Letters to the Editor

Family planning

March 6, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

It’s unfortunate that folks such as Craig Tucker, Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius continue to contribute to misunderstandings in the public arena on teachings of the Catholic Church regarding family planning. There is absolutely nothing in church teaching that requires or encourages couples to have as many children as possible.

The church views marital relations holistically in terms of both their life-giving and love-giving aspects. The Catholic Church teaches responsible parenthood and that couples may regulate the births of children but without resorting to artificial contraception or abortion.

Having taught hundreds of couples a natural method of family planning developed by international medical professionals and promoted worldwide by the church, we can testify that such natural methods are just as effective as any chemical or mechanical means in regulating births with the added advantage of assisting many couples who have difficulty in becoming pregnant. By the way, Ms. Pelosi, it is not the “rhythm method” — that was discarded over 40 years ago.

Comments

rtwngr 3 years, 5 months ago

Thank you, Nancy and Bill. Well said.

usnsnp 3 years, 5 months ago

Good point. But it should be up to the individual woman to decide how she should "regulate the birth of children" and not a religion or the government making that dicision.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

How about not having the employer make the decision either?

George Lippencott 3 years, 5 months ago

It is up to the women.

The argument is that the government should force a religion to act against its teachings.

The women can buy her BC for $10/mo or get it at the many free clinics that offer it. If she wants insurance to cover it she does not have to work at a Catholic Organization or attend a Catholic School.

By the by most insurance (including that available at Catholic Institutions) cover medically necessary reproductive services – few if any are free.

What kind of people are some of you - arguing against the teachings of a religion and demanding that it justify to you (a non-believer) what it believes. Where did the tolerance go that is so frequently touted in this space? I guess it depends (as so much seemingly does) on the mobs approval of the group to be tolerated.

Some of you are just plain despicable.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

"despicable"

If despicable is being of a mind that would require employers to provide comprehensive health care for women, then I proudly count myself as such.

If despicable is holding all corporations who operate in the public environment to the same standard, well then I proudly count myself as such as well.

If despicable is being in favor of providing equity in prescription drug coverage for women, then yes, I am despicable as well, and darned proud of it.

Two states already had laws that provided for contraceptive equity in insurance coverage. [Wisconsin and Rhode Island.] Those states recognized the significance of the right of the woman to equitable treatment.

Thank you.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

p-t is your employer a religious group? If not then you are argueing against the wrong idea. This country has in the past realized that some religious institutions are not the same as business corporations. And furthermore, the Church is not against women's health coverage.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

No, my employer is not a religious group.

The Catholic church must decide if they wish to participate in the public marketplace running public hospitals and institutions of higher learning that cater to all members of society. If they wish to do so they must follow public marketplace rules.

In addition, it is worth noting that religious hospitals get, on average, 36 percent of their revenue from Medicare. It is hard to argue that they should be able to impose their religious beliefs on that large of a revenue stream from public coffers.

No one's religious liberty has been infringed upon. The Catholic church can take themselves out of the public marketplace and quit taking federal dollars at any time they choose. The argument that they are trying to make is that they can exempt themselves from any marketplace rule that they choose to by claiming a religious exemption. From my perspective, the right of the woman to have access to comprehensive health care equitable to all other areas of the public marketplace carries the day.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Nah...they're talking about the Standard Days Method.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Or the Basal Body Temperature Method. Or the Symptothermal Method.

The problem with all of them? They're effectiveness varies significantly between being done "perfectly" or being done the way most people do things in real life.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

I'd really like to see some studies showing that these methods are as effective as other birth control methods, if that's true.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Glad to hear that.

But, of course, that's a pretty small sample to draw any general conclusions from, right?

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

I didn't really mean it that way.

Sorry, BAA.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

That was a quick response from a regular poster, jafs. How many Catholics in the world?

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Lots, of course.

But, there's no evidence that these methods have been effective for all of them.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

Last I checked, there's only one method that's "effective for all of them", and that's abstinence. Not that I'm for that at all! (o;

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

Whoops, my bad! Of course the writers as well, duh.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Thanks.

