Guest / Limited Access /

The Obama administration announced today a small shift in an earlier position on who covers contraception, but observers are still voicing concerns over how his administration exempts religious groups.

Religious organizations will not have to provide ...

Read More

Displaying 1–13 of 13 comments

Joan Ludvik

August 17, 2012  11:16pm

I have to wonder what is really behind the churches aversion to allowing hormone tharapies to women while at the same time covering viagra for single men or even married men who's wives do not want sex. I wonder about the hipocracy of a church to delegate how an employee chooses to start a family while at the same time does not require and pay for a funeral and burial of any stillborn child or even miscarriage. If they truely believe in life at conception why do they not demand that death certificates be issued to any child who miscarries at any point after conception. Keep in mind this issue is only with the FOR PROFIT businesses the church runs not the actual church or charity orginazation.

Report Abuse

Joan Ludvik

August 17, 2012  11:09pm

The real problem here is the exemption the churches have that allows them to be self insured. Ordinary corporations are no longer able to do this because self insuring puts the employee in the position of having to share their private medical records with the employer. It is our constitutional right to have privacy in our medical treatments. More than 25yrs ago I was put in theis position when Frito-lay- a division of Pepsico was self insured. I started tearing muscles and tendons and ligaments at work. I had to see the company approved doctor who never told me I had a condition called psoriatic arthritis and would not be able to do physical work anymore. I was forced out of my job and never got the treatment that would have allowed me to have a normal life. Self insuring allows an employer to make life decisions and medical decisions based on how it will affect their bottom line. No employer including a church should ever have the right to choreograph anybodys personal decisions

Report Abuse

Carlos Ramirez Trevino

February 18, 2012  2:48am

In spite of the fact that as citizens we should take advantage of the opportunity to participate in government and influence its course, have I misunderstood the meaning of Grace? Haven't we been saved by God's Grace and not by our efforts to conform society to our way of thinking or to the conduct we expect of the transformed? Has the church gotten too involved in politics? Is that part of the idolatrous apostasy? Are we getting too caught up in the affairs of this world, forgetting the cross that is set before us? Are we now depending on the law? What ever happened to Grace? I feel the church has become too closely identified with politics once again. If the Catholic Church was the 1st Empire, Evangelicals are quickly becoming the Second. Do we still have a Christ centered church?

Report Abuse

Carlos Ramirez Trevino

February 18, 2012  2:30am

The issue is neither religion nor contraception. It is President Obama. Doesn't it seem as if he can't ever please the opposition? If the issue were freedom of religion, his concession would still not have been necessary. The fact is that Christian women use contraception and so do Christian men. As a labor issue, employers of all kinds are required to provide insurance and that insurance should cover contraception. In fact, it should also cover abortions. Why? Because abortions are sometimes necessary. More significant, however, is the fact that we live in a fallen and corrupt world that can't be forced to live the Christian life or be guided by a Christian conscience. More often than not Christian conduct will not prevail in society. We've had some influence, but will we bring about the perfect state by insisting on having everyone conform to our Christ-centered values? My concern is that even the church isn't living up to its values, so how can we legislate so others must?

Report Abuse

Welby Warner

February 17, 2012  2:54pm

I keep waiting to see opinions written by evangelicals bear the stamp that is truly christian, as defined by the Lord Jesus Himself. So much comment and contention is strictly politically inspired, rather than inspired by the vision and ideas that should be the hallmark of followers of Jesus Christ. I recently referred to ideas written in a book by Francis Schaefer named "The Church Before The Watching World" and I repeat that it would be relevant reading in this present climate. When will evangelicals focus on those things that relate to the spread of the good news rather than trying to get rules and regulations that restrict and limit other people? It is by a voluntary acceptance of the message of the gospel that redemption takes place, and spiritual growth is not the result of getting laws passed to prevent sin, but teaching followers of the Master that the weapons of the warfare waged by christians are not carnal but spiritual, making thoughts Christ-centred.

Report Abuse

LARRY CHRISTIAN

February 15, 2012  7:37pm

How can we be so hypocritical in talking about the availability of contraception pills when the vast majority of all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, et al.) are using contraception pills regularly. When will CT and evangelicals get down to making the main thing, the main thing......that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I guess we aren't really convinced that the Gospel of Jesus Christ can change lives or we would be focusing on that as our main thing.

Report Abuse

Pax Paws

February 11, 2012  11:22am

IS this really about providing sex (for free), calling it ‘preventative healthcare’ just like mammograms & pap smears that provide early detection of life threatening diseases? OR is this a diversionary conversation? WHY is it so important to provide free sex… when contraception is relatively inexpensive and/or free to many already? Everyone loves freebies! Especially when it allows us to enjoy one of life’s great pleasures at no cost! BUT, here's a question: WHY such a push to insure a relatively inexpensive thing? Wasn’t ObamaCare intended to *provide healthcare for the uninsured and to *keep healthcare costs from sky-rocketing. Why this? WHAT is insurance for?? IS IT NOT REALLY supposed to be a safety net? Just as with auto/home/life insurance, is it not to protect us from acute, catastrophic and chronic expenses? Christians, please access your Spiritual Eyes and ask the HS if we are seeing all we need to be seeing. If we are, great. But shouldn't we ask?

Report Abuse

LLOYD OMDAHL

February 11, 2012  9:24am

Let's separate the issues. We don't subscribe to the Catholic idea that birth control is a sin so why are we carrying water for that idea. The hysteria looks like it is politically generated.

Report Abuse

Connie Johanson

February 10, 2012  11:34pm

Oh, this is not an encroachment on religion or anything else. It is about this country finally having preventative coverage for women. It's about time.

Report Abuse

Connie Johanson

February 10, 2012  11:33pm

I thought Obama handled it very well and indeed he did say that opposing churches won't have to pay for coverage. There are people out there still stuck on dumb issues like where he was born, etc. He could jump through hoops and they will never be pleased. So I say if the religious right does not like what he did....they would not liked it no matter what. No votes lost there.

Report Abuse

john soulliere

February 10, 2012  11:09pm

This issue seems rather straight forward to my simple mind. The president doesn't have te power to widen or shrink anything that pertains to an encroachment of religion. The state cannot dictate the boundaries of biblical convictions either to expand or contract them. The church should not give it credence.

Report Abuse

Christine Thomas

February 10, 2012  4:31pm

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church. In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today. This is a hypocritical stance by the religious right. Where have they been?

Report Abuse

EDWARD E FLAMBOE

February 10, 2012  3:39pm

Listening to the announcement the President made, my thoughts were, He's skirting the issue, and really didn't change a thing. With the Insurance Companies having to proved the "contreseptive service free of charge", they are just going to pass the costs on to all who have insurance coverage with them. That means nothing is changed, the cost will be added to each policy, no matter the organization a person works for.

Report Abuse

View this article in Reader Mode