What is going on in VA with their pre-abortion bill.

[Gumbeaux]

My point is the 'federal funding' thing people like to throw around as justification for making Catholic institutions provide these services is a bit of a red herring, since even a Catholic institution that accepts NO state or federal funding will still be required to provide them.

As they should!

[jellyben]

Why are you so interested in making the catholic church use privately raised money to pay for abortions and birth control?

I find it so ironic that the people who are railing against their tax dollars paying for pre-abortion ultrasounds have no problem forcing an institution to perform a procedure that goes against its core beliefs.

[KAnn]

I've always thought that extreme groups...given enough rope ...would hang themselves....

This has always been my hope. I have so little time to post these days but I so appreciate all the insightful comments in this thread.

[ClaraB]

Why are you so interested in making the catholic church use privately raised money to pay for abortions and birth control?

I find it so ironic that the people who are railing against their tax dollars paying for pre-abortion ultrasounds have no problem forcing an institution to perform a procedure that goes against its core beliefs.

You're fighting a losing battle - there are people to the extreme left as well as the right who refuse to even consider any point of view other than their own. It's equally frustrating trying to have a discussion with either side....

[jjsooner73]

I do see both sides here...forcing a religious institution to pay for something against their core beliefs (in the case where they do not receive federal funds). And I don't see where this all has to be free to anyone (I get that's part of what the health care reform got it)...at least require insurance to cover it reasonably so.

For me, it just goes back to why is the quality/type of health insurance you have dependent on where you work? Times have changed, why can't that change too?

[ClaraB]

I do see both sides here...forcing a religious institution to pay for something against their core beliefs (in the case where they do not receive federal funds). And I don't see where this all has to be free to anyone (I get that's part of what the health care reform got it)...at least require insurance to cover it reasonably so.

For me, it just goes back to why is the quality/type of health insurance you have dependent on where you work? Times have changed, why can't that change too?

You'll get no argument from me there - I think it's criminal that a country as rich as the US can't (or refuses to) provide affordable health care to all its citizens. I'm just tired of dealing with people on both sides who refuse to consider any other point of view, and it's making me kind of touchy.

[applecrisp]

From WTOP radio, interview with the Gov of VA. He has issue with body scans at airports, but not......


Tuesday - 2/28/2012, 1:24pm ET

(WTOP/Paul D. Shinkman)WASHINGTON - The governor of Virginia on Tuesday defended his support of what many pro-choice organizations consider an unnecessary abortion practice, while maintaining his criticism of a TSA airport security procedure he says infringes on a traveler's dignity.

While speaking on WTOP's "Ask the Governor" program, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said proposed state legislation "protects the dignity of women" by mandating they first have an ultrasound before an abortion, as a part of "providing them with all the information."

McDonnell told WTOP in November that TSA airport body scans are "probably over the line," in regard to "people's concerns about their privacy."

When asked on Tuesday if these approaches were contradictory, he maintained there are ways to maintain security at an airport without invasive security procedures, adding he believes the proposed abortion policy respects the dignity of women by making sure they have necessary information. The pro-life governor also backed up his recent decision to oppose the "transvaginal ultrasound" portion of the proposed legislation.

Pro-choice groups argued the original language in the Virginia legislation would require women in most cases to have a transvaginal ultrasound, a procedure that takes place inside the uterus. This facet of the legislation spurred nationwide attention and local debate.

Gov. McDonnell told WTOP he decided the procedure was "not good policy" after learning more about it, and consulting with the office of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who had constitutional concerns.

The pro-life governor maintains mandating an ultrasound is important for women considering an abortion.

"Now it's all about, 'Do you want the woman to have all the information, or not?'" he says.

[Melman]

I do see both sides here...forcing a religious institution to pay for something against their core beliefs (in the case where they do not receive federal funds). And I don't see where this all has to be free to anyone (I get that's part of what the health care reform got it)...at least require insurance to cover it reasonably so.

The way I understand it, this is not forcing religious institutions to pay for something against their core beliefs. This is simply employment law. Churches are already excluded from this policy because, very simply, they're churches. However, other institutions connected to a particular religion (ex., universities, hospitals, etc.) are not excluded because they have a huge variety of people working at these places not necessarily connected to their religion. For instance, a Catholic hospital will have people from all walks of life working there. They have to abide by any other employment law that any other company has to abide by. This insurance law is no different. This is NOT forcing ANYONE to use contraceptives (or any other meds). This is requiring the insurance companies to make contraceptives available to the employees.

Religious freedom? Nothing to do with it...that's just another buzzword to get the right fired up.

[jellyben]

The way I understand it, this is not forcing religious institutions to pay for something against their core beliefs. This is simply employment law. Churches are already excluded from this policy because, very simply, they're churches. However, other institutions connected to a particular religion (ex., universities, hospitals, etc.) are not excluded because they have a huge variety of people working at these places not necessarily connected to their religion. For instance, a Catholic hospital will have people from all walks of life working there. They have to abide by any other employment law that any other company has to abide by. This insurance law is no different. This is NOT forcing ANYONE to use contraceptives (or any other meds). This is requiring the insurance companies to make contraceptives available to the employees.

Religious freedom? Nothing to do with it...that's just another buzzword to get the right fired up.

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation! I haven't heard it explained that way but it makes sense.