The first study appears to show that specific natural method is as effective as the Pill.

The second one doesn't - virtually all of the pregnancy rates there are higher, some by quite a bit, according to the "typical use" rates rather than the "perfect use" rates.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

And that's the most important point...the significant difference in effectiveness between the "perfect users" of these NFP methods and "typical users".

For the "perfect user", the effectiveness for these methods is between 95% and 98%. However, the effectiveness for "typical users" is 85% - 88%.

For birth control pill users? "Perfect users" = 99% - 99.9% effective. "Typical users" = 91% - 92% effective.

So, no...these NFP methods are not as effective as birth control pills. (And nothing is as effective as abstinence...which these natural family planning methods all require, sometimes for almost 2 weeks a month. Well, a condom is allowed...which makes me wonder, yet again, why the woman can't use anything, but it's OK for the guy to.)

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

I've heard reports of studies, and they all say, "The pill, condom, etc. are not perfect either."

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Of course.

But, check out the link contraception.about - or just google are natural birth control methods as effective as other methods, and you'll find the statistics I mention below.

According to them natural methods are 3-5x less effective than the Pill.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

I wonder how many unplanned pregnancies have resulted among couples using this so-called birth-control method.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

I'm betting an incredibly small percentage compared to those who don't "use" anything whatsoever.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

But, that's not the comparison being discussed.

The comparison is between "natural" birth control methods, and other ones.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

No, it was the comparison I made in relation to bozo's query.

Agnes 3 years, 5 months ago

I know one couple who have five "rhythm" children; one Ph.D. nurse professor who had five children while using various types of birth control; and the most important story I can relate is one that a friend told me about her relative whose wife died after the birth of their ninth child. They were young devout Catholics and had 8 children including two sets of twins. The doctor ordered her to use birth control because of her bad heart, but they felt they couldn't because of their faith. She died giving birth of that ninth baby, leaving her husband alone to raise 9 children under the age of 13. Republican and Catholic compassionate conservatism go hand in hand. I want no part of either!!

mom_of_three 3 years, 5 months ago

A bigger idiot elected to public office - I can think of a few: Bachmann, Palin, and Santorum.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

I'll take all three of those people 1000 to one over Pelosi.

mom_of_three 3 years, 5 months ago

I wouldn't. I believe people have a right to marry the person they want, the right to health insurance. Not one of those people mentioned believe in that right especially Sanctimonious santorum. and Bachmann put her big foot in her mouth just this morning on CNN.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

Your comment makes no sense. I've never heard a ONE of them say what you imply.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

I'm glad to see that you're practicing what you preach, and not throwing insults around and calling people names.

Oh wait,...never mind.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

I'm glad to see the LJWorld practicing what they preach.

Oh wait, ... never mind.

Patricia Davis 3 years, 5 months ago

At least she doesn't cry like your boy now holding the gavel. I suspect that you might have a problem with women who are smarter and more powerful than you are.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

"... giant idiot ... astounding idiot ... bigger idiot ... idiot ... that woman is an idiot extraordinaire ... world-class idiot ... IDIOT! "

I guest directly calling someone an idiot is now allowed on the LJWorld site. Way to keep it classy Alex.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

bea, I'm guessing you've had some seemingly benign comments "removed for violation"? Me, too, and completely random and questionable considering the rest of those strings! Sticks in my craw a bit.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

It really isn't about having my own comments being removed. It happens, and I generally understand why. I just don't see how a string of calling someone "idiot" in a single post in any way is part of the stated desire by the LJWorld moderator to have civil discourse around here. Given the amount of rope the poster in question has been given (and the number of ropes) I am just surprised what is now allowed.

Calling someone an idiot is obviously now allowed. Not sure how that helps with constructive conversations. Maybe the moderator would care to answer.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

Gotcha. I'd just seen you comment similarly a few times and thought your frustration matched mine. As to the 'idiot' post, my guess is it's allowed when it's not directed at a poster. I feel ya on the 'ropes.'

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

Selective enforcement of the rules? That sucks and blowsalot.

