Bad sense of rhythm by the Administration to head out with this clumsy maneuver going into a Presidential re-election campaign.

But, I wonder how many Catholics will vote for a Mormon for President? For many Catholics, abortion's one thing, contraception is quite a different matter. And Vatican Inc., go molest yourself.

As a lapsed Catholic, I get a particular chuckle over this sort of idiocy, because I broke away from the Church because of the control issues. The assumption here is that all employees will be compelled to use medical services that are against Church doctrine. It's almost the same argument used by Southern Baptist pinheads who want to ban cable and the Internet, because "you'll be FORCED to watch pornography all day!" What's wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt to laypeople Catholics that their faith and sense of duty is strong enough that they'll choose not to use these services?

Oh, that's right: I forgot. The general congregation may not, but the control freaks at the top (and I'm lumping in free-range Soylent Green like Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, because they feel free to speak on behalf of all Catholics) can't resist the temptation. Since they can't, everyone else, including those of faiths with different positions, need to suffer. "Never mind my lifetime membership to NAMBLA. We need to fuss about anybody else having sex for any reason other than procreation."

If I remember right, God gave humans the right to choose. I guess that's right as long as we choose the Catholic Church and their commands.

I keep thinking of Providence Health Insurance. Surely it must offer birth control as part of its coverage. If so, then I don't see what the fight is about, offering the same insurance to employees, or the no co-pay part.

I didn't think about the control part of the Catholic doctrine, but it does't bother me that they want to live their beliefs, or that people feel drawn to that kind of religion. How they treat employees is a different thing.

My problem with the health care reform bill is separating the health care parts of the bill from the parts that have nothing to do with health, like scholarships and funding for a ready reserve. Once that is done it will be easier to talk about health care in America. Hope we still get the chance.

Yes, God gave humans the right to choose. The guvmint is taking that right away from Catholic hospitals and schools. The employees can choose not to work for the hospital or school now if getting those products for "free" is so important. I guess it will be nice when those schools or hospitals no longer choose to employ anyone, teach anyone, or treat anyone. The freedom of choice, such an Orwellian term anyway, should go all ways.

I find it ironic that our own Archbishop Levada (now "Defender of the faith" or some such thing at the Vatican) is presiding over a conference on 'healing' for victims of priest sexual abuse - when HE moved some of the worst pedophiles around Oregon.

I kind of loved being a Catholic and I still identify with it, but it also makes me kind of sick, frankly.

I agree Eric, freedom of choice cuts both ways. People ought not expect that every workplace will be the same and choose accordingly. Or is this what the future hold for us... everyone and everything the same? Now that's an Orwellian thought.

I just read an improtant column in the WSJ that deals with this subject and the Obama administration's end game for private (religious) agencies. Everyone should take a look at this one: Obama and the 'Bitter' Clingers -Round Two. 02/07/12 A11

Imagine no religion...

What we need is a government agency in charge of telling religions what they can and cannot believe.

I can't see where anyone is being forced to use condoms. What I see is religiness being applied to try to to force people not to.

And, Mojo, isn't the Obama administration just trying to do the right thing, irrespective of the political fallout? How bad is that?

Allan L.: The right thing for you and the right thing for me are probably different--and the ability to make that decision is proper. But who is to decide? Me, as an individual, based on the teachings of a church I can voluntarily leave anytime or decide not to follow in that respect, or a government that offers little means of escape? I like this website because it is not one of those "love it or leave it" (referring to the USA) kind of places. Apparently now I have to love endless war in the Middle East AND my church being forced to pay for something with which it fundamentally disagrees or leave it?

Another excellent reason to go to single payer health care.

Free will was a wonderful thing. I really miss it.

The magic book makes no mention of condoms.

The Catholic Church has no standing to speak on moral issues. And hasn't in my life time.

For all those getting riled about "freedom" (not, NOT!, tighty-righty sexual issues), what if the Church didn't want to cover prescriptions to treat AIDS? Or other STDs? Or cervical cancer? Or any cancer?

Should they have those "freedoms" too?

To 5th Gen Oregonian: Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

To Eric Morris:
Let us know how it goes when "any cancer" strikes you or a loved one!

Eric: How could I have been so wrong? Of course the religious organizations must have unfettered freedom to impose their superstitions on their non-believing, non-member employees. That is obviously what freedom is all about.

The distinction I am making (poorly) is what the Church imposes is not mandatory (you can leave, you can get a job at a place that offers better insurance, you can pay for your condoms with your salary from the hospital on your own, as people do now) but the government doing so is. Far-fetched, but in Portland I would become an adherent to a church that has as a religious doctrine your trash must be picked up weekly (and is willing to pay for it) but then the city states that the church can no longer pick up your garbage.

Or the insured employee with condom benefits can do without, as her conscience dictates. Which is more free?

I would think we live in the dark ages reading that story but I am not sure the ages ever got that light. I wish the leaders would at least catch up with the followers in the area of common sense.

All this talk of condoms is a little off base isn't it? I'm not aware of any insurance plan that pays for over-the-counter contraceptives, although I may be wrong.

This policy is mainly about paying for birth control pills, IUDs and the like that require a doctor's visit and ongoing prescriptions - a much more costly proposition. And which, coincidentally, affects women disproportionately. If I recall correctly, this issue first came to a head when erectile disfunction drugs were being covered by insurance while female contraceptives were not.

How come nobody's mentioned that 26 states already have laws like this in place?

It is common for various medical insurance policies to not cover things you would think would be covered. These are some of them: Prosthetics, organ transplants, infertility treatments, kidney dialysis, diabetes care management, and sterilization.

Check your policy. You might be surprised.

Pedophiles who wear dresses and funny pointee hats in public know best.

Yah Way has spoken.