN 1.

Insurance coverage for pregnancy and babies is expensive.  Birth control included in the plan costs much less.

Quoted from Yossi

Too bad Dolan won't stand up for the majority of Catholics?  Birth Control IS NOT ABORTION.  

Quoted from bumblethru

The catholic church, as well as other denominational religions, needs to make up it's mind to whether they are going to follow their GOD'S law or the SECULAR laws.

Funny how decades ago the catholic church didn't allow eating meat on friday. Then they changed that law.
Then decades ago, the church was against ALL FORMS OF BIRTH CONTROL.....now they are caving on that one too.
I'm not saying it is right or wrong............just sayin'

Quoted Text

Do Catholics Have Too Many Babies?

When we were colonists and fought a war against the king and Parliament so that we could secede from the British Empire and be independent of it, we also fought for the value of personal freedom. That is the idea that in matters of personal choice, the government should play no role. The king only cared about the colonists' personal choices if he could control or tax them.

One of the taxes he imposed was to support the Church of England. The Church of England that the colonists' tax dollars supported was, of course, in England; it was not here. So, among the hateful taxes that impelled the colonists to revolt was this tax to support the king's church.

When the Constitution was written, religious freedom was a principal matter for discussion and debate among the Framers. They addressed this in the first clause of the First Amendment. Before the Constitution even protects the freedom of speech, it protects the natural right to worship or not to worship, free from the government. Here is what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That is very direct and clear. It was intended to prevent any tax money from going to a church, and it was intended to keep the government from using its coercive powers to influence or to punish religious institutions. For 125 years, most governments in America left churches alone.

Then along came the progressive attitude that some ethnic groups are superior to others. This is a damnable and racist view that was foist upon the federal government by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, in direct response to the influx of southern European immigrants at the beginning of the last century, most of whom were Catholic. Roosevelt and Wilson and their progressive followers thought these immigrants had too many children, children who would grow up to be voters and vote out their Nanny State central-planning values. So they began to encourage birth control and sterilizations and even abortions.

The Catholic Church resisted this by its teachings on birth control. The Church had made its teaching on contraception a core part of its mission for 400 years, and Pope Paul VI reaffirmed these teachings in a permanent way in 1968. That the Church embraces these teachings is well known, and equally as well known is the policy of the federal government to resist them.

But that resistance reached unconstitutional proportions a few weeks ago when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, herself a Catholic, issued regulations that require all employers in America to provide health insurance that makes contraceptive materials and devices available to their employees. The "all employers" includes Catholic universities, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools and even local Catholic churches. The failure to comply with this law will result in a fine to these institutions and the provision of contraceptive coverage to their employees by the government itself.

This is quite literally Congress making a law that interferes with the free exercise of religion. This is not about the morality of contraception. This is about the constitutionality of government coercion, coercion of religious institutions, coercion directly and profoundly prohibited by the Constitution itself. The motivation for the coercion – that Catholics have too many babies – is reprehensible, and those in government who embrace that and are willing to use the power of government to resist that should be voted out of office. But the coercion is the same as that faced by the folks who seceded from England because of the king's tax to pay for his church.

We have a king today, and he wants a tax to pay for his church. The king is the president, and his church is called Obamacare. We can't let this happen here. This is not just a Catholic issue. This is an issue about whether the Constitution means what it says. Does the Constitution let the government compel Jews to eat pork, or Protestants to genuflect, or Muslims to own dogs, or Catholics to pay for contraception? The answer is obvious.

Andrew P. Napolitano