Alex Parker 3 years, 5 months ago

As I explained to you, this is a glitch in the site's programming and happens to other people, as well.

Alex Parker 3 years, 5 months ago

If Nancy Pelosi were a registered user of LJWorld.com, then I would remove that comment. Seeing as she is an elected official, and its_just_math is expressing his opinion of her, this does not constitute a violation of the terms of service.

Keeping it classy, Alex

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

Really? You believe calling others "IDIOT" is keeping it classy?

Wow.

So, to have it straight, is it anyone not a registered user, or is it not a registered user AND an elected official that we can call an IDIOT? I want to be sure when calling people an IDIOT despite the LJWorld rules against name calling that I am doing so without violating the rules. Besides IDIOT, what other words can we use? Is there a list somewhere of words we can use to describe others who are not registered users and/or elected officials?

By the way, when is name calling not a matter of opinion?

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

Also, can I just quote ... um ... math's use of the word? If he uses "IDIOT" in his post, can I just post the quotation as a response? You see, that way I wouldn't be calling him an "IDIOT," but rather, I would be quoting his use of the word "IDIOT." I mean, since IDIOT is so classy and all, should it even matter?

Alex Parker 3 years, 5 months ago

People use creative descriptions for Gov. Brownback, too. Both he and Pelosi are public figures who draw criticism. For the most part, we let criticisms of Gov. Brownback stand, as we do with President Obama and Speaker Pelosi and other public figures, ranging from Bill Self to Mayor Cromwell.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

They are public figures, so fire away. Got it. So what does any of that have to do with the goal of creating a forum that encourages civil discourse?

Answer: Nothing.

Alex Parker is the online moderator of a newspaper read around the nation and even internationally -- does that mean Alex Parker counts as a "public figure"?

Katara 3 years, 5 months ago

So, if the standard is registered user or elected official, then why do BornAgainAmerican's comments mocking Sandra Fluke's appearance still stand?

She is neither a registered user on LJW nor is she a public official.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/mar/04/birth-control/#c1980435

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

And you think mean-spirited personal attacks on someone you don't know and have never met are OK...why?

I mean, saying she's done things you think are idiotic is one thing, but calling her, as a person, an idiot? Come on. That only says bad things about you...not about her.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

Why, because you want to behave exactly like those you hate?

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Excuse me? I didn't call Bush an idiot, either.

And you didn't answer my question. Unless you're trying to infer that two wrongs make a right. Are you???

somedude20 3 years, 5 months ago

Thousands of teen parents can attest to how well making the sex without b/c worked for them. Hey, this "god" of yours gave me this thing so it would be an insult to him not to use it, right?

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

I want to see some evidence to support the letter writer's claim. Such statements are dangerous and sex leads to pregnancy. Further, why should anyone trust comments on anthing having to do with sex education and birth control from an organization run by (supposed) celebates? Also, if the desired result is to not get pregnant, who cares about the method?

I am still stunned that the GOP is taking the apparent stand against birth control in an election year. Do they think women don't vote?

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Another thought.

I wonder why the "natural" methods are ok with the Church - they do the same thing as many other forms of birth control - they prevent eggs from being fertilized.

If it's ok to do that by simply not having sex during ovulation, why isn't it ok to do that by other means?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

It's probably OK because the church says it's OK, and the church says it's OK because it doesn't work very well.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

" why isn't it ok to do that by other means?"

But those 'other means' are not natural. It's the 'artificial control' that is objectionable. Also the Church uses logical understanding to make decisions.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Actually, these NPF methods have all included mention of the use of a condom in lieu of abstinence. Since when is a condom not "artificial"????

I guess there's "regular" NPF and "Catholic" NPF. I wish that folks would distinguish between the two when bringing them up.

Of course, when 98% of Catholic women with sexual experience (including 70% of unmarried Catholic women) report using contraceptives at some point in their lives. I wonder if...just maybe...folks ought to consider that these women are choosing the right of control over their own bodies over the desire of the Catholic Church to control them. Yea!!

impska 3 years, 5 months ago

The Church is fine with using non-natural drugs to treat infertility.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

acorn Don't know which 'NPF' sites you refer to, but the Catholic Church still says, no condoms.

imp Treating infertility is health care, used to prevent pregnacy is blocking nature.

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 5 months ago

I just don't get that distinction. Why is "unnaturally" beginning pregnancy acceptable but "unnaturally" preventing pregnancy is not? Aren't they both some form of artificial interference in the natural process?

Jason Bowers-Chaika 3 years, 5 months ago

What is natural and not artificial about putting a thermometer in your vag? There I go again trying to be rational with people who depend on faith rather than rational thought.

Nancy Keel 3 years, 5 months ago

Thanks to "Kansas Person" providing some links on the effectiveness studies. You may also find more information at http://www.popepaulvi.com/ the institute directed by Thomas Hilgers, MD, in Omaha, Nebraska. Dr. Hilgers, among many others, has continued the research in human reproduction begun by Drs. John and Lynn Billings of Australia as well as European scientists--the heading of the website "Building a Culture of Life in Women's Healthcare" says it all.

And for "Its_just_math" -- please do some research on this matter. "coitus interuptus" also went out the window as a method with any effectiveness about the same time as the "rhythm method" -- following Humanae Vitae in 1968 Catholic physicians and scientists worldwide began developing more effective means of regulating births using knowledge about the fertility cycle and its symptomatic indications. They work and promote marital health to boot. Do some research on the divorce rate for couples practicing NFP!

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

From contraception.about:

With perfect use, 3-5/100 women will become pregnant using natural methods of birth control.

This is 3-5 times less effective than the Pill.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 5 months ago

Along with the fact that those failures have no other recourse than to give birth. Seems pretty devastating to me, especially if there are concerns re: passing on genetically linked diseases such as Huntington's, Tay-Sachs, etc.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

Sorry, jafs, but what kind of math are you using? If natural is 3-5/100, your assertion that the pill is 3-5 times as effective would mean the Pill is perfect?!

With "perfect use", the failure rate is exactly the same as the Pill.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolfailure.html

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Nope.

According to my reading, the Pill results in a 1/100 pregnancy rate - it's 99% effective, which means 1% ineffective.

Thus, 3-5/pregnancies/100 is 3-5x less effective than the Pill, because it means 3-5% ineffective rates.

That's from the site I quoted - feel free to check it out.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

Hope you don't mind, but I'll take the data from the American Pregnancy Foundation rather than About.com which is on a par w/ Wikipedia, thanks. And according to a MEDICAL organization, the PIll (both kinds) has a failure rate of 5%. That's the same as the natural method.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

That's fine.

Different sources apparently say different things about this topic, which makes it hard to know what's actually true.

jaywalker 3 years, 5 months ago

Of course, 'cept mine is a medical source. And it seems to me it's been common knowledge since I became 'active' lo these many years ago that the Pill was around 3 to 5% ineffective.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Well, I looked at your site.

It's rather interesting that a number of other hormone methods, one of which works in the same way as the Pill, are reported to have much lower failure rates - why would that be?

According to that site, there are at least 3 methods with substantially less than a 5% failure rate, including several hormone methods.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Why would hormonal methods that work the same as the Pill have better rates than it?

And, the other hormonal methods have substantially better success rates than natural methods.

Katara 3 years, 5 months ago

Because other forms are administered differently from the Pill.

The Pill is supposed to be taken at the exact time every day. This makes sure that the level of hormones in the body from it is at a consistent level.

If you get off schedule from the Pill, it reduces the effectiveness.

Also the Pill is more prone to drug interactions than other methods (such as Depo or Implanon) as the Pill is an oral medication. Oral antibiotics, for example, interfere with the Pill's effectiveness.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Ah - thanks for the clarification.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Webmd has a failure rate of 1% or less for all of the hormonal methods, if used correctly.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Webmd includes the Pill as part of that group.

Which, incidentally, makes more sense to me.

And, my recollection was that the Pill had about a 1% failure rate, back when I first starting thinking about these things.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Part of the problem may be that the comparisons aren't always made accurately, and the "typical" rate of one method is compared with the "ideal" rate of another.

In a link above, the "typical" success rate of various natural methods was as poor as 80%.

So, if the 1% failure rate of the Pill is "ideal" use, we'd have to compare the "ideal" use of natural methods to that.

And, of course, if we're using "typical" rates for the Pill, we'd have to use "typical" ones for the natural methods.

Nancy Keel 3 years, 5 months ago

To "jafs" -- without getting too involved in Church teachings, the basic distinction is that marital relations must not separate the life-giving from the love-giving aspects. If your knowledge of your fertility cycle indicates that an act of intercourse would likely lead to conception AND you as a couple have made the decision NOT to become pregnant at that stage in your life, you CHOOSE not to have intercourse at that point in time. You live in harmony your naturally occurring cycle of fertility and non-fertility as a couple. I hate to say it, but it is "as simple as that." The real decision is accepting your cyclic pattern of fertility as part of your being a couple. Thanks for your interest!

Hooligan_016 3 years, 5 months ago

That just seems completely separated from reality (and human nature/evolution) ... not trying to be disrespectful.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

You seem to think 'reality' means never using our practical knowledge to say,"just wait".

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

I don't have any problems whatsoever with married couples making that intensely personal choice for themselves...for whatever reason they make that choice. It's their marriage, after all.

But it's not the only choice loving, committed married couple have. They can, just as legitimately, choose other options. And they do. And this includes many Catholic couples. And these couple live no less in harmony with each other.

Patricia Davis 3 years, 5 months ago

As with all things, you have have the right to practice whatever type of birth control you believe conforms to your religious beliefs. However, the flapdoodle starts when you insist that your religious beliefs should apply to everyone. If some couples choose to live in harmony with more effective birth control and science and conscience approve, you need to accept the world is a bigger place than the Catholic church.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

No one is insisting their religious belief applies to you, but don't ask us to pay for your practices that violate our beliefs.

mom_of_three 3 years, 5 months ago

But what if birth control is necessary for a health condition? Do you think it should be covered regardless of religion?

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

But no one is asking you to pay for them? Don't you understand that??? That's the whole fallacy of this argument.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

If you tell me I have to pay for your insurance that encludes it, then indirectly I"M PAYING.

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 5 months ago

So if I'm a Scientologist and I oppose psychiatry, should I really be allowed to dictate to everyone else who is covered by my insurance plan that psychiatric care will not be covered? We all pay for things in this indirect way that we'd rather not, but we don't get to dictate for the entire group based on our own personal, even religious, views.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

The Roman Catholic Church disapproves of divorce, but it readily pays for insurance coverage for spouses when divorced employees remarry. Why is that "violation" of Catholic "beliefs" okay with the Church leaders, but not providing birth control to non-Catholic employees? Besides, the Catholic ban on birth control applies only to married Catholic couples. It doesn't apply to non-Catholics, so why would Church employers have any problem with insurance coverage for non-Catholic employees including birth control? Maybe because Catholic employees would want it, too? But that's a real matter of religious freedom: the government cannot coerce citizens to obey the instructions of religious leaders--even the leaders of their own religion.

mcmandy 3 years, 5 months ago

I've actually been doing some research into the FAM method lately. True, its not the same as the rhythm method. I'm not sold on it or convinced its bogus yet. It makes a lot of sense, but has a heavy reliance on temperature and mine like to fluctuate a LOT. My opinion on it right now is that it truly doesn't work for everyone. I'm just sick of religious crazies (note--the crazies, not the rational ones) insinuating that I'm immoral because I'm in a relationship with my husband and we have the foresight to know we don't want kids until we can support them. I've not been thrilled with Obama, but the GOP leaves me no choice but to vote for him simply because of their stance on reproductive rights.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

The GOP is not making a stand on 'reproductive rights', it's the 'religious rights' that are the issue. Ah, but the Dems like to sidetrack the debate and the media is always asking the wrong question. The Obama administration is taking this country over the cliff, at least the GOP will put on the brakes.

mom_of_three 3 years, 5 months ago

Yeah, put on the brakes - no health care for all, no birth control, no gay rights.
Yep, putting on the breaks.
But the dems aren't sidetracking the debate on that. We can all hear what the repubs are saying loud and clear. Just like we all heard rush.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

" no health care for all, no birth control, no gay rights." False, you will have what you have now.

" dems aren't sidetracking " LOL I hear and read.

deec 3 years, 5 months ago

The GOP is not taking a stand on anything. They are grandstanding to keep the conservatives toeing the line. It is political theatre designed to keep everyone all het up so they are distracted from the dismal state of the world's economy. As long as we are all fussing about birth control, or religious rights, or gay rights, or illegal immigrants, we are not paying attention to the erosion of civil rights, like HR 247, or the duplicity carried out by the government at the financiers' behest. It's a rigged game, and we all willingly play, because we'd rather tear each other apart about social issues than pay attention to the rapid transfer of wealth that is occurring under our noses.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Is it "religious rights"? Or is it just "Catholic rights"? Or just "Catholic rights regarding birth control"?

Serious question: If this were, say, Christian Scientists arguing that nothing should be covered by insurance...would you be arguing in support of them???

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

I't Catholic and other Christian rights. There have been several churches that see it as "If it is Catholic now, will we be next. And they have filed suit against the governement.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

Also, many other churches see the abortion issue connected to birth control, "delayed controception".

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

I had that same question.

For some reason, people forget about other religions and other belief systems.

Why only Christians??

mcmandy 3 years, 5 months ago

The debate I saw a couple weeks ago had them all saying/agreeing, in a nutshell, that birth control pills are symptomatic of the immorality of our society. Santorum is the worst by far on this issue, but I can't trust any of them not to take my rights back to the 50's (or earlier).

kansanbygrace 3 years, 5 months ago

While visiting some friends, a young couple recently married, we visited their spiritual counselor, a monastic brother. In the conversation, he admonished them to "take appropriate steps" to not get pregnant yet, until they had stabilized in their new home and jobs. He emphasized that NFP did not have his confidence. He said that the people who used it were often called one thing: Parents. That coming from one of the horse's molars.

mom_of_three 3 years, 5 months ago

I think all these candidates should take a history test. That would thin out the herd real quick. Santorum would be gone before it was graded.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

History test? How does that have anything to do with this issue?

Armstrong 3 years, 5 months ago

I have a question for the athiest crowd. If you could careless about what the church says and apparently don't listen anyway, why the big fuss over this post?

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

Because the LJWorld isn't read by only church members, thus the letter to the editor wasn't only directed at church members.

If the church provides you or anyone else with all the information you would care to receive, why worry what others like Tucker, Pelosi and Sebelius have to say? You have your one source for information, so why bother worrying what others have to think on a subject?

Armstrong 3 years, 5 months ago

Thanks for not answering the question Miss-the point

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

Just because someone doesn't provide you with the answer you seek, that doesn't mean your question wasn't answered.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

Oh, and I did not miss the point. It is obviously beneath your hat.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

I saw the LTE as an informative matter to those who don't know. The T, P, & S people are refered to because they do not speak for the Church, and are either ignorant or renegades.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

I don't think you understand what being an atheist means. It certainly has NOTHING to do with not caring what a religion says about things that affect women's health.

deec 3 years, 5 months ago

How much, if anything, does the letter writer charge to teach NFP? If there is a charge, seems like a teeny conflict of interest touting its benefits.

KayCee 3 years, 5 months ago

Yes, they have other services, but where there are clinics, they derive a large part of income from abortions. I find nothing ironic, unless it is your failure to see the whole picture.

tomatogrower 3 years, 5 months ago

Isn't it funny how conservatives put down people who have children they can't afford, but want to make it hard to get birth control. Go figure. And it's really sad that there are some Catholics who would be happy if their kind of birth control was mandated. We are not a Catholic nation. We can choose whatever birth control works for us. I'm glad your's works for you.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Also, there seems to be evidence that many Catholics don't follow the Church's teachings on this subject, and use "normal" birth control.

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 5 months ago

There is absolutely nothing in that Huff Post piece covering decreased funding of state and federal cancer screening programs for women without insurance linking those budget cuts to the requirement that insurers cover basic preventative health care like birth control.

Red herring.

somedude20 3 years, 5 months ago

The church should be more worried about staying out of boys than they should about keeping b/c out of ours

You got to pay the troll toll....

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 5 months ago

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The Catholic Church has enough issues they need to address internally as a church without getting caught up in the political nonsense, which is what this is.

And those who like to pretend they represent the views of the Catholic Church don't represent the nearly 750 million Catholics worldwide because every Catholic seems to have their own ideas about these issues and oftentimes they don't agree with what is coming out of the Vatican.

If certain Republican candidates want to wrap themselves in a facade of morality and righteousness, I think it makes the Catholic Church look bad when they are so willing to cooperate.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 5 months ago

Pro-Choice/Pro Life

I've never met anyone who was pro abortion. Pro choice is not pro abortion. It is simply being smart enough to realize that medical procedures/surgeries when necessary are best left performed by those trained to do so in the proper facilities.

It's is time for the politicians to step aside and leave the practice of medical procedures to the medical profession.

Are politicians the moral giants of our time......hardly! Yet too damn many are against providing comprehensive sex/parenting education.

Hopefully children could one day feel comfortable to discuss openly:

  • Abortion
  • Body Image
  • Emergency Contraception (Morning After Pill)
  • Men's Sexual Health
  • Pregnancy
  • Relationships
  • Sex & Sexuality
  • Sexual Orientation & Gender * Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)
  • Women's Health

  • Birth Control = abortion prevention http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/index.htm

Flap Doodle 3 years, 5 months ago

"I've never met anyone who was pro abortion..." You need to get out more.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 5 months ago

We're constantly bombarded as to the alleged negative aspects of sex. The positives never seem to make headlines.

In 1991 Wendy Maltz LCSW developed the HealthySex™ nightshirt to help survivors of sexual abuse and others understand healthy sexuality. The nightshirt evolved from a workshop exercise in which participants brainstormed positive qualities of sex.

As you read the qualities below, identify which ones are present and true in your sexual relating. If you identify qualities that are often lacking, you may want to concentrate on learning more about them and integrating these qualities into your lovemaking in the future. http://www.healthysex.com/page/healthy-sex-exercise/

10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex The health benefits of sex extend well beyond the bedroom. Turns out sex is good for you in ways you may never have imagined. By Kathleen Doheny http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex

Forget Viagara....go natural: New Chapter Organics Multi Vitamin for men and women. Every Man II and Every Woman II .

verity 3 years, 5 months ago

I think it's rather arrogant to call the Catholic Church "the Church."

Katara 3 years, 5 months ago

NFP is dependent on the woman's cycle to be regular. There are many things that can knock a woman's cycle out of whack.

Weight gain Weight loss PCOS diabetes stress general illness depression hormonal imbalance breastfeeding eating disorders

just to name a few...

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

One thing I can walk away here with is, the Pope is most assuredly one big giant idiot with all caps. That man is an astounding idiot. I don't think a bigger idiot has ever been elected to position of Pope office, not even John Paul. No words I can muster could even begin to remotely describe how much of an idiot I think the Pope is. I mean, that man is an idiot extraordinaire. To say he is a world-class idiot is a hugely vast understatement and that's putting it mildly. IDIOT!

Hey, thanks Alex, that was fun! Calling the Pope an IDIOT, even in all caps was a hoot.

Of course, I don't believe any of it and apologize for insulting people. I don't really believe the Pope is any of the things above. I am just copying math's comments earlier about Nancy Pelosi and replacing them with the public figure of the Pope, all because Alex says it is fine and dandy.

Well, he asked for it. Happy new civil discourse.

George Lippencott 3 years, 5 months ago

progressive_thinker (anonymous) replies…et al

"despicable"

Moderate Responds:

Wonderful speech. I agree mostly.

The Catholic Church is not a corporation. Most corporations already provide the services you note. Sounds to me like all you have is a speech not a real issue.

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 5 months ago

Most Catholic hospitals are, in fact, part of larger corporations.

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 5 months ago

From Seton Hall Law School, "of the 5815 hospital corporations in the United States, 561 are Catholic."

Catholic Healthcare West is a California based corporation that operates hospitals in California, Arizona, and Nevada.

Ascension Health corporation, incorporated in Missouri, operates 70 acute care hospitals.

Shall I go on?

George Lippencott 3 years, 5 months ago

I also note that providing care to the sick and education to those seeking it is part of the mission of the church. It has been doing it with minimal government intervention for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Just where do you get off defining works of mercy as something a religion can not provide without having to agree to government intervention challenging the basic teaching of the church?

George Lippencott 3 years, 5 months ago

Yes you should because you are not considering the nature of the corporation - profit and not for profit. Try operating a large hospital as an unincorporated activity). Most church functions are not for profit and religious affiliated. These church functions have existed for decades without the government interfering with their religious mission.

I think of corporations in the same sense as many on this list – for profit activities working for their shareholders. I do not consider not for profits true corporations even though the law basically treats them that way but remember there is a real distinction between not for profit and for [profit.

In those instances where the church is making a profit (not proceeds plowed back into the operation of the charitable activity) I agree with you. It is no longer a religious entity and should be treated as all else. I do not believe this case is the norm.

I also remind you that we are not just talking hospitals but charities and educational institutions of all sorts with one of the larger being Catholic Charities

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 5 months ago

I can't be expected to anticipate that you are incorrectly and arbitrarily limiting the scope of a word when you use it.

Catholic Hospitals don't have to incorporate. They get certain benefits by choosing to go to the state and receive that status. That status is in no way connected to their religious affiliation. If they are going to engage with the state and seek the protections sought by all other non-profit corporations, they need to understand the same rules will apply to them.

George Lippencott 3 years, 5 months ago

Why because you say so. They never have before. Even our local shelter is incorporated.

Just where do you get off making non profit corporate status a benefit that requires the catholic church to offer services it does not believe in.

I might point out that the AFCA does not limit requirements to corporations but to business with greater than a certain number of employees.

Tell me again where corporate status enters this equation - other than being another liberal buzz word for hate and contempt.

You never answered my basic questions. You always go back to your talking points you have been trained to parrot

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 5 months ago

The corporation thing was not a point made by me. Someone else said it and you insisted that, no, the church isn't a corporation. So I was pointing out that the institutions we are talking about, the non-church but church-affiliated employers, are, in fact, corporations. The Church itself, you know, is not affected by this insurance coverage issue.

That's all I was getting involved in. Well, except for the part where you dismissed women's health care need as hyperbolic yelping. That kinda made me mad.

ebyrdstarr 3 years, 5 months ago

Catholic Charities is also incorporated.

George Lippencott 3 years, 5 months ago

I know that and did not say otherwise. The point was that most sizable (and many small) charities are non profit corporation so your issue about corporations is a red heron. Tell me what the alternatives are - sole proprietor?

George Lippencott 3 years, 5 months ago

I missed a comment I believe is important. After several hundred posts the flavor of the issue gets lost/changed/whatever. I want to be clear.

I do not consider the denial of NECESSARY medial services desirable. If a medical institution is doing so that should be changed. If an insurance company is doing so and the potential patient is aware or should be aware that some particular service is not covered that falls on the patient. If the employer does not provide insurance that covers a particular service the employee should make other arrangements or work somewhere else.

I believe that if the AFCA survives the legal challenges it will address this matter and the ability of the government to mandate specific requirement on individuals and businesses will be resolved. Within those challenges are those associated with religious beliefs?

Until that time there is no legitimate argument that anybody is being denied anything because basically there is no right to demand that an employer provide coverage for specific elective medical care.

IMHO this entire thread is based on a false premise to inflame passions in support of a specific political agenda.